Let's just hope none of the factions get ahold of old Soviet nukes and decide to use them on each other.
I fear for the Russian people after the war.
New Deal Coalition Retained Pt II: World on Fire
- Thread starter Prince Daemon Targaryen
- Start date
I fear for the Russian people after the war.
You keep saying that, but Peiper was Himmler's personal adjutant. He was responsible for the Melmady Massacre, for which he spent 11.5 years in prison. He also massacred several villages during the war, helped create and implement the SS policies to control Poland, and accompanied Himmler on trips to several concentration camps and execution sites (proving that he knew about the Holocaust). So which is it? Do the Freyists refuse to let high-ranking Nazi war criminals into their ranks, or is high-ranking Nazi war criminal Joachim Peiper a top German commander?
Deleted member 14881
Hell, even Von Manstein who was fine with the Commissar Order and was convicted at Nuremburg was kept at an arm's length by the Bundswehr.
I love this timeline I really do, I can get over most things and can accept your arguments, but Joachim Peiper is where I have to draw the line. Its one thing to go from party member to valiant fighter for freedom, its a whole other thing for one to allow a war criminal into the German General Staff. If you want a former Wehrmacht officer to use as an example of a man who came to see his wrongs and joined the fight for freedom, then do so, but you don't have to use a convicted war criminal. I might add I highly doubt the other NATO forces would be okay with this. I just don't see why you need to use him.
ITTL Gerhard Frey is huge on symbolism. He and the other really big Freyists are almost zealous about it (there's an ITTL conspiracy theory that the Germans engineered the entire war in order to 'test humanity' about whether it wanted freedom or tyranny; the kernel of truth is that Frey and his ideological compatriots wanted the massive 'befreiungskrieg' - liberation war - to happen to both cleanse Germany's sins and cleanse the sins of humanity for unfinished business after WWII). They want to show that Germany has abandoned its Nazi past, even though that Freyist thought adopts the theory that all Germans are collectively guilty of the Nazi crimes - this never was disputed by Frey, only that Germany shouldn't destroy its national identity over that guilt, but use that guilt to make the national identity better. Peiper (it is a stretch but enough have repented for far worse in the past) is not only a committed party member but also as a force of that symbolism. First, they distinguished that he hadn't been involved with the actual Nazi crimes against humanity (under Imperial German law, complicity in that is death by firing squad), merely war crimes that are of the variety that has happened in all human warfare (they're not condoning it, but drawing a distinction). To the German government, he is not a Nazi war criminal but a former war criminal and a former Nazi party member who served his sentence and wants to atone. What better symbolism than someone like him fighting tyrants on behalf of the liberation of humanity from said tyrants. This and political rewarding of a supporter with military experience by the party is why they picked him. The German people see that he did serve his prison sentence, believe that he's genuine in his desire to atone, and do not judge because they feel the same guilt because they all feel as complicit in the Nazi crimes.
Given the depths of the German collective guilt over Nazism, matched by no other country in the terms of the harm to the national psyche, the zealousness seen by the Freyists to both atone for and wash themselves of it right before and during the war is something unique to the world and probably never to be seen again. It's about as far as I can explain it, almost a cross between insanity and religious fervor.
It's a pretty disturbing regime that judges repeatedly forcing Ukrainian civilians into buildings en masse, setting them on fire, and then machine gunning those who try to escape as "merely" a war crime but the distinction between wholesale massacres of civilians and prisoners of war and "actual Nazi crimes" wouldn't matter in Peiper's case regardless. The Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler were actively complicit in the Holocaust, and Peiper led his men in the round-up of jews much in the same way as he had done in the Ukraine.
After participation in the Battle of Kursk, the division had been sent to Italy to assist in the German occupation of the country following the collapse of Mussolini's government. With northern Italy under German control, the round-up of Jews began and the division was one of the first (some sources say the first) involved in such actions in Italy. On September 15th, 45 Jewish men, women and children were murdered by the division at Lago Maggiore. The following day, 22 Jews arrested by the division were sent to Auschwitz. On September 18th, Peiper's men arrested around 300 Jews, sent them first to a hastily constructed concentration camp in Borgo San Dalmazzo, where they were subsequently sent to a transit camp in France, and then on to Auschwitz.
If the murder of Ukrainian civilians is forgivable under Imperial German law, then Peiper's active participation in the Holocaust should be enough to earn him a firing squad.
Last edited:
Even in purely military terms, Peiper never rose beyond the equivalent of a lieutenant colonel and had a reputation of being a reckless charger. Having him be a Field Marshal, even if his record was totally clean (it wasn't) would be total folly (as in "Logistics? What logistics?", for one).
How did India lose against Pakistan? I find that hard to believe. Unless China intervenes (somehow), India has all of the advantages (size, army, etc). And even if Pakistan, won, I find it extremely hard to believe they would conquer Gujarat. What do they have to gain by conquering a region with millions of Hindus who hate them? Being able to piss on Gandhi’s birthplace?
EDIT: Checking the wikibox, why did Iran ally with Pakistan? IOTL, Iran has been close to India since independence. What made Iran suddenly decide to change its alignment? And why did India annex East Pakistan rather than just give it independence? And why did Pakistan conquer Gujarat with ease? Lots of Indian troops would be at the border to defend it in any scenario, but it seems like Pakistan goes through it like paper ITTL.
Losing a war and substantial territory wouldn’t suddenly turn India into the French Third Republic. It would simply result in military reforms fixing the issues from the defeat, another war a few years down the line, and India reconquering its old territories.
I don’t understand the connection between losing a war and disdain for the constitution.
Most members of the army knew that a coup would risk civil war, largely due to India’s decentralization. Furthermore, the army has been kept as solidly apolitical by the government. I don’t see what happened to change that.
Yes, it is. You’re using very flimsy logic to turn Sanjay into the opposite of his OTL self. I find nothing to suggest his political views could ever be inverted in the way you seem to believe it could be.
Furthermore, Rajiv was having an enjoyable career as an airplane pilot and only went into politics at the behest of his grieving mother after the death of Sanjay. I find no reason why he would go into politics without his brother’s death.
Which is good, because in my opinion, “ASB” should only be used to refer to ISOTS and other magical stuff.
Last edited:
Especially given that the limits of his 'tactical genius' was probably during Watch on the Rhine
Edit: where he had the idea to dress up as American soldiers (hardly an original idea) and then also massacre POWs for literally no reason
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I'm sorry, the Indian defeat in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1967?
I happened to see the Pakistani Army in action in 1971, and while it was capable of butchering old women and children, it was an ill-disciplined, ill-equipped, poorly-led, incompetent rabble of squabbling, bloodthirsty thugs incapable of any sort of organised action. By contrast, the Indian Army of the time, which I also saw in action, was competent and efficient. I wouldn't go so far as to call it brilliant, but it was better than a lot of NATO forces were at the time.
There is no way whatsoever that the Indian Army of the period could have lost to the Pakistan Army of the period. India has the advantage of numbers, economy, training, and competence. It's possible to have unexpected results in wars, where one side manages to overcome an unpromising position. That's not the case with the Indian Army and the Pakistan Army that I saw in action.
Yeah tbh I've always found the South Asian aspect of this TL a bit troubling. For example Bangladesh was easier for Pakistan to govern given its much larger Muslim population than Gujarat. Gujarat is basically the epicenter of the Hindu right wing (It's almost 90% Hindu). It also has powerful business interests that could easily oppose the Pakistani government. It's like saying since Alabama is closer to Mexico then NY, it would be ten times easier for Mexico to govern. Logistics may be, but that's about it.
And you are correct about the militaries.
But to be fair to @The Congressman, a more democratic Pakistan is possible. But more than India is highly unlikely. It's not really committed to unity amongst diversity like India is (which is anathema to democracy in a heterogeneous region).
Last edited:
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
A more democratic Pakistan is possible (although the local loyalties make this harder than might be immediately obvious). An Indian defeat in an India-Pakistan war of 1967 - which is what @The Congressman stated, is nonsense on stilts.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I also saw the Pakistan Army when it was trying to fight the Indian Army when the Indian Army came in to resolve matters.
@The Congressman, South Asia's not really super important to your TL, so your mistakes there don't take away from your TL. Still love reading it, and go NATO!!!
When is Romania and Hungary going to be liberated? (Austria-Hungary 2.0!!!!!!!)
When is Romania and Hungary going to be liberated? (Austria-Hungary 2.0!!!!!!!)
Pakistan could never have defeated India alone, this I agree with. They won by concentrating their forces in the west (deciding to just give up East Pakistan, where the genocidal actions famous OTL didn't really happen due to diplomatic pressure from the US and UK), increased arms sales of top of the line weaponry after Richard Nixon's assassination, the Indians splitting most of their offensive forces to invade East Pakistan, and the Iranian army (the best in the middle east) joining in.
Only way I see it is with a Shia dominated Pakistan. Hard to pull off, and I don't think that occurred ITTL.
My goal with the Indo-Pakistani war was to cause and explore the effects of an Indian diaspora and the consequence of Asian/South Asian demographic growth in the west.
Iran was an autocracy, and the Shah (a very weak man who could be easily manipulated by people he trusted) was under pressure from his advisers to have good relations with American allies. His Prime Minister advised him to go ahead with the alliance, and since he was Shah his words were law.