The Mexican Spark (World War 1915, inspired by Halnzder Kverldak but not to his aims)

[Grey Wolf]

As a foreword, I was attempting to work within the initial requirements of Halnzder Kverldak on such a war, but have found myself changing the back-story of the previous 70 years and I think diverging too far from what he wanted in his thread that in all conscience I should start a thread of my own !

The first two posts, though, refer to Halnzder Kverldak's ideas, and its late at night and I haven't got the energy to delete these references or edit them. Besides, read his thread, its interesting.

Hopefully Halnzder Kverldak will see that in creating my own thread I am intending to avoid taking over his, rather than committing a simple act of plagiarism !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

I can't work with your precise scenario but I can produce a significant POD that could create the historical alignments, and would get over the problem of having so much mixed US-UK capital investment. Its the year 1844 and Henry Clay wins the Whig nomination.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h319.html

Ok, now we take this paragraph as our Point of Divergence :-

The frontrunners for the nominations in both parties, Henry Clay (Whig ) and Martin Van Buren (Democrat), feared that the annexation of Texas would split their parties. The two political professionals agreed to cloud the issue in the hope of keeping it off center stage. They expressed a willingness to support annexation if Mexico would agree; there was absolutely no chance that would occur.

The incumbent Tyler, Martin Van Buren, and the darkhorse Polk all split the Democratic caucuses. In OTL Polk came through the middle to steal the nomination, Tyler hung in a while and dropped out, and it was Polk espousing annexation of Texas against Clay campaigning against it.

But it COULD have been Van Buren against Clay, probably with Tyler remaining in the race as a pro-annexation Democrat. The presidency would have gone to Clay.

Why does this matter for your scenario ? Because of events in Texas. Anson Jones, the President of Texas, had the support of Britain and France in trying to get Mexico to recognise Texan independence. After the OTL election of Polk he also had to balance between this position and the pro-annexation one, and although he eventually secured a promise of recognition from Mexico he subjected the issue to a referendum and Texas voted to be annexed to the Union.

In the ATL situation which I espouse above, Clay's government does not wish to annex Texas. Jones is going to have to run with the Mexican option, and if Britain and France can successfully persuade Mexico to recognise Texan independence we have changed the political landscape massively.

One CAN see a pro-annexation president coming along later, maybe even 1848 but things have already changed. Mexico has recognised Texan independence for a few years. Quite possibly the Mormons have begun to settle in Mexican territory (OTL it was in the process of being conquered by the USA). And then there is Yucatan.

OTL the Yucatecan breakaway republic offered sovereignty to whoever would help it out, not just in its conflict with Mexico but in its civil war with the Maya. No one did so, until the USA had defeated Mexico in war, then in a little known fact PAID Mexico for the annexation of New Mexico and California, and then Mexico used this money to essentially buy back Yucatan from the secessionists. In the ATL, Mexico does not have this money.

The Caribbean is going to be an increasingly different place. One does not need to even assume that this difference results in a greatly changed map by 1900, but only in a greatly changed way of getting to that map. Throughout the OTL 1850s schemes were laid for US action against Cuba, intervention in Miskitia or the United Provinces of Central America, there were freebooters and filibusterers. In this ATL the situation may be even more unstable as the USA has energies at its disposal untapped by any equivalent to the OTL war with Mexico in the 1840s.

One does not even need to outline in detail how things develop. A mid-19th-century war with Spain, interventions in Yucatan and the UPCA, the annexation of Cuba, later a conflict over California, the issue of Texas, New Mexico, even the Mormons. There is certainly enough there to fill an ATL from 1844 to 1900 and beyond.

And then the question of slavery. This is the reason why Clay and Van Buren did not want to espouse the annexation of Texas, for fear of splitting both their parties over slavery. OTL the issue was dealt with by stopgap legislation throughout the 1850s, before rising to the fore at the start of the 1860s. Maybe a later civil war, perhaps tying in actions against Deseret, perhaps expanding into Texas and California after the defeat of this ATL's Confederacy, perhaps because Texas and elements in California had supported the CSA against the Union.

And how do we tie Britain and France in ? As guarantors of Texan independence, as major creditors to Mexico, and perhaps alarmed by a war with Spain that ends in the conquest of Cuba (though perhaps not Puerto Rico and certainly not the Philippines). As anti-slavery powers there seems little chance of involvement in an ATL ACW fought perhaps 10 years later, but the aftermath which could see the USA take the war to Texas could draw them in.

Perhaps if we want to avoid a full-scale war in this period, it could come in the middle of a major European crisis. Mexican history is going to have taken a different direction without the war with the USA, the military defeat after invasion, and the huge loss of territory. Especially if gold is found in California under Mexican rule, Britain and France would be taking a great interest in Mexico. But it would be like OTL - no Habsburg Archduke, no French-Austrian-Belgian invasion force. This in itself could alter the dynamics of the European theatre. For one major problem for France in watching Austria and the German Confederation fight Prussia in 1866 was that a lot of its best troops were still in Mexico. Without such a commitment, perhaps Prussia does not push it at this period, and waits longer ?

Thus if both the American Civil War, and the showdowns to turn Prussia into the German Empire are shunted forwards in time, both could still occur at the same time. An Austro-Prussian War drags in France and ends in a stunning victory for Prussia ? It would have the result of the 1866 and 1870-71 conflicts in one. Perhaps THIS war lasts several years, and parallels in time roughly or not the ATL ACW. Either way, it means that France is not in a position to stand up for Texas once the Union comes after them, and that Britain is going to find itself in the difficult position of being alone against the USA in this.

One might postulate no British interference in Texas, but strong diplomatic pressure to respect the Mexican boundaries. British marines might land in California, a British fleet in the Caribbean. The USA has to stand down for the present.

The long-term outcome of this could be that your 1915 war is in a sense coming out of an ATL analogue to the 1840s US-Mexican War. Perhaps the USA has fought the Mormons in the interim, acquired some territory in Deseret from Mexico, and avoided a war with the Maritime Powers in so doing, perhaps because the Mormons do a UDI and the USA see this as meaning they can act against them IN THE NAME OF MEXICO, but not give it back afterwards.

I think I might carry this on, and if you think I'm hijacking your thread I'll transfer it to one of my own.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

I won't stick exactly to your scenario because I think parts of it are unrealistic. I don't thikn it is inherently unrealistic, but the major drawback is that there would emerge two sides. And they would have emerged to some degree before the conflict. Sure a nation like Japan may have remained outside the alliance system in the ATL and be able to act opportunistically. But some of the major European powers are going to be ranged against each other, and whilst some of these alliances may not hold, they will contain the germs for creating a two-bloc world war.

One driving force for a short while will be the so-called Crimean War, which sets Britain and France inexorably against Russia in the immediate term, so much so that Russia and the USA in OTL in having a common worry about British hegemony can find common ground. If the Crimean War occurs on schedule, and probably this is likely enough that we don't have to change it for all of the elements of chance that came together to cause it, and for all of the potential butterflies from Anglo-French support for Texan independence, then we can move forward on this basis.

The 1860s, however, are different as per my first post. One can assume a Prusso-Danish War, the joint Austrian-Prussian administration of Schleswig-Holstein, perhaps even a crisis in 1866 but with France having its best forces in Europe one may well see Prussia agree to the favoured British (and German Confederation) compromise of giving the duchies to their independent ducal claimant to be sovereign within the German Confederation. The Austro-Prussian clash is put off until later.

Instead maybe we see a focus on Italy, where in OTL they clung to Prussia's coat-tails and acquired Venetia at the peace in 1866 and Rome in 1870. Here, they are going to have to fight for them on their own. One could see this eventually spinning out of control somewhere to be the catalyst for a mid 1870s Austro-Prussian War which comes to drag in France on the side of Austria, and presumably therefore against Italy in the protection of the Pope's temporal dominion in Rome.

This is the war which Prussia and Italy will eventually win, but the few years of war, coinciding roughly with the later American Civil War would see France too distracted to act against the victorious Union's crushing of CSA-supporting Texas, and would see Britain focus its efforts on maintaining Mexico's territorial integrity, apart from where the Mormons are undermining this.

As a result of a several-years-long European war, Germany and Italy will have a greater degree of trust and experience in their alliance. Whilst a shattered Austria may well be brought back inside the German orbit a la OTL, France will be cast adrift. Perhaps the empire survives ? Without the rapid collapse from under-preparedness, and with the catalyst an Italian one instead of being of Napoleon III's wish and Bismarck's engineering, the Bonapartes may hang on. Napoleon III, who presumably got his much-needed 1870 operation for gallstones (delayed in OTL due to war) may live longer, but probably abdicate for his son. The Prime Imperial ascends the throne as Napoleon IV in maybe 1878 as an adult, presumably having seen war service, who is blooded, respected and able to take the reins of a defeated nation.

Russia again is the wildcard. Chafing under the restrictions of the 1856 peace, it will probably have taken advantage of the mid 1870s war to act against their immediate effects, and this could well lead to an 1878 situation a la OTL. France is in no condition to do anything, nor is Austria, Britain is heavily committed in Mexico, Prussia has just transmuted into the German Empire and although powerful and victorious is likely to look with less displeasure on another nation's great feat of arms.

What if Bismarck backs Russia over a San Stefano-sized Bulgaria ? Whilst German policy may want a rapprochement with Austria they have only just defeated them, and any future considerations are very uncertain. A new large buffer nation in the Balkans could have a definite appeal.

Britain is one of the guarantors of Greece who are going to be one of the losers of this. But Britain is not a power to act unilaterally against other great powers. It will probably act to shore up Greece's position, rather than press to the point of war against a super-Bulgaria. Ironically, this formation of a super-Bulgaria may well lead to an earlier solution to the Balkan problems and thus remove their likelihood of being the catalyst for war in the twentieth century. Much territory that was later fought over by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria in OTL has already been assigned to Bulgaria. I very much doubt that Alexander of Battenberg would emerge as the favoured monarch of a San Stefano Bulgaria.

The German Empire formed in the mid-late 1870s is unlikely to be much less aggressive in foreign affairs than that of OTL. However, foreign affairs will be markedly different. With Britain and the USA so recently at loggerheads, one may well see German investment in the USA come to be the dominant form of outside capital.

A super-Mexico which may perhaps lack the Yucatan (independent) but includes New Mexico and California is going to be an attractive prospect to British investors. One can certainly imagien a HUGE amount of bad blood between the USA and Britain as the US takes over British interests in Texas after their conquest there. Sure, maybe there is material compensation agreed by some neutral arbitor, but it doesn't take into account the potential profits of the future. If Britain, and later a resurgent France, invest heavily into Mexico instead then this lays sound foundations for a later conflict there to drag them in.

Maybe the Mormon War comes in the mid 1880s. Mormon missionaries into the USA may well have caused great difficulties, whereas quite possibly Mormon settlements in California have integrated well. A Mormon Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Mexico may be the straw that breaks the camel's back of US patience, and sees the USA mount a military expedition against the Mormons as rebels against their due authority. Although perturbed by this neither Britain nor France see it as a cassus belli, but probably do something to increase their presence in California and give assurances to Mexico about the rest of the New Mexico territories. The US annexation of Deseret probably causes a decade of bad blood before eventually they pay Mexico compensation and agree a fixed boundary.

We are seriously into the question of a Trans-Oceanic Canal here. I cannot imagine that the series of events that led de Lesseps in OTL to go for Panama are going to occur here. Nicaragua was the logical route. But in ATL that brings its own problems. Would the British have given up their protectorate over the Miskit on the East coast of OTL Nicaragua ? I cannot see that they would in a situation as described above. Agreements even in OTL to limit territorial claims in the Caribbean were not always fulfilled (at the end of the 1840s Britain agreed to move out of Belize/British Honduras but never made any moves to do so). With the value of the land soaring as canal ventures come sniffing round, I could see British interest INCREASE in Miskitia.

It does not seem likely that efforts to build a canal would not happen. The Nicaraguan railway in OTL carried people from the US via steamship to it, via steamship from it to California. The war and then the Gold Rush did this for it. Quite probably in the ATL this is delayed, as without US conquest of both California and New Mexico the number of settlers does not spike upwards, and it was settlers who first noticed the gold and sparked the Gold Rush. Quite possibly this therefore occurs under Mexican auspices in the later 1850s/early 1860s. Whilst Americans will come, the British, the French and the Russians will probably come too, and Mexico would retain control, although this province would become very heterogenous, an experience added to by the later presence of Mormon missions of some considerable size, thriving in this atmosphere.

Thus, the impetus for the canal is there as in OTL, the route most likely was recognised in OTL by many people, and thus something would be done. But it would perhaps be a something between a Kingdom of Miskitia, which is under British protection, and perhaps a Nicaragua which is still in some sort of United Provinces of Central America. The probability is that devolutionary forces would win out and the various republics forge their independent identity. Thus across Yucatan, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica one finds independent states.

OTL de Lesseps was forced to accept that should he complete his canal in Panama, even if it remained a private venture backed mainly with French capital, it would become part of the US sphere of influence and somewhere where they were the paramount power. Of course, he failed. And in the ATL, the canal is being built across Nicaragua, but one can certainly see similar pressure being brought to bear by the USA on whoever is building it.

The more likely start date is the early 1880s here, and the more likely completion date the early 1890s. A Nicaragua canal does not have the same kind of massive environmental hazards as the Panama canal, although curiously its construction would be similar to that eventually and artificially achieved in Panama when the Americans in OTL took on the project once again. British money would seem a likely dominator, but the company could well be international. France, Germany, the USA would see companies and individuals buying into it. Maybe Italy too in this timeline.

If this is boring, or irrelevant to you, let me know and I'll shift it sideways into a thread of my own acknowledging your influence on my thoughts

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Note - the comments at the bottom of both parts were with reference to the original thread that these posts resided in. I decided that it made most sense to excise my writing from that thread and post them separately, not as an exercise in egotism but to avoid taking over his thread with my postings, and because there was no great reply, and if what I was saying was unwelcome then its better if I do it in a thread of my own

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

Hmm, what if instead of a civil war it is delayed long enough that an amendment outlawing slavary is passed and there is a rebellion that is crushed?

[Grey Wolf]

OTL the Portuguese Empire appeared to be dying a long death. That this is somewhat simplistic is obvious, especially as in OTL it actually lasted to be one of the longest. But it was being viewed as ripe for the picking from the end of the nineteenth century onwards. Pert of this process had been the loss to other powers of territories that Portugal claimed theoretical jurisdiction over - eg the Southern Congo, the so-called Rose-coloured-strip that their atlases showed of Portugal from Angola in the West to Mozambique in the East, a dream of empire perhaps but a prestigious one, and when thwarted a blow to that prestige.

Spain, having lost Cuba much earlier in this scenario would have made increased and greater efforts to hang onto Puerto Rico (which in OTL gave little trouble) and the Philippines (which in OTL did). One major difference would be that the USA would be operating in the Pacific solely out of ports in Washington/Oregon, not having possession of California. One also sees much less likelihood of Russia selling Alaska, especially as a gold rush in a Mexican California is likely to have drawn Russian nationals into the melting pot of foreigners working there.

Adding into the scenario a Trans-Oceanic Canal operational by 1895 one can see a way for the USA to transfer gunboats and small cruisers between the Atlantic/Caribbean and the Pacific, but it is doubtful whether the canal across Miskitia/Nicaragua will have been built to accommodate ships of the size of armoured cruisers or battleships. These would still need to go via Cape Horn, perhaps for another 15-20 years ?

The 1890s gold rush in the Klondike also needs to be factored into this. Here, it is a Russian territory not an American one, and would be governed by Anglo-Russian agreements on the boundaries of where Alaska actually was. Its quite possible that these are not as precise as those negotiated between Britain and the USA in OTL, not least because Russia in having been there first is more loathe to give up claims. Thus the Klondike could exacerbate Anglo-Russian relationship difficulties.

Whilst one can postulate that in this environment neither US mercantile shipping nor US warship presence in the Pacific is necessarily going to be less, it would have a different strategic focus. International trade encompasses trade with Alaska, and trade with California. Strategic concerns would focus very heavily on Mexico, and especially California. Thus, though there may be a cruiser squadron in Washington/Oregon from an early date and later on a battleship squadron, it would be looking South not West.

This would change the whole dynamic of US relations with Japan, China and the Spanish territories in the Philippines and North Pacific. It would also alter how the Kingdom of Hawaii had evolved, since in OTL its evolution was drastically affected by the US annexation of California in the 1840s. With California remaining Mexican, it is more likely that Hawaii would be a bone of contention between Britain (as in OTL) and Russia, and eventually end up as a British protectorate.

Grey Wolf

[luakel]

Wow. That's awesome, Grey.

What do you have in mind for Mexico and the USA?

[Superdude]

Note - the comments at the bottom of both parts were with reference to the original thread that these posts resided in. I decided that it made most sense to excise my writing from that thread and post them separately, not as an exercise in egotism but to avoid taking over his thread with my postings, and because there was no great reply, and if what I was saying was unwelcome then its better if I do it in a thread of my own

Grey Wolf


I like. Continue.

[Grey Wolf]

Hmm, what if instead of a civil war it is delayed long enough that an amendment outlawing slavary is passed and there is a rebellion that is crushed?

I can't see how the amendment could be passed without a civil war. Even if in a no-Texas USA the other states might get enough votes to pass it, the states where there is opposition would be more likely to secede. Secession does not necessarily lead to civil war - for a while in OTL it did not seem as if it would, the CSA states sourced armaments from the North and got them delivered as an example.

I'm going to continue this timeline up to HK's 1915 war-date and then see where it leads me

Please feel free to keep commenting

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

I can't see how the amendment could be passed without a civil war. Even if in a no-Texas USA the other states might get enough votes to pass it, the states where there is opposition would be more likely to secede. Secession does not necessarily lead to civil war - for a while in OTL it did not seem as if it would, the CSA states sourced armaments from the North and got them delivered as an example.

I'm going to continue this timeline up to HK's 1915 war-date and then see where it leads me

Please feel free to keep commenting

Grey Wolf
Smaller number of Sucedding states if at a later date...I also see less tension over the territorial strife that started in congress. Prehaps a 54 or fight scenario in Oregon would happen without the Texan annexation.

[Grey Wolf]

Global politics and imperialism need to be considered before one can tie up the nineteenth century and move on. For the sake of simplicity it would be best to have the Hinterland Policy adopted in international congress - however, this could be later than OTL given the major wars of the 1870s and the likelihood that it would be pressing a decade or so later than it was in OTL. The Hinterland Policy basically said that a colonial power in order to protect a colony had the right to move into the interior and defeat local resistance. Of course, this could become self-energising as with the British in Nigeria where initially in order to defend the coastal settlements, the British found themselves fighting the Sokoto Caliphate on the edges of the Sahara because each time they extended Northward there was a new threat to their influence, and they would defeat that and face off another new threat, until they got to the major power deep in the interior.

It would probably take a paradigm shift to change this, and since we are at only a ten year delay or so, the most major difference in the ATL would be rates of conquest, and some changes to the patterns of conquest, especially over disputed areas.

Given that it was Napoleon III who went to war for Cochin China in the 1850s, it seems unlikely that Napoleon IV would embark on any less Far Eastern adventures than the Republic of OTL did. Thus the Sino-French War, and the conquest of Vietnam. It could even come around the OTL time at the onset of the 1880s as one could postulate that a result of the European war of the mid-late 1870s had been to see overseas nations throw off some aspects of French penetration or take on advisors or merchants from rival powers. Taking this to a slight extreme one could see a revolt in Cochin China, and German agents in Saigon, perhaps Germans in cahoots with the Chinese Empire too.

The Germany of this ATL is likely to be as aggressive as OTL, albeit coming at things from a different perspective. One major difference would be that given massive German investment in the USA, and bad Anglo-American relations, Germany and the USA are likely to be on very friendly terms, and that incidents such as the stand-off over Samoa that almost led to war would never happen.

Treaties and alliances in the later nineteenth century in OTL tended to be rather confusing. A nation might have two different alliances, one with one set of powers, one with another, but it was not assumed that a situation would arise where both sets would come into play at once and deliver a humungous power bloc into any potential war. History is good at overlooking treaties which lapsed or which never were utilised, in case anyone wonders why they don't hear of these things.

Thus, I could imagine at the close of the nineteenth century a German Empire allied on the one hand to the United States, and a United States that also has an alliance with the Russian Empire, whilst relations between Germany and Russia are fairly warm but not necessarily any better than between Germany and Great Britain.

I would guess that in order to close the nineteenth century out, one needs to complete the picture in the Balkans and in the Ottoman Empire. For the latter I don't see any greater advantages than OTL, and in fact they are going to have the major disadvantage that a San Stefano-sized Bulgaria cuts the Eastern empire off from that in Albania, and still legally in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

In fact, the question surely arises whether Austria is in any position to intervene in Bosnia in 1878 and having just lost a war to Prussia and Italy, and having no doubt problems internally, I would say that the answer was no. Thus, the Ottomans probably have retained direct rule over Bosnia, and the Sanjak of Novi-Pazar, which is a gain, but in losing Macedonia and Western Thrace have seen these areas sundered from Constantinople.

However, Ottoman control of Bosnia, Hercegovina, Novi Pazar and Albania does mean that Serbian, and Montenegrin, expansionism will be differently focused than in OTL. Whereas in OTL it would seem suicide for the Obrenovics or for Montenegro to challenge Austrian occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, here because they are parts still of the Ottoman polity this is likely to be a major policy much earlier. Whilst Montenegro would still look at Novi Pazar and Scutari for gains, Serbia would be looking both North into Bosnia and South-West into Albania. Although rivalries and jealousies with Bulgaria would remain strong, taking on such a state would be a far worse hope than trying to get the sundered part of the Ottoman Empire to shred itself fully away from Ottoman control.

Greece of course would also be involved in this. It is likely that instead of dreams of conquest of Macedonia and even Constantinople, the ATL's realism would see Epirus and Albania as the main achievable aim, at least in the short term, as well as Crete of course.

The later nineteenth century was a time of little wars in the Balkans, incremental gains, jostling for position etc. But would this be the same in the ATL ? Might not the presence of a super-Bulgaria, once it had bedded down, be a factor more likely to cause an all-out Balkan War before 1900 ? This appears to run contrary to the idea that Serbia for example would be stupid to attack it, but instead if they allied against the Ottomans ? Bulgaria could aim for more of Thrace, or even for Constantinople, whilst Serbia and the other allies could aim for Bosnia and Albania.

What were the breaks on such action in OTL, and do they still exist in this ATL ? OTL the countries ranged against the Ottomans were weak and divided and though they could hold their own in a very localised war, they could not hope to compete in a major war. By 1911 this had changed with Bulgaria uniting, becoming a kingdom etc, and with Greece gaining the upper hand with Crete, and with the Karageorgevics in power in Serbia. In the ATL Bulgaria already is a bigger power, Greece is probably being actively supported by Britain as a counterweight to Russian influence at Sofia, and Serbia is under the Obrenovics, though historically their friendship was with the Austrians not the Ottomans, so the dynastic difference may well make no difference.

It may even be illogical to assume that peace reigns because peace is the natural order of things unless upset. This, after all, is the Balkans. Thus I can envisage a Balkan War in the mid 1890s, where the sundered territories fall. This would see Serbia moving into Bosnia, Montenegro into Hercegovina, both into Novi Pazar, Montenegro into Scutari, Serbia into Central Albania and Greece into Southern Albania. One could imagine Bulgaria assailing Constantinople, but being defeated, perhaps diplomatically by the arrival of an international force. Maybe Italy gets involved, perhaps Austria hovers on the peripherary.

It is of course conjecture. But it feels more likely than another decade of peace despite the greatly changed circumstances.

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Smaller number of Sucedding states if at a later date...I also see less tension over the territorial strife that started in congress. Prehaps a 54 or fight scenario in Oregon would happen without the Texan annexation.

I have often in other ATLs gone along with an Oregon War between Britain and the USA, but I find that on balance Britain did not want one, and that the USA was pushing its upper territorial limits rather than what it really hoped to get. Of course, if both sides are less amenable than OTL there could be war, but it could simply be as tense as OTL, get a settlement as per OTL, but be remembered as bad blood for a lot longer and a lot deeper in the ATL

Grey Wolf

[luakel]

I have often in other ATLs gone along with an Oregon War between Britain and the USA, but I find that on balance Britain did not want one, and that the USA was pushing its upper territorial limits rather than what it really hoped to get. Of course, if both sides are less amenable than OTL there could be war, but it could simply be as tense as OTL, get a settlement as per OTL, but be remembered as bad blood for a lot longer and a lot deeper in the ATL

Grey Wolf
So would British Columbia go to the US?

[Grey Wolf]

So would British Columbia go to the US?

Not in this timeline, but maybe in others

I see Britain and the USA as having similar enough attitudes to OTL in this period for it to be part of an agreement that the border be where it is now

Of course, you can argue this if you will, but in essence its a judgement call and I call that it has not differed in the ATL that I propose, primarily because the POD is only 5 years beforehand

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

Not in this timeline, but maybe in others

I see Britain and the USA as having similar enough attitudes to OTL in this period for it to be part of an agreement that the border be where it is now

Of course, you can argue this if you will, but in essence its a judgement call and I call that it has not differed in the ATL that I propose, primarily because the POD is only 5 years beforehand

Grey Wolf
The only real arguement is unvented agression by the US....

[Grey Wolf]

The only real arguement is unvented agression by the US....

True, but I propose both war with Spain and involvement in Central America to deal with this aspect

Besides, there are always the American Indians...

But I do take your point that the USA isn't going to be passive. I just have t being active in different directions here

Grey Wolf

[luakel]

Not in this timeline, but maybe in others

I see Britain and the USA as having similar enough attitudes to OTL in this period for it to be part of an agreement that the border be where it is now

Of course, you can argue this if you will, but in essence its a judgement call and I call that it has not differed in the ATL that I propose, primarily because the POD is only 5 years beforehand

Grey Wolf
So, what exactly are the boarders of the Us in 1900?

[Grey Wolf]

The original purpose of this timeline was to see what type of alliances, rough friendships and likely sidings for profit woud exist by 1915, and come as close as possible to the scenario outlined by Halnzder Kverldak in his thread.

I envisage Austria as being to Germany what Italy was in OTL - an ally, but an insecure one. One who you can work with in peacetime on manoevres etc, but one who in time of war you could not rely on. The main reason for Austria's different position is that the war for European hegemony in the mid-late 1870s lasted a few years not a couple of months as per OTL, and the bitterness is longer, the memories die less soon, and although as badly defeated as per OTL, Austrian pride is not as shattered since they held out for much longer.

Italy is the major German ally, their shared years of war bonding them greater together. But Italy's leaders have become obsessed with glory in places where Germany has little influence - in Abyssinia, and in Libya. Onecan ask whether Adowa would not have happened, and Italy go smarting into the following years. But after the few years of war in Europe, Italy is going to have a greater military, more modern weapons and better leadership. The failures of the OTL Venetia campaign would have been replaced by the successes of the ATL Venetia, Rome and Savoy campaigns. This could well provide Italy with enough of an advantage over OTL to defeat the Abyssinians and to consolidate a sphere of infuence in the Horn of Africa which includes Eritrea and Italy's Somali protectorates. Abyssinia would probably have been treated similarly to how Britain dealt with Egypt - local ruler in place, but administration under colonial control.

As for Egypt, I still see it falling under British control. In fact, given France being bogged down in the European war in the mid-to-late 1870s and with Russia on the advance in the Balkans, it might provide Britain with the perfect opportunity to act early and opportunistically to intervene in Egypt.

I still see Italy as being suspicious of Austria in this ATL. In fact I think it only natural that it would be suspiciuos of both empires on its Northern borders, suspicious of both Habsburgs and Bonapartes, both of whom had in the past plundered and ruled large parts of its land. Italy has claims of varying degrees of validity on Austrian land in the Southern Tyrol, Trieste and in Dalmatia. It might not act to pursue these whilst Austria is theoretically an ally of Germany as Italy also is, but it would act in its own interests to secure other interests that could one day be used against Austria if need be.

Italy in OTL was very close to Montenegro, with dynastic marriages being a definite symbol of this. In the ATL one could expect Italy to act in support of Montenegrin interests, with the Balkan War of the 1890s being a case in point. Austria may well be threatening to takie Hercegovina for herself, or to try to mediate a settlement. But Italian interests are served by a Greater Montenegro. Given that Obrenovic Serbia might, rightly or wrongly in this ATL, be seen as friendly with Austria then Italy backing Montenegro would be a visible counterweight to this.

If Russian and German pressure prevents direct Austrian involvement, then the emergence of a Greater Serbia across Bosnia and to the Central Albanian coast would be something which Vienna would have to work hard at making into a situational advantage. Obrenovic friendship for Austria, and potential fears of Russian-sponsored Great Bulgaria would work in favour of this.

Tunis leads to Libya. Thus the question is whether in this ATL there is room for a French seizure of Tunis. Given the rough idea of a decade or so delay in action, it could well be that French plans to do so coalesce around the same time as the Balkan War blows up. Although there is a need to keep some troops in Savoie, as well as on the Rhine, a French dash for Tunis may actually make great sense in this scenario as it acts as a counter to Italian gains in influence from Montenegro's growth, and quite possibly Italian naval involvement in the war.

Thus one may see the French esconced in Tunis during the 1890s, but no Italian move on Libya. For part of this the knock-on timewise has knocked Libya off the scale, but more likely the Italian conquest of Abyssinia has simply drained away the type of resources that would be needed to attempt it. Thus in 1915, Libya remains a part of the Ottoman Empire

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

So, what exactly are the boarders of the Us in 1900?
I'm assuming the US didn't gain much, without manifest destiny being practiced on the continet Maybe we buy more land out of the center of OTL Canada. No Alaska, no Texas, no California. We expand southwards if I'm correct. That would presumely put more presure on the British for the defense of Jamaica. The Yucatan could be put into a liberial flux on whether to join the UPCA or remain independant. Northern Mexico is still full of secessionists, many of which I'm sure are moving into Texas. Texas is likely going to want to gain a Pacific coast at some point, so possible conflict with Mexico is always around the bin.

[Grey Wolf]

So, what exactly are the boarders of the Us in 1900?

In general take today's borders, and then subtract California-Nevada-New Mexico-Arizona

This won't be exact, since Deseret is likely to have extended into the Northern parts of these states, but its rough

After that add in Cuba, but delete Hawaii from OTL possessions, as well as Alaska though of course neither were states in 1900. Cuba may be though, especially if conquiered in the 1850s

Grey Wolf

[luakel]

In general take today's borders, and then subtract California-Nevada-New Mexico-Arizona

This won't be exact, since Deseret is likely to have extended into the Northern parts of these states, but its rough

After that add in Cuba, but delete Hawaii from OTL possessions, as well as Alaska though of course neither were states in 1900. Cuba may be though, especially if conquiered in the 1850s

Grey Wolf
I imagined Deseret as Utah + Most of Nevada. Won't Texas be independent?

[Grey Wolf]

I'm assuming the US didn't gain much, without manifest destiny being practiced on the continet Maybe we buy more land out of the center of OTL Canada. No Alaska, no Texas, no California. We expand southwards if I'm correct. That would presumely put more presure on the British for the defense of Jamaica. The Yucatan could be put into a liberial flux on whether to join the UPCA or remain independant. Northern Mexico is still full of secessionists, many of which I'm sure are moving into Texas. Texas is likely going to want to gain a Pacific coast at some point, so possible conflict with Mexico is always around the bin.

I see Texas as conquered by the USA in this ATL in c1878 after supporting the Confederacy, and with the USA taking advantage of France being involved in and defeated in the European War. Britain won't fight the USA alone so focuses its efforts on Mexican territorial integrity

Britain won't SELL land in Canada to the USA, and I have assumed that with only a 5 year differentiation between POD and Oregon Crisis that the latter is settled more or less as in OTL, though it may stir up bad feelings for considerably longer

I view the USA's Central American adventures in this ATL as ultimately fruitless as far as territory is concerned, but no doubt useful regarding economic influence and political leverage

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

In general take today's borders, and then subtract California-Nevada-New Mexico-Arizona

This won't be exact, since Deseret is likely to have extended into the Northern parts of these states, but its rough

After that add in Cuba, but delete Hawaii from OTL possessions, as well as Alaska though of course neither were states in 1900. Cuba may be though, especially if conquiered in the 1850s

Grey Wolf
Could Deseret effectively go northward? I think the US would thrash them if they tried. By the point your talking its already consider US territory. Western Colorado on the otherhand...and Nevada's east.

[Grey Wolf]

I imagined Deseret as Utah + Most of Nevada. Won't Texas be independent?

The timeline as I have assumed for this ATL has Texas conquered in the late 1870s and Deseret conquered in c1880s

You may well be right about the extent of Deseret vis-a-vis Nevada, but it is likely that the further one goes from the heartland, the less populous it is and maybe the USA in its final settlement with Mexico in the 1890s retrocedes some of these areas in order to get an agreed border

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

I see Texas as conquered by the USA in this ATL in c1878 after supporting the Confederacy, and with the USA taking advantage of France being involved in and defeated in the European War. Britain won't fight the USA alone so focuses its efforts on Mexican territorial integrity

Britain won't SELL land in Canada to the USA, and I have assumed that with only a 5 year differentiation between POD and Oregon Crisis that the latter is settled more or less as in OTL, though it may stir up bad feelings for considerably longer

I view the USA's Central American adventures in this ATL as ultimately fruitless as far as territory is concerned, but no doubt useful regarding economic influence and political leverage

Grey Wolf
They sold part of the Dakotas OTL to the US, I figured they might make that purchase slightly larger. I think they could make a centroamerican puppet state, ja?

[Grey Wolf]

Could Deseret effectively go northward? I think the US would thrash them if they tried. By the point your talking its already consider US territory. Western Colorado on the otherhand...and Nevada's east.

Well, its not US territory if the USA never fights Mexico - thats why the Mormons went there, it was de jure Mexican territory, and it only came under US jurisdiction as a result of the 1840s Mexican war

In terms of Northward expansion, that is into US territory. I saw that as part of the catalyst of the Deseret War - Mormon missionaries making inroads into US territory, then a growing US-Mormon war of words, and a Mormon UDI

The latter may appear dumb on one level but people do do dumb things, and it could be seen as part of a larger plan, even if one based too much on hope, or delusion.

Grey Wolf

[luakel]

maybe the USA in its final settlement with Mexico in the 1890s
So what does that mean for California?

[Grey Wolf]

They sold part of the Dakotas OTL to the US, I figured they might make that purchase slightly larger. I think they could make a centroamerican puppet state, ja?

I don't really think so, at least no more than OTL Panama. If you look at the massive fierce resistance put up in OTL by Costa Ricans against William Walker's attempts to mould a united state in Central America, then you have an indication of how this lacks long-term viability

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

So what does that mean for California?

I see California as being a catalyst for war in 1915

By final settlement I meant with regard to the annexation of Deseret which was essentially illegal. After a decade of arbitration and legal wrangling the USA pays compensation and agrees a definitive border

As for California, I see it as becoming increasingly cosmopolitan and internationalised, and with this increasingly autonomous

Grey Wolf

[Othniel]

Well, its not US territory if the USA never fights Mexico - thats why the Mormons went there, it was de jure Mexican territory, and it only came under US jurisdiction as a result of the 1840s Mexican war

In terms of Northward expansion, that is into US territory. I saw that as part of the catalyst of the Deseret War - Mormon missionaries making inroads into US territory, then a growing US-Mormon war of words, and a Mormon UDI

The latter may appear dumb on one level but people do do dumb things, and it could be seen as part of a larger plan, even if one based too much on hope, or delusion.

Grey Wolf
You said more northwards, as in Idaho northwards...Going into Idaho would prompt (even though it was religiously influenced in OTL) a much larger war. Polks repression of the mormons OTL was something simular. I admit it would be dumb of them. The mormons would become an analong to Paraguay...

[Othniel]

I don't really think so, at least no more than OTL Panama. If you look at the massive fierce resistance put up in OTL by Costa Ricans against William Walker's attempts to mould a united state in Central America, then you have an indication of how this lacks long-term viability

Grey Wolf
True, but there were several attempts by members of the liberial countries to attempt and recreate that state, which is why the US was often envolved, to prevent reunification. The US I think will be quite involved as per OTL.

[Grey Wolf]

You said more northwards, as in Idaho northwards...Going into Idaho would prompt (even though it was religiously influenced in OTL) a much larger war. Polks repression of the mormons OTL was something simular. I admit it would be dumb of them. The mormons would become an analong to Paraguay...

Mormon missionaries going Northwards does not imply the Northwards expansion of the Deseret nation, though the USA would probably be afraid that it does

I meant simply missions, small groups who settle in one place in a mission hall or temple structure and who then administer to a flock that is attracted to them. I see this method as making inroads earlier in California, and being adopted for the USA later.

The USA sees this in conjunction with Deseret's UDI as EITHER a genuine threat or as a golden opportunity to crush the Mormons

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

True, but there were several attempts by members of the liberial countries to attempt and recreate that state, which is why the US was often envolved, to prevent reunification. The US I think will be quite involved as per OTL.

Oh, I certainly intend it to be a place of flux in the ATL

But reunification attempts usually foundered on nationalist/separatist concerns rather than on outside intervention

I could see the USA establishing friendly governments by force of arms, or backing one side in a civil war to its own advantage - and this includes in the Yucatan

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

One problem with proposing a whole new strategic schematic for the world is that one has to coverr the whole world ! Thus the Far East and South America need to be understood in this context.

Would a Russia that still rules Alaska, recently had a gold rush in the Klondike and has interests in California and Hawaii follow its OTL path in the 1890s ? It seems unlikely, but for a definitive answer one has to look at the Far Eastern balance of power in that period and how in this ATL that would impact upon Russia

The main thrust here is the rivalry between China and Japan. I see no great likelihood of the direction of either being greatly delayed or changed by differences in the ATL. Perry, Putiatin, Ignatieff would all exist or have analogues. The Bakufu system in Japan would still be in a political crisis even with different events in the USA and Europe. OTL it had French military assistance and though there are a few PODs where something may just have saved it, events remain too close to OTL for one to consider a real great divergence.

The same would be said of the Taiping and Anglo-French intervention. Both China and Japan procede down their historical pathways.

Even if the Sino-French War has different origins in this ATL, it would still have the same outcome - French victory. That in the ATL this would be a setback for German agents does, however, add something new to the dawn of the 1880s.

The question then becomes is there a Sino-Japanese War ? Again I don't see any real reason why not, its main focus was on Korea and nothing much has happened differently to Korea. Assuming a Japanese victory as in OTL, and I again see no reason not to, this is then followed by the independence of Korea, its declaration as an empire, and the passing of the nineteenth century.

Would there still be a late 1890s crisis in China and a scramble for territory ? Again, I see no reason why not. The details would differ but the essence remain the same. Thus we could see by 1900, the Germans in Shantung, the British expanding Hong Kong, the French in Kwangchowan, and a more aggressive and successful Italian government in Ningpo, the one real difference. Japan may well have been driven out of Port Arthur by a combined German-Russian force, again as per OTL, though French involvement seems less likely, a slight change.

Given perhaps a decade's delay in most colonial adventures, one could assume no Niger Crisis and no Fashoda to blight Anglo-French relations in this period. In terms of likely foes, Britain remains focused on the United States, and Russia, whilst France remains focused on Germany and Italy. This would determine the deployment of fleets, the size and orientation of naval construction and whether OTL design revolutions occur.

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Looking at the Royal Navy as it enters the 20th century, one cannot but note that as opposed to OTL it needs to maintain strong fleets in the Caribbean and off the Pacific coast of the Americas. It cannot surrender a fleet presence at Kingston, and in the Pacific it must retain a significant presence.

One cannot however ignore the fact that the Kaiser is the Kaiser and with increased interests in the USA, the need for a strong navy may be even more clear and obvious than OTL. But if it IS then it also has a more logical focus - the protection of trans-Atlantic trade, and getting warships into the North Atlantic. Thus, Germany may well embark on a programme of naval construction as per OTL, but the ships would be different, and the strategic imperative would be different.

Britain would have to counter this, at the same time worrying about Russia. But by 1900, Russia may have begun to become detached from the US alliance.

Returning to the Far East, it seems a good degree less likely that Manchuria would get the kind of attention as per OTL. Russia still owns Alaska, there is a Russian community in California, and one supposes also in Hawaii. A lease on Port Arthur may make sense, but the occupation of Manchuria itself may never happen, or if it does only in the course of suppressing the Boxer Rebellion.

Again, I can see no reason to knock China off its OTL course at the present time. The Boxer Rebellion occurs, the foreign legations are besieged in Peking, the international naval force gathers, the relief army marches, the Dragon Empress flees and eventually has to make peace because the international force realise there is no one else to make peace with.

Russia evacuates Manchuria apart from Port Arthur and the Liaotung peninsular. Russian capital is tied up in Alaska and California and less so in China.

In addition, Japan may lean more towards France. France was the power during the Bakufu system that undertook to modernise Japanese arms. Since then Japan has been open to all offers. Whilst the royal navy seems the likeliest model for a navy and the German army that for an army, France could sneak in, especially if able to manipulate Japanese fears of German activity in China and Vietnam.

The Second Empire had a strong naval tradition. In the ATL one can note that this development would have continued uninterrupted to the mid 1870s, and that in a war lasting a number of years the navy could well have proved itself at sea. After the war, there would not have been the initial massive cutbacks that the Third Republic instituted, and the navy would have risen again. Thus the Sino-French War is not so long after the ATL defeat in Europe but France is already able to fight it. This interest in the navy and focus on it would continue in a linear fashion. Who is to say that France's navy is not the best in the world ? It is unlikely ever to have been bested.

Looking to South America, one sees only a couple of things to wonder about in the period under question. The War of the Triple Alliance and the War of the Pacific happen as per OTL, but does the abolition of slavery in the Empire of Brazil lead to the collapse of the monarchy there ? And do Chile and Argentina come to blows over Tierra del Fuego at the beginning of the 20th century ?

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Obviously avoiding the Russo-Japanese War would fall into the pattern here, especially with Japan coming into the French orbit.

Bonapartist France and its alliances is probably also something to consider in the wider picture. Given the mid-to-late 1870s war with Prussia and Italy, France's preoccupations strategically are going to remain focused on the Rhine border to the North, and on Italy to the South. This will be a more powerful Italy that stood on its own two feet, fought for longer, and won its own battles. This also explains the Italian conquest of Abyssinia in this ATL, and their acquisition of Ningpo in China.

French moves to occupy Tunis during the mid-1890s Balkan War would fall into this picture, but as well as that France would be looking to back counterweights to Italian power. One of these would undoubtedly be Austria, despite Austria's presence in an alliance bloc with Germany and Italy. It is the natural counterweight to Italy and Bonapartist France would have good relations with Habsburg Austria in this period. One could also see France backing Greece, again as a counter to Italy, but also in conjunction with Britain and relying partly on their shared history as being among Greece's guarantor powers.

So-called 'decaying powers' such as Spain, Portugal and the Ottoman Empire can also not be ignored once we get into the twentieth century. Only Britain would have remained untainted by involvement in the Balkan War of the mid-1890s, as we see direct Italian naval action, French seizure of Tunis, and one would presume some sort of Russian backing for Bulgaria, although not to the point of arms. Perhaps a word could be said about Rumania which would have come into existence sandwiched between the Russian Empire and super Bulgaria. I think there would be a closer relationship with Russia, partly out of necessity, and partly out of the natural development of things. An Austria just defeated in 1878 would have had no ability to intervene or even threaten to intervene in the Principalities, and one can assume that Rumania has adjusted to accommodate its new strategic reality.

The question-marks over the viability of Spain's empire in the North Pacific would have attracted covetous eyes, from France, Japan and Germany certainly. Possibly Russia even looks at some of the islands with interest. The Philippine insurrections being bloodily suppressed by the Spanish, and the exiled leadership plotting from China, or the foreign Chinese ports, would excite the imagination of the aggressive colonial powers.

One might need to regress and ask 'Whither Spain ?' in the later 19th century. Losing Cuba to the USA in the 1850s is going to have delivered a shock to the system. It may in fact see the downfall of Isabella, and perhaps a Carlist war that occurs at the end of the 1850s instead of a decade later. At the time, with wars in Northern Italy, and with the Danish War in 1864, Europe would appear to be an unstable dangerous place. Spain could fit into this pattern. As for the outcome of the civil war, there will have been no Hohenzollern candidacy to have confused the issue, no unified Italy to provide a prince to become king, and Isabella's son is not of age. The civil war would be between Isabella on the one hand, and the Carlists on the other, and it is not inconceivable that the latter win.

A Carlist Spain may well have swung to a more traditionalist line as a reaction to Isabella's reign and the system of governance she had in place. One cannot see the Carlists going after Santo Domingo on the request of part of the influential populace there - and without the ACW occurring in this period, the USA would make it quite clear that such an adventure is not acceptable anyway. Nor does war with Peru over birdshit seem a likely occurrence. The 'new imperialism' evinced by Isabella in the OTL 1860s would have been short-circuited by defeat in the war with the USA, and the ensuing civil war in Spain itself.

However, a traditional conservative regime may stem the flow for a while, but eventually will find itself having to deal with problems that have grown perhaps even more significant for having had the lid put on them. One could imagine Isabella in exile, bringing up young Alphonso to believe he is the true king of Spain, and entertaining the hope of his seizing the throne back just as the Carlists themselves had done. Alphonso could model himself as a more modern and liberal monarch-in-waiting, quite possibly adopting in theory many of the changes that Napoleon IV will have had to grant in practice after acquiring his throne in defeat at the end of the 1870s.

One can imagine a formal Franco-Japanese alliance in this ATL, occurring in the early years of the 20th century, securing for Japan the comfort of knowing that a powerful European country would back her if she were attacked, and for France the knowledge that it has an Asiatic counterweight to events in Europe. Japanese backing for republican movements in China in this period is documented in OTL, Sun-Yat-Sen and many of his principle lieutenants having had a liberal education in Japan. Applying the same principles to the Filipino opposition in its exile, one could see Japan seeking to utilise them, and seeking at the same time to act against Spain.

Perhaps Spain in this peiod shows signs of a rennaissance ? Curiously, a naval build-up often occurs in history before a crushing defeat, sometimes because it strains the infrastructure, sometimes because it is a symptom of an infrastructure already under pressure. If Spain starts to build up its forces in the Philippines after putting down the insurrection, then Japan may well view matters as beginning to get away from them. 1904 could therefore see a Japanese attack on the Philippines, instead of OTL's upon Russia in Manchuria.

The Spanish-Japanese War of this ATL would be fought in something of the same atmosphere as the Russo-Japanese War of OTL. Surrounding powers watch but do not join in. The Japanese land and advance, they blockade Manila as a Port Arthur analogue, perhaps Spain gathers a relief fleet and sends it out but before it gets there Manila falls. The fleet steams on and is annihilated in Leyte Gulf ?

With Spain defeated and with memories of having forced Japan to make concessions after their previous victory (over China), the great powers may well move into the islands in the North Pacific, staking out their own claims and calling Japan's bluff. We could see Germany, Italy and Russia picking up island chains, and resentment amongst the Japanese that these additional prizes have been lost.

Spanish defeat, the humiliation of it being to an Asiatic power and the overwhelming nature of the naval disaster could well bring revolution in Spain. Step forward Alphonso XII (who one assumes has managed to avoid his curious death of OTL) as a candidate for a modern and reformed Spain that looks forwards and not back.

While Spain is fighting itself it is not getting involved in Morocco but as per OTL France and Germany look likely to have their clash here. The German Empire is acting to different strategic imperatives but this serves to make Morocco more of a practical matter rather than a prestige one. With a High Seas Fleet being truly built according to its name operational bases around the Atlantic would be a necessity for it. It can rely on close relations with the United States but where else ? A core group of bases in the Far East would support larger squadrons than OTL, with Ningpo being in the hands of their Italian allies, and with Port Arthur remaining Russian. But in the key Atlantic theatre where are the friends and allies to offer bases ?

One aspect may be to consider South America. On balance it seems unlikely that any of the changes kicked off by the mid-1840s POD would have had sufficient impact to prevent the fall of the Brazilian monarchy. But the other great possibility, a war between Chile and Argentina over Tierra del Fuego was so close in OTL that both sides started a large naval build-up. In OTL the eventual reaching of a settlement meant that many of these ships were sold off without possession being taken of them (eg the Triumph and Swiftsure were intended for Chile, whilst armoured cruisers of the Varese class were intended for Argentina but sold off to all and sundry). In a world where things are developing differently such a war could happen.

It would come in the timeline after the 1890s Balkan War, after the Boxer Rebellion and around the same time as the Boer War. Whilst it is tempting to consider altering this latter, as well, it would not seem on the surface that the British Empire is going to be pursuing a policy in Southern Africa that is significantly different than OTL's. Its main differences to date have been more involement on the side of Greece in the Balkans, and maintaining a stronger presence in the Pacific, especially California and Hawaii.

Thus the chronology of wars would pass from the Boer War, through the Tierra del Fuego War to the Spanish-Japanese War. Then would come the Moroccan Crisis at the same time as the Spanish Civil War.

With a war between Chile and Argentina thus breaking out, the great powers would not all stand idly by and watch. One could certainly imagine Germany seeking influence at this time, a time which coincides with Britain struggling to defeat the Boers, and with German-British relations at a low point. The problem for Germany might be who to back. There is a sizeable Germanic population in Chile and Chilean nitrates are of vital importance to the armaments industry, but at the same time Argentina is in a strategically important position, though historically a firm friend of Great Britain. One may well see German diplomatic backing for Chile but at the same time German efforts to be the 'Honest Broker' and bring about a settlement that would increase its influence in both caountries, and undermine that of Britain.

German imperialism may also impinge upon Madagascar, and perhaps even Djibouti. If we assume the decade-long delay in colonial acquisitions is the rule in the ATL, except when different events could impel a nation to act at the same time as OTL but earlier in the relative timeframe, then the united kingdom of Madagascar is under French influence, but not French control. German agents may well be busy there, promising to help maintain Madagasque independence against French machinations. In Djibouti, the presence of an Italian Abyssinia and Italian control of much of the rest of the Horn of Africa may well mean that Germany moves in on Djibouti before France does.

All of this would fit with the slightly different direction of German imperialism in this ATL, and would provide a dangerous backdrop to the confrontation over Morocco.

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

As we are not looking for a world war in 1906 we will have to postulate that Britain finally comes out of itself and stands beside France against Germany. It is certainly in her interest to do so, as the German High Seas Fleet, in this ATL built to challenge in the North Atlantic, is a serious threat to British interests, and a German base in Morocco would only exacerbate this. The crisis and the sense of war fever being generated in some of the European nations may well show the first signs of a crack between Austria and Germany.

Germany backs down, but is neither going to forget it, nor will it be swayed away from its aggressive poicy of imperialism. If this policy has already brought it Djibouti and some of the North Pacific islands, then it will not seem to be a policy that is a failure, merely one which has been thwarted in Morocco. This would not be the first such thwarting, either, as France had done similar in Vietnam at the end of the 1870s. Perhaps France also now does similar in Madagascar ? But the likelihood there is that Madagasque independence continues and the island kingdom becomes a place of intrigue between the great powers.

One could also imagine German involvement in the Ottoman Empire as per OTL, attempting to rival British influence there. However, events in the empire are not going to go as per OTL. The Balkan War was fought and lost in the 1890s, but even before that Macedonia and Bulgaria had been lost in 1878 to the super-sized Bulgaria. The loss of Bosnia-Albania in the 1890s probably does not bring about the same kind of dramatic upheaval as the first part of OTL's 20th century did. Thus we see no 'Young Turks', no overthrow of the sultan, and only a lingering crisis over Crete rather than over the whole of the Balkans. The Ottoman Empire may therefore seem more secure. However, with Austria a less-than-certain ally and Bulgaria in the Russian sphere of influence ideas for a Berlin-to-Baghdad railway would be a lot less promising than in OTL. Instead, Germany could be looking for basing rights, and for oil exploitation rights in Mosul or the Persian Gulf.

The years up to 1915 would thus see an aggressive German foreign policy, and one major twist in this could well surround Portugal. Portugal, an ostentatious monarchy, a poor country and an empire that everyone wanted. The overthrow of the monarchy by republican elements in this ATL would give Germany a much-looked-for opportunity to act to acquire some territory, to add to its attempts at acquiring influence. With the new republican government in Lisbon unable to defend its overseas possessions, and with the exiled king in London only able to exert a certain influence upon a government which would recognise the revolutionary regime, Germany has its opportunity.

A battle-squadron sent to the Azores seems a perfect possibility. With greater interests in the USA, and with the need for a battlefleet capable of operating in the North Atlantic, Germany in this timeline has built a truly High Seas-capable fleet. Cruisers sent to Angola and Mozambique may well fill out the German actions here.

It would not be without a counter-reaction. The Azores would be key to German policy and the area where the Germans would make the most effort not to be dislodged. Diplomatic crises be damned, they have landed there, taken occupation of them and in this they would have the tacit approval of the USA. The USA certainly would not want them to become French or British, and may well view the German acquisition of them as being a diversion from any potential German moves into the Caribbean itself, which ally or not they would not want to see.

One can imagine an international Congress at which Portugal is the minor player. Mozambique which in this period was as much a collection of fiefdoms as it was a unitary colony is the most likely to be partitioned, with areas going to German Tanganyika, and to British Rhodesia, perhaps with a rump remaining Portuguese in the South. This could even give Rhodesia an outlet to the sea.

With Angola, Germany may end up with some gains, perhaps a small rejigging of the Sud-west Afrika boundary in their favour, perhaps an additional port ceded to them in the centre. Maybe Britain and France pick up parts too, perhaps Luanda and the islands. But the rump probably remains Portuguese. Goa, Macao and East Timor seem unlikely to be affected, and whilst one can imagine a German expedition to the Cape Verdes/Equatorial Guinea area, one can imagine that France acts strongest here to prevent German influence appearing on the coast South of Morocco. The quid-pro-quo would probably be having to let the Azores remain German.

One question in all of this is what of the role of Russia ? There will have been no Franco-Russian agreement in the later nineteenth century and Russia will have remained friendly with the USA. I did see, though, the likelihood of an Anglo-Russian rapprochement as their rivalries begin to settle down with borders becoming more defined, and spheres of influence being agreed. The Klondike gold rush, the ensuing border crisis and the carefully-detailed agreement may be the spur to further agreements of this kind. Russia also retains great interest in its nationals inside California, as evidenced by their seizure of some of the ex-Spanish islands in the North Pacific at the end of the Spanish-Japanese War.

At the same time Russia may be running up against the interests of other powers in the Pacific - the Germans in Samoa and the Solomons/New Guinea area, France in Tahiti perhaps and France as the ally of Japan for certain.

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Before we deal with California and 'The Mexican Spark' mention must be made of events in China. There seems little reason to assume that the civil war will not break out here, that Yuan Shih-Kai will not turn on the Manchu, or that Sun-Yat-Sen will not rise in the South. Whilst the lack of a Russo-Japanese War and the maintainence of Korea independence offer a difference in the North, the Japanese conquest of the Philippines offer a difference in the South. The effects of the first might be to bolster the Manchu, the effects of the latter might be to bolster the opposition.

Thus, by 1912 the empire is in collapse and the Republicans are in the ascendant. A more aggressive Germany might be expected to intervene here, but the date coincides with the Portuguese Crisis that is taking up all their attention. It is also taking up all of Britain and France's attention. This could indeed open some possibilities for Russian and for Japanese involvement, but both powers are going to be looking at the other with suspicion and there is no common ground for action.

Moving on to California, the key to this ATL's world war we need to look back at what has occurred there, certainly since the Deseret War of the 1880s, perhaps even further back. With the gold rush at the end of the 1850s California became a cosmopolitan place, with an influx of settlers from Britain, Russia etc but at the same time a greater effort from Mexico to retain control. The conclusion of the mid-1870s American Civil War, and the US conquest of Texas, brings US moves against California, but ones which are blocked by British guarantees to Mexico. The US later moves to conquer Deseret and in the 1890s agrees compensation and borders with Mexico. California, and the rest of New Mexico, remains Mexican territory.

The trans-continental railroads are built across the North, termini being in Oregon and Washington, supporting the infrastructure of naval bases on the Pacific in places such as Portland. Foreign investment in the form of German finance is going to play a part here. The conquest of OTL Utah and parts of OTL Nevada would give an additional impetus to railroad construction. The opening of the trans-oceanic canal across Miskitia/Nicaragua in the mid 1890s adds an additional element of its own, but it is probably not until the 1910s that it is able to accommodate larger warships, and then probably not the most modern ones as naval technology keeps increasing the size even as the canal is widened and deepened for the last lot.

California would have a good deal of autonomy but not on the scale that Deseret enjoyed. It would also have received an influx of both US settlers and refugee Mormons after the US conquest of Deseret. This is going to be in addition to large foreign communities of British, Russian and to an extent French nationals. The sizeable Mormon community will proclaim that they are and have always been Mexican citizens, but there will be suspicions. However, it should be noted that in the 1840s' US conquest of California in OTL, the army found Mormon regiments an excellent idea as the Mormons were not tempted to desert by gold or adventure and made steadfast troops. One could imagine that the Mexicans have a Mormon regiment of their own based in California.

The conclusion of the Spanish-Japanese War is likely to sound some alarm bells in Washington DC, with the advance into the North Pacific of Japan, Germany, Russia and Italy. However, given the good relations with the latter three powers, it is going to be more in the sense of feeling that the Pacific situation is slipping away from their control rather than a feeling of direct threat. One could see, though, a marked increase in US naval strength at Portland etc as a direct response, however.

Such an increase would not go unnoticed in Mexico, nor in Britain. One could imagine Britain developing Pearl Harbour in this ATL instead of Singapore, and basing its Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. At the same time, the West coast of North America would become a cruising ground for British, French, Russian, Italian, and German cruiser squadrons.

The North Pacific from China to the North American coast could become on theatre here, certainly the German and Italian squadrons would be most likely detached from bases in China (Tsingtao and Ningpo) with secondary bases in the North Pacific islands.

In order for California to become the spark for war in 1915 we need to look to events within the province, and US influence, both overt and covert. One could imagine a Transvaal situation, with the number of US settlers coming with the railways and the exploitation of Deseret beginning to outnumber other foreign contingents and even become such a percentage of the overall population that they threaten the majority Mexican position.

One could imagine Mexico trying to clamp down on American immigration and instituting rules to prevent them becoming voters until an increased period of residence has been served. Perhaps there would be more stringent requirements on citizenship etc. Mexico would be very much aware that the USA covets its most glamorous province.

The actual spark for war could be an attempt by US immigrants to seize power and declare independence, and Mexico's acting in a harsh retaliatory manner. The US would have a cassus belli that the Congress would vote for - supporting democracy and the American citizens still holding out. They would be well aware of the risks of war, but hope that their alliance with Germany would prevent Britain and France from moving against them.

False hopes...

Grey Wolf

[David S Poepoe]

Very nice and well thought out. Tho I have my doubts that the US would attack the Republic of Texas for supporting the Confederacy, unless they actually declared war on the US. That the CSA and Texas share a common border is a given that should be the US's responsibility in closing. If the Kingdom of Bavaria had recognized the Confederacy, exactly what would the United States have done?

I know its not in the initial perameters, but I was just wondering what if Germany became the guarantor of Texas' independence? More speculation on my part than what you would use in your ATL.

[MarkA]

Why would Britain invest in an Independent Texas and in Mexico? What did they have that the Empire did not? What advantages would there be in investing there and not in developing the Empire's resources?

Why would GB (assuming they did not invest heavily in Mexico) care if the US invaded?

[luakel]

So, with Britain likely to declare war against the US, do you think the US will likely seize Hawaii in the war? And what will happen to Alaska?

[Grey Wolf]

Why would Britain invest in an Independent Texas and in Mexico? What did they have that the Empire did not? What advantages would there be in investing there and not in developing the Empire's resources?

Why would GB (assuming they did not invest heavily in Mexico) care if the US invaded?

Because its what Britain did, not directly as state funds but through its companies, its banks and its investors. Britain and France historically did see a lot of potential for trade and investment in an independent Texas. As for Mexico, after the gold rush of the late 1850s and when the mineral wealth of Sonora etc becomes exploitable why not ?

Britain was involved even in OTL in a strategic battle of wills with the USA in the Caribbean/Central America. This saw for instance Britain acting to repulse US efforts in Miskitia.

Why would Britain want to see the USA take over other nations and absorb their industries in this kind of light ? Any compensation agreed would be on the lowest cost basis available - i.e. current plant worth etc

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Very nice and well thought out. Tho I have my doubts that the US would attack the Republic of Texas for supporting the Confederacy, unless they actually declared war on the US. That the CSA and Texas share a common border is a given that should be the US's responsibility in closing. If the Kingdom of Bavaria had recognized the Confederacy, exactly what would the United States have done?

I know its not in the initial perameters, but I was just wondering what if Germany became the guarantor of Texas' independence? More speculation on my part than what you would use in your ATL.

If Texas is supporting the Confederacy in the same way as Roosevelt's America was supporting the UK in 1940, then a victorious Union with large armies under arms, and with an opportunity to correct what its leadership view as a historical mistake would be inclined to take the opportunity.

Germany cannot be a guarantor of Texan independence for two reasons :-
1. A guarantor requires you to be there when independence happens
2. Germany in this ATL is not united until the same period, the late 1870s

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

So, with Britain likely to declare war against the US, do you think the US will likely seize Hawaii in the war? And what will happen to Alaska?

Well, I am sure they would want to seize Hawaii and would make provisional plans to do so. Whether it is remotely possible is another matter since Britain and the USA are likely to be equally matched in the naval theatre in the Pacific

I don't think anything will happen to Alaska. Well, with the proviso that it all depends on whether Russia remains neutral or eventually throws in its lot with one side or the other. Certainly no one is going to attack Alaska whilst Russia is still neutral

Grey Wolf

[Wendell]

Tell me what you think of my scenario.

[MarkA]

Because its what Britain did, not directly as state funds but through its companies, its banks and its investors. Britain and France historically did see a lot of potential for trade and investment in an independent Texas. As for Mexico, after the gold rush of the late 1850s and when the mineral wealth of Sonora etc becomes exploitable why not ?

Britain was involved even in OTL in a strategic battle of wills with the USA in the Caribbean/Central America. This saw for instance Britain acting to repulse US efforts in Miskitia.

Why would Britain want to see the USA take over other nations and absorb their industries in this kind of light ? Any compensation agreed would be on the lowest cost basis available - i.e. current plant worth etc

Grey Wolf

Australia's gold rush started in the early 1850's so if there was British investment available that is where it would go. British investment (private and public) always preferred Empire investments over foreign. Before proper international investment standards, that could be applied and enforced outside the advanced states, it was safer and more profitable. It was also seen as patriotic.

As I stated in the other post related to this one, Britain did not see the USA as a dangerous rival. See Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden' (1899) for example. Chamberlain's race theories were popular and accepted wisdom in the US as well in the Empire. The ruling class in the US saw themselves as Anglo-Saxons (even those who were not accepted the supposed values this identification implied). Britain saw the US almost as a partner in stabilising the world under British rule and if the latter took colonies too then so much the better. They were of British stock after all! or so the propaganda went. The imagery was one of the 'young' or junior branch of the Anglo-Saxons (the US) eventually taking up the mantle of the 'old' or senior branch.

All the possible sources of conflict between the US and GB since 1875 were settled by negotiation and often in a very friendly manner. The border dispute with Canada lingered for decades without resort to violence and was settled amicably in 1903. The United States' unilateral declaration to Britain in 1895 that it was practicaly soverign in North America did not lead to hostility and was accepted by the UK. If the US then acted by invading Mexico why would Britain be concerned after it had already acknowleged US claims?

[Faeelin]

OTL the Yucatecan breakaway republic offered sovereignty to whoever would help it out, not just in its conflict with Mexico but in its civil war with the Maya. No one did so, until the USA had defeated Mexico in war, then in a little known fact PAID Mexico for the annexation of New Mexico and California, and then Mexico used this money to essentially buy back Yucatan from the secessionists. In the ATL, Mexico does not have this money.

No, but it does have an army.

Especially if gold is found in California under Mexican rule, Britain and France would be taking a great interest in Mexico.

Hold up. Here's the problem, as I see it.

You have people pouring into California, like in OTL. (Sutter was Swiss). They are not going to be happy with a government in Mexico City bossing them around, so I could see either an independent California, or one that's part of America. But Mexican, IMO, is really unlikely.

An independent one, however, seems pretty plausible. Although eventually it'll find itself drawn towards the American market.

It would have the result of the 1866 and 1870-71 conflicts in one. Perhaps THIS war lasts several years, and parallels in time roughly or not the ATL ACW. Either way, it means that France is not in a position to stand up for Texas once the Union comes after them, and that Britain is going to find itself in the difficult position of being alone against the USA in this.

Don't forget Texas has slavery. That'll be a big part of the reason the US goes after it. Does Britain want to support an independent slaveowning state?

[Grey Wolf]

Oh well, its strange but I can never do this right. I thought I had avoided some of the major pitfalls of my other timelines by discussing things and then rejecting them, even if inclined to include them. The biggest problem I find with all this is that converging is the greatest danger - if we assume so much is set in stone about attitudes and responses then we are seriously likely to end up with an OTL analogue and what the Hell's the point of that? I could have had Clay's election make no difference in the long term, but why create a 10-part timeline on that basis ?

Grey Wolf

[MarkA]

Oh well, its strange but I can never do this right. I thought I had avoided some of the major pitfalls of my other timelines by discussing things and then rejecting them, even if inclined to include them. The biggest problem I find with all this is that converging is the greatest danger - if we assume so much is set in stone about attitudes and responses then we are seriously likely to end up with an OTL analogue and what the Hell's the point of that? I could have had Clay's election make no difference in the long term, but why create a 10-part timeline on that basis ?

Grey Wolf

That IS the problem I am afraid. Convergence occurs because just a small change is unlikely to shift the concepts and attitudes of peoples. Just because a particular President is elected means very little to British attitudes to Empire or its feelings about slavery etc.

The challange is to find a POD that acts to change the major currents in human development and attitudes or one that can use them to achieve different outcomes.

I thought the point of alternate history was to do what you did and explore the possibilities. In other words, to find out which particular movements and human attitudes were truly behind actual events.

[David S Poepoe]

If Texas is supporting the Confederacy in the same way as Roosevelt's America was supporting the UK in 1940, then a victorious Union with large armies under arms, and with an opportunity to correct what its leadership view as a historical mistake would be inclined to take the opportunity. Grey Wolf

Thats a little farfetched. I don't quite recall Britain, the US and France occupying Sweden in OTL. In your ATL if Texas also sold material to them, there is no way to that they could justify any military venture since it would be outright military aggression. Exactly how 'a historical mistake' would ever be able to be sold to countless generations of occupied Texans is unbelieveable. I doubt that the US would annex a people it knows would never accept incorporation.

[Grey Wolf]

Well, don't worry about it. I've abandoned it anyway

Grey Wolf