Home / Pete's stuff / Not computer games / Pete's Draka page / Draka 2alpha Timeline / Q & A

[to Home Page]

Contact site author

[up: Draka 2α timeline home]

Updated 2005-10-21

Pete's Alternate Draka Timeline: Draka 2α

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Been Framed?

If this page is displayed in a frame, which should happen only when the Geocities/Yahoo server puts them there and not because some other site is displaying my content, please reload this page to bust out of them.

That nasty α symbol

Visit the discussion of the non-English glyphs problem here if the above heading doesn't contain a character that looks like a Greek lowercase alpha, or if you see box symbols or "?" in the middle of non-English words. Try switching character set to UTF-8 to fix them.

 

 

Draka 2α Timeline
Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Q: A question/comment about the social background of the Loyalists. Where do you see most of them originating from — the 'Border' South (N. Carolina and all points Northward) with its 3:1 free:slave ratio, or the 'Deep' South (S. Carolina to the Caribbean) with a 1:10 free:slave ratio? Did they develop the repressive practices and sexual attitudes 'on their own,' co-opt them from the 'Deep South' colonists, or did the early proportions of colonists favor 'Deep South' Loyalists? [From Duane Oldson.]
A: The proportions favor the Deep South Loyalists, although Ferguson operated in the Carolinas and would be a hero to them all. The repressive practices were developed in Africa, working from what the slavers that sent slaves to America did, and what the few Dutch that used slaves came up with. One major difference between slaves in America and those in Drakia would be the absence of a long ocean voyage to fundamentally wrest them from their homeland. In Africa, they could try to escape and make their way home; in America that wasn't a viable option. The sexual attitudes, well that's something I haven't commented on in my timeline, so I guess we're both assuming no change from Stirling's casual boffing of the house-wenches. I have no idea if that came from the Americans or was homegrown in Drakia.

Q: The major problem I have here is the same problem I have with the 'canon' Draka TL. Logically, Canada is the place for the Loyalists to run to after the Revolution succeeds. I can't see the objections of the newest and weakest nation in the European world redirecting this trend in the slightest. Thus, Canada has to 'fall' in some way during the Revolution to make mass migration to S. Africa a viable option. OTOH, I really like your later 'microcapture' of Canada by the 'professional' US Army, and the limited aims and success (and thus high realism) of that operation. But the microcapture and 'professional' army are predicated on (if I'm reading this right) something of a reaction to the failures of the Continental Army during the Revolution (as in the failure to take Canada, for one). Perhaps have Benedict Arnold succeed in his march on Montreal, making Canada seem insecure? [From Duane Oldson.]
A: I'm assuming some Loyalists went to Canada during the Revolution, then did the raiding that the Americans objected to, before the peace treaty was negotiated in 1783. And I'm thinking that Ben Franklin, or some other American negotiator, drank his British counterpart under the table or otherwise bamboozled them into kicking the Loyalists off the North American continent. That the British kept their word on this point is admirable; the French must have had them by the short hairs somehow. Of course, a Canadian winter or two and the Loyalists would have agreed to anywhere warmer. Note that the Laki volcano makes the winters just a bit colder in the Northern Hemisphere for a few years around now.
But I don't think altering the timeline further regarding Canada is necessary, particularly during the American Revolution. The focus on West Point and professional officers would have come from a postwar realization that there were many times during the Revolution that amateurs didn't assess a situation properly, causing opportunities to be missed, or needless casualties. With Ferguson winning a major battle in the South, and continuing to fight, the consequences of bad officers would have been very fresh to the Americans. Now that the Loyalists are out of the picture, and with less quibbling about "State's rights," a stronger Constitution that mandated common formal training for army officers would have been acceptable to the states.

Q: 1782–85: Why the early acts keeping the rest of the British Empire at arm's reach? The Loyalists just fought to stay in that empire, not hold it off. [From Duane Oldson.]
A: The first of those acts show up in 1786, to try to legalize actions that Britain would otherwise object to. Staying in the Empire is one thing, running a business is another. The attitude was "let's make sure the King and Parliament know our grievances early, so we can resolve our differences peacefully and legally." After even a short time, Drakia would need to start having laws tailor-made for their special situations. And although Australia isn't mentioned much in my timeline, it and Drakia, Egypt, and India would all be bombarding Parliament with draft legislation to address local problems. "At arms reach" isn't a correct quote, but I've altered the timeline since this question was received. It now says, "to stay within the legal bounds of the British Empire while starting to diverge from its mores." Because that, to me, is the problem. How else can you have a "nauseous slaveocracy" be the chief African outpost of the British Empire?

Q: 1791: Its named Castle Tarleton while he's running the place? Is that the official name of the fort, or an unofficial nickname? [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Good catch! I objected to that when somebody else did it, and forgot to make it clear in mine. He doesn't actually run the place, but it gets his name because its one of the larger and most successful of the places he had built, and is in a prominent location. Unofficial nickname when founded, becomes official later. Not sure if that's when Banastre Tarleton dies, or during the first few years after the Draka Rebellion, probably the former. (OTL, he died very old - and his name is indeed "Banastre." Don't ask me where it came from.) The bit about the War Directorate isn't applicable until after Drakia splits from the British Empire.

Q: 1803–04: Did any significant numbers of 'second sons' emigrate from Sub-Saharan Drakia to Egypt after the conquest? With both the Governor and a substantial number of new 'British' colonists originating from Drakia, you could generate close cultural and family ties, while maintaining separate colonies. [From Duane Oldson.]
A: No. The first British Governor of Egypt was transferred from Drakia, but he was originally from England, and saw both Drakia and Egypt as stepping-stones to greater things when he returned home. Since the link to Drakia was tenuous, and Drakian systems of slavery discouraged, Egypt didn't appeal to many Drakians. Drakia's main effort was channeled into expansion up the African coasts and subduing Ceylon. Emigration from Europe to Egypt was easier than from Drakia, so the few Drakians not comfortable with slavery that went there fit right in; the ones that attempted to set up a Drakian labor system there weren't supported by the colonial administration, and encouraged to go elsewhere.

Q: Why a revolt against the British Empire in the 1830s? The Loyalists fought and died to stay in the British Empire! [from me, trying to anticipate y'all]
1832: I think this is about a generation early to start 'openly advocating' rebellion in Draka. At this point you've still got a goodly number of old geezers who remember the American Revolution firsthand, and ended up in Draka because they were loyal. That's going to remain a potent psychological force with them at least, and odds are the geezers make up the senior 'statesmen' and notables of Draka. [from Duane Oldson.]
A: The later immigrants and the generations born and raised in Drakia have grown to outnumber the Loyalists after over 40 years in Africa. But the decision to revolt wasn't made lightly. The faction in favor of it grew from a convergence of dissatisfaction over far-away British taxation (sound familiar?), the Empire's desire to restrain the unofficial expansion of the Crown Colony of Drakia (ditto), the growing rift over slavery, and the secret ambitions of the current locally-chosen Governor (de Feld's predecessor). This Freedom faction had more popular support than representation in the Colonial Assembly, but fit into the Governor's plans. Several hotheads provoked incidents with British troops attempting to enforce the Reform Act, and cajoled the conservative members of the Assembly (almost totally old Loyalists) into seizing the opportunity rather than starting a civil war. But it was a near thing; if somebody wants to explore the alternate thrice removed where a Draka Rebellion is nipped in the bud, be my guest!

Q: 1834–36: When did Draka start to embrace the 'We're Rome reborn (sort of)' attitude? Naming the supreme magistrate Archon and renaming York to Archona seem to jump out of the blue. [From Duane Oldson.]
A: In Stirling's timeline, the impetus is apparently the god-gift discovery of buried ancient scrolls in the desert. I changed that event to about 100 years later, just to influence female formal wear in the Domination. That unfortunately leaves me with no good initial justification for the Greek and Roman traditions. So you got me there. Best I can come up with at the moment is that some well-educated Drakians had to go back to the Greeks and Romans for a template they could use to design the society they'll have after they win the revolution. The name(s) of the ideologue(s) who convince the Drakians to go this route is never given by Stirling, so I don't feel compelled to supply one either.

Q: 1849: There's no need to apologize for using 'historical' names in your ATL, they simply indicate that a widely recognized role was filled at that time, and give an easy moniker to hang it on. If you really see the need, put quotes around historical names to indicate 'the role was filled, but by a non-OTL person.' [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Good suggestion, but there are some who believe that if a certain person hadn't come along, the world would never have gone a certain way, or discovered something. I don't say I believe in that completely, so I compromise by using a variation on the OTL name, and try to explain what this person did. Unfortunately, this may make my timeline rather bland.

Q: 1855: Japan opened OTL by Commodore Perry in 1853 per (a page no longer found as of 06 June 2001) [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Thanks! I'll have to look into it some more though. What concerns me is why the US decided to defy the closure. The British certainly had a larger navy and more interest in expanding trade.

Q: 1859–63: What would be a justification for earlier Ironclads? Tradition has its place… :) [From Duane Oldson.]
A: This one now doesn't apply, as there is no American Civil War in this timeline. But when it did, I had a comment about the first clash of ironclads being during that war rather than earlier, even though they had been around for a while. But without a visible clash of ironclads to galvanize the European powers, the Draka and US are the leaders in a rather slow process of converting from armored sailing ships to ironclad steamships; shame in the naval establishments at being left behind as dirigibles gather popular attention in the 1880s is much more responsible for the end of sails than anything done by the ironclads in battle.

Q: Why no crusade to stamp out the Draka? [One of my own.]
A: Well, before 1836 they're the British Empire's problem, and the benefits of colonial imperialism outweigh the morality of slavery. Until slavery is outlawed in the United States in 1862, there's at least one other major nation where it's allowed, so there's little valid reason to go after Draka until after the Slaver Exodus. From then to about 1900, there is a period when the major European powers could have banded together and taken on Draka and wiped it out. What makes this difficult is the Balance of Power in Europe. Britain had the most to (re)gain, so the other powers (France, Russia, Ottomans, Austria–Hungary, later Germany and Italy) would have joined in only if they could get the lion's share of the benefits. Russia, Austria–Hungary and the Ottomans weren't strong at overseas power projection in this era. Besides Britain, only France and the declining Spain and Portugal have any experience at it. The United States was too busy rebuilding the former slave states and developing Mexico and Panama, mostly looking south and west (not east or southeast), and expanding their influence into Central America and the Pacific. Their "Monroe Doctrine" (which I haven't mentioned although there should be one) has the converse that the U.S. doesn't interfere with European powers, so Africa would have been taboo — or at least a gray area. It would have taken British alliances with most or all of the others to join the European powers in a concerted effort against Draka. Draka could then have counted on the "other side" (whoever was against the British) to provoke a war in Europe that would have kept the focus off Africa, thereby making the problem one of Europeans fighting Europeans in Europe, and the African issue would have fallen by the wayside. So, unless all of Europe allied with Britain, I believe some or all of the other European powers would have gone after Britain's other territories (Egypt, Libya, Algeria, all of French West Africa, and India in this timeline) before Britain could wipe out Draka that was even further away. If any alliance were put together that didn't include France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Ottomans, and Austria–Hungary — practically everyone of consequence except Russia — anyone left out would have sided with Draka if there were any chance of winning. The chances of such an all-inclusive alliance, during the period 1863–1900, are nil. Only a global crusade against slavery would have had any chance of stamping out the Drakans; and at this time Europeans were still rather racist, and Draka had enslaved "only" southern and central African Negroes, Indians and Asians — much as the Americans had done, and different only in degree from what European powers were doing from India on east. Once a Great War started, it's quite possible for Draka to go too far and become the target of a powerful alliance demanding unconditional surrender. But until a grand alliance can be formed that essentially splits the world into two sides, that's not likely to happen, and if it does the side facing the Drakans must have the power and will to go after them. This doesn't happen at the end of the First Great War because of the carnage suffered by Britain and France in repelling Germany; Italy is too beaten up by Austria-Hungary, and Austria-Hungary and Russia are in a race to see who will collapse first. Only Britain and the United States have the will and power to face Draka at the end of the First Great War, and its my opinion that neither will. The United States is involved only through casus belli incidents by Germany in this timeline, has carefully restricted involvement to service in France against Germany, and would now like to go home. Britain has the biggest loss to Draka, but I've given them the behind-the-scenes consideration of captured British citizens held by the Drakans still to be repatriated. Until these hostages are returned, the British public wouldn't stand for a massacre if Draka decided that an invasion justified killing all the British held in Africa. Once they're returned, the will to go after Draka will have abated as the British want the troops to come home as well. Of course, I could be full of it. Let me know if there's something you think I overlooked.

Q: 1899: Isn't that the Taiping Dynasty (or are they the same thing)? [From Duane Oldson.]
A: This doesn't apply anymore either. I had made up the Ch'ing Dynasty, but I've decided to go with the OTL Qing instead. Why make up something when history does it for you?

Q: 1900–10: What's the source of the tension leading up to your Great War? No colonial fracas in Africa… [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Took this one from Ian Montgomerie, but I'll take a swing at it. Let's say that the lack of outlets in Africa pushed the competition to China, or trapped the late-comers (Germany, Italy) in Europe, so the pressure still needed a release. There was also a bit of currying favor with the Central American Republic, Republic of Grande Columbia and Brazil by various European powers, but the Caribbean and Latin American nations usually did this merely to show their opposition to American hegemony and take whatever they could get.

Q: 1923–29: I wonder, did the Draka repatriate all the Brits? Sofie's childhood nurse in MTG shows that the Draka weren't too squeamish about enserfing advanced/cultured people even during the WWI period, and I could easily see something like the US's '80s POW-MIA fixation arising, with novels about liberating "the three women at Mulatoo Plantation" and so on. [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Almost entirely. Serfdom on a rare individual basis, possibly. More than a few, and the British will want to form a crusade to wipe out the Domination. That wouldn't be good for the Domination, and for the price of a few Brits you avoid war. So, maybe one here and one there won't be missed, but no "he came walkin' down the line picking out one after the other, and that's the last we saw of 'em before we were liberated."

Q: 1933: Any provision in the amended Race Purity Laws for the 1–2% of the time when the hormonal contraceptives fail? What about when the actual parentage is uncertain (possibly either serf or Citizen- mandatory abortion)? [From Duane Oldson.]
A: Social disgrace and encouragement to be bi-sexual, but I can't think of anything legal at the moment. A bit late for forced vasectomy. I'm hoping the failure rate is a bit lower due to large-scale testing, but without knowing why they occur, I'd be only speculating. In any event, that's a problem that the Drakans do need to address. The "serf raped my wife" story gets old quickly.
On the second issue, early in the Domination's history it's easy to determine when the Citizens are all white and the serfs all black. My wife raised the possibility of a mixed-race serf trying to "pass" based on light skin; have to avoid tattooing and get into school with no family support, only chance I see is in a Citizen orphanage. I'm certain that the Domination's interest in genetics stems from trying to do serf/Citizen typing. If parentage is uncertain during pregnancy ("that was a wild night, wasn't it!"), any child of a serf mother is a serf, and any child of a Citizen mother is possibly a Citizen. Either do genetic testing on the fetus, or wait until birth and make the decision then. No need to throw away a potentially good serf before it's born.

Q: Could the Draka be organized on a limited caste system? [From Chris Snively.]
A: Well, they nearly are already. With the Janissaries, and the possibility of Metic Citizenship (not sure when that started, by the way), there are least 2 sub-classes with high privilege below the Citizens. Add the spectrum of serf assignments, including the Janissaries and the highly educated technical and administrative serfs all the way down to destructive labor camps, and there's a continuum there that's almost a caste system. Regulating the serfs through a created religion inspired by Hinduism makes the system even more hierarchical. I wouldn't expect there to be literal promotion into the Citizens for any born-serf, like S.M. Stirling did in "The Chosen," but a serf could go from a Combine crèche to almost anything open to a serf within their lifetime, depending on testable talents and attitude.

Q: Is Germany controlled by the Nazis or simply a more militarized Prussian society? (From Chris Snively, asked before the 1944–1948 section added.)
A: More militarized Prussians. No anti-Semitism (I'll probably call it anti-Zionism) at first, although there may be some after 1943 when things start to go bad in German Europe.
I may be accused of creating a faceless Nazi regime, but without pre-war anti-Semitism (which was an easy route to take for short-term gains, but with severe long-term repercussions), there is much less to fault the Militarists for until the European Peace. So, as long as you're willing to go along with the cheering masses, Germany is a relatively good place to be from the 1930s to 1943. Once the backstabbing begins over who gets to settle the conquered Russian territory, racism of an elitist sort just escalates.

Q: What kind of transportation network exists in Central Asia for the Draka to use? (From Chris Snively, asked before the 1944–1948 section added.)
A: Not much of one at first. One of the Domination's early priorities after acquiring new territory is to round up the local population and make them build a "proper" network of roads and railroads, mostly to be used as supply lines for the Domination's military forces. A historical note: Russia deliberately used a different railroad gauge than the rest of Europe to make it difficult for invaders to use the railroads for quick movement — I think the WWII Germans got around it by re-laying track or having massive transshipment rail yards. Anyway, you end up relying a lot on dirigibles to deliver supplies once you get out in the boonies of Asia. Makes the Trans-Siberian Railroad a VERY important thing.
Cutting the Trans-Siberian Railroad effectively turns Russia into a western heartland and a cut-off eastern province. Given that the Japanese and Russians don't have a clash in Mongolia in the 1930s as they did OTL, Japan is more encouraged to jump on eastern Siberia once the Draka have isolated it from Moscow.
But if you're asking about the China/Mongolia/Kazhakstan area, there isn't much to begin with. The Domination has to use a combination of off-road armored vehicles and dirigibles to advance their military, followed up by either road-building crews or (temporarily) more dirigibles. Of course it takes some time to build roads or railroads, but the Drakans have gotten very good at making the process efficient even with unskilled labor.

Q: Is the Draka technology on the same level as Britain or the US? Is it more advanced? If it is more advanced, why is it advanced? (From Chris Snively, asked before the 1944–1948 section added.)
A: About the same level, just oriented differently. The Domination cheats a bit by getting to see the military equipment of Germany, Italy and Russia in action during the Spanish Civil War. France isn't a major player there, nor any of the other powers. All the Drakans do there is observe, because everybody else would have been really upset if they tried to tip the balance. The Drakans are also willing to implement relatively advanced military doctrines a few years before everybody else. Since they are so aggressive militarily, but almost violently conservative in the rest of their society, the lack of respect for traditions has to go somewhere… There's also a significant self-criticism going on with the Technical Section always trying to improve things. As soon as troops complain about something, TechSec looks into it — usually making things more complicated, but always trying to provide more firepower (at any cost or weight).
I did go a bit overboard with the Drakan aircraft carriers though. Since they don't build their first one until the mid-1920s, they learn a lot from the Americans, and jump ahead in their next batch based on some theoretical studies. The twin-deck design is my own invention, not based on any known design. The closest thing that I've seen is the fictional Nibai, although what I'm thinking of would have a much more substantial "island". Drakan carriers have less below-decks space than others, as they don't intend to operate their carriers for extended periods or very far from their own territory. Therefore they have high sortie generation capability but low endurance and are very vulnerable if attacked during the brief turnaround (rearm, refuel, and reposition) interval.

Q: Why doesn't the US get involved in the Second Great War? (Based on Chris Snively.)
A: [Chris Snively's take on things first, I fixed some spelling errors.]
I could see the US continue to sell arms to Britain at a reduced rate with several International Divisions signing up with the Commonwealth Army. A Japanese attack on the Philippines would provoke a US response. The Japanese and US would fight several battles around the Philippines, with both sides taking heavy losses, but the US industrial machine starts to really get into gear.
As for the Domination grabbing China, I don't know how the Draka could control that many people. The Draka should be busy fighting the Russians and Germans. The US and Britain would go to the Pacific Rim promoting republics with US and Commonwealth military aid. China should be a strong centralized republic.
As the war continues in Europe, the German and Russian war machine begins to wear thin, as does public morale. I could see a European Defense Force keeping the Draka east of Vienna and west of Warsaw, but Russia would fall under the Draka boots.
[And now mine]
Japan goes out of its way not to attack the US, even with the Philippines right there in the way. Yamamoto (or his equivalent in this timeline) convinces the military hierarchy (which convinces the diplomats) that the US is too powerful to anger; after initial success against the Philippines and possibly Hawaii, the Americans would storm back across the Pacific and lay waste to Japan in a few years. It's better to keep them as trading partners until Japan controls its own sources of iron and oil; these are Manchuria and Borneo. This tightrope proves surprisingly easy to negotiate, as the US is even more isolationist than OTL, due to President Kennedy and rampant corruption.
There were American volunteers serving overseas in the Second Great War with the British and Chinese, like the OTL Flying Tigers (who were officially mercenaries), but their contribution is relatively minor, and downplayed by the US press. So is the trade with Japan, mostly items transshipped in the Philippines or Hawaii. What the US and Britain do with China and Japan after the war is still in the works. Looks like Japan will stay a Militarist-dominated imperium with only a slap on the wrist from the British, and China will try to develop a republic under the British aegis (with some US support).
I've kept Draka out of the important parts of China in this timeline (at least so far). There are a LOT of people there, a long distance from the rest of the Domination, and better zebra (a.k.a. fish to fry) closer in the other direction (Germany, Russia and Italy). But in the NEXT war…
The European portion of the Second Great War wasn't fought in Germany, but in the Balkans, Russia, Italy and Spain. With Germany coming off as the only force to ever kick the Drakans in the teeth or fight them on equal terms with mutual respect, almost all the peoples of Europe enter the European Peace under the thumb of one or the other. The notable exceptions are the Finns (with Germany), Italy (sad cases overall), Portugal (Britain's only continental ally) and Britain herself. The Russian war machine proved relatively easy to break, with faceless Socialist bureaucrats willing to send hordes of conscripts to die before the machine guns of the Drakans, or make sweeping changes to the military's equipment without thinking through the implications.

Q: When does the Alliance for Democracy form? (Based on Chris Snively again.)
A: [Chris Snively first, note this was done before 1944–1948 added, spelling errors fixed by me.]
1. Alliance for Democracy is formed by US, Britain, South America and Commonwealth.
2. Pacific War strategy: Alliance launches two-pronged offensive. Indian forces move through Burma and Thailand through Indochina into southern China. Second prong invades Philippines and Formosa. Bombers using Formosa as base start hammering Japan. Draka and Japan sign non-aggression pact. As Japanese forces are moved to Japan, Draka invades Siberia and Northern China. US uses atomic weapon on Hiroshima, Japanese surrender.
3. After the war, Draka are left with pacification of northern China and Siberia since Japanese forces leave large amounts of equipment behind.
4. Europe stabilizes somewhat, with Alliance promising to leave Pact alone since Draka are around.
[The timeline author strikes back, some of this written before the 1944–1948 section added.]
1. The major players in the Alliance start coming together around 1943 to express concern over the situation in Europe, but the US is still hanging back. South America is still divided, with the Central American Republic and Republic of Grand Columbia rather anti-American as a matter of principle. The others, with the exception of Brazil, don't see anything to be worried about yet. South America will try to stay neutral as long as possible. It would take some military action in the Americas before they fall in with the U.S.; they've tried to form a counterweight to the U.S. hegemony over the Caribbean and Central America, so they tend to disagree with anything the U.S. wants. As for the Commonwealth, Britain still dictates to Canada and Australia, but has to walk on eggshells with India. Britain will drag along the Commonwealth regardless, with some "only defensive" whining from India. The Alliance, such as it is in this alternate timeline, doesn't form until the fall of Italy and amalgamation of Germany and the Domination. But if Britain falls or a renewed war starts after the European Peace, a Grand Alliance is certainly possible. The name "Alliance for Democracy" would only be if the U.S. is leading it, "Grand Alliance" if Britain or somebody else.
2. The British bear the entire burden in the Pacific against the Japanese. They use a port-hopping strategy, cutting off the Japanese armies from the sea, while the naval and air forces strangle the IJN and merchant shipping. The drawbacks are the left-behind Japanese armies, and the lack of American industrial support; the British eventually convince the US to stop sending Japan oil and steel by threatening to unleash unrestricted submarine warfare (sound familiar?), but are unable to swing them to support Britain instead. So the Philippines aren't necessary until Japan attacks the U.S. — something they've avoided doing only because Japan gets more from trade with the mainland U.S. than they gain from conquering a bunch of islands in the Pacific. Once Japan runs out of targets in the vicinity, the Philippines would certainly be one of their first targets. The rest is reasonable, though it turns out to be Britain beating on Japan with the ANZACs & RN doing most of the dirty work. BTW, Siam became Thailand in OTL 1949; they collaborated with the Japanese in WWII, which doesn't happen in this timeline due to Japanese arrogance in failing to appeal to the only non-colonial state in the region.
3. Umm… nah. I don't think the Japanese were known for leaving things behind. The Japanese don't have large amounts of equipment in the first place (how many Japanese tanks did you ever see in war movies?), and except for buildings don't leave much behind when they go. They weren't really a heavy armored force, and no Japanese soldier would leave his rifle (or officer his sword) behind for the Chinese. The Japanese get pushed out of eastern Siberia by the Canadians, and Indo-China by the Australians, and overall gain only a portion of northern China and Siberia. The Siberians will cause trouble for both the Drakans and Japanese once Russia is divided; both will heavily guard the Trans-Siberian Railroad, but then have differences. The Drakans will treat it as a gigantic hunting preserve if they can, but the Japanese will want to exploit the natural resources.
4. Pact fell apart when Germany made peace with Domination, Italy made peace to avoid being gobbled up (after losing Albania several times, Sicily, Sardinia, and the Trieste area), Russia was too involved and got turned on by Germany. But Greater Germany now pulls Finland and Italy into its orbit, especially now that the only other minor countries left on the continent are Portugal (British ally) and Switzerland (Draka will save them for last if possible). Aside from various governments-in-exile in London, there's not much hope for Britain liberating France and the other countries grabbed by Germany. Maybe if the U.S. allied, or the Domination had a falling out with Germany, then Britain might go back in.

Q: What about guided missiles like the V-1 and V-2? Are any developed and used during the war? (That Chris Snively again.)
A: Good question! As far as I know, no. Germany cuts off advanced research in 1943, to concentrate on pacifying their conquests and enjoying the European Peace. As the Battle of Britain was such a long-running seesaw, but there was no strategic bombing campaign against Germany, the Militarists saw no need to go for long-range guided missiles. The Luftwaffe has enough trouble developing anti-shipping techniques and TV-guided anti-ship missiles launched from bombers. The first steps towards those are the German glide bombs used against the RN and the Russian Far Northern Fleet, but things don't get much further before 1943. During the European Peace, the problem of manned bombers to England in the next war is addressed by proposing better glide bombs launched at standoff range by Luftwaffe bombers. A ground-launched version with a rocket booster (similar to the V-1) is also proposed. But neither concept goes anywhere for lack of funds.
The Drakans are under no such restrictions, nor are the British. In fact, if ANYONE develops a long-range guided missile during the Second Great War, it would be the British!

Q: 1947: Amalgamate? Close allies on the US/UK model I can see, but fusing two nations of vastly different cultural mores, social values, history and language is something rather again! Look what happens to the Draka when a Master-Race contingent nearly the size of their native Citizen population gets thrown into the mix — do they even survive as a people? Is what they value what the 'New Citizenry' will value (massive religious/philosophical divide among the civilian populations, if not the leaderships)? Are they imposing/grafting their system onto Germany, or vice-versa? Are they in a situation so desperate that such an extreme solution is worth contemplation (I think not — for both the Domination and Germany after the European Peace in your TL)? Helping a friendly and ideologically similar government get its hands back on the reins of power is one thing, surrendering your existence as a people and a nation-state (for either) is another. [From Duane Oldson when the timeline had an announced amalgamation.]
A: Vast differences to be sure. But I think the two systems would converge if history goes on linearly. Another possibility (though unacceptable to both parties by racial standards) would be the Japanese with their zaibatsu (Combine-equivalents). While the Chancellor might have personal feelings, the real decision-maker is the proof that the Domination has atomic weapons. Since the Reich doesn't, is geared towards counter-partisan efforts, and is partially de-mobilized to enjoy the European Peace, there are two choices: join the Domination peacefully or after being atom-bombed. The footage from the Sahara tests is rather graphic; the Drakans staked serfs at various ranges and with different types of protection, many of which didn't work. In this case, secrecy by the British and US works against them, as Germany might have been swayed to go with them instead. But you've given me an idea…

Q: 1948: And with the amalgamation, there goes Germany's industrial production as the laborers head for the hills, both proverbially and literally. You're right though — that would be the greatest socio-political shock to the European-influenced world since the French Revolution and its aftermath. [From Duane Oldson when the timeline had an announced amalgamation.]
A: The effects in the rest of German Europe are minimal, since practically all the Germans elsewhere are in the upper groups, and many non-Germans were being subjugated already. The revolts and protests are most damaging in Greater Germany itself, as those on the "serf" side take to the streets or commit sabotage. If ANY of this happened, there would have to be massive preparation by the ruling echelons in stockpiling fuel, ammunition and spare parts under direct military control. Heading for the hills in February is a long-term loser for anyone, as the farmers are the people to worry about next. There's a good possibility this is all for naught though - see previous item.

 

[to Home Page]
[top of this page]
[up: Draka 2α timeline home]

What's New

[to Sitemap]

Site Navigation

Counter says: [a number only available as graphics] hits on this page since initialization.
By Peter Karsanow.
The Draka characters and situations are copyright © S.M. Stirling and may not be used or reproduced commercially without permission. No profit is being made from the stories/documents/files found on this website.
The Home page has overall site and copyright information.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1