Return Engagement: Settling Accounts Trilogy

[Underboss_3]

Ok, I may be late to the party on this one, but I just saw the cover art for the new Harry Turtledove book dealing with the USA/CSA storyline. I know he can be a crappy alternate historian (ie: staying too closely tied to the timeline of real life), but I did enjoy his Great War /American Empire sets, and can't wait until August to read the begining of this new trilogy. What does everyone expect from it? I mean, obviously, the first book will have a CSA blitzkreig through places like Sequoyah {spl} and West Virginig and that other chunk of Virginia that the US kept after the great war. What else do you see happening? What are your expectations?

[Kuralyov]

Well, given the ending of Victorious Opposition, widespread gas warfare is a given, and may be interesting if either side develops missiles (I'm reminded of the scenes from the Worldwar series, where the Germans use V2s with nerve gas).

[David Howery]

I think the US will be expecting gas attacks and trench warfare, but the CS is going to shock them majorly with the new style of mobile warfare, rendering both obsolete. The conversation between Dowell and Morrell make it clear that the CSA is probably going to launch a major attack way to the west of where everybody is expecting the major push... the US seems to think that all the fighting is going to happen between Richmond and Philadelphia, but I'm guessing that there will be a major push up through the midwest. Keeping in line with HT's tendency for historical parallels, I'm thinking that there will be three CS army groups... one will attack towards Philadelphia and not quite reach it, one will go up through the midwest, and one will go into CA. I'm thinking there will be counterparts to Leningrad (LA), Stalingrad (Des Moines), and Kursk (somewhere in IL?). Morrell will be Patton without the latter's idiosyncracies, Forrest III will be Rommel, etc....

[Arch-Angel]

I would actually pick Potter to be Rommel since he has no love for Featherston and has already attempted an assassination.

[Underboss_3]

Since Turtledove hasn't changed much of the timeline thus far, does anyone think that he would give us the ultimate switch and have the series end with the bad guys (IE Featherston and his Fascists) win the war? Just a thought I had.

[David Howery]

doubtful.. it's pretty obvious that Featherston is overreaching when he takes on the US, and his own people are telling him that. Remember all the discussion about "we better win fast or we'll lose slow"? Like Russia/Germany, I imagine the CSA will kick butt at first, mainly due to the new tactics and machines, but the US will use time and space to recover and then push them back....

[Peter Cowan]

I'm not so sure that the Nazi Germany - Russia analogy is correct in this case. While Featherstone's CSA is a direct parallel, the USA is in no way similar to the USSR. For this, and a few other reasons, I would speculate that a rerun of the 41-45 Eastern Front is unlikely.

The USA is a fractured society with a divisive Labour - Capital struggle - more like France 1940. Its political leadership has been weak even to the extent of caving in to some of the CSA's demand. Even after a surprise attack by the CSA, I can't see the Democrats wholeheartedly supporting the Socialists. Again, I see a parallel with 'defeatist' parties in France.

It is too easy to assume that because OTL America was an industrial powerhouse, the USA here will be the same. It may have the potential but remember here the Depression was not moderated by 'New Deal' politics. Also, the USA hasn't had the two years of 1939-41 to begin an increase in military related industry. Also, in OTL, the USA was an invulnerable base area. Attacks on its own territory may degrade capacity significantly. Also, unlike OTL is doesn't have the resources of the areas now ruled by the CSA.

That leads me to the next big difference. Oil. As far as I can tell almost all the oil produced in North America at that time was in Texas-Oklahoma (Sequoyah). This is either now (or assumed soon to be) in CSA hands. As an aside President Smith should be impeached for letting Houston go. The other major oil sources in the world are a) overseas or b) in unfriendly hands or both. The USA's overseas trade is vulnerable to CSA, Japanese and British intereference.

On the military front, the USA is woefully under prepared. As remarked by both Morrel and Dowling it is preparing to refight the last war. Even Morrel's new tanks (barrels) are a state of the art design from the 1920s. I certainly doubt that they have evolved a useful doctrine for them. Gas may be an impediment but I suspect as in our WW2, it is unlikely to be used. Again, Morrel and Dowling's distaste of it is made obvious and I feel they reflect a majority opinion. Quite aside from which gas is only useful against an unprepared enemy, preferably one that can't retaliate. Also, in a defensive war, the gas will have a serious negative impact on the local civilian population. Killing ones own civilians is not generally considered a good thing.

The other problem with the USA is its obsession with a large navy - understandable after the wars (WW1 and the Pacific War). Unfortunately it is a battleship navy at a time when these monsters are about to be consigned to oblivion. Its bases are vulnerable to blockade and it has a major liability in Bermuda. (Anyone care to guess this is going to be the Malta of these books?)

The Home Front - as I have said, the USA is divided on class lines. The CSA is much more united and will remain so, as long as it keeps winning. Even then, major unrest is not certain. Most opponents are either dead or in work camps. The USA also has the problems of Canada and Utah. One needing to be occupied, the other a major potential headache.

One other "problem" is that the USA is a democracy. Democracies react badly to losing - even Churchill was nearly voted out of office in 1942. President Smith appears to be no Churchill. I can't see him rallying people after a few disasters.

The main thing the USA has is space. Unfortunately that may not be enough. The main industrial areas of the mid west are (especially with the border now on the Ohio river) within striking range of CSA armies and air forces. Louisville-Chicago is approximately 250 miles as the bomber flies. Whether or not the CSA has a strategic bombing capacity is not clear from what has been in the books so far. I am also assuming that as with everything else the CSA will have an advantage in the air.

So, anyone for a blitzkrieg followed by a "Vichy" USA ?

[David Howery]

nope; I'm not betting on the Eastern Front counterpart because of the situation on the ground... I'm thinking that's what it'll be because that's what Turtledove is most likely to write (he has a thing about rewriting the EF..). A lot of your points are valid, but pretty much irrelevant. Did you note that the war started on June 22, '41? :)

[Justin Green]

Though it might not be a total parallel, I think Chicago will be analogous to Stalingrad. Cold winters, Strategic posistion. One Hell of a fight instore.

[Peter Cowan]

David, you are, regrettably, probably right in how the story is planned. It may be heresy but I think the 'Master of Alternate History' has become a bit lazy fitting stories around well known historical events.

However, I am currently re-reading Great War: American Front and there is one tiny scene that may suggest a different future.

Reggie Bartlett (the 'good' confederate killed by Freedom party thugs) is drinking in a Richmond hotel and it is clear that one of his companions, a British naval officer totally disapproves of the way some of his country's allies treat their underclass. (Yes, pot and kettle spring to mind).

After the officer leaves there is a short conversation in which one (nameless) character remarks that if the CSA ever does anything to make the UK and France like them less than the USA, then the CSA is doomed.

I just wonder if Featherstone's endlosung could be that anything.

OK, probably extremely far-fetched but it would have the benefit of being unpredictable

[David Howery]

even if he does replay the EF, there still could be some neat stuff in these books.... the siege of LA (Leningrad), the failure to capture Philadelphia (Moscow), the drive to Des Moines (Stalingrad), carrier battles against the British in the Atlantic (the Brits stand in for the Japanese here)..... HT could still depict a lot of interesting things even in the context of retelling the EF in America....

[stick]

How can anyone say that the CSA is more united that USA? After all the CSA has basically declared war on 30% (or more) of its own population. What % of CSA military capability will be tied down in repression at home?

[Faeelin]

The USA is a fractured society with a divisive Labour - Capital struggle - more like France 1940. Its political leadership has been weak even to the extent of caving in to some of the CSA's demand. Even after a surprise attack by the CSA, I can't see the Democrats wholeheartedly supporting the Socialists. Again, I see a parallel with 'defeatist' parties in France.


Why the devil not? This an unprovoked attack.

It is too easy to assume that because OTL America was an industrial powerhouse, the USA here will be the same. It may have the potential but remember here the Depression was not moderated by 'New Deal' politics.


You had socialists in office. What do you mean it wasn't moderated?

Also, the USA hasn't had the two years of 1939-41 to begin an increase in military related industry. Also, in OTL, the USA was an invulnerable base area. Attacks on its own territory may degrade capacity significantly. Also, unlike OTL is doesn't have the resources of the areas now ruled by the CSA


Which made up like 20% of our GDP. And in any case, the US has been fighting a war with Japan.

That leads me to the next big difference. Oil. As far as I can tell almost all the oil produced in North America at that time was in Texas-Oklahoma (Sequoyah). This is either now (or assumed soon to be) in CSA hands. As an aside President Smith should be impeached for letting Houston go. The other major oil sources in the world are a) overseas or b) in unfriendly hands or both. The USA's overseas trade is vulnerable to CSA, Japanese and British intereference.


Califorina has some oil, actually, as does Canada.

On the military front, the USA is woefully under prepared. As remarked by both Morrel and Dowling it is preparing to refight the last war. Even Morrel's new tanks (barrels) are a state of the art design from the 1920s. I certainly doubt that they have evolved a useful doctrine for them.

I seem to remember the US using lots of tanks, and lots of planes to break enemy lines.

The other problem with the USA is its obsession with a large navy - understandable after the wars (WW1 and the Pacific War). Unfortunately it is a battleship navy at a time when these monsters are about to be consigned to oblivion. Its bases are vulnerable to blockade and it has a major liability in Bermuda. (Anyone care to guess this is going to be the Malta of these books?)

Everyone's navy is battleship; and the US wouldn't be obsessed with a large navy in TTL.

The Home Front - as I have said, the USA is divided on class lines. The CSA is much more united and will remain so, as long as it keeps winning. Even then, major unrest is not certain. Most opponents are either dead or in work camps. The USA also has the problems of Canada and Utah. One needing to be occupied, the other a major potential headache.

US isn't really divided; they just have a socialist party. Big woop.

And in my scenario, setting up camps for blacks is a bad idea.

One other "problem" is that the USA is a democracy. Democracies react badly to losing - even Churchill was nearly voted out of office in 1942. President Smith appears to be no Churchill. I can't see him rallying people after a few disasters.

So? Churchill is not the president of GB; he's the prime minister, huge difference. No one thought about giving up.

The main thing the USA has is space. Unfortunately that may not be enough. The main industrial areas of the mid west are (especially with the border now on the Ohio river) within striking range of CSA armies and air forces. Louisville-Chicago is approximately 250 miles as the bomber flies. Whether or not the CSA has a strategic bombing capacity is not clear from what has been in the books so far. I am also assuming that as with everything else the CSA will have an advantage in the air.

Let's hear it for authorial fiat, making an idiotic scenario work!

So, anyone for a blitzkrieg followed by a "Vichy" USA ?

Actually it makes sense, but if so, will prove he can't right.

[Psychomeltdown]

What about the pilot guy, was it Moss? Seems like a bit of attention was shined on him as he came out of retirement and began flying for the army again. Maybe the US will be able to halt the CSA advance with aircraft instead of the army.

Did they ever build those dams in Washington? Seattlle was a big manufacturer of aluminuim for aircraft in OTL. If they didn't then I guess they're screwed.

I remember Ross wishing that he could drop a huge bomb on Canada after his family was killed. Does it mean that he's gonna drop the Big One? They didn't really talk about how big the US Army airforce was, but I'm guessing its going to be a suprise for the CSA.

The west and the east will smash the CSA in the middle and then keep pushing them back to their lands. where they'll probably fight for every house, every lane, but here comes the new bomb and pow there goes Richmond.

[David Howery]

I seriously doubt HT is going to have the US lose the war... who'd want to read such a depressing trilogy? Unlike France, there'd be nobody to come to our rescue. Yeah, sure, we have Germany as an ally, but just where would they build up their forces over here? They'd have to invade straight out of Europe; that's a long ways to sail assault craft...
The US navy does have lots of battleships, but it also has 4 or 5 carriers... they were fighting a carrier with Japan, remember? If Japan doesn't enter this war, I think the US will be fighting Brit carriers in the Atlantic (imagine Midway and Leyte Gulf fought in the Atlantic.. Azores? Iceland? this would be way cool). I would imagine that the US, Japan, and Britain each have quite a few carriers...
The US just created the Custer tank... from the sounds of it, it is going to have the same role as the T-34....
I think the CSA will fail to take Philadelphia for the same reason the Germans failed to take Moscow.... Featherston will send the bulk of the armor away from the Philadelphia front to make a pincer movement out in the midwest and trap a bunch of US troops ala Kiev. Later, when the armor is sent back, the US will have fortified the Philadelphia front too much for the CSA to penetrate.

[Raymann]

The big question I'm thinking of is Europe, Turtledove dosen't talk much about it and although his focus is on the US, one way or another the war is going to end in one thearter and renforcments are going to be sent to help the other unless the defeated side capitulates at once.

Some specific questions I have are the nature of the European navies. Is Germany going to be bottled up and will Britian and France be able to challenge America in the North Atlantic?

And then of course there is Japan. What incentive is there for them to fight the allies? They can sit in East Asia by themselves and do whatever they want while everyone else is busy.

As for the oil, American needs at the time were a fraction of what they are now and even without the South I believe we can supply ourselves with the fields in Pennsuvania, Indiana, Ohio and Canada; possiably with the help of rationing.

Finally I think space will eventually work out in America's favor. If the CSA attacks the west and midwest initionally it would take a large occupation army to hold it. I think Turtledove portrayed the South so resemble Nazi's, not be them so we won't have the wholesale slaughter of people in the North (except blacks of course). I think it would be like France OTL but on a much larger scale and with a greater resistance.

[David Howery]

Well, whatever problems the USA has, the CSA has more; less industrialization, less resources, fewer men, and a navy that doesn't begin to compare. So, if HT wants to rewrite the Eastern Front in America, he can certainly do so... it'll just be on a LOT smaller scale. The books don't say anything about Germany having any carriers.. probably a battleship only fleet... they aren't going to break out into the Atlantic in the face of Britain's carriers. Perhaps Germany will be playing the French role in this ATL war... the overconfident victor of the last war who has failed to grasp the potential of the new tanks and airplanes. Maybe Germany will fall to France/UK, and the US will have to come to her rescue... although, there's no good place for the US to build up it's forces in Europe (Russia?).

[Justin Green]

I always thought that the series after the war would have made more sense if the US and Germany had a falling outs and this led to a cold war. Then by the late 30's France, and Great Britain swing into America's orbit while the Germans, Confedederates, and Japanese(the Masters of China and Southeast asia0 ally against them.

[Michael E Johnson]

----I always thought that the series after the war would have made more sense if the US and Germany had a falling outs and this led to a cold war. Then by the late 30's France, and Great Britain swing into America's orbit while the Germans, Confedederates, and Japanese(the Masters of China and Southeast asia0 ally against them.----

This wouldnt have been much of an atl. HT's purpose here apparently was to flip the roles of OTL WW2 by making GB and France ( and maybe Russia) be the fascists and the aggressors and Germany being the menaced nation.In this atl the US has a deep-seated rift with GB and France over their original diplomatic support for the CSA which was a major reason it acheived independence. The US actually fought GB in Canada in the 2nd Mexican War and in Canada,the Pacific and Atlantic during WWI. The US and Germany are natural allies in this atl ( as are the CSA,GB and France) and I think its really interesting how HT demonstrates that given the right conditions Britons,French and former Americans could be numbered among histories greatest villians rather than the Germans as per OTL.

[David Howery]

I think for about the third time in the 2 years I've been on this board, I agree with something Michael said :eek:
It's hard to imagine Britain and France allying with the US, when the US was one of the instruments in her defeat in the great war. As for France, she was beaten by the US's ally Germany. I have no problem at all seeing the three defeated nations becoming the counterparts of the Nazis and Fascists... not because they are prone to it any more than anyone else, just because they went through the same horrid economic meltdown that Germany did in OTL. In times of sheer desperation like that, people will turn to anyone who promises better times.. and then seems to deliver on it...

[Grimm Reaper]

Hard to predict since Turtledove refuses to give us some idea of what actual force strengths are in the USA and CSA, let alone elsewhere. However, I will take a stab at it.

The US suffers heavy losses and wins the war, but is more militant, possibly with the army no longer willing to let politicians have the final say(much like Germany in WWI).

Japan, desiring colonies and Russian territory enters as an ally of the USA, probably at some disastrous moment for the CSA and its partners. The rapid loss of the British Empire east of India, the revolt of Australia when London sends no aid, and the two-front war for Russia proves decisive.

Germany decides the war when Herr Doktor Einstein and other of the young Kaiser's most respected scientists develop a new weapon...heh heh.

The CSA is utterly destroyed and absorbed back into the US. The blacks would certainly prefer it and something like 20% of the whites were voting for it in the 1920s. Now the Confederate Party is bitter and sees no hope of restoring the CSA in the face of a '1945' style defeat and everyone is insisting they never REALLY liked that Featherstone. Faced with a multiple partition as the sole alternative, Reconstruction begins in 1946.

[The Gunslinger]

Well, about the oil. Alberta has a lot of oil... But it doesn't seem like anyone's developed it yet in this series. And even of they did develop it, we'd probobly just blow it up anyways. But I got thinking about Vichy France, and maybe sort of a Vichy Utah with the Mormons or something... Just my thoughts.

[Trotsky]

Yes, the Mormons would make a good miniature ally in this war, kinda like a I.S. of Croatia or a state similar to Vichy France.

[Peter Cowan]

A few more comments, having read some of the recent posts.

Firstly, HT is writing the book, so what he says goes, in which case a rerun of the Eastern Front of WW2 is most likely.

It is true that we don't have any details as to force compositions, numbers and so forth. Nor do we know much about relative industrial capacity. in this case, much of what I have to say is by inference.

Oil - I am aware that Texas-Oklahoma was not the only source of oil in the USA;just that by comparison these were by far the largest. Oilfields in Pennsylvania and Indiana are likely to be vulnerable to CSA forces. I think the main exploitation of the Canadian fields came post 1945 in OTL. Assuming earlier development, they could be vulnerable to Canadian sabotage.
I still think a lack of oil could be a problem for the US. I am also assuming that CSA offensives into Sequoyah and from Texas would serve to place their oilfileds out of US range.

Society splits. The US is not a united nation - there is a strong divide between Socialists and Democrats (or Labour and Capital). There also appears to be a strongly pacifist element in the US. Flora Blackford (Hamburger) exemplifies this, although oddly she is one of the more anti-CSA characters. It is rather akin to European pacifist parties in the 1930s- war was so terrible that its use should never be considered again. Laudable but it does pressupose goodwill on all parts. However, I do take the point that an unprovoked CSA attack may override this and bring the parties together.

So far the CSA goes, Featherstone has pretty well united the white and hispanic population behind him - opposition from that quarter seems to be muted and limited to old style southern aristocracy. I expect this to be as futile as similar oppostion to Hitler. There is, of course, the persecution of the coloured population. I doubt that this will seriously degrade the CSA's ability. Both the Nazis and USSR managed to exercise power no matter how bad the situation. Also the CSA has the reality of the revolution in 1915-16, the CSA version of the 'stab in the back' and Featherstone won't let this happen again. Where it may backfire is in the attitude of his major allies, France and the UK have large colonial empires and also large numbers of colonial troops. Mind you, the US/UK stayed allied to the USSR in WW2 and Stalin was equally as brutal.

There are some other thoughts that I have had or that reading other posts have raised.

Japan. This is an enigma. All that we know is:
it has fought an inconclusive war with the US
it is involved in China probably more successfully than in OTL
it has control of the Philipines (since before WW1)
it has effective control over the Dutch East Indies and French Indo-China

This gives it extensive control over commodities such as oil and rubber but probably not enough for export purposes. I suspect it would be happiest staying out, contenting itself with any easy pickings. Unlike OTL, it hasn't had to contend with a US-UK inspired naval treaty which appeared to hamstring it (and other minor naval powers), nor with any western opposition to its role in China. I see no reason why it should involve itself in an American & European struggle now. Much better to let the foreign devils gut themselves. There may be, from the UK point of a view, a negative effect in keeping Indian and Australasian forces where they are.

Europe - happily involved in its own little maelstrom will play little part in this war. The exception being the navies, the RN in particular. I would imagine, as with the Axis powers in OTL, some surreptitious and then flagrant breaking of the peace treaties would occur. As to the fleets, I suspect more of a cruiser-carrier fleet - again an assumption, that the defeated parties learn more than the victors and have to work around treaty limitations.
UK assistance to a Canadian revolt may also occur but this will be difficult to arrange to anywhere other than the Atlantic provinces.
Other than that, we know little about events in Europe. I'm guessing the Germans will lose.

Industrial capacity.
We have become so used to the US being an industrial superpower that there is a tendency to assume the same in the books. I suspect the gap between CSA and USA may be less at this point. OTL comparisons are not strictly valid.
Firstly, a lot of OTL industrial capacity was funded in the late 1800's from the UK. In this timeline, I suspect that most of that investment went to the CSA and S America. This would not prevent the USA developing its industry but may have slowed it. Maybe it would have had no real effect.

More to the point of thie next books, US industry was badly hit by the depression. Even as late as the late 1930's people were losing their jobs due to the slump. In OTL, New Deal and, more importantly, rearmanent first in Europe then in the US itself was a major cause in an industrial pickup. In this timeline, any Franco-British rearmanent is going to stay homegrown or be sent to allies. Similarly, the rush of orders that occured in OTL 1939 isn't going to happen, Again, conjecture, but I don't think President Smith psuhed through an increase in defence spending in his first term. His predecessors were even less disposed to spend any goverment money (or taxpayers money if you prefer). Incidentally, I liked the point raised about whether or not the Hoover Dam project went ahead.

Conversely, Featherstone did institute a major industrialisation progamme in the CSA; a CSA that probably had a larger industrial base than that of OTL. Whether this would be sustainable in a wartime economy is another matter.

Regarding industrial capacity - a lot of US industry is within striking distance of the US/CSA border - as I said the straight line distance from Louisville to Chicago is about 250 miles. If a wide envelopment is planned, then the distance is much longer but still achievable. Virginia to Pennsylvania is a bit less but less vulnerable as the border is more heavily fortified - this, I presume is where the US expects the CSA to attack as that was the main CSA attack in 1914.
The option used by OTL USSR was relocation to a secure area. I cannot see this being done by the US; partly because Stalin was able to enforce compulsory movement, an option not open to the US, partly because the relocation in the USSR was a fall back trading space for time. The US hasn't that much North-South space. Lateral routes East-West are vulnerable to the CSA, the Mormons and to Canadian insurrection.

An area not yet touched upon is military leadership. Morrell appears to be a competent officer with a grasp of modern warfare. His low rank within the US hierarchy shows how much of a necessity that is for the US army. He would appear to be a De Gaulle type figure. Dowling, the aide to Custer in WW1, resembles Gamelin (aide to Joffre) or Weygand (aide to Foch), an able administrator and strategist but probably not capable of reacting to a fast moving situation. I suspect his fellow army commanders to be similar - Certainly, US leadership in WW1 was hardly inspired and it seems to be that generation in charge, especially as most real talent would more than likely gone into business post war.

Finally the A-Bomb
The physics side was probably on a par with OTL. However, I doubt any one of the powers is in a position to make one in this timeline. It was a major scientific and engineering undertaking involving resources from more than one country - Where in OTL all this expertise was concentrated in the USA, here it would be scattered. I think we can leave nuclear flame over Richmond to the next war in the series

[David Howery]

I wonder about the populations involved here.... the USA in this ATL is significantly smaller than the USSR.. OTOH, the CSA is a heck of a lot smaller than Germany too. The CSA might put together 3 army groups, but they are going to be nowhere near as large as Germany's in OTL... reduce the number of divisions involved by a factor of 10, I'd guess... I know Germany had hundreds of divisions in Russia, plus allied contingents as well. The CSA would be lucky to scrape together 100 divisions, and have no allies to put troops on the line....

[Psychomeltdown]

wonder about the populations involved here.... the USA in this ATL is significantly smaller than the USSR.. OTOH, the CSA is a heck of a lot smaller than Germany too.

Didn't it say that in the first book that the US has about the same population of Germany and that the CSA and Canada had the same pop of France or was it that they has the same ratio of people. Considering that the CSA lost about the same amount of men as the US (1 million dead) in the Great War, plus the lost of Canada, and the fact that they're putting to death about a third of their population, they're really going to have a hard time getting together much of an army.

The dead rates and casaulties suffered during the Great War was a lot less than in OTL, actually more for the Americas, but less in Europe. The War only lasted three years from beginning to end. The war itself was still fierce, but factoring in that the French didn't fight for another bloody year and that war weariness and demoralization set in earler, that meant they had a lot more men saved than in OTL, rather than the 1.4 million they lost.

There could be a higher population in europe and a slightly lower one in North America. The Canadians basically battled it to the last man, I'd think they'd probably suffer what the French did after WWI. there'd still be a few terrorists and rebels fighting agains the US, but the bulk of the population would probably be content not to let their sons get slaughtered again.

Plus I'd think that the Japanese would pounce on the US, Sure they're busy in China and SE Asia, but with the inconclusive last war, they'd be more confident that they could defeat the US on the oceans, especially with most of the US ships tied up fighting the British in the Atlantic. I'd see the Japanese taking Hawaii and all the US pacific positions, and then raiding the west coast. The US would be just too much of a juicy target to not join in on attacking it. It's battling for its life agianst the CSA, it's shipping is being shot down by the British, the Canadians and Mormons rebelling, the country basically torn in half. It seems like the best bet.

Would Mexico join the CSA in battling the US. The CSA seems to have good relations with Mexico, i'm sure they'd manage to ship thier troops through the CSA and open another front in the US, possilby in southern California. I can just imagine LA in ruins while Mexican and Japanese forces battle it out against determined US forces.

[Grimm Reaper]

Assuming similar populations, the US would have had @110 million people in 1940, with Canada and the CSA having a combined population of less than 40 million. Of course one of Turtledove's great blunders was the assumption that the US still gutted immigration, since the South was the great opponent of immigration. The US could easily have another 20 million ESPECIALLY given the need to settle Canada after WWI ended.

No need to repeat just how stupid it was to pretend WWI in the Pacific just died away. I guess Turtledove thought Germany was glad to lose its possessions there? Ditto the massive guerilla activity. What a joke! Between blacks in the CSA and all the colonies of England and France I can just see that being encouraged by London, Paris, or Richmond. Likewise such activity in Poland, given the choice between Kaiser and Tsar finding one Pole in a hundred for Russia would take effort. And the election of Herbert Hoover? HAH!

The US may not have lost the UK investment as the Brits still want the profits. Further, US armaments and transport(trains) would have boomed in this world and it isn't hard to see Englishmen seeking a cut of the inevitable profits. Remember, Germany's largest trading partner in 1914 AND 1939 was France.

I would really like to know about any other territorial changes in the world. I can imagine Sierra Leone given to Liberia, British and French Somalia to Ethiopia, maybe all of Yucatan to Guatamala.

Oh, and with racism on the rise in so many places, I guess Herr Doktors Einstein, Bohrs, Szilard, etc. just stayed home in Germany and Austria?

Heh heh heh heh heh...

The good news is that the Pacific will be genuinely peaceful. After Japan joins the US and Germany, the Brits and Aussies will be down real fast.

[Justin Green]

The fact of the matter is that this World war more resembles OTL WW2. Two Powers have been left supreme in the World (Okay Japan is a definatly a Power probably on par with France compared to the US in the OTL Cold War). With Germany victorious in WW1 their is NO WAY IN HELL THEY WILL LOSE WITHOUT AT LEAST AMERICA AGAINST THEM. The Germans are going to Rule most of Europe. There going to have 20 years to consolidate their hold and to develope most of europe to their needs. They could easily rape the combined forces of the Brits, French, Russians, and Italians. The war is going to be fake. Germany cant lose against Just the other europeans, dont you understand. It would be on par with all of the America's going to war with the US. Sure we would lose quite a few guys but we still would win, the only thing lengthing the war would be occuping land. You might think that the Brits and French would have a hard time allying with the US. Think again. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. To the French and English the Germans our the main enemy. The Germans our the ones who annex parts of france and took colonies in Africa. The Germans are the ones who the French and english fought most. The Brits wouldnt have that hard a time allying with the Americans. For one thing America would not be as hard as Turtledove suggests. Also we should share culture, history, and our political climate would be more alike with a powerful socialist party in the US. Also the British had A LOT of trade with the US. I dont think they would have any problem telling the Confeds to screw themselves.

The Confeds have the same problem as the Europeans do. To defeat America they have to have the other Superpower on their side. That means German as well as possibly Japan.

I know Turtledove wants make the Brits, French, and Southerns to be the bad guys but I think he is doing a shoddy job of it. It just doesnt make sense.

[Grey Wolf]

Well, for me the major drawback is that Turtledove wants as close to OTL WW2 as he can get - ignoring a lot of probable political realities and the fact that countries change alliances over decades, he wants a revival of the CSA-UK-France-Russia alliance against a USA-Germany-Japan one. The major difference of course is the different position of the USA in this war, and as stated that effect is going to be massive...but probably under-stated by Turtledove

For me, France is a problem. By what right does Charles XI demand a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine ??? These provinces have been German for 70 years, he can't just assume that the idea of a plebiscite has any legitimacy and it ought to be laughed out of court. The fact that the Kaiser is ailing should not matter massively - the Supreme Command, and the Crown Prince should be able to take over a degree of policy. Even with a SPD government (and Turtledove never says who is in power there) it should not be the serious disadvantage to German foreign policy that it appears to be.

Why is Poland not a happy-enough German ally ? The Poles surely do not want to go back to Russian rule, and the fact that Poland reborn owes its life to the Germans should indicate that that way lies a better future.

Grey Wolf

[David Howery]

well, Britain could concievably ally with the US for the reasons given, but I don't think HT is going to do that... I think he'll keep the alliances the same. I think Germany is in for a rough time of it.... unlike OTL, they won the Great War, so they don't have the incentive to improve their tactics and machines. Germany will be playing out the old saying about how victors don't improve because they did win; they'll be preparing for trench warfare, while the French and Brits will be fighting a mobile mechanized war. The same is true for the US and CSA, although the US has Morrell and Dowling, who seem to have a better grasp on armored warfare. Thus, I would predict that Germany will fall and the US will have a desperate fight on her hands but will win in the end and come to Germany's aid (D-Day anyone?).
I still hope that the US and UK will fight a series of big carrier battles in the Atlantic... I don't know why that appeals to me so much, but I just find the idea really neat... :cool:

[Faeelin]

) and I think its really interesting how HT demonstrates that given the right conditions Britons,French and former Americans could be numbered among histories greatest villians rather than the Germans as per OTL.

You mean if the author gives everyone brain transplants?

I still don't get why Britain wuld have any desire to intervene in the 2nd mexican war when it didn't in the franco-prussian.

Or, come to that, why the french help prop up the mexican legacy of bonaparte's empire.

[Grimm Reaper]

Well, of course Turtledove has to ignore reality to make his personal ideas work. Grey Wolf hit the nail on the head in his post.

From my perspective, he had the US elect Herbert Hoover AS HE EXISTED IN OUR TIMELINE after 50 years of large standing armies, foreign alliances, government expansion, etc. Why not just predict the election of Ronald Reagan to fight the Cold War IN THE ELECTION OF 2032?

[Trotsky]

You mean if the author gives everyone brain transplants?

I still don't get why Britain wuld have any desire to intervene in the 2nd mexican war when it didn't in the franco-prussian.

Or, come to that, why the french help prop up the mexican legacy of bonaparte's empire.

I think it is because they want to take the Yankees down a peg, whereas in 1870 Napoleon III's Empire could still be partly considered a potential enemy for Britain, and Prussia not as bad.

And I think the French sorta stopped helping their pet Mexicans after the Second Mexican War, because by the 1920s they weren't involved in the civil war like the CSA was, in a way.

[zoomar]

It seems to me Turtledove could be heading for two possibilities: (1) an expected round 2 between the US/German alliance and the UK/France/CSA alliance, or (2) a much more confusing situation with multiple overlapping wars, which is also like OTL WW2, but with diferent alignments. I agree with most posters that there is no way the USA will be anything but hostile to the UK and France. He indicates, however, that the US is becoming disenchanted with its German ally and might not help it in its fights with England and France, while the focus in North America will be strictly USA vs CSA. Japan will remain a wild card, but most likely fight the USA, if for no other reason than fictional narrative.

Personally, I don't see how the USA and Germany can lose their respective wars without a lot of plot machinations. Germany is by far the dominant power in Europe - and the novels up to now have given little edvidence they've gotten soft and unmilitaristic. Plus, as several posters have pointed out, there is no reason they won't develop atomic bombs well before anyone else now that they don't have Hitler running off their Jewish scientists.

The USA IS soft and unmilitaristic (damn those Socialists anyway!), but has so much greater military potential than the CSA that it's hard to imagine how HT could pull off a CSA victory in the long run.

My guess is that the war will end with the German Empire even stronger than before - and be the only power armed with nuclear weapons. France may no longer exist as an independent power and GB will be weakend significantly. The USA will win its war against the CSA, but be bogged down in guerilla actions all over North America. Japan may or may not fight a war with the USA, but the result will probably be inconclusive. The stage will be set for yet another series of books focusing on how the USA and Japan eventually get nukes themselves, and fight as allies, maybe with the UK on their side, against a world dominated by an arrogant authoritarian Germanic Willhelmine superpower. And guess who'll win. Or maybe the Russians hold up in Samarkand will become devil-worshipers and pour out of the steppes and crush the Germans - ooops wrong book.

[Raymann]

I think it would be nice to hear about a few other thearters of the war. North Africa although that depends on Italy's involvement, the Middle East with their heavy German allegiances, and of course Russia although I forgot if it went communists after the war.

[wkwillis]

Most of the oil in the North is in the Rockies or on the other side, sort of like most of the oil in Russia was in the Caucasus or on the other side, thus, Stalingrad as the Germans tried to take the Russian oil. The oil used to go up the river on barges and rails, but the Russians relaid the rails across the river and the Germans couldn't cut the Russian oil supply.
So the CSA tries to cut the railroad to Salt Lake City, but the US still keeps the oil flowing farther north, through Canada and the Northern Pacific railroad?

[David Howery]

Japan does have one possible incentive to enter the war: Hawaii. With the US distracted by war inside it's borders and a possible Atlantic naval war with Britain, might not Japan use this time to sneak in and grab the islands? Of course, when the US ends up victorious in the end, they would be mighty peeved....

[Grey Wolf]

I think it would be nice to hear about a few other thearters of the war. North Africa although that depends on Italy's involvement, the Middle East with their heavy German allegiances, and of course Russia although I forgot if it went communists after the war.

Russia is a monarchy under Tsar Michael II after the failure of the Reds in the long civil war. Again, I would ask why Turtledove has Russia so obviously on the same side as France and Britain in his rematch. Surely, in the winning of the civil war the monarchists relied heavily upon the Germans for aid ? One cannot imagine the defeated Entente powers doing anything, so if Germany helped put Michael on the throne then would this not balance out any lingering resentment over loss of territory ?

Grey Wolf

[wkwillis]

Hawaii's only military value is as a port controlling ship traffic through the middle of the North Pacific, the way Diego Garcia dominates the Indian Ocean.
Well, it also has a shield volcano in a lower lattitude with a great slope for a magnetic launcher for equatorial low earth orbit....So it's really more of a Suez location for me.
Unless the US is going to interfere in Japan's grab for Borneo and New Guinea (coal, oil, pulp, rubber, palm oil, tin, rice, sugar, fish and more oil, copper, gold, nickel, cobalt, silver, vanadium, iron, titania, bauxite, rice, fish, coffee, rubber, chocolate, sugar), then Japan is not going to pay any attention to a fish, sugar and tourism island like Hawaii.
Alaska maybe...

[Justin Green]

I agree that Turtledove is going to have France and the UK at war with AMerica or at least hostile but I do not agree that this is plausible and I think that if zoomar is right in saying alot of posters agree with Turtledove, then your heads are in the sand. Im not saying that its imposiible to set up a war in the 30's in 40's with America on the opposite side as the UK and France but Turtledoves series isnt it. First you would have to have either America lose and Germany win or vise versa in ATL WW1. This I think would be more interesting.

Think about it. Lets say the British dont send as many forces to Canada as they did. America eventually wins in the north and slowly and costly pushes it way into the south. The confederacy and mexico sign an armistice in the springof 1919. Wide spread starvation in Germany leads to an armistice in europe in the fall. The British,French, and Japanese are stuck with a war against an America that occupies most of North America including their caribean colonies, thier former N. American allies have lost the will to fight. All sides settle for a peace of the status quo(Whats the American's control are theres). 2o years of cold war leads to advances in technology on both sides, though not egaul. When war finnaly breaks out later in 40's Robert Goddard is building the first ICBM and pointing across the atlantic while American scientist(along with several Germans wanting to see the powers that are holding their country down pay) are racing to build the Atomic Bomb.

Now that would be cool.

To recap I think that France and Britain only hope is America, Germany and America have no reason to be friends and plenty to be enemies, Featherston would probably love Guderian's Austrian aide, and the Japanese can learn to like suerkraut and barbecue.

[Grey Wolf]

Hawaii's only military value is as a port controlling ship traffic through the middle of the North Pacific, the way Diego Garcia dominates the Indian Ocean.
Well, it also has a shield volcano in a lower lattitude with a great slope for a magnetic launcher for equatorial low earth orbit....So it's really more of a Suez location for me.
Unless the US is going to interfere in Japan's grab for Borneo and New Guinea (coal, oil, pulp, rubber, palm oil, tin, rice, sugar, fish and more oil, copper, gold, nickel, cobalt, silver, vanadium, iron, titania, bauxite, rice, fish, coffee, rubber, chocolate, sugar), then Japan is not going to pay any attention to a fish, sugar and tourism island like Hawaii.
Alaska maybe...

Except that pride and historic ties come into these things as well as calculations based purely on strategy and raw materials

Grey Wolf

[Trotsky]

Russia is a monarchy under Tsar Michael II after the failure of the Reds in the long civil war. Again, I would ask why Turtledove has Russia so obviously on the same side as France and Britain in his rematch. Surely, in the winning of the civil war the monarchists relied heavily upon the Germans for aid ? One cannot imagine the defeated Entente powers doing anything, so if Germany helped put Michael on the throne then would this not balance out any lingering resentment over loss of territory ?

Grey Wolf

I thought that the Germans propped up the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and in 1918? They were hoping that a Red-led Russia would be less dangerous to them than a resurgent nationalistic White/monarchist Russia. Or maybe I'm thinking of Poland.

[Grey Wolf]

I thought that the Germans propped up the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and in 1918? They were hoping that a Red-led Russia would be less dangerous to them than a resurgent nationalistic White/monarchist Russia. Or maybe I'm thinking of Poland.

The Bolsheviks were a tactic to undermine Russia and get her out of the war, but once that was achieved you can look at the rest of 1918 to see how German policy would have developed. They backed the Finns against the Red Guards, they established regimes in Pland, the Ukraine, the Baltics, the Caucasus that opposed the Bolsheviks, and with Yudenich's forces in Autumn 1918 Ludendorff more or less backed a White army against the Russian government.

I cannot imagine that in the long term the German government or the military want to see the Bolsheviks establishing themselves. They are simply completely anti-pathetic to everything the Central Powers stand for. After a victorious war, the Germans would have provided more aid to the friendly Whites and you would probably have had a joint offensive against Petrograd from Yudenich out of the Baltics, and from the Finns into Karelia.

Obviously, I don't know how Turtledove plays this, or even if he has given it much thought, or even cares, but I just cannot see Michael winning a civil war without Central Powers help.

Grey Wolf

[Matthew Craw]

Obviously, I don't know how Turtledove plays this, or even if he has given it much thought, or even cares, but I just cannot see Michael winning a civil war without Central Powers help.

Grey Wolf

This is the crucial problem, we simply aren't told enough about events in Europe in 1914-33 to tell how plausible Turtledove's foreign policies are in 1933-41. I woiuld point out, however, that with WWI in Europe ending in 1917 it's at least possible that there never was a Bolshevik coup, and that the "red revolt" was a series of revolts which a surviving Tsarist or Kadet dominated constitutional govt. was gradually able to suppress without German assistance.

[jgack]

Another thing to consider is the fact that Wilhelm and Nicholas are cousins, I can't believe that Wilhelm would allow a bunch of peasants to get away with killing "Nicki." So maybe after the war ended he began to supply White armies and provide them with bases, maybe even let German forces engage the Reds.

[sikitu]

This is the crucial problem, we simply aren't told enough about events in Europe in 1914-33 to tell how plausible Turtledove's foreign policies are in 1933-41. I woiuld point out, however, that with WWI in Europe ending in 1917 it's at least possible that there never was a Bolshevik coup, and that the "red revolt" was a series of revolts which a surviving Tsarist or Kadet dominated constitutional govt. was gradually able to suppress without German assistance.

Yeah, that's a major point. I will not comment on the American front here, but on Europe. First of all, with Germany winning WW1, it would have been likely to annex at least Belgium and large parts of Northern France (just refer to the German war aims in OTL). Poland as some kind of puppet state would make sense. However, the Germans also would have claimed substantial portions of the Entente's overseas possessions. As France was utterly defeated, as opposed to the UK, this probably would mainly have concerned the French colonies in Africa.

In no case, Germany would have tolerated the Japanese continuing to hold former colonies in the Pacific and Tsingtao in China. With all other powers defeated, Germany would have sent out a large expedition force for punishment. If not immediately after the war, they would have done do in the 1930s when Japan was at war with Germany's long time ally, the USA.

Concerning the UK, Germany's minimum claims would have been reduction of the Royal Navy (possibly handing over some ships) and large reparation payments. Furthermore, they probably would lose British East Africa.

All this means that Germany would have been a pretty strong power, even when considering some decadency due to the aging wilhelm II. I assume them to have set up very powerful fortifications along the Western border and to maintain a large standing army, with conscription in force and lots of aircraft, battleships and tanks. Even if first taken by surprise by the UK and Franch attack, Germany is very likely to hit back hard. You know, we are talking of more than 65 years of continued Prussian military development, and a general attitude in the population which would have EXPECTED ALL MALE CITIZENS having been in the army or navy. Prussian-dominated Germany is not the kind of country that would have ceased military development after a victorious war. They did not in 1871, remember.

And no, I really do not want to think further of what Einstein, Heisenberg and Hahn would achieve while working together. German battleship designs at the end of OTL WW1 where among the most advanced in the world (Baden class, battlecruisers of I think Ersaz Yorck class type, both with 38cm main guns).

However, Austria-Hungary probably will have a lot of trouble with uprisings by Poles, Czechs, Serbs etc. (I assume also that they would have annexed at least part of Serbia).

BTW, there are some interesting questions:

1) Does anyone know what Italy did in WW1? I assume they would not have dared to attack the Central Powers as they did in OTL...but they might have seized the opportunity to take some parts away from France!
2) What about the Turks? They were a Central Power ally in OTL and might be interested in taking away some parts of Russia (Georgia etc.)...

[zoomar]

"And no, I really do not want to think further of what Einstein, Heisenberg and Hahn would achieve while working together."

And why not? The whole issue of nukes and who uses them first and to what end has got to be a major issue inTurtledoves' new series or he's even more unimaginatve that I think he is. Unless he has these folks get run over by a bus or the Race invades, there s no way Germany does not win the next war again, probably with the USA in tow.

[sikitu]

"And no, I really do not want to think further of what Einstein, Heisenberg and Hahn would achieve while working together."

And why not? The whole issue of nukes and who uses them first and to what end has got to be a major issue inTurtledoves' new series or he's even more unimaginatve that I think he is. Unless he has these folks get run over by a bus or the Race invades, there s no way Germany does not win the next war again, probably with the USA in tow.

Sorry, I should have set a smiley there :) Of course, the matter of nuclear bombs will have to play a role, as the timeline appears to be even a bot more advanced than OTL. Actually, there is a CSA-vs.USA-Germany wins-WW1-timeline in GURPS Alternate Earths (1). In that timeline, the Germans are attacked in lightning war by the French under de Gaulle, and they use a nuclear bomb on the island of Elba and thus end the war.

[gothbert]

I have been reading through the thread, and have some questions:

1) In regards to troops, what about the use of puppet regimes within the midwest and west coast in order to reduce occupation costs? It has already been established that Utah wants to leave the Union. Do you believe that if the CSA gave Utah the same deal the USA gave Quebec that Utah might lend a hand in holding down some occupied USA territory? What about setting up other puppet states such as a Vichy California?

2) What about the Empire of Mexico? The CSA supported the empire during their civil war. Do you believe they turn into Facist Spain of OTL, or provide military assistance similar to Italy or other facist allies?

3) If the USA would be successful in the end, do you truly believe the USA could be reunited? Turtledove seems to have gone a good length to show that the CSA and USA have clearly diverged from each other even further than regular OTL differences.

Thoughts on end of war:
The way I see this ending would be more fracturing of North America into a number of smaller nations rather than reunification. Canada, Quebec, CSA, USA, Utah, and a few western states that break out on their own rather than stick with the USA. From reading this series, I get the distinct impression that Turtledove's views of the USA is that the idea of a return to a restored Union died at the end of the first Civil War. The remaining wars just further fracture American societies apart, as well as cause even more splits.

[ljofa]

At the end of VO - it was strongly hinted that Italy were going to side with the British and French and Russians.

It's entirely possible that Britain and France don't declare war on the USA. France might, given Anne Collerton's diplomatic mission but there is no incentive for Britain to do so, particularly with Churchill at the helm who is vehemently anti-German (and as his mother was American, and he is an Americanophile) and wants them punished.

It is, of course, possible that Germany is defeated but Einstein, Heisenberg et al escape to the USA to work on the A-Bomb.

I don't think Germany, Austria-Hungary and the USA have been working particularly hard to win new friends but France and Britain have been cosying up to Spain and Italy, Brazil and Argentina, and you could probably count Portugal and the Netherlands in there as well. Not that the latter two would fight but they would be important trading partners. And Japan is still pretty much a wild card but they might try and give the Chinese a bloody nose with the United States' attention elsewhere. They will not ally - there has been no hint at a rapproachment.

My predictions from several threads still stand:

Austria-Hungary to be crushed
Germany to lose.
USA to beat CSA.
Brazil to ally with Argentina and crush Chile & Peru and maybe lend assistance to Britain and France.
Italy to join war against Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary
Japan to maybe give Pearl Harbour a kick and land troops in occupied Canada.
Mary McGregor to lead Canadian partisans against Quebec. Why not!

As for new world order...don't know.

[Pax Britannia]

It would be nice to see the USA lose for once in an AH book. Most AH books these days just seem to be vehicles for American victories over the entire world.

So just for a laugh i'll bet that the USA loses :D

[Dave Howery]

the US lose for once? There's plenty of those... read "In the Presence of Mine Enemies" for one... or "How Few Remain"... or "Not This August".. or "The Man in the High Castle"... or look through the various AH short story collections.. you can usually find several "US loses" themes....
You're just not going to see the US lose in this series. HT is obviously going for a Germany/Russia parallel, with the US being the (much nicer) standin for Russia. Plus, the US simply outweighs them in every catagory....
as for Britain... well, they just gotta declare war on the US, so there will be oh-so-cool US/UK carrier battles in the Atlantic... just think, Midway replayed off the Azores... wouldn't that be neat? :)

[Pax Britannia]

I havent read any of 'the great war' series of books. Have aircraft carriers shown their potential yet?

[Dave Howery]

It's not clear. THere was a brief war between the US and Japan in the middle trilogy, but nothing much was said about it. You'd think the opposing navies would have done most of the fighting, as there aren't too many land theaters to slug it out on. IIRC, the Japanese own the Phillipines in this TL, so they don't have that to fight about. I'm not really sure just why the Japanese provoked the US into a fight in the first place... other than Hawaii, the US and Japan don't seem to have a lot to fight about....
In any event, carriers are being built by the US, Japan, and Britain, IIRC, but noone else.

[Ace Venom]

Some things I vaguely remember from reading the books:

-One character recalled that though the Red uprising in the CSA was bad, the Red revolution in Russia, though finally put down, was far worse. Argue implausibility all you want, but the Germans probably only sent materials to the anti-communists through unofficial means i.e. through their satellites of Poland and Ukraine. Not only did the Germans damage Russian prestige in the Great War, but the Germans brought a revolution down upon them. They have more reason than anyone to be anti-German.
-Germany did annex Belgium. That's what the whole tour of occupied Canada was about.
-Some characters in the US Navy were talking about how the Entente was able to stay alive due to the fact that Argentina was shipping beef to West Africa, which was going into Europe. Since they said that France and Argentina were likely to have the same arrangement, it's safe to assume that West Africa is still in French hands.
-There was an Armenian genocide, but I don't recall if the Ottoman Empire took any land from Russia.
-Austria-Hungary, by a strange twist of fate, has managed to hold together.
-Jake Featherston wasn't worried about declaring war on Germany. For one, he told France that he would back them when the time came. Secondly, Germany couldn't do anything to the CSA, which probably means the Germans have a battleship only fleet.
-The Confederate arsenal is still a mystery. We know they have tanks, fighters and bombers. But as far as a navy goes, we don't know.

That's really all I remember.

[wkwillis]

Korea had lots of coal, hydroelectricity, uranium ore, etc. If Germany won the equivalent of the First World War, then Korea could be independent of Japan after twenty years. That means Korea is modernized by the Japanese and the old Korean aristocracy tossed out. With another twenty years to develop the Koreans are more than capable of both protecting their country against a Japanese amphibious invasion across a very wide strait of very stormy waters, but of bombing and sub blockading Japan as well. They have railroad access both to China and a very narrow and mountainous border with Russia as well.
We have no idea about what a Europe with all the Jewish and Hungarian nuclear scientists is going to be capable of in terms of research and development. Probably quite a lot.
Australia will have developed a big navy and airforce without the pschological crutch of the Royal Navy that they still had as late as December of 1942. They won't be pushovers either. India will be very powerfull. China will not have Japanese financing the warlords against the Kuomintang, either. Figure on a unitary government with the ability to provide most armaments to defend themselves and able to afford to buy lots more.
Does the US allow the Japanese to keep the Phillipines? If the Phillipines is an independent government, then they have also been modernised and will be capable of self defence. They have even more natural resources than Korea.
Do the Japanese buy part of Siberia like Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and the Kamchatka peninsula from the Russians? Maybe the whole Sea of Okhotsk?

[Dave Howery]

The US doesn't seem to have a whole lot of interest in the Pacific in this TL.... they took Hawaii from the Brits mainly just to deprive them of a base and to get in a blow against them. IIRC, the Japanese occupation of the Phillipines was mentioned in passing, but no one in the US seems to care much about it. The US is so focused on stomping the CSA (and their French and Brit supporters) flat that they don't seem to be looking out beyond North America all that much....

[zoomar]

It's not clear. THere was a brief war between the US and Japan in the middle trilogy, but nothing much was said about it. You'd think the opposing navies would have done most of the fighting, as there aren't too many land theaters to slug it out on. IIRC, the Japanese own the Phillipines in this TL, so they don't have that to fight about. I'm not really sure just why the Japanese provoked the US into a fight in the first place... other than Hawaii, the US and Japan don't seem to have a lot to fight about....
In any event, carriers are being built by the US, Japan, and Britain, IIRC, but noone else.

Personally, I found the whole "development of aircraft carriers stuff" so unoriginal. I would have much rather HT considered emphasizing alternate military/naval technologies which could concievably been elaborated. For example, with Germany and the US as Great War and post war allies, you have the opportunity to merge German airship technology with US helium in the 1920's, with fleets of airplane-carrying zeppelins by the mid 1930's.

[Dave Howery]

you'd have to have a POD a lot more extreme than this series to get something as odd as zeppelin carriers. Navy carriers are what you would expect to get in about any TL.... a zeppelin carrier is a neat idea, but there would be severe weight limits. An ocean going ship can be made massive enough to carry a fleet of airplanes, plus, it'll hold a lot more supplies and can be protected by the other ships in the fleet. If you want to do away with such a natural progression of naval warfare, you'll have to have some very different PODs starting in the 19th century, something that de-emphasizes the navy and swings military interest sharply to the air. HT's rather simple POD for the series isn't enough to do it...

[wkwillis]

Think of it this way. The whole and only point of an aircraft carrier is to deposit bombs or torpedos or rockets or machine cannon shells on a target. All attack/torpedo/dive/bombers on the carrier, the fighters that defend them, the antisubmarine aircraft that protect the carrier, the fleet that protects the carrier, and the port they sail from, only exists to protect and project the bombs, torpedos, rockets, or machine cannon shells.
So put the maintenance and supply facilities on the ground at an airport someplace and launch 1000 ton very large aircraft that carry the working aircraft to the place to launch from. This has the following advantages:
1. You can get there faster.
2. You can ignore submarines.
3. You can ignore surface ships.
4. You can fly in and out fast enough to be undetected by patrol aircraft.
5. You can build aircraft lighter because they don't have to be capable of slamming into a carrier deck at 100 miles an hour and surviving. They just have to rendesvous with a airplane that is flying as fast as they are.
6. You don't have to be able to slow down to landing speed. You can optimise at a lower drag/higher cruise speed.
They did build some dirigibles with parasite aircraft. Not blimps. Blimps would have worked better, but they were...limp. Not masculine. Dirigibles are compressive structures that fail ungracefully and fall from the sky. Blimps are tensile structures that rarely fail ungracefully and tend to hang around and survive very bad weather better than dirigibles.
But a Winge carrier in World War Two would have ruled. We would have been launching Dolittle raids every week!

[Dave Howery]

yeah, but can you build a flying carrier big enough to carry as many aircraft as a naval one? It is a neat idea, but just what in HT's POD would lead to anything like this? I think you need something different than the simple 'CSA wins the war' one he uses. In this ATL, regular ship carriers are a logical progression of war. To get flying carriers, you have to change the whole world's thinking, not just have a POD in the US....

[Torqumada]

Michael Moorcock wrote a trilogy that started with Warlord of the Air. A man is transported from 1902 to 1972 in which the Imperial powers still rule the world and combat in the air is by huge dirigibles, made with very strong supports and armor on the outside. During the book the first heavier than air vehicles fight it out with the dirigibles.

Now for that to happen on an alternate timeline, you would need three things:

More abudant helium, since it was the hydrogen gas that made the Zepplins of WWI and the 20's and 30's so fragile.
A stronger structural material: Aluminum was the materail used in the strucutre of the Zepplin. Maybe someone makes a titanium/aluminum alloy, that is almost as light as aluminum and as strong or almost as strong as titanium
Armor: Either the above alloy, all aluminum armor or some sort of ceramic armor light enough to coat the entire ship, but strong enough to stop machinegun and light rocket fire.

You can then launch and recover your aircraft from series of internal compartments. The planes would fire up their engines, get them to a high RPM and then be dropped out of the ship. To land they would have to hook up with their ship and be dragged back in.

I also know that the computer game Crimson Skies uses Zepplins.

Torqumada

[Straha]

I have a book which has that whole trilogy in it.

[Torqumada]

Yeah. The 2nd book is Iron Leviathan which I guess refers to tanks and then The Steel Tsar.

Torqumada

[zoomar]

yeah, but can you build a flying carrier big enough to carry as many aircraft as a naval one? It is a neat idea, but just what in HT's POD would lead to anything like this? I think you need something different than the simple 'CSA wins the war' one he uses. In this ATL, regular ship carriers are a logical progression of war. To get flying carriers, you have to change the whole world's thinking, not just have a POD in the US....


Well, actually I tend to believe the development of aircraft carriers as large offensive capital ships (rather than scouting auxilliaries) is perhaps an unlikely accident of history itself - caused by the particular history of our WW1 and the subsequent Washington naval treaty. The point I was making is not that zeppelins would take carriers' place as primary offensive weapons but that they might (with their 10 or so planes and appropriate tender ships) take their place as the main aerial scouting force for fleets - and have some limited offensive capability. And anyway, since there are clearly some unstated "minor" POD's which occur throughout Turtledoves's work, I don't see some inherent improbably of unstated zeppelin-enhancing ones...it is an AH after all.

[Dave Howery]

Sorry, but I think that naval carriers are not an accident, but a logical progression of warfare in all but the most wild PODs. Once you have planes and ships, the idea of filling a big boat full of planes with it's own landing strip is a pretty obvious step. Carriers are a whole lot less technically hard to come up with than a zeppelin carrier, plus they can carry a lot more planes. You could have zeppelins along with the fleet, but if you want to pack a big punch, you need carriers. If a zeppelin carrier could only hold 10 planes (a big if), you'd need 8 of them to match one big carrier... not so efficient. Also, just how does the zeppelin recover aircraft? Does it only carry seaplanes and winch them up later?

[zoomar]

Sorry, but I think that naval carriers are not an accident, but a logical progression of warfare in all but the most wild PODs. Once you have planes and ships, the idea of filling a big boat full of planes with it's own landing strip is a pretty obvious step. Carriers are a whole lot less technically hard to come up with than a zeppelin carrier, plus they can carry a lot more planes. You could have zeppelins along with the fleet, but if you want to pack a big punch, you need carriers. If a zeppelin carrier could only hold 10 planes (a big if), you'd need 8 of them to match one big carrier... not so efficient. Also, just how does the zeppelin recover aircraft? Does it only carry seaplanes and winch them up later?


Sorry, not to belabor this point, but I still believe it's arguable that without the Washington Treaty and consequent reuse of big BC hulls like Akagi and Lexington as carriers, most aircraft carriers through the 1930's would have been much smaller and less capable - Langleys Rangers, Hosho's etc with not much more than 20-25 planes. They would have been seen primarily as scouting adjuncts. Neither the US or Japan was likely to build 40,000 ton carriers holding 70-80 planes from scratch. Regarding zeppelins, USS Akron and Macon could launch and retreive their 5 planes in flight, and designs were in the board in the late 30's for zeps carrying 10 Douglas divebombers to be launched and retrieved in flight. If you had an alternate history with no truly big carriers being built in the 1920's and 30's, the combined use of large landbased bombers, large floatplanes, and zeps with a minimal offensive and good scouting capacity might not have made the big carrier such an inevitability.

[Dave Howery]

so, you're saying that small carriers already exist, but only a chance of history led to making large ones? It a whole lot more logical for people to make the mental leap from small carriers to large ones than for them to say, "hey, let's make zeppelin carriers", for the same reasons they went from smaller battleships to large ones. If they didn't, for some reason, they soon would. A big carrier can absorb a lot of damage, way more than a zeppelin can, and can carry 8 times the planes.

[wkwillis]

The dirigibles were much cheaper to buy, crew, maintain, and fuel than the aircraft carriers. Per plane they were cheaper than aircraft carriers. They cost a hundredth as much and carried a tenth as many planes as aircraft carriers of the time. They were faster and could not be sunk by mines or torpedos. They were able to move over land as well as water. They could be built much faster.
I would have used blimps instead of dirigibles because blimps are better at resisting bad weather and bouncy air. I also prefer hydrogen to helium for blimps because you can easily build a double structure ballonet system that makes them hard to set alight. The better lifting power of hydrogen partly offsets the extra weight of the double bag. Also, the hydrogen's ability to burn allows you extra stability in bouyancy if you burn some of the hydrogen as you burn off fuel, ammunition, and planes. But you can use helium for the outer shell instead of nitrogen if you have some.

[zoomar]

so, you're saying that small carriers already exist, but only a chance of history led to making large ones? It a whole lot more logical for people to make the mental leap from small carriers to large ones than for them to say, "hey, let's make zeppelin carriers", for the same reasons they went from smaller battleships to large ones. If they didn't, for some reason, they soon would. A big carrier can absorb a lot of damage, way more than a zeppelin can, and can carry 8 times the planes.


What I'm trying to say is that, without big ships such as Saratoga or Akagi to play with, the few "carrier" admirals would have less to work with in convincing the entrenched battleship admirals that ships carrying tiny little planes would ever have a future as the primary offensive weapon for the fleet. The principle purpose of carriers would continue much longer to be seen as fleet scouting and aerial defense against land-based air. In such an environment, as wkwillis states, the elaboration of the existing and proved airplane carrying airships might make more sense (especially for the USA with its helium reserves). They are 3 times faster than surface ships, can cover much more area than cruisers, their planes allow a huge area to be searched, and are much cheaper to build and crew (which makes them much more expendable). True, a zeppelin airship which stumbles on a Japanese battlefleet with 1930's quality air could very likely be toast...but it will probably have provided valuable information justifying the loss of 80 men and a vessel which is three times cheaper than a light cruiser.

Also, for what its worth, the aviators who routinely flew from the Akron and Macon on exercises reported that it was much easier to be launched and retreived in air from an airship than perform normal carrier landings. With airship operations, the planes were operating in the same medium as the carrier and the speed differential between the two craft was minimal. You just lined up below the trapeeze and hooked on

[Dave Howery]

Still not convinced. Blimps, zeppelins, whatever, they are just too fragile. Carriers could and did ride through hurricanes... blimps would be tossed around the sky. The thing that really decides me against it though is that if there was any real advantages to building a fleet of carrier blimps, they would have done it. In any event, even if they had built carrier blimps for WW2, they would have been done away with soon after. Missiles, jet fighters, rockets, all are bad news for something as big, fragile, and slow as a blimp. Plus, until the Harrier came along, jet fighters wouldn't be able to land on a blimp anyway....
None of which answers the question of just what in HT's PODs would lead to the rather bizarre invention of carrier blimps instead of the logical invention of ship carriers....

[zoomar]

I like this discussion, Dave.

You have a point. Airships (blimp or zeppelin) are much more vulnerable to weather than surface ships, but this can be over stated as (with proper meterological data) they have sufficient speed (70-80kts) to fly around them. Compared to the planes of the 1920's and early 1930's, however, zeps could operate much better in inclement weather. Another bigger disadvantage is their endurance. A well-supplied airship could probably maintain its scouting station for about a 4-5 days, max, before having to return to port or a tender for more fuel, hydrogen/helium (it gets valved off as air conditions, gas temperature, etc changes) and general supplies. This means you'd need a lot of airships supporting a fleet action in the pacific to maintain constant scouting along the van and flanks.

Also, I agree with you that the airships' lack of serious offensive capability would not have made them the most popular expenditure in comparison with cruisers, destroyers, etc. I'm not saying zeps are better than carriers. What I am saying is that in the doctrinal environment of the 1920s neither carriers nor zeps had a secure place. Both were seen by most naval officers (except their advocates) as expensive new-fangled inventions with at best limited offensive capalility and use. I guess, in the contexts of Turtledove's book, I'm arguing that the success integral fleet-based naval aviation itself as an offensive weapon was not inevitable (at least in the 1920's-1940's), and that if you're writing an alternate history SF book, it would be more interesting if you picked plausible alternatives like zeppelins, huge flying boats and floatplane tenders, battleship/carrier hybrids, or a complete reliance on shore-based aviation for aerial force projection (like the Army wanted)

[wkwillis]

When the stealth ship 'sea scout' or whatever it was came out, there was reputed to be hell to pay from the navy because the crew was so small. The navy wants a crew big enough to justify a captain's slot.
Even the world war two blimps were overcrewed with (IIRC) eleven. A carrier blimp would have a very small crew and a very small cost, and it wouldn't be scouting for a fleet, it would be carrying a plane that would be scouting for a fleet. A fast plane because a blimp is faster than a carrier so the airplane can have a higher stall (and cruise, and sprint) speed for landing/hookup.
Carrier blimps to do not carry repair facilities. That is handled back at the base. If the plane makes it back to the carrier, the carrier carries it back to the base. Carriers don't go on cruises, they go on missions. Then they go home. Yes, a carrier blimp is as big as a cruiser, but it isn't as expensive as a cruiser.

[zoomar]

When the stealth ship 'sea scout' or whatever it was came out, there was reputed to be hell to pay from the navy because the crew was so small. The navy wants a crew big enough to justify a captain's slot.
Even the world war two blimps were overcrewed with (IIRC) eleven. A carrier blimp would have a very small crew and a very small cost, and it wouldn't be scouting for a fleet, it would be carrying a plane that would be scouting for a fleet. A fast plane because a blimp is faster than a carrier so the airplane can have a higher stall (and cruise, and sprint) speed for landing/hookup.
Carrier blimps to do not carry repair facilities. That is handled back at the base. If the plane makes it back to the carrier, the carrier carries it back to the base. Carriers don't go on cruises, they go on missions. Then they go home. Yes, a carrier blimp is as big as a cruiser, but it isn't as expensive as a cruiser.

I'm not quite sure of your point here. An airship carrying only one plane would have little use in the naval doctrine of the 1920-1940 period, and woud be only a negligible improvement over an airship without planes. To maintain good scouting, a fleet or task force needs a nearly unbroken line of scouting units (DD's CL,s, and or aircraft) covering its advance or flanks. Also, a naval "mission" takes weeks or months to accomplish, and often entails long stretches on station waiting for things to happen. For airships to be a meaningful part of such actions (as opposed to simple coastal ASW work at which they excelled) they need to be large enough to house a number of planes and to service them in flight. They also need the endurance to operate independently away from their own tenders for as long as possible. With the technology available in the 1920's-40's only the large rigid with a crew of 80+ people on watches is capable of doing this. Also, your point about needing "fast" planes may not be correct. On actual operations with the Akron and Macon, it was found that planes needed to have slow stalling speeds because they had to match speeds with airships cruising as slowly as 60kts to effect a hook on "landing". Finally, to have the capability to service, launch and retrieve even one plane in flight, an airship would need to have at least some rigid structure to support the plane and its fuel, weapon load (if any), and support equipment. You would not want this on or near the engines with their turbulence, so it could probably not be on the gondola (which in all blimps houses the engines). Hence, I suspect only a rigid airship would be really capable of this.

[Dave Howery]

yeah, this is kind of a neat discussion... but this thread isn't really the place for it, as nothing in HT's PODs really lead to the development of carrier blimps instead of ship carriers. This whole idea should be put on the main page as a new thread, something like "WI carrier blimps were developed instead of ship carriers in WW2"... go for it WK...

[wkwillis]

Zoomar, have you ever been a programmer? Ever spend several hours trying to fix a bug in one piece of code, and then discover that it was actually in another piece altogether? It's not what you didn't know, it's what you knew that wasn't so.
You have this image of the Hindenberg in your mind. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a world war two convoy escort K-ship type blimp, either.
But Howery's right. This is Turtledove's world and it's modeled on what Turtledove knows, and he doesn't know blimps either, so they won't be in there.