jwolfe_beta
Semi Genre-Savvy Overlord
- Location
- Canada
Depending on the various factions and how nasty it gets when trying to rein in FDR and the other warhawks it might instead by Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo.
Merkels Operation Walküre
- Thread starter Tyr Anazasi
- Start date
- Timeline Post-1900 Supernatural
-
- Tags
- isot (isekai) germany
- Status
- Location
- Rotting in port
A small correction: the USA could build a Liberty ship a day, not warships. With their European allies being knocked out of the war, that huge transport fleet lost much of its importance for the time being.
Sure, even after the NY raid they still had an awful lot of shipyards, and they did streamline their production far beyond what anyone else could at the time, but warship construction took much more time than that. Besides, other than their (all round excellent) destroyers the production of other classes were much more limited due to lack of berths large enough for them, which required specialized large scale shipyards.
- Location
- Philippines
By this time(story wise), did aircraft/aircraft carriers already gain their fame? Or was it squashed by the emergence of New Germany.
Or did the fame went straight to rockets? Similar to how in OTL they thought that rockets/missiles would make planes obsolete during the 70s
Or did the fame went straight to rockets? Similar to how in OTL they thought that rockets/missiles would make planes obsolete during the 70s
- Location
- Asia
Aircraft carriers have already proven their superiority over battleships as far back as Pearl Harbor, and then Midway.
- Location
- Earth
Emperor Mc Arthur(or someone that's not as overdone), Empire of America 2 electric boogaloo.
*cough empire of Brittania* *cough*
honestly a US that tries to unite the Americas once and for all would be interesting, or that claims to be the successor to the commonwealth and tries some sort of Anglo sphere with Australia and Canada.
- Location
- Asia
Hmm...
- United Pacific States - California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
- Holy Mormon Republic - Utah
- Republic of Texas - Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas (duh)
- Confederate States of America - Arkansas, Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia
- United States of America - Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachussetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, (South) Dakota, Vermont, Washington D.C.
- Union of the Rockies - Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
- Canada - Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, (North) Dakota, Wisconsin
Japan keeps Guam, Midway, and Wake. The UPS keeps Johnston Atoll, and Canada the Aleutians. Cuba and Puerto Rico become independent. Australia takes Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands. New Zealand takes American Samoa and Kingman Reef. Haiti takes Navassa Island.
Last edited:
LordInsane
Loyalist to the Alvarian Merchant's Guild
- Location
- Bohuslän, Occupied Norway
While the US leadership is unlikely to realise this (the whole Uptime thing meaning US intelligence is disrupted in Germany), getting consensus around restoring a defeated and occupied Imperial Japan in Germany is likely to be a lot more controversial than getting consensus around Imperial Japan as an ally of convenience to help bleed out the unwilling-to-make-peace US was.
Darksoul2142
SUMMONER OF DARK DRAGON
- Location
- Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
*twitches* Gets Kaiserreich flashbacks. *grumbles* 800 CSA heavy tanks*grumbles*
@Zuikaku I think given the extensive mention of mysterious homing rockets/missiles devastating aircraft formations out of gun range (they are not calling it missiles yet) will probably result in any air force's opinion of them being fearful and favourable.
However, the crude and primitive state of electronics in the mid-1940s will not allow for much accuracy and reliability.
These two factors should result in guns not being eliminated from aircraft completely.
- Location
- Asia
Agreed; Japan is going to have to make serious concessions and changes to keep Germany on-side after the war. As I've previously mentioned, 21st Century Germany has stricter and higher standards than America (of both the 1940s and the 21st Century) does. That said, I still think it's not going to be as hard as it sounds.
As Tyr previously mentioned, Japan's legal code is already based on Germany's own (or at least belongs to the same school of thought/legal doctrine), so at least when it comes to civil law, not much is really going to change. Parliamentary supremacy is probably going to be the hardest pill to swallow, but Germany could probably swallow the continued existence of the House of Peers so long as the elected House of Representatives gains priority in Japan's Parliament. Oh, and women's suffrage as well.
Japan will also have war crime trials...
...which makes me wonder if a certain Indian judge will be making an appearance...
Considering Tyr has admitted to being a lawyer himself, I'm looking forward to reading how he interprets and includes (assuming it happens like IOTL) Judge Pal's argument that while Japan did commit war crimes for which they must take responsibility, the Allies themselves have no right to claim the moral high ground when they committed war crimes themselves (strategic bombing in particular), and that the USA deliberately provoked and expected Japan to go to war following the Hull Note and preceding actions.
Last edited:
- Location
- Asia
Morgenthau Plan
So yes, much like ITTL, Cordell Hull was horrified that FDR was ready and willing to commit genocide, and resigned for 'health reasons' (caused by stressing over the Morgenthau Plan and Allied post-war policy). Unlike IOTL though, ITTL he publicly declared his opposition to the plan as the reason for his resignation.
Last edited:
I am not a lawyer, but have some knowledge about legal stuff. Japan´s and Germany´s legal codes are largely the same, there are some differences, but both codes stem from the same source. Whole parts are identical, just in two languages. There will be few changes in the Japanese code after the war. What would supposedly happen: Restoring parliamentary supremacy, women suffrage, some power checks on the Imperial Armed Forces, generell primogeniture and loss of priviledges of the Nobility, but titles half-remaining (like in Germany, e.g. you have a Count as part of your name, but you do not have priviledges from it). I am not sure if Germany would press hard against the zaibatsu, maybe some mitigating laws, but I doubt the zaibatsu would be broken up, especially since the Axis nations will want to reconstruct their lands as fast as possible.
I think one of the ironies of the Walküre-TL will be the fate of Korea. If Germany and Japan are still standing when peace comes, then Korea will profit from it. They will get a German and Japanese-friendly government and maybe a hedged "sorry" pressed through the teeth from Tokyo, but there will not be such a devastating war and they will not be partitioned. I can see Korea becoming an important "Tiger State" much earlier in this case.
If the "New Axis" loses, then Korea will be fracked like OTL, because Stalin and Mao won´t hesitate to profit from the Chaos following the retreat of the Japanese.
- Location
- Asia
Wait, what? I knew they were of the same school, but are you seriously telling me some Japanese laws are literal carbon copies of German ones?
There isn't. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, period. Congress is not part of the chain of command. They can't do shit short of outright witholding the budget or impeaching the president, both of which would be political sucide to put it mildly.
EDIT:
IIRC the original civil code of Japan took a lot of inspiration, down to wholesale copying entire parts, from the first draft of the German civil code from 1887. Which ironically enough was not adopted in Germany, with a second draft being created and adopted in 1896.
Last edited:
Yes, that is the case! Both law codes are based on the first drafts of the BGB. There were many reworks and refinements along the way. Japan´s Minpo is based on the 1896/98 version, Germany´s BGB is based on the 1900 version. There are differences, but there really are whole parts identical.
Last edited:
Japan occupies that Germany is an ally after the war for a simple reason trade, the United States will not make any trade with them after the war for how angry they are, the British will be busy keeping their economy afloat and rebuilding their cities as Also the problem of the colonies, Russia will be busy rebuilding their country and do not have the profits of the OTL. At a minimum in the new alliance that Japan signed with Germany, they have to leave Korea and China, with those states hating the Japanese, that is, Japan will be isolated and with countries that hate them making trade difficult, that is why Germany is important to them.
- Location
- Asia
I get the feeling that's going to change after the war. Commander-in-Chief the President might be, but considering how FDR's abusing that position, some increased accountability and additional checks on the president's authority seem to be in order.
That cuts both ways. Japan is potentially merged Germany´s most powerful ally and trade partner. It is a major consideration for both Berlin and Tokyo to keep each other afloat, especially in the tri-sided Cold War which is likely to follow, if the new Axis survives the war in whatever shape.
I sincerely doubt that trade with Korea and at least Manchukuo is that much a problem for Japan, if they come out of the War halfway intact. Then they will 100% not leave the area without installing pro-Tokyo and pro-Berlin governments in Changchun/Shinkyo and Hanseong/Keijo and keep some light presence there for a time, with Berlin supporting it because of post-war history. Mao´s victory OTL and the Korean War were only possible because Stalin and Mao used and abused the power vacuum there, when the IJA was forced to retreat with the end of WW2.
- Location
- Hamburg, Germany
Well, at first, the Minpo, the Japanese Civil Code, is based upon the BGB (1896 version). Indeed it was in force 2 years earlier. And now it becomes more interesting. There were even some points NOT taken over. But as the Japanese followed the German jurisprudence completely, they ignored that. For some time at least they said, there is no law than German law. Many Japanese lawyers still learn German. I met a Japanese professor in my 2nd semester at uni. He told me the background.
Some words to Alta. At first, it is the president, who is CIC and thus has the power to order the armed forces at any place. The Congress can't do much in this regard. Impeachment and no money are the only real possibilities. And the strategy to Zerg rush the German wasn't insane. With more ships it had worked.
However, the defeat was indeed a heavy punch, as not only many ships were sunk, the loss of qualified personnel is even more a problem. Sure, the US can train them. But they have to relearn lessons, which were NOT learned at school.
As for Pal's opinion, I have to go a bit deeper. At first, I have to say, the Japanese DID warcrimes. The Germans did so as well. However, IF you make such a trial like Nürnberg or Tokyo, you need to make it right. Or it's just a show trial, similar to the Volksgerichtshof. IMO it was more perfidious, as the so called Volksgerichtshof was a show trial, nearly openly. The Allied trials should have been fair, but wasn't.
en.wikipedia.org
I don't have time to make many comments, but this list is very good to get an idea, that these trials were victor's justice. Again, don't get me wrong, I don't say, they were innocent. But the trials were unfair. A colleague of mine said this, which fits completely.
from wiki, see above
As for Pal's arguments, which were even seen by Jackson, the chief US persecutor, the Allies did or have done the very same as well.
wiki, s.a.
And now we are nearing an interesting point. Otto Kranzbühler, defender of Dönitz, managed to get a written testimony, that in regards to merchant ships the US did also attack without warning. Dönitz was found guilty in this regard, but not punished therefore.
So is the tu-quoque (you, too) a reason to stop a trial? No. One crime and the other can't be used to justify the other (unless they are not somehow linked together). I can't rape the sister of a man, who killed my father, for example. In International Law you can make reprisals, if the other one is not playing fair. For example it was justified to attack merchant vessels, as the British blockade was against the laws.
So you can't say, because of the Allied warcrimes they could not make no trial. That is no reason per se. And that's no reason to say no to a judgement. Insofar I would not say, Mr. Pal was right in this regard. In other regards, that it was no fair trial, he was. Therefore the whole trials were (unfortunately) unfair and only victor's justice (look at Yamashita for example).
However, if a court was held against only one side, and here also mostly to punish the crimes against peace, a punishment not existing before, it loses the credibility very fast. So the Allied warcriminals had to be judged the same way. But it was hardly possible, that Stalin or Harris were prosecuted. Or Truman and Churchill.
If they had been earnest, they would have made fair trials and would have also prosecuted the own warcriminals. That hasn't happen. Missing the first means a show trial. Missing the latter means losing credibility.
Some words to Alta. At first, it is the president, who is CIC and thus has the power to order the armed forces at any place. The Congress can't do much in this regard. Impeachment and no money are the only real possibilities. And the strategy to Zerg rush the German wasn't insane. With more ships it had worked.
However, the defeat was indeed a heavy punch, as not only many ships were sunk, the loss of qualified personnel is even more a problem. Sure, the US can train them. But they have to relearn lessons, which were NOT learned at school.
As for Pal's opinion, I have to go a bit deeper. At first, I have to say, the Japanese DID warcrimes. The Germans did so as well. However, IF you make such a trial like Nürnberg or Tokyo, you need to make it right. Or it's just a show trial, similar to the Volksgerichtshof. IMO it was more perfidious, as the so called Volksgerichtshof was a show trial, nearly openly. The Allied trials should have been fair, but wasn't.
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia
I don't have time to make many comments, but this list is very good to get an idea, that these trials were victor's justice. Again, don't get me wrong, I don't say, they were innocent. But the trials were unfair. A colleague of mine said this, which fits completely.
from wiki, see above
As for Pal's arguments, which were even seen by Jackson, the chief US persecutor, the Allies did or have done the very same as well.
wiki, s.a.
And now we are nearing an interesting point. Otto Kranzbühler, defender of Dönitz, managed to get a written testimony, that in regards to merchant ships the US did also attack without warning. Dönitz was found guilty in this regard, but not punished therefore.
So is the tu-quoque (you, too) a reason to stop a trial? No. One crime and the other can't be used to justify the other (unless they are not somehow linked together). I can't rape the sister of a man, who killed my father, for example. In International Law you can make reprisals, if the other one is not playing fair. For example it was justified to attack merchant vessels, as the British blockade was against the laws.
So you can't say, because of the Allied warcrimes they could not make no trial. That is no reason per se. And that's no reason to say no to a judgement. Insofar I would not say, Mr. Pal was right in this regard. In other regards, that it was no fair trial, he was. Therefore the whole trials were (unfortunately) unfair and only victor's justice (look at Yamashita for example).
However, if a court was held against only one side, and here also mostly to punish the crimes against peace, a punishment not existing before, it loses the credibility very fast. So the Allied warcriminals had to be judged the same way. But it was hardly possible, that Stalin or Harris were prosecuted. Or Truman and Churchill.
If they had been earnest, they would have made fair trials and would have also prosecuted the own warcriminals. That hasn't happen. Missing the first means a show trial. Missing the latter means losing credibility.
Darksoul2142
SUMMONER OF DARK DRAGON
- Location
- Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
He is kind of right about the railgun except that no prototypes were constructed, despite the theory being thought out, due to the lack of a suitable power source.
As far as German UFOs are concerned? Utter hogwash.
Last edited:
- Location
- Asia
I don't know. Maybe Germany can build a proper flying wing now? Before the Fascist!Americans do and drop nukes on Berlin?
- Location
- Rotting in port
I know about the foo fighters being believed to be enemy secret weapons, but were UFOs a thing during the war or a '50s thing later during the Cold war retconned into WWII German Wunderwaffen by the conspiracy theorists?
- Location
- indonesia
In my opinion true war crimes trial is impossible, well there is a third party and neutral judge but I am sure he is biased either because he or the proff and information of war crimes is on losing side only. Dutch and Indonesian side has their own war crimes but as far I know they are not trialed and hailed as heroes. ISIS combatant judged by the world has done war crimes but we don't hear Iraq and/or allies have done there, even if there is info about it they don't get trial. The best thing is, in my opinion, is to get info on both side crimes and let the world judge it.Well, at first, the Minpo, the Japanese Civil Code, is based upon the BGB (1896 version). Indeed it was in force 2 years earlier. And now it becomes more interesting. There were even some points NOT taken over. But as the Japanese followed the German jurisprudence completely, they ignored that. For some time at least they said, there is no law than German law. Many Japanese lawyers still learn German. I met a Japanese professor in my 2nd semester at uni. He told me the background.
Some words to Alta. At first, it is the president, who is CIC and thus has the power to order the armed forces at any place. The Congress can't do much in this regard. Impeachment and no money are the only real possibilities. And the strategy to Zerg rush the German wasn't insane. With more ships it had worked.
However, the defeat was indeed a heavy punch, as not only many ships were sunk, the loss of qualified personnel is even more a problem. Sure, the US can train them. But they have to relearn lessons, which were NOT learned at school.
As for Pal's opinion, I have to go a bit deeper. At first, I have to say, the Japanese DID warcrimes. The Germans did so as well. However, IF you make such a trial like Nürnberg or Tokyo, you need to make it right. Or it's just a show trial, similar to the Volksgerichtshof. IMO it was more perfidious, as the so called Volksgerichtshof was a show trial, nearly openly. The Allied trials should have been fair, but wasn't.
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia
I don't have time to make many comments, but this list is very good to get an idea, that these trials were victor's justice. Again, don't get me wrong, I don't say, they were innocent. But the trials were unfair. A colleague of mine said this, which fits completely.
from wiki, see above
As for Pal's arguments, which were even seen by Jackson, the chief US persecutor, the Allies did or have done the very same as well.
wiki, s.a.
And now we are nearing an interesting point. Otto Kranzbühler, the defender of Dönitz, managed to get a written testimony, that in regards to merchant ships the US did also attack without warning. Dönitz was found guilty in this regard, but not punished, therefore.
So is the tu-quoque (you, too) a reason to stop a trial? No. One crime and the other can't be used to justify the other (unless they are not somehow linked together). I can't rape the sister of a man, who killed my father, for example. In International Law, you can make reprisals if the other one is not playing fair. For example, it was justified to attack merchant vessels, as the British blockade was against the laws.
So you can't say, because of the Allied war crimes they could not make any trial. That is no reason per se. And that's no reason to say no to a judgment. Insofar I would not say, Mr. Pal was right in this regard. In other regards, that it was no fair trial, he was. Therefore the whole trials were (unfortunately) unfair and only victor's justice (look at Yamashita for example).
However, if a court was held against only one side, and here also mostly to punish the crimes against peace, a punishment not existing before, it loses the credibility very fast. So the Allied war criminals had to be judged the same way. But it was hardly possible, that Stalin or Harris were prosecuted. Or Truman and Churchill.
If they had been earnest, they would have made fair trials and would have also prosecuted the own war criminals. That hasn't happened. Missing the first means a show trial. Missing the latter means losing credibility.
Sorry for the rant.
Darksoul2142
SUMMONER OF DARK DRAGON
- Location
- Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
The flying wing would make for an excellent long-range bomber with low observable characteristics given the VERY clean exterior. IIRC the US did send two B-2 bombers to Germany in 2014. Unfortunately, that is well ahead of this ISOT's start date, 31st of May 2014.
@Tyr Anazasi: Did you include the B-2 into the ISOT? The search function hasn't come up with anything at all.
- Status