HOME | DD
marcpasquin β Anticommintern
by-nc-sa
#alternatehistory #alternateuniverse
Published: 2015-11-12 16:30:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 1960; Favourites: 36; Downloads: 23
Redirect to original
Description
picture taken in an alternate timeline during the anti-cominterm conference of 1937Related content
Comments: 19
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 1 β©: 0
Hitler wearing a closebreast coat
Not very Germany
But still, this changes everything...
π: 1 β©: 2
you mean double-breasted coat ? quite common really:
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/oβ¦
mind you, now that I think of it, I could have given him a sma brown belt like in this picture:
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/5β¦
One bit that is historically innacurate is the presence of an armband. Normally he would have had a Reichsaddler sown there but it would have been too small to notice and I wanted to make sure that the character was perceive as "Nazi leader Hitler" and not "Alt-History Conservative President Hitler"
π: 0 β©: 0
Though a small suggestion... there is one man behind Winston Churchill who wears a Pea Coat. It would be nice if had a small edit
π: 0 β©: 1
maybe it gives that impression because of the way it's cropped but that's not a pea coat but a naval officer wearing a long coat. the bottom part sort of merge with the dark space between the chairs. Cropped in this version are a few other officers wearing same. As you can tell from what winston is wearing, it was a cold day.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, Probably that Naval Officer can be one for Hitler's Bodyguard, A suggestion though
π: 0 β©: 0
I bet FDR is seething on the inside being next to Hitler. He'd still despise Germany and the Nazis in particular, even if they were united against the Soviet Union.
π: 0 β©: 0
The others make sense, but Roosevelt wasn't exactly too anti-communist. I've always seen him as more of a suck-up to Stalin and the Soviets.
Moreover, neither the U.S. nor the U.K. would be willing to cooperate with a fascist, either. The Germans already got on everyone's bad side in WWI, but after they went under a totalitarian dictatorship, they were no better to the west than the Soviet regime.
Nevertheless, great photo editing!
π: 0 β©: 2
" neither the U.S. nor the U.K. would be willing to cooperate with a fascist"
Pinochet would like a word with you.
π: 0 β©: 1
Pssht, that comment was in April. Who knows what I was thinking back then.
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't you love it when people reply to months old comments?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's nothing. Once, I got a reply to a comment I made 3 years prior.
π: 0 β©: 1
Did you reply back after 3 years, or would that have been too talkative? Here in Finland we donΒ΄t want to talk too much, people might get offended.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Quite the contrary; I responded because I thought that ignoring it would be rude.
I've noticed that in the Finns I've met. As much as I love my country (yee-haw pardner, howdy from the U.S.A.), I think I'd prefer it if my neighbors shared your countrymen's subdued mentality.
π: 0 β©: 0
to paraphrase a US politicians: "it's okay that he's a bastard as long as he's the US' own's bastard". Both the US and UK in the past have had courteous dealings with dodgy regimes, it's a simple matter of Realpolitik.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a good point. That was more of the mindset of the Cold War era United States, though. The pre-WWII U.S. was more isolationist and not necessarily into the art of creating strategic loyal dictatorships across the world. There was no enemy to use strategy against yet. Note that the United States refused to join the League of Nations and was absent from most conflicts between world powers before the end of World War II. For the United States, the interwar years were an age of neutrality.
π: 0 β©: 0