We All Laughed When They Called Chimpy Hitler

Well, Heil! Heil! Heil! Who’s got the last laugh now?

You see, our current history is what it is because events played out as we learned them in Social Studies classes. But Codemasters and developer Spark Unlimited have created a scenario in which our history takes a detour in 1931, and the different outcome for this particular event—where Winston Churchill is struck by New York cab in 1931 and then dies instead of going on to lead England in its challenge of Adolf Hitler—alters the course of history that we’ve been following. In this new path, Hitler isn’t defeated in World War II, but rather sweeps over Europe mostly unchallenged. America isn’t drawn into the war by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, but instead is pulled into the conflict much later when Germany invades New York…in 1953.

I’m tired of shooting aliens; I want to kill me some Nazis.

47 Responses to “We All Laughed When They Called Chimpy Hitler”

  1. Tainted Bill says:

    Someone wrote a book based on this alternate history concept once. But anyway, I think New York would be a poor choice for an invasion site, the harbor is defensible and it’s easy to bottle up an attacking force on an island.
    The terrain of the mid-Atlantic states would be much more favorable.

  2. Mr. Bingley says:

    You ever get your 360, Bill? Haven’t you declared your birthday yet?

  3. Tainted Bill says:

    She might have caved, if we didn’t have puppy surgery bills coming in every month. I’m confident that I can dedicate a portion of our tax return to it and declare my birthday in May or June.

  4. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Actually, New York would be the strategic objective of a European based invasion; the beachhead would likely be to the south, where the terrain would favor beach landing operations.
    New Jersey would be best, I think; there are plenty of good ports to be captured, and the Nazis would be poised to capture several important targets besides New York, notably Washington DC (national capital); Baltimore (more ports); and Philadelphia (historical, industrial, and Philly sandwiches).
    Besides, where else would one want ruthless Nazi armies gaining a foothold in America? The Carolinas? I think not!
    Nope, New Jersey is the best choice all around.

  5. Tainted Bill says:

    That would be interesting, Jersey does have some fairly defensible terrain. Lots of hills, rivers, and swampland. Plus major rivers between you and your objectives.
    But compared to crossing the Atlantic Ocean against the U.S. Navy, those obstacles would be fairly minor.
    Have you played Mass Effect? I hear on one podcast I listen to what a great game it is.

  6. frizzbee says:

    New York could never be invaded. Pure obnoxious behavior repels all but the stupid, greedy, and illegal

  7. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Alternatively, the Nazis could capture Cuba and the Bahama Islands. The Bahamas to secure their Atlantic supply lines, and Cuba as a staging area for an invasion of America along the Gulf Coast.
    This would put Cuba into a role similar to the strategic location of the British Isles for the European campaign, and nearly identical to the role the Soviets tried to use Cuba for (only with conventional weapons, not nukes).
    This provides a wide range of options for Hitler’s invasion, from Texas to the Florida panhandle, including multiple landings to secure the mouth of the Mississippi, and thus support a drive north and east to meet up with the Atlantic based invasion forces. A classic “hammer and anvil” operation against the east coast, using the Mississippi river as a barrier against counterattacks from the west.
    Yup, plenty of ports, raw materials, and other resources doubtless needed by the Nazi war machine. And hard to defend, as well.
    Indeed, I recall some beaches down there that just beg for beach landing operations.

  8. John says:

    The book detailing the Nazi conquest of the USA was called “The Man in the High Castle” by Phillip K. Dick, in 1962. It is an outstanding book to read. For the book he was awarded the Hugo Award. He wrote 36 additional books and five short stories before is death in 1982.

  9. memomachine says:

    1. Mass Effect is a great game with a lot of replay value. I highly recommend it.
    2. The Japanese completely discounted the possibility of invading mainland USA because of the enormous number of privately owned firearms. They realized that they would be facing snipers behind every bush, tree, rock and candy wrapper.

  10. The_Real_JeffS says:

    BTW, Bingley……you’ve been Hot Aired!!!!!

  11. The_Real_JeffS says:

    The Japanese military tended not to be arrogant, memomachine, at least prior to 1942. The Nazis, not so much.

  12. The_Real_JeffS says:

    (What? Discussing alternate realities and their outcomes ain’t a life, Sis? Try to think of it as practical applications of history and military science, without all of the blood and gore. Surely this is a good thing!)

  13. Mr. Bingley says:

    We will bury the Nazis in droves in the Meadowlands!
    (of course we’ll have to move Mr. Hoffa first)

  14. Mr. Bingley says:

    Bill, I played Mass Effect. It was a heck of a lot of fun the first time (I think I lucked out on both my character’s skills and who I chose to have with me for the last level) but I tried to replay it using a different style of character and it was not as fun. It really fell flat on replay value, at least for me.

  15. Mr. Bingley says:

    Memo, when I compared the replay feeling of Mass Effect with Oblivion, there really was no comparison. But different folks like different games, that’s for sure.
    But maybe I’m just peeved because I got Ashley killed early on, so I missed out on certain videos that are on youtube…

  16. Skyler says:

    I suspect that any invasion of the US would fail unless it was begun from a more neutral place where the Germans could build up hundreds of divisions, such as Mexico.
    Landing anywhere on the US coast would be suicidal, not because of a lack of gun control, but because we have a pretty powerful military.

  17. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Mexico would be a better bet, but they would have to be Nazi allies of some sort, or else Hitler would face similar logistical problems.
    Still, Mexico would be less of a tactical problem and a better strategy, assuming that the Mexican government is just as corrupt and inept in that alternate reality as it is here (a good bet, methinks).
    Either way, if Mexico were not an ally of some sorts, Hitler would need an advance base somewhere in the Caribbean. Cuba fits the bill nicely, although the logistics would drive the Nazi war machine nuts.
    Each of these scenarios has some plausibility; if you’ve got the beans and bullets to go with the will, armies can do much, especially if they pound away at the problem long enough.

  18. Skyler says:

    Mexico has a long standing association with Germany. Remember the XYZ affair?

  19. Hauptsturmfuhrer says:

    Kill me some Nazis, Nahh!
    I prefer eliminating Democrats and Liberals, and any other scum of the earth!
    And I know just where to send them =
    Der Konzentrationslager!
    editor’s note: this is polo, who first appeared the other day. now he has a little nazi sock puppet. i bet it’s a real tiger in bed

  20. The_Real_JeffS says:

    If you mean this one, we need to synchronize our alternate realities, Skyler.
    If you mean the Zimmermann Telegram, you have a point.
    Still, in our own history, Mexico was a member of the Allies during WWII, although I don’t know what their actual contribution to the war effort was.
    So I’d lean towards Mexico at least being a friendly neutral in Mr. Bingley’s gameverse, if not an American ally.

  21. STOP IT RIGHT NOW YOU TWO, or you’re both going straight to bed!!!

  22. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Still, Hitler could find some suitable ally in South America, stage there, train up some “local volunteers”, and then work his way north through Central America into North America. Might take a generation or two, but God knows there would be plenty of raw materials for the Nazi war machine.

  23. polo, WHOOPS! My bad. Der Hauptsturmfurby ~ glad to see the latchkey kid is being bad after school lets out.

  24. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Sis, we’re on a roll here! A few more posts, and we can map out a whole universe for a swell science fiction series.
    If you like, we can dedicate the first book to you. Something like “All of this death, destruction, and mayhem would not have been possible with The Tree Hugging Sister!! Love, Skyler and TRJS”

  25. BlackDog says:

    I agre with Jeff. Best candidate would be Argentina; from the Rheineman Exchange, “You buy their beef, we train their soldiers!” An amphibious invasion of the East coast is out unless you have air superiority. How many carriers flying Me-262+ (or better) do you need to take out P-40s (or P-38/P-80/P-84 or whatever)?
    Assuming the Germans develope steam catapults. And don’t forget the “Silent Service”. Even if only built a third of the subs we built in WW-II; that many subs would scare the hell out naval planners.

  26. BlackDog says:

    Assuming we got rid of the Mk-8 torpedoe.

  27. BlackDog says:

    correction. Mk-14, Mk-8 was Brit.

  28. Mr. Bingley says:

    Argentina would be a great place. Lots of resources and great expanses for tank operations. But there’s no way to conduct land operations heading north. The terrain is too rough and swampy, especially in the 50s, and there are too many choke points. Nope, if you wanted to invade America the best way would be to hit NJ and Long Island and capture NY and the Navy yards in a nice pincer. Knock out the economic heart.

  29. BlackDog says:

    Good point. But the main problem with this 1953 scenario is:
    A What forces (& allies) does the US have & how well are they equipped (& what kind of weapons technology)?
    B What forces (& allies) does the Germans have & how well are they equipped (& what kind of weapons technology)?
    C Are nukes in play?

  30. Mr. Bingley says:

    I would imagine nukes would be in play on any scenario, especially one involving an invasion coming up the Central American Isthmus (remember “Operation Plowshares”?). However, as American nuke technology was heavily based on captured Nazis physicists, in a scenario where the Nazis won in Europe could plausibly mean no US nukes.

  31. polo says:

    I’m actually glad this all worked out the way it did. I always wondered if I could be traced back to my base of origin on a site like this by using a different user name. Lesson learned the hard way but now I know. Such lessons in life are not always learned the easy way. After all I’m not an internet guru, so, thanks for finding me out really! Future efforts will be a challenge…..

  32. Mr. Bingley says:

    polo, “future efforts” will be deleted and your Internet Service Provider will be advised of the comments if they in any way approach the level that you posted with your sockpuppet. I have a very liberal (in the classical sense) tolerance for diverging viewpoints and ideas, but that shit don’t fly. You are perfectly welcome to participate in discussions provided you do so in a rational manner and are prepared to defend your ideas with something other than slogans. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘a site like this’ but you can be traced back to where you are from anything you post on the internet, so it’s generally best not to post anything retarded, because some FBI agent or your future (or current) employer may fail to appreciate your attempt at satire.

  33. BlackDog says:

    Wrong. Our aviation technology was based on captured german technology. Our nuke tech was American/British with inputs from european physicist like Fermi & Bohr. But if memory serves me, starting the manhattan project was based on einsteins letter to Roosevelt urged on by other physicist. So would we have started the manhattan project without entering WW-II? Hitler did not want to commit to nuclear weapons research because he thought it would not be available before the end of the war.

  34. Mr. Bingley says:

    Ah, you’re right on the nukes, blackdog. it seems all those guys skeedadled from Europe prior to WW2. I was thinking too much of Von Braun.
    “Vunce da rrrockets go uhp, who cares vair dey kum down
    Dat’s not my dehpahhrtmundt, sayz Werner Von Braun”

  35. Mr. Bingley says:

    Well, it looks like the MP started really in 1939 and began in earnest in 1941; I would imagine the Fall of Europe would have ensured it got sufficient funds, so yeah, I think we can pencil in nukes for uncle Sam.

  36. BlackDog says:

    Dang! This is starting to become like the wardroom scene in “The Final Countdown”.

  37. Mr. Bingley says:

    hehe, well now it’s “Bedtime for Bonzo”…

  38. polo says:

    Mr. Bingley, thank you as always for your comments, they are always appreciated.

  39. Skyler says:

    Yeah, zimmerman, not xyz. Ooops.
    There’s more than one way to skin a cat, but I would think that attacking the US from South America would be the hard way.
    Let’s say Hitler was bent on ruling the entire world. It might make sense for him to conquer South America before attempting North America, but I would think the isthmus would make it virtually impossible to invade from South America (think about the movie “300”). He would still need to make landings in Mexico, either from bases in Europe or South America.
    I’m not sure Hitler would have wanted a military conquest of the US. Except for FDR’s rallying of the country, there’s a chance we would have teamed with Germany as with the Allies. Lindberg was only one of many supporters of national socialism. It’s entirely likely that if FDR weren’t there that someone with equal charisma would have led us down an entirely different path that may have helped ensure German control of Europe. In such a case, Hitler would be much less likely to invade at all. He would have just controlled us via proxy. Who’s to say? Or maybe we would have controlled him through proxy and gained de facto control of Europe.
    There’s no telling, really.

  40. The_Real_JeffS says:

    True enough about the American sympathies for Nazis, Skyler. Sad, but true.
    But the idea of Hitler coming in through Central America is not a lost one. Difficult, but not lost.
    For example, a series of amphibious landings along Central America, leap frogging north from Columbia and Venezuela, to seize key ports and the Panama Canal, could work.
    It would require larger surface naval forces than Nazi Germany had in our reality, but then, this scenario gives Hitler a lot of really good naval bases in Europe to stage out of, so a major Nazi naval build up is not inconceivable.
    But once they got around the really nasty part of Central America, into central Mexico, there’s some decent armor country up there. Especially as you get closer to the US border. I’m not sure of Baja, but that would certainly put pressure on that USA.
    Add in more amphibious landings further east, as discussed earlier, and the US would be hard pressed indeed.

  41. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Yup, I agree with the nukes as well, although deploying them without missiles would be interesting. Especially if the USA didn’t have air superiority.
    However, I disagree with American aviation technology being based on captured Nazi equipment. Many of the aircraft designs began prior to our full involvement. For example, the P-38 design began in 1938, and was in operation in by early 1942. The P-51 first flew in 1940. The B-24 development started in 1938. And so on.
    The real problem was production, especially in building plants, tooling up, and training workers. I think those would have been solved by 1953, if the USA wasn’t sitting on it’s butt; as Skyler noted earlier, FDR was the prime motivator for our ramp up for and entry into WWII.

  42. Mr. Bingley says:

    Thinking about this over night I thought about the one glaring problem those Hun bastards would have is the lack of aircraft carriers, which made me think that perhaps instead of coming up via Central American landings they might have considered an island hopping route: Scotland-Iceland-Greenland-Newfoundland, which they could have done with their existing weaponry and naval concentration in the North Atlantic.

  43. Val Prieto says:

    Mr. B,
    Im of the “blip” video game generation and grew up rarely playing video games. This past Christmas, Santa brought me an Xbox 360 with Call of Duty 3 and 4, Madden 2008 and Gears of war.
    All I can say is that the darned thing is like crack. I need my daily fix everyday tothe point of withdrawals.

  44. Mr. Bingley says:

    Val, I’ll send you an email with my live handle. I’m on my 360 way too much as well. Santa’s the best, ain’t he?

  45. Skyler says:

    As for German aircraft carriers, the Germans had a tradition for having an effective navy. If they had controlled Europe, including England, there’s no reason for them to not build aircraft carriers.
    The leap frogging around the isthmus is plausible, and we’re only talking hypotheticals, but I would imagine that it would be harder to do that than to make a landing on Mexico’s west coast if they already control South America. The east coast would be more difficult since it is in the Gulf which is easily controlled by the US navy.

  46. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Yeah, good point, Skyler. The Gulf would be a death trap for landings, so a west coast landing on Mexico is the better bet. I would still expect at least an assault on the west end of the Panama Canal, to shut it down.
    Mr. Bingley, capturing those islands would be critical in securing the Atlantic sea routes for the Nazi navy. That way, they might contain the US and Canadian navies, and keep them out of the south Atlantic.

Image | WordPress Themes