Remove ads

Merkels Operation Walküre

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Well in my opinion if the US tries to fly from India, that means they already lost most of their capabilities to fight in Pacific Ocean. And in the last few chapters, they lost most of the fleets in battle.... sorry forgot. So Japan has sometimes to prepare.

Found it, it's battle of Alta and the US has lost all of their flagships, from carriers to battleships.
 
Starsall said:
Well in my opinion if the US tries to fly from India, that means they already lost most of their capabilities to fight in Pacific Ocean. And in the last few chapters, they lost most of the fleets in battle.... sorry forgot. So Japan has sometimes to prepare.

Found it, it's battle of Alta and the US has lost all of their flagships, from carriers to battleships.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No, the USN still has a Pacific Fleet, but is only at a numerical parity with the IJN. With American strategy even before the war calling for an overwhelming numerical advantage in carriers and battleships before attempting to engage the IJN in West Pacific waters, Washington has repeatedly vetoed MacArthur's attempts to resume the offensive.

IIRC, at one point in a past update, Halsey and Nimitz had to verbally confront MacArthur to keep him from ordering an attack on his own. I mean, they support his call for a renewed offensive, but they won't do it without authorization from Washington.
 
I really want to know the current alliances that are happening:
What is happening with nations in Africa?,
What is happening currently with Commonwealth Countries like Canada, Australia and India with the surrender of the British?, and
When can we expect the meeting Chancellor Merkel and Queen Elizabeth to happen?
 
Kelenas said:
Which nations? IIRC all of Africa is at this point a colony of the British, French, Spanish, Italians, and Portuguese (and the USA).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
FTFY. With Abyssinia conquered by the Italians, Liberia is nominally the last independent African country, but in practice it's an American protectorate.
 
Last edited:
Starsall said:
You know at the time it's King George VI right? Elizabeth is still a princess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well she could be designated by the British Monarchy as their ambassador liason to Germany, seeing how effective a leader Merkel is, and with the mounting failures by the British government has in stopping the war(and outright becoming a pawn to the US)before they surrendered, and how things like this go in Manga and LN the monarchy would send their own representative.
 
Zuikaku said:
mounting failures by the British government has in stopping the war(and outright becoming a pawn to the US)before they surrendered, and how things like this go in Manga and LN the monarchy would send their own representative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Failures to stop the war? You know before the ISOT, Germany is in English dictionary meaning "reincarnation of evil", and they were right, Germany literally ruled by mass murder psycho. What they failed is, to look at the true that this is different Germany, and make immediate peace. And nah, the king will not go to Germany and make peace. That job for our favorite bulldog, Churchill. And I don't think peace confidence will take place in Germany, France is a better option.
 
Starsall said:
Failures to stop the war? You know before the ISOT, Germany is in English dictionary meaning "reincarnation of evil", and they were right, Germany literally ruled by mass murder psycho. What they failed is, to look at the true that this is different Germany, and make immediate peace. And nah, the king will not go to Germany and make peace. That job for our favorite bulldog, Churchill. And I don't think peace confidence will take place in Germany, France is a better option.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, the leadership at least figured out this was a different Germany rather fast... and for many of them that was an incentive to continue the was for as long as there was a chance to run its military out of modern weapons and then conquer it, loot all that sweet, sweet future technology and break Germany so it could not be the new world hegemon. It was a combination of certain people hating Germany, political careers being at stake and cold blooded pragmatism - hundreds of thousands if not a few milions of military casualties being a bargain to ensure that the future belongs to the Allies instead of the new Germans. Of course, no one put it that way in front of the press.
 
Remove ads
Chapter III, Part 8: Solving the Indian Question
  • Threadmarks
    • September 10th, Hotel Taj Mahal Palace, Bombay, 19:00:

    Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi were having a discreet meeting in one of the small rooms in the hotel. They wanted to speak about the current situation before earnest talks would start tomorrow.

    "So Muhammad, you must have received news from Europe. Do the Germans' claims hold true?" Gandhi asked.

    "Yes, I did. Very recently. Our," Jinnah made a small pause "masters were very good in concealing things from us. Again."

    "Indeed. But this has to be the last time."

    "On that, I can agree."

    "I was contacted by the Germans via the Vatican. They gave me a short history of India and Pakistan. Apparently, India seemed to have been partitioned in the future." Gandhi said.

    "We need to stop this bloodshed. Now we have the chance. Now we need to take steps to prevent these atrocities and wars."

    "Yes, I agree." Jinnah took a breath. "But we can't neglect the question of religion either."

    "Oh, I don't intend to. I only want to separate religion and state."

    "So for you, religion is a private matter?"

    "Yes," Gandhi confirmed. "As far as politics and the country is concerned. It's still my personal opinion, that Hinduism has to be regarded as India's main religion. However, the consequences of this frightened me. So much so that I have retracted my stance on this issue."

    "But religion is a far too important matter to be considered as such."

    "What do you suggest?"

    "Well, a partition of India is out of the question," Jinnah said.

    "I agree."

    "I don't think the Germans treat us unfairly. The stories they told us are too realistic."

    Gandhi nodded and Jinnah took a deep breath.

    "The danger of us brandishing nuclear weapons against each other in the future must be avoided."

    "I concur."

    Jinnah sipped at his water in front of him. Then he continued. "Our country has to be a federation, in which the federal states have the right to determine their religion."

    "I can agree to a federation. But I can't agree with your second point. We need to have a secular state. India should not have an official religion. Otherwise, we will end up with the same problems sooner or later. A minority in one state gets problems, and then it escalates. A small matter, an accident, a bad decision by someone or something like this can lead us to a civil war. No. The only possibility we have is to introduce a secular state."

    Jinnah looked at him for a moment. "Yes, that could be possible."

    "A state, where freedom of religion is granted, where everyone can celebrate their own god, is the only answer."

    "I am still not completely convinced," Jinnah remarked.

    "Look, Kashmir is a good example. There are areas of Buddhist and Hindu majority, but the Muslims have an overall majority. And the Maharaja is Hindu. One mistake, one bad decision can cause great problems. One group may feel insulted and soon other groups in other states form as well. And we would have a civil war."

    Jinnah took a deep breath. He looked again at the maps and the history of both nations. A history to prevent. "I agree, let's make one state, a secular state. Religion shall be a private matter with citizens deciding what religion or god they will follow." He made another pause and then continued. "There will be people, who will hate us. for doing this."

    "I know, but even if we pay the highest price, we should be glad to do so," Gandhi answered. "I am ready."

    "I know. And so am I. It would be a small sacrifice. If we prevent a civil war it is a small price."

    Gandhi just nodded.

    "And the monarchs?" Jinnah wanted to know.

    "Well, let them keep, what is theirs. But they shall have no influence."

    "Yes, I agree."

    "Then do we have an agreement?"

    "Yes." Gandhi concurred.

    "So only some details left?"

    "Yes, but that can become a problem as well."

    The Treaty of Bombay from September 30th, 1944, was regarded as the declaration of independence of India and the formation of the Federal Republic of the Indian States.

    The Allies, and especially the British, didn't recognise the treaty, they even imprisoned Gandhi and Jinnah for some time, but they had to finally give in, as the resistance started to grow.

    Although India remained a part of the Allies and their war, the Indian forces, if they were not fighting on Indian soil, were of dubious worth. In some cases, they just retreated, even if fighting a small enemy unit. Some even surrendered to the Japanese. The Bengal famine in 1943 and Churchill's role, which had been made public by the Germans, was another problem for the British rule over India. These events had given rise to British fears of a second Indian rebellion.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Just as a sidenote.

    When you wrote about attacking that US bomber formation over germany it was about attacking them from the rear, which is pretty much the opposite of what was being done in actuality (well, unless you were one of those night fighters pulled in to stop the day bombing campaign in 1944 in one of the two mots and get massacred for that).
    Instead the bomber was attacked from the front to keep the engagement window as short as possible and to make it difficult for the gunners to hit the fighters.
    That is also why later models of B-17s and B-24s got front turrets.

    It was a bad idea to attack the bombers frontally, so he led his aircraft into an attack from the rear. When in range he fired his first Sidewinder. A bomber was hit in the wing with most of the wing destroyed. Soon after it crashed on the ground, but that went unseen by the Major, as he was busy with another target.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    A decent representation of how it is done in il2


     
    I think the biggest difference is that the German's primary anti-bomber weapon ITTL is rockets. Thus attacking from the rear makes sense, as the bomber pilots will have no direct visual contact, thus making evasive manoeuvres more difficult.

    This is important because I think that most German rockets are still unguided as they are merely improved R4M.

    By the way, talking about R4M. Are there any programmes to put the R4M's anti-tank version the "Panzerblitz" into production? OTL, they never overcame the prototype status.
     
    EWilanO said:
    I think the biggest difference is that the German's primary anti-bomber weapon ITTL is rockets. Thus attacking from the rear makes sense, as the bomber pilots will have no direct visual contact, thus making evasive manoeuvres more difficult.

    This is important because I think that most German rockets are still unguided as they are merely improved R4M.

    By the way, talking about R4M. Are there any programmes to put the R4M's anti-tank version the "Panzerblitz" into production? OTL, they never overcame the prototype status.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Not really needed at the moment. The Hydra and SNEB rockets already have anti-tank warheads and are proven technology.
     
    Normally German piston engined fighters attacked from the front to avoid enemy fire. However, for the jets this prove to be ineffective. The Me 262 was too fast and could only fire for a very short time, partly too few to hit. Therefore the normal attack was from the rear.

    BTW, the Panzerblitz was OTL in production and used in 1945. There are hundreds of especially Soviet tank commanders, who could testify that.
     
    Well, I have to be a bit clearer. The Indians decided to declare independence but that isn't recognized by the Allies. However, the Indians decided to remain in the war for the time being. They have two reasons, once not to anger the Allies even more and twice to be "bought out" of the war by the Germans. They have no official government though ans as Gandhi, Jinnah and some others are in jail, there is no real leadership. So morale of the Indians, as long as they aren't fighting in India, is very low.
     
    Soviet partisant always did what Stalin told.If they still attack,then Merkel would knew, that Stalin ordered so - and could blew up some of his factories in retaliation.
    Polish partisants - there were three groups.
    1.home Army/AK/ - some 300.000 - they would do what London say, but without risking cyvilian lives. In OTL they do not attacked german,becouse they knew, that german would kill 50 or 100 cyvilians in retaliation - unless they targeted SS or gestapo.
    2.B.CH - some 100.000 - basically farmer party militia. They do not attacked,unless german burn some polish village/they burned about 1000 - with people/.
    3.NSZ - some 70.000 - nationalist militia.In OTL they decide after 1942 target germans only in self defence,or when they genocide somebody - becouse after USA joined war,germany was arleady defeated.Unless AK they fought soviet partisants, becouse they do not belived Stalin.Sometimes using german weapon after making local truce with some local commander.As a realist, they would not fight army which defeated USA and soviets without good reason - like genocide,for example.
    4.AL - communists.less then 10.000,basically local bandits lead by soviet commanders - who murdered cyvilians, including hiding jews.For money.They would not fight anybody with rifle anyway.
     
    I like the twist with India, Britain's problems are getting larger by the day and with FDR being so stubborn is causing horrendous casualties. The allied armed forces must be in such a poor state of morale that any attacks will be harder and harder to prosecute
     
    Ocean Sailor said:
    This causal relation is false: the Japanese did commit atrocities in asia, but the USA embargo was part of their own expansionist campaign since late 19th Century.

    Once the USA had "Manifest Destiny'd" all the way to the Pacific and taking any more of Mexico was more trouble than worth bothering with (not to mention, full of Mexicans), the USA went on to "Go Further West", forcing the isolationist Japan into unequal treaties (leading to the overthrow of the Shogunate and a the realization that either Japan modernized and became a colonial power or they'd be reduced to someone else's colony themselves), conquered Hawaii under a threadbare excuse and invaded the Philippines (committing plenty of massacres and atrocities themselves).
    Japan was allied with the USA in WWI, but despite their many contributions against the German Pacific fleet and taking their colonies there, the USA blocked almost all Japanese claims and then screwed them thoroughly in the Washington Naval Treaty. All this, plus the increasingly hostile American policies fuelled Japan's militarism and finally pushed them into the Axis' arms.

    Times changed, tactics changed, but the Imperial American dream of turning the Pacific into their own pond is even today an ongoing project.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm calling B's on this
     
    24palacio said:
    I'm calling B's on this
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    All of it is verifiable, just google and wiki to learn more about it.
    Mind, the history of the USA is chock full of this, though I get it's all extremely whitewashed and spin doctored for internal consumption. I only focused on the American expansionism in the Pacific; closer to home the USA tried to form an hegemonic empire also including the rest of the Americas: invading Canada and getting Washington raided and the White House burned down in return, sending the military to punish Mexico for defending themselves against American filibustering in Texas (remember the Alamo?) - and then invading them again and taking some more because why not, filibustering in Florida, the Monroe doctrine, the "misterious" sinking of the USS Maine in Havana kicking off a war against Spain, Invading Colombia to steal the land on which the Panama Canal was built, the Banana Republics, the School of the Americas role in supporting military dictatorships...
     
    Ocean Sailor said:
    All of it is verifiable, just google and wiki to learn more about it.
    Mind, the history of the USA is chock full of this, though I get it's all extremely whitewashed and spin doctored for internal consumption. I only focused on the American expansionism in the Pacific; closer to home the USA tried to form an hegemonic empire also including the rest of the Americas: invading Canada and getting Washington raided and the White House burned down in return, sending the military to punish Mexico for defending themselves against American filibustering in Texas (remember the Alamo?) - and then invading them again and taking some more because why not, filibustering in Florida, the Monroe doctrine, the "misterious" sinking of the USS Maine in Havana kicking off a war against Spain, Invading Colombia to steal the land on which the Panama Canal was built, the Banana Republics, the School of the Americas role in supporting military dictatorships...
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    You missed one: the Trail of Tears i.e. Balkan-style ethnic cleansing only in America and over a hundred years ahead of its time.
     
    JaeneraTargaryen said:
    You missed one: the Trail of Tears i.e. Balkan-style ethnic cleansing only in America and over a hundred years ahead of its time.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I missed a lot, I only touched the pacific in response to quickdraw101 and expounded a little on what they did closer to home since 24palacio sounded like someone breast fed on American propaganda in denial out of cognitive dissonance about US foreign policy actually being imperialist, expansionist and hegemonic, and its history full of atrocities and crimes against peace.
    This is by no means an exhaustive list - which doesn't belong here anyway, lest we cause a derail. There is a reason why the USA have the world's largest "defence" budget, and if anyone doubts it they can go ask their National Guard how much of it is actually spent in defence.
     
    Reader mode
    334 more messages…
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top