They did it before in the 1930s, with their own issues in their empire. Stands to reason they could do it again in the 1960s
TL 191: The Southern Occupation
- Thread starter m0585
- Start date
They did it before in the 1930s, with their own issues in their empire. Stands to reason they could do it again in the 1960s
bguy
Donor
The U.S. can hit back a lot harder in the 1960s though than it could in the 1930s and will be a lot more paranoid about other nations interfering in US territory after the SGW. Is Japan really going to risk having Tokyo incinerated just to run a few crates of rifles to some Canadian rebels?
That is true, and that is something that Tokyo will have to contend with. But when you look at it from their perspective, a behemoth in the eastern Pacific, aiding rebels to help harass the behemoth becomes an entrancing possibility. Add in a possible break in American-German relations in a cold war, and suddenly the US is facing two threats who wouldn't want to see the US triumph
bguy
Donor
It still seems like a real bad play for Japan. Even if it doesn't lead to a US nuclear strike, Japan really doesn't want to open the flood gates on supporting colonial uprisings as Japan is at a serious disadvantage in that game versus the U.S. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard can pretty easily seal off the Canadian Pacific coastline (akin to OTL's Operation Market Time) which will basically make it impossible for Japan to get any arms to the Canadian rebels (especially if the US grabbed Alaska at the close of the SGW), while there is no way Japan can even begin to guard its thousands of miles of coastline (the coastline of Indonesia, Indochina, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and a good chunk of China). Thus if Japan even tries to run arms to the Canadian rebels, it will be guaranteeing a flood of American arms for independence movements throughout Japanese territory.
The situation is also very different than it was in the 1930s. In the 1930s it would have been very difficult for the U.S. to sneak arms covertly across the Pacific. (Submarines at the time wouldn't be able to stay submerged the entire trip and traveling on the surface through Japanese controlled waters would be suicidal.) By the 1960s though the U.S. should have nuclear powered submarines that are capable of crossing the entire Pacific while submerged. Thus the U.S. has far greater ability in the '60s to sneak weapons to anti-Japanese resistance movements than it had in the '30s. And if the U.S. has allied with Australia and/or New Zealand (very likely post-SGW after Japan attacked British territory) then Japan's situation is even worse as that gives the Americans access to major air and naval bases within close range of Japan's holdings in Indonesia, Indochina, and the Philippines. (i.e. all the territories that are the most likely to have active resistance movements.)
So why exactly is Japan going to provoke this unwinnable fight? Far more likely is that the U.S., Germany, and Japan all recognize each other's spheres of influence and otherwise mostly leave each other alone. Even without the very real risk of nuclear annihilation, they all have more than enough on their plate just dealing with their own territory, and very little to gain by fighting each other in their core territories.
The Germans, I feel, would have less on their plate and thus would be more of a threat to the Americans. They're not overstretching their resources continuously like the Americans (who are sustaining three separate occupations, enforcing ethnic cleansing of the Mormons, putting down two rebellions in the South and in Canada) and the Japanese by annexing everything, they have client states. They let them administer themselves, and yeah they lost a city or two to superbombs but they can still be a superpower.
Japan, meanwhile, would be able to go to Berlin and point at the Americans as a common enemy, threatening Europe and the Pacific. They have their own issues, maintaing colonial rule in Indochina, Indonesia, China and the Pacific; but they'd still want to keep the Americans hemmed in and kept from harming their interests.
But the best way, I think, for the Germans to harm the Americans without supplying weapons would be to legitimize a Canadian government in exile. If I remember right, Craigo had one form when Canada was first occupied in 1917. All the Germans have to do is just say that they don't recognize American rule in Canada, that the Canadian GoE in the UK is the legitimate representative of the Canadian people, and suddenly the Americans are in a fun position.
Japan, meanwhile, would be able to go to Berlin and point at the Americans as a common enemy, threatening Europe and the Pacific. They have their own issues, maintaing colonial rule in Indochina, Indonesia, China and the Pacific; but they'd still want to keep the Americans hemmed in and kept from harming their interests.
But the best way, I think, for the Germans to harm the Americans without supplying weapons would be to legitimize a Canadian government in exile. If I remember right, Craigo had one form when Canada was first occupied in 1917. All the Germans have to do is just say that they don't recognize American rule in Canada, that the Canadian GoE in the UK is the legitimate representative of the Canadian people, and suddenly the Americans are in a fun position.
bguy
Donor
The Germans certainly have the potential to be a greater threat to the Americans then the Japanese. (If nothing else the Germans also have the A-bomb.) I just don't see why they would ever seek to act on that potential as there's no real reason for the U.S. and Germany to come into conflict at all. The two nations aren't ideological enemies (certainly not like how the U.S. and the Soviets were OTL), and their strategic interests don't really overlap anywhere. They've been allies through two major wars which tends to form a bond between nations. And they seem to be interested in working together to prevent nuclear proliferation post-SGW. So why would they fall out post-SGW when it is so obviously in both of their best interests to maintain good relations?
Disagree here. The Germans are if anything probably more overstretched than the Americans. After all the Germans have to occupy France (whose population should be about equal to the CSA and Canada combined), keep down the British, keep down the Russians (while not letting the country fall to the Communists), maintain order in Eastern Europe, prop up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, hold down much of Africa, and keep an eye on the Italians and Ottoman Empire. And Germany is probably far more physically devastated than the U.S. (Anglo-French forces advanced all the way to Hamburg which is pretty deep into Germany and pretty much every part of Germany would have been in range of Entente bombers whereas much of the United States would have been untouched by the SGW.)
I agree Japan would want an alliance with Germany, but why would Germany agree? The Japanese have proven themselves to be untrustworthy allies, so why would the Germans trust them? And allying with Japan would likely lead to a U.S. alliance with Britain and/or Russia (since both those countries hate Germany and Japan).
And why would the Germans do this? Recognizing a Canadian government in exile would permanently sour German-U.S. relations for no gain to Germany. A hostile U.S. can fund anti-German resistance groups in Africa and Europe. It can ally with Britain and or Russia (and place nuclear weapons in those countries essentially making them immune from German threats). It can even sell nuclear weapons to Italy and the Ottomans. There's just no reason for Germany to risk all that by needlessly provoking the U.S. in Canada. (Especially for something that won't even significantly weaken the U.S. hold on Canada.)
agree with bguy; Germany just doesn't have much reason to go anti-American. They aren't the leader of a vast international effort to overthrow the capitalist nations in bloody revolution. They are a very old fashioned monarchy which happens to command a lot of resources. I'd say the world is going to divide into three rough areas of influence... Germany in Europe, USA in the new world, and Japan in the far east. The rest of the world? up for grabs...
Faeelin
Banned
.... The Germans are occupying Eastern Europe. And western Europe. And Africa. And propping up the Ottomans.
"Oh, but those are client states, who never revolt."
Kingdom of Poland, United Baltic Duchy, Ukraine, and not to mention the Austro-Hungarian puppets or clients. It's a start to allow Germany to focus their manpower on occupying northern France (which they're not going to annex) or securing their colonies which might revolt in Africa.
From what we know in the books, the US-German alliance was pretty much dead by 1931, and fundamentally dead by 1940. The US and Germany fought on the same side because their enemies were allies, so while they're down to prevent nuclear proliferation to other countries, they have no real bond since the mid-20th century. I think post-SGW, Germany will be focusing on repairing Europe and it won't help if the US is funding anti-colonial movements in Africa (which I can see definitely happening as a reaction to the Southern Destruction).
I disagree in part. While the Germans would have to deal with occupying northern France, keep down on the Russians, support their clients in Eastern Europe, maintain their colonial holdings in Africa and help the Ottomans, they're not totally overstretched. Poland, the Baltic Duchy, the Ukrainians and their other clients can help maintain order in Eastern Europe. The Ottomans, from what we know, weren't that damaged in the SGW. And the Austro-Hungarians, while they're going to be unstable by the 1960s, can provide some stability for a brief period.
Britain wouldn't help the US, since the US supplied gunrunners to Ireland, occupied Britain's first dominion, and contributed to the end of empire. Britain is going to ally with Germany, if only because Germany is going to help reconstruct Britain. Russia I'm not sure about, if only because they'll be in chaos in the post-SGW world. Japan may not be the most ideal ally, they're better than nothing.
German-US relations were pretty much dead by 1940, so there's no real love lost between them. Yes, a hostile US could fund anti-colonial movements in Africa and Europe, Germany could do the same thing for Mormons, Southerners and Canadians. Selling nuclear weapons would defeat the idea of anti-proliferation, since even the CSA managed to detonate one in Philadelphia.
Germany might not be staunch allies of the USA anymore, but they have scant reason to be enemies either... they are not anything like the USSR, trying to lead a worldwide revolution for some ideal... they are an old fashioned monarchy with their hands full at home. They were never mentioned as having any designs on the new world, so there's really zilch reason for a cold war between them...
Faeelin
Banned
One way in which this world might be better than ours is that states are more Westphalian. The idea of a liberal democracy and Prussian junkers cooperating is accepted as a given, just like the British Parliament cooperating with fascists. What states do at home is mostly their business.
bguy
Donor
Why would the U.S. fund anti-colonial movements in Africa? That would be just as ill-advised as Germany supporting the Canadian and Confederate rebels. It is an insanely provocative act that does nothing to enhance U.S. security and which is guaranteed to turn an otherwise benign superpower into a mortal enemy. Nations generally do not pick fights with nuclear powers unless they have a very compelling reason, and neither the U.S. nor Germany has a compelling reason to mess with each other's colonial empires.
Why would the Germans limit themselves just to occupying northern France? TL-191 Germany should be as paranoid about France post-SGW as the U.S. is about the Confederates, so I would expect them to fill the need to occupy all of France. And again France has the same population as the CSA and Canada combined, so just occupying France already nearly puts Germany under as great a strain as the U.S. is under for its post-war occupations. Add in everything else Germany has to do, and it is far more overstretched than the U.S. is.
As for the client states, the Ukrainians have already proven to be unreliable. And the Poles are likely to chafe under German domination as well.
Germany nuked London. London! Plus two other cities. The U.S. messing around with Canada and Ireland isn't even going to be a blip on the British radar compared to that.
And even if Germany does help reconstruct Britain (which is itself rather unlikely at least until Germany has fully recovered itself) that doesn't guarantee lasting British friendship. OTL the U.S. helped rebuild France after the Second World War, and that didn't prevent De Gaulle from taking an independent line in his foreign policy. Why would Britain act any different? If there is any daylight between the U.S. and Germany, Britain will try to leverage that for maximum advantage, and if Germany forms an alliance with Japan, Britain is perfectly positioned to obtain a very favorable alliance with the United States. (Which of course is why the Germans will work very hard to make sure there isn't any daylight between them and the United States.)
Preventing nuclear proliferation is pretty much dead if Germany becomes overtly hostile to the United States. (Which is another reason for Germany and the U.S. to stay allied.)
I don't remember, honestly, but I'll check.
Considering the effects of the Southern Destruction, and the extent it went to, it's logical to assume that the United States would feel some compelled to end (or at least arm anti-colonialist rebels) colonialism in Africa.
By occupying northern France, they occupy Paris, the major industrial areas, coal and steel. What remains of France not under German control is essentially helpless without the major industry. Also, considering just how much territory the Germans control now, why would they try and occupy the entirety of France? Better to occupy the main coal production centers, major industry and the capital and let the French rebuild (as well as pay reparations).
Yes they did, and the Germans and Brits will be (rightfully) worried about the pro-American Ireland on their border. While Germany is very unlikely to rebuild Britain/France so soon after the war, they will pull the two into their orbit by sheer economic might. The Germans are going to be the strongest economy on the continent, and Britain's future is going to be seen to lie with the continent.
Except the alliance was already dead. Look at the US and USSR, they were allied during World War II and ended up as bitter rivals. Eventually, and this being Turtledove, there will be some form of German-American split
bguy
Donor
So you are saying it is logical that the United States will poison its relationship with the German Empire (the only other nuclear power on the planet and the nation the U.S. is intending to work with to keep other nations from getting nuclear weapons) because it feels guilty about the Destruction? (Something that wasn't even done by the United States, and which the United States actually brought to an end.) And it will work off that guilt by helping people that weren't even victims of the Destruction? Absolutely nothing about that makes sense.
OTL, the U.S. wasn't particularly supportive of Israel for the first 20 years after the Holocaust, so clearly guilt over failing to prevent a genocide wasn't that strong a motivator, and I don't see any reason to believe it will prove a stronger motivator in TL-191. (A decidedly less sentimental universe than OTL.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israe...nhower_Administration_.281953.E2.80.931961.29
Because if you leave southern France unoccupied then it becomes a haven for resistance groups to strike into occupied France. And remember terrorism is much more developed in TL-191 than it was OTL in the 1940s with car bombs and suicide bombs already prevalent, and terrorists have a recent example of terrorist tactics being successful at forcing an occupying power to give up territory what with an extended terrorist campaign in the 1930s leading to the U.S. granting plebiscites in Kentucky, Sequoyah, and Houston. As such if the Germans don't occupy all of France they are going to have an extremely serious terrorism problem.
There's no inherent reason the British have to link their economy with Europe instead of the Anglosphere. Especially if the Americans are willing to offer favorable trade concessions and generous economic aid. (Which the U.S. is likely to do in the event of any Cold War with Germany.)
Except there were ideological reasons for the U.S.-Soviet split. And the U.S. and Soviets had serious conflicting interests in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. And of course the little fact that the Soviet Union was being run by one of the most evil men who has ever lived at the time. None of those factors exist in TL-191, so there is no obvious reason for a U.S.-German split.
Faeelin
Banned
But when has a prosperous island nation an ocean away ever tied its economy to America as opposed to America's cold war rival that's much closer?
Turtledove, as he often did, never explains in detail what is happening outside of North America. Given that Russia still fell into civil war in TTL, I'm going to assume that the Japanese still occupied pasts of Siberia.
