Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
Ash19256 said:
It's more a case of keeping Hitler from deciding that the Kriegsmarine (and in particular, it's surface fleet) isn't worth it's cost in resources and reassigning their fuel oil to more "useful" things like his Panzer corps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Basically this, Schreiber wants to overthrow Hitler before the Holocaust and mass killings really get going. The time traveling German Admiral is already aware that the Holocaust has already started and does not want it to continue. But in order to overthrow Hitler, Schreiber needs political power and military prestige in order to gain support for a future coup, thus he needs to win battles. And in order to win battles, Schreiber needs to make sure he has the fuel and materials to do so.
He has to be careful though since many military officers, as well as Naval officers, are strong supporters of Hitler. Hitler's political position is basically unassailable right now due to the previous German victories in Europe. Hitler's hold on power would not weaken until the invasion of Russia and the eventual German defeat at Stalingrad. The Russian victory at Stalingrad and later at Kursk is basically when many of the smarter German generals realize that Germany would lose the war.

So Schreiber needs to bid his time and play his hand carefully.
 
Last edited:
Question for Skywalker_T-65
Will we eventually see some chapters from the Japanese perspective?

Such as the Rear Admiral Raizo Tanaka? Or Admiral Yamamoto?
Rear Admiral Tanaka was one of the finest officers in Japanese Navy. In fact, he and his destroyers were the primary reason why the Japanese garrison of Guadalcanal was able to hold out so long, because of his nighttime supply runs or the Tokyo Express.
Raizō Tanaka - Wikipedia
Raizo Tanaka was considered by American officers, both during and after the Second World War, to be one of the finest officers in the Imperial Japanese Navy and a veritable wizard with destroyers. American officers were mystified when he was relieved of sea duty in 1943; it turned out that Tanaka really was that smart and he knew most of the objectives he'd ordered to support were impossible. His protesting this got him beached, much to the relief of many American officers fighting in the Solomons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It will also be interesting since Japan's committed some pretty horrible war crimes such as the Bataan Death March as well as the horrible treatment of Allied POWs and Comfort women.
 
Last edited:
newwriter said:
Question for Skywalker_T-65
Will we eventually see some chapters from the Japanese perspective?

Such as the Rear Admiral Raizo Tanaka? Or Admiral Yamamoto?
Rear Admiral Tanaka was one of the finest officers in Japanese Navy. In fact, he and his destroyers were the primary reason why the Japanese garrison of Guadalcanal was able to hold out so long, because of his nighttime supply runs or the Tokyo Express.
Raizō Tanaka - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not only that, but look at Tanaka's list of flagships...
 
I've said from the start that Japan will get viewpoints. But I'm waiting to get the best impact. And to not pull away from Thompson and Schreiber's plots.
 
Burning Baron said:
Commands held Tachikaze, Ushio, Jintsū, Mako Guard District, Kongō.
Works for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You missed two of his commands.

newwriter said:
I believe this was his flagship correct?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Commands held
Tachikaze
Ushio
Jintsū
Mako Guard District
Kongō
2nd Destroyer Flotilla
Reinforcements Force​

As was previously mentioned, he knew full well the war was lost, and that he was going to be ordered to make stupid, pointless, and needless sacrifices of his ships and crews. All by officers and politicians that would rather bleed the country to death, than accept the facts.

Its a credit to his leadership that he was merely beached and not quietly 'dealt with', very likely due to some very loyal subordinates.
 
Last edited:
Sakuya's Butler said:
Not only that, but look at Tanaka's list of flagships...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Don't forget, Tanaka-san's last flagship was Teruzuki. Less than 2 weeks after Tassafarnoga, she was torpedoed by a couple of PT boats, and he was wounded and unconscious when the Japanese abandoned her to burn, explode and sink. This gave Combined Fleet HQ the opportunity to blame him for the losses at Guadalcanal (he had been an outspoken critic of the strategy, tactics, logistics and execution of the campaign), and to put him at a shore command in Burma, never to command another naval force for the Imperial Japanese Navy for the rest of the war. No doubt Frank Fletcher and Robert Ghormley regarded that as the best New Year's present they could have gotten for 1943.
 
Last edited:
Jrandom said:
Don't forget, Tanaka-san's last flagship was Teruzuki. Less than 2 weeks after Tassafarnoga, she was torpedoed by a couple of PT boats, and he was wounded and unconscious when the Japanese abandoned her to burn, explode and sink. This gave Combined Fleet HQ the opportunity to blame him for the losses at Guadalcanal (he had been an outspoken critic of the strategy, tactics, logistics and execution of the campaign), and to put him at a shore command in Burma, never to command another naval force for the Imperial Japanese Navy for the rest of the war. No doubt Frank Fletcher and Robert Ghormley regarded that as the best New Year's present they could have gotten for 1943.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much. In fact, Admiral Tanaka's nighttime supply runs were basically the only reason why the Japanese troops on Guadalcanal received any supplies or reinforcements.
 
newwriter said:
Basically this, Schreiber wants to overthrow Hitler before the Holocaust and mass killings really get going. The time traveling German Admiral is already aware that the Holocaust has already started and does not want it to continue. But in order to overthrow Hitler, Schreiber needs political power and military prestige in order to gain support for a future coup, thus he needs to win battles. And in order to win battles, Schreiber needs to make sure he has the fuel and materials to do so.
He has to be careful though since many military officers, as well as Naval officers, are strong supporters of Hitler. Hitler's political position is basically unassailable right now due to the previous German victories in Europe. Hitler's hold on power would not weaken until the invasion of Russia and the eventual German defeat at Stalingrad. The Russian victory at Stalingrad and later at Kursk is basically when many of the smarter German generals realize that Germany would lose the war.

So Schreiber needs to bid his time and play his hand carefully.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But there isn't time. Post-Stalingrad is already too late to salvage Germany, Post-Kursk even more so. There's no means to get a settlement short of unconditional surrender then.
 
Last edited:
And the Nazi leadership will never agree to an abject capitulation. But if the Nazi leadership's successors have the credibility and sanity to issue an unconditional surrender, ideally to the Western Allies....
 
Trace Coburn said:
And the Nazi leadership will never agree to an abject capitulation. But if the Nazi leadership's successors have the credibility and sanity to issue an unconditional surrender, ideally to the Western Allies....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unconditional surrender means, by definition, the Germans have to surrender to both the WAllies and the Soviets. That's one of the reasons it was made official policy: to reassure the Soviets the West wouldn't leave them out to dry. This, in turn, was born out by the fact the Soviets were the ones tearing the guts out of the German Army, and paying the blood price required to do so, instead of the WAllies gave the Soviets enormous political weight, as well as outright popularity with the WAllied public. Add in that the only realistic successors to the Nazis are the German military leadership, who (with actually quite a bit of justification) were seen to be blamed just as much for the war by the WAllies from the very beginning, and one can see how unrealistic a suggestion this is.
 
Last edited:
obssesednuker said:
Unconditional surrender means, by definition, the Germans have to surrender to both the WAllies and the Soviets. That's one of the reasons it was made official policy: to reassure the Soviets the West wouldn't leave them out to dry. And then there is the fact the Soviets were the ones tearing the guts out of the German Army, and paying the blood price in doing so, instead of the WAllies giving the Soviets enormous political weight, as well as outright popularity with the WAllied public. Add in that the only realistic successors to the Nazis are the German military leadership, who (with actually quite a bit of justification) were seen to be blamed just as much for the war by the WAllies, and one can see how unrealistic a suggestion this is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We've beaten this to death. Schreiber has a shitty hand, and he's going for the only option available to him.
 
Trace Coburn said:
And the Nazi leadership will never agree to an abject capitulation. But if the Nazi leadership's successors have the credibility and sanity to issue an unconditional surrender, ideally to the Western Allies....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the issue is that this (capitulation pre Falaise/ operation Bagration) ends up being an intact Germany that didn't suffer that many serious defeats getting torn apart in the subsequent treaty over what they did to half of Europe... anyone hear a record repeating the same tune over and over again.
 
Spectre said:
the issue is that this (capitulation pre Falaise/ operation Bagration) ends up being an intact Germany that didn't suffer that many serious defeats getting torn apart in the subsequent treaty over what they did to half of Europe... anyone hear a record repeating the same tune over and over again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Bonus points if the treaty is signed in a very specific train car.

Forgot what it was called.
Compiègne Wagon - Wikipedia
It's where both Armistices were signed. The Great War's, and the French item of surrender.
 
Last edited:
Burning Baron said:
Bonus points if the treaty is signed in a very specific train car.

Forgot what it was called.
Compiègne Wagon - Wikipedia
It's where both Armistices were signed. The Great War's, and the French item of surrender.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At this point no one, on either side, will desire a symbolic or insulting slap on the other side. They will either held a more or less honorable surrender on a neutral location or a signature in the table of a random farm after a brutal fight. If WWII taught something to politicians is that mocking your defeated enemy at the negociation table or the treaty will come to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
 
BF110C4 said:
At this point no one, on either side, will desire a symbolic or insulting slap on the other side. They will either held a more or less honorable surrender on a neutral location or a signature in the table of a random farm after a brutal fight. If WWII taught something to politicians is that mocking your defeated enemy at the negotiation table or the treaty will come to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course not, but if the hypothetical situation outlined above passed, then it would be a repeat of 1918.
 
BF110C4 said:
At this point no one, on either side, will desire a symbolic or insulting slap on the other side. They will either held a more or less honorable surrender on a neutral location or a signature in the table of a random farm after a brutal fight. If WWII taught something to politicians is that mocking your defeated enemy at the negociation table or the treaty will come to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
depends on the reaction to the parts of the holocaust already in progress by then. It's not like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR don't have a bases for demanding some form of reparations given the hundreds of thousands if not millions of bodies you can lay at the SS's feet before you even get to the subject of the camps.
 
Spectre said:
depends on the reaction to the parts of the holocaust already in progress by then. It's not like Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR don't have a bases for demanding some form of reparations given the hundreds of thousands if not millions of bodies you can lay at the SS's feet before you even get to the subject of the camps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, I'm not against reparations and disarming the country, hell if the negociators consider it necessary cut the country into pieces and give the territory to the affected countries. I just say to do not put salt on the open wound and do stupid things that do not materially weaken the country but instead just pisses off the next two or three generations.
 
BF110C4 said:
At this point no one, on either side, will desire a symbolic or insulting slap on the other side. They will either held a more or less honorable surrender on a neutral location or a signature in the table of a random farm after a brutal fight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By the time 1942 rolls around, what no one on either side will accept is anything less then the total submission of the other or, failing that, their destruction. For the WAllies, that is the lesson they applied to WW2 after their previous experience with the Germans and Japanese in the pre-war. For the Soviets and Germans, it's what their ideologies demanded of them. The Japanese were the only ones who did not seek the absolute capitulation of their enemies, but they failed or refused to recognize they could only accomplish their goals by doing just that.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top