Jessicajess

Banned
So, let me get this straight, your thinking the US will not only fully commit to supporting a war started by a self-serving traitor, but would actually exceed even his goals and commit to a major war in order to crush the Drakians even after removing said traitor. The reasons why this is impractical should be pretty self-evident

Also thinking the Drakians would fold after a major defeat is exactly the sort of thinking that got the US into this mess in the first place, the Drakians managed to survive the 1st World War and the occupation of much of West Africa, it survived the crucible, it would survive a major defeat in the field.



I don't see how tying down much of the American armed forces in Africa and fighting a major which would happen whatever the result of an American-Drakian conflict is going to improve American odds against the Indo-Japanese alliance. Furthermore, the US had basically already lost by the time the Second Drako-American kicked off, having been forced back to Australasia and the Eastern Pacific and having been kicked out of the IO entirely. the war was simply the final nail in the coffin for America's willingness to continue the fight.



So you'd rather see the US risk military tyranny just to one-up the snakes? Well I'm just gonna quote Franklin again
Draka is an “easier to sell enemy” than Imperial Germany, and the US still fully committed to fight in WW1 when they entered the war, despite Wilson being elected with promises of peace.

Drakian society is a society in the brink of collapse at all times, the crucible is the proof of that. They need an unimaginable level of brutality to keep the masses under control. If they are consistently defeated, then the whole country could fall apart. They wouldn't be capable of surviving to the full onslaught of the Grand Alliance alone AND keep the slaves under control.
 
Last edited:
Draka is an “easier to sell enemy” than Imperial Germany, and the US still fully committed to fight in WW1 when they entered the war, despite Wilson being elected with promises of peace.
Germany was not deliberately attacked by a more or less rogue US Navy without prior authorization from the President or Congress. German in fact had attacked and was attacking US Merchant shipping and killing US citizens in spite of pledging to stop as well as conducting ham-fisted and poorly thought out diplomacy with Mexico.

Apples, Oranges
 
So, let me get this straight, your thinking the US will not only fully commit to supporting a war started by a self-serving traitor, but would actually exceed even his goals and commit to a major war in order to crush the Drakians even after removing said traitor. The reasons why this is impractical should be pretty self-evident

Also thinking the Drakians would fold after a major defeat is exactly the sort of thinking that got the US into this mess in the first place, the Drakians managed to survive the 1st World War and the occupation of much of West Africa, it survived the crucible, it would survive a major defeat in the field.



I don't see how tying down much of the American armed forces in Africa and fighting a major which would happen whatever the result of an American-Drakian conflict is going to improve American odds against the Indo-Japanese alliance. Furthermore, the US had basically already lost by the time the Second Drako-American kicked off, having been forced back to Australasia and the Eastern Pacific and having been kicked out of the IO entirely. the war was simply the final nail in the coffin for America's willingness to continue the fight.



So you'd rather see the US risk military tyranny just to one-up the snakes? Well I'm just gonna quote Franklin again
No one is saying invading Africa. Deny Drakia the Middle East and they lose basically one third of their strength.

They won the Crucible because of support among the princely states, many of them in the Middle East... the same Princely States that rose up against them in Klein's favor. And fighting insurgents isn't the same against fighting a massive field army.

Let me observe Franklin: is there any Liberty when you're being stared down by a nuclear-armed slave empire ready to annihilate you and then enslave the survivors? If the ITTL Drakians are even 20% of the Stirlingverse Draka, then fuck... Franklin would be begging for a war of liberty. The "temporary safety" in his quote would be peace with Drakia in order not to lose men.
 
No one is saying invading Africa
The banned user was.

Deny Drakia the Middle East and they lose basically one third of their strength.

They won the Crucible because of support among the princely states, many of them in the Middle East... the same Princely States that rose up against them in Klein's favor. And fighting insurgents isn't the same against fighting a massive field army.
The won the Crucible because of the existence of a sizable minority of natives who sided with the Drakians and the inability of the rebels to form a united front the Princely States only being a part of the loyalist natives, furthermore only two Princely states are in the near east. Also, the same argument about fighting insurgencies can also be levelled right back at the US

Actually, as a matter of fact, there are only 2 Princely states outside of Africa prior to the first Drako-American War Judea and Kurdistan and we know the Kurds remained loyal. So how does invading and taking the Drakian near east lose the Drakians, whose heartland is in Southern and Central Africa a third of their strength? As a matter of fact, the first Drako-American war basically levelled most of the region anyways and yet the Drakian's survived.

Let me observe Franklin: is there any Liberty when you're being stared down by a nuclear-armed slave empire ready to annihilate you and then enslave the survivors? If the ITTL Drakians are even 20% of the Stirlingverse Draka, then fuck... Franklin would be begging for a war of liberty. The "temporary safety" in his quote would be peace with Drakia in order not to lose men.
Is there any Liberty when the cost of victory is having American democracy be compromised by its very own Ceaser? If the cost of victory is the beginning of American stratocracy then it's no victory at all. Again, would you rather see the US risk military tyranny trying to one-up the snakes?

Also, the Drakian's don't even have nukes. No one does
 
Last edited:
Anyways, for all these arguments regarding the nature of the fall of the order, it doesn't help when it runs so parallel to the Delian League's fall to their Peloponnesian counterpart. However, while Klein's attitude towards Drakia would always be agreeable and relevant for this timeline's eternity, his means were destructive on America's democratic tradition and even to the world order that day that if it were not Drakia, it would be his navy pissing every nation in the league off into rebellion. It can be argued on those 50's that America could have as well crushed Drakia before taking on Japan, but without that hindsight, no statesmen would have accepted such losses up until it was imminent. Without the hindsight that the war in the Pacific was inevitable, the reining of the navy would always be viewed as a fix to that potentially disastrous loss of it going all Kwantung Army. While it may be arguably better for Drakia to fall into chaos first before taking on the Pan-Asians, the navy would still be sovereign over themselves bullying everyone off, not only causing the Pacific war but also inducing widespread domestic unrest as well.

To be fair, it is worth a spin-off titled:

Japanese China? Fascist America? The Darkest Africa? or,
An American Navy, or the New Order of the Ages


(That may be my signature from now on.)

Anyways, I just spun the dice, and I got...

1

One Piece - 465 - Large 30.jpg

Admiral Klein's mood rn
 
Last edited:
Is there any Liberty when the cost of victory is having American democracy be compromised by its very own Ceaser? If the cost of victory is the beginning of American stratocracy then it's no victory at all. Again, would you rather see the US risk military tyranny trying to one-up the snakes?

Also, the Drakian's don't even have nukes. No one does
No one has nukes until one does have nukes.

Is there any Liberty when you're being battered into submission by a Slave Empire? There are a bunch of better options than bending over backwards to satisfy the whims of a nation that is itching to enslave the world. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and instituted a draft, which was considered anathema to the United States in the past (there were debates in the early days of the Republic over whether to even have a standing army). According to your logic, victory isn't worth such tactics.

Yes, what Klein did was wrong and his motivations were wrong, but what Perdue did in choosing the only plan that would involve bending over to Drakia and letting them run wild and increase their power was inexcusable. Two wrongs don't make a right
 
No one has nukes until one does have nukes.

Is there any Liberty when you're being battered into submission by a Slave Empire? There are a bunch of better options than bending over backwards to satisfy the whims of a nation that is itching to enslave the world. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and instituted a draft, which was considered anathema to the United States in the past (there were debates in the early days of the Republic over whether to even have a standing army). According to your logic, victory isn't worth such tactics.

Yes, what Klein did was wrong and his motivations were wrong, but what Perdue did in choosing the only plan that would involve bending over to Drakia and letting them run wild and increase their power was inexcusable. Two wrongs don't make a right
Unfortunately, it was deemed that vindicating Klein with that action would bring ugly ramifications that the public and New York would deem unacceptable (at least those times). If it were not for Klein, there wouldn't be a bloated navy tainting anti-Drakian hawkishness. It was a bad combination of American isolationism, and high-stakes politics. It was not merely his reputation that were at stake when Klein decided to save Near East, it was the whole American design on the region itself, the latter of which he hadn't realised. It was as much a political problem as it is a strategic one.

Blaming him now would obviously not work. While the institution that enabled him was long changed so as to deem it gone, vindicating such man's politically dangerous maverick move shows how much America is a shell of its former self that could go places other than being a democracy, which could be easily deem as justified and appropriate. With the ideals that made America already eroding away, New York surely must have been furiously finding a way to make an effective cushion out of Western Europe and their ascendant navy and military-industrial complex.

These types of existential threat make fertile ground for authoritarianism, and with the last update, a significant part of the American populace may have already given their answer.

EDIT: my wording because I want to run away fast from being associated with any people of this time, and given that there's still not much replies, to more properly outline my thoughts. This timeline is getting grimdark, especially so with the realisation of that Navy-Drakia fork. If you found yourself finding sense on their actions (especially the German's retreat), blame EBR's storytelling and sickening plot.
 
Last edited:
I think this thread is proof enough that there will be an incredibly fierce philosophical debate about Perdue's actions, probably akin to but more intense than Truman's use of the bomb. Well set up on EBR's part.

Personally, letting hundreds of thousands(?) being turned into Drakian serfs is too great a price to pay regardless of the normative damage by Klein's actions. Some punitive action was clearly necessary but I can't square inaction with my sense of ethics.
 
To detract somewhat a bit from the current argument, someone said something interesting that I wanted to point out.

The bondsmen would rebel if the Drakian armies suffered a considerable defeat.
How much would the bondsmen conscripts actually hold out for and swallow their horrible treatment if the enemy they're fighting isn't someone with a significant tech disparity (Geoist Spain) already in the middle of a huge war and thus exhausted to all hell (The Rexist Block), tiny in comparison to the gigantic war machine of Drakia (Turkey and Arabia)? It doesn't even have to be the US, I feel that even the Pan-Asian Alliance could give them enough trouble that the bondsmen just decide that they don't want to charge headlong into the fray.
 
To detract somewhat a bit from the current argument, someone said something interesting that I wanted to point out.



How much would the bondsmen conscripts actually hold out for and swallow their horrible treatment if the enemy they're fighting isn't someone with a significant tech disparity (Geoist Spain) already in the middle of a huge war and thus exhausted to all hell (The Rexist Block), tiny in comparison to the gigantic war machine of Drakia (Turkey and Arabia)? It doesn't even have to be the US, I feel that even the Pan-Asian Alliance could give them enough trouble that the bondsmen just decide that they don't want to charge headlong into the fray.
That were the berserker drugs and drakian heavy weapons at their backs come in.
 
How much would the bondsmen conscripts actually hold out for and swallow their horrible treatment if the enemy they're fighting isn't someone with a significant tech disparity (Geoist Spain) already in the middle of a huge war and thus exhausted to all hell (The Rexist Block), tiny in comparison to the gigantic war machine of Drakia (Turkey and Arabia)? It doesn't even have to be the US, I feel that even the Pan-Asian Alliance could give them enough trouble that the bondsmen just decide that they don't want to charge headlong into the fray.
Clearly the solution is for the Drakians to create the position of Commissar attached to line infantry units. Silly hats optional. :winkytongue:
 
I have to say I agree with @GDIS Pathe on this one, and always have. Yes, the Drakia are horrific. But preserving the Republic is more important for a President than waging an illegal foreign war against an admittedly evil enemy. Today, it's Klein against Drakia. Tomorrow, it's some LeMay/MacArthur/Ripper type invading God only knows where for whatever reason they feel like. Out of control military commanders are how Rome went from a Republic to an Empire. Even if one wants to argue a moral case, I'd argue that letting one evil empire expand is an acceptable trade off to prevent the rise of a second aggressive, expansionist empire.
 
Hmmm... if the Situationists consider the Mixtec non-secessionist Iya Nacuaa as their progenitor, does that mean that those in China would likewise not seek independence? Would that mean that they'll acquiescence to the new East Asian order... and turn it on its head by being the tail that wags the dog?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm... if the Situationists consider the Mixtec non-secessionist Iya Nacuaa as their progenitor, does that mean that those In China would likewise not seek independence? Would that mean that they'll acquiescence to the new East Asian order... and turn it on its head by being the tail that wags the dog?
Goes along nicely with minimizing the number of countries.
 
As always with a repressed and less then free population, like the majority of Chinese people would be stuck as peasantry in a deeply stratified theocratic and aristocratic state under their ultimate colonial masters in Japan would definitely be, what they are looking for when shopping for ideologies is something that they can pilfer and adapt for a generalizable language of anti-colonial resistance and self-empowerment. A catalyst bringing together all the individual disconnected moments of semi-official shake downs by corrupt magistrates, compulsory labor schemes, and seemingly unbreakable debt burdens, all into one cohesive metaphysical structure. So a Situationist Chinia is going to be primarily focused on taking the idea that all our physical structures reflect and help influence our psyche and society as the collective psyche, and then extrapolating that then they need to construct the One True Healthy Society(tm). Like all that stuff about the New Soviet Man and trying to instill in the emancipated proletariat a mental emancipation from "bourgeois" bigotries and depravities and trying to universalize proletarian fraternity across all sexes, genders, races, and nationalities. In the same way I could absolutely see Situationism With Chinese Characteristics using the sociological scrutiny as a war-cry against the "obsolete hierarchies" of the Taiping and "malignant corruption" of Japan. If all human artifice is on some level communicative of humanity and behind every building is a mental image of those who interact with it, then China demands their right to their own well being and expression and to therefore bring some serious Feng Shui on Japan's ass.
 
Last edited:
As always with a repressed and less then free population, like the majority of Chinese people would be stuck as peasantry in a deeply stratified theocratic and aristocratic state under their ultimate colonial masters in Japan would definitely be, what they are looking for when shopping for ideologies is something that they can pilfer and adapt from a generalizable language of anti-colonial resistance and self-empowerment. A catalyst bringing together all the individual disconnected moments of semi-official shake downs by corrupt magistrates, compulsory labor schemes, and seemingly unbreakable debt burdens come together into one cohesive metaphysical structure. So a Situationist Chinia is going to be primarily focused on taking the idea that all our physical structures reflect and help influence our psyche and society as the collect psyche, and then extrapolating they then they need to construct the One True Healthy Society(tm). Like all that stuff about the New Soviet Man and trying to instill in the emancipated proletariat a mental emancipation from "bourgeois" bigotries and depravities and trying to universalize proletarian fraternity across all sexes, genders, races, and nationalities. In the same way I could absolutely see Situationism With Chinese Characteristics using the sociological scrutiny as a war-cry against the "obsolete hierarchies" of the Taiping and "malignant corruption" of Japan. If all human artifice is on some level communicative of humanity and behind every building is a mental image of those who interact with it, then China demands their right to their own wellbeing and expression and to therefore bring some serious Feng Shui on Japan's ass.
So basically, they are advocating for recovery and well-being above everything else? Seems apt enough, especially after that destructive war. People sure are war-weary and don't have this appetite for a dynastic change, so why not reform the system through a parliament, especially a unilaterally-declared one?

Also, "- with Chinese Characteristics" may be redundant when it was home-grown in China. ;)

Aside from non-secessionism, how would the three countries (Japan, Korea, and China) also react on the ideology's progentor's non-judgemental live and let live outlook? (Iya Nacuaa's domestic policy can be best described as that.)
 
Maybe but we can't be sure if Situationism originated in China
All Situationists mentioned are Chinese. We still haven't heard something from their American counterparts, although the home front are getting weird already for them to try squeezing in.

In retrospect, I doubt the Healers of Valor would be a Situationist organisation, but I still wholeheartedly support those folks. Them Americans have fallen so hard from the Old Order of the Ages, they just need the heart in creating the new one! :cool::cool::cool:
 
Top