TL-191 FILLING IN THE FUTURE

[Tiro]

I tend to agree with the idea that 'Hard' methods of Resistance to the United States are likely to fail quite horribly - and have, in the past - so I think that the most logical scenario for a Canadian Independence/Autonomy Party might do much better to turn to 'Soft' methods of Resistance in the mould of Gandhi or the Civil Rights Movement in Our Timeline; I'd argue that the US experience of putting down Armed Uprisings would still leave them woefully unprepared for a Canadian Opposition turning the other cheek and playing on the conscience of the United States like a harp from Hell.

It's one thing to send in the Jackboot Brigade when you're facing an armed uprising, but how does The Great Republic fight an opponent that refuses to strike back without turning itself into the very tyranny it struck out against in Featherston's Confederacy (and is likely to have spoken out against at length when it comes to the British Empire, the French and the Reich); it's not impossible that some hardliners might turn the T-191 United States into a nation utterly dead to shame when it comes to oppressive measures, but in all honesty I think that like the British Empire in India a calculated campaign against the manifest injustices of American Occupation might well find enough of an audience in the lower 48 for the Vox Populi to prod Congress towards a liberalisation of relations with the Canadian Territories.

Whether this will result in actual Independence for some part of Canada I cannot say, but at the very least it might ease the burden of Occupation on the local population, which is a worthwhile outcome in it's own right.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I tend to agree with the idea that 'Hard' methods of Resistance to the United States are likely to fail quite horribly - and have, in the past - so I think that the most logical scenario for a Canadian Independence/Autonomy Party might do much better to turn to 'Soft' methods of Resistance in the mould of Gandhi or the Civil Rights Movement in Our Timeline; I'd argue that the US experience of putting down Armed Uprisings would still leave them woefully unprepared for a Canadian Opposition turning the other cheek and playing on the conscience of the United States like a harp from Hell.

It's one thing to send in the Jackboot Brigade when you're facing an armed uprising, but how does The Great Republic fight an opponent that refuses to strike back without turning itself into the very tyranny it struck out against in Featherston's Confederacy (and is likely to have spoken out against at length when it comes to the British Empire, the French and the Reich); it's not impossible that some hardliners might turn the T-191 United States into a nation utterly dead to shame when it comes to oppressive measures, but in all honesty I think that like the British Empire in India a calculated campaign against the manifest injustices of American Occupation might well find enough of an audience in the lower 48 for the Vox Populi to prod Congress towards a liberalisation of relations with the Canadian Territories.

Whether this will result in actual Independence for some part of Canada I cannot say, but at the very least it might ease the burden of Occupation on the local population, which is a worthwhile outcome in it's own right.

I usually tend to agree that "hard" methods would be ineffective, but with the US wiping out whole cities, the hard methods might be seen as tit for tat. The Canadian resistance starts out as peaceful and civil disobedient, but it gradually moves towards violent as the non-violent resistance seems to fail to produce results. Whether it stays violent is up in the air.

Joshua, fascinating posts, but their are issues that i think are to unrealistic and wanted to ask you about them.

First i think you are heavily underestimating this timelines US, this is not the United States of the seventies where its first encounter with heavy prolonged guerrilla was in Vietnam, and it barley knew, or understood the tactics and abilities to fight effectively against it.

This is a United States that has fought and crushed over two to three major Canadian Rebellions, a Canadian and Mormon Rebellion at the same time as it fought against the Confederates who's intelligence core was wrecking havoc on the United States.

This is a United States who armed and trained similar guerrillas the confederacy in the form of the Marxism Guerrillas, its military is massive, and more importantly its intelligence is a sharpened blade so to speak, that knows where to strike and how to strike at any and all organized resistance/terrorism cells.

not to mention its tactics, where in the ending of the book US soldiers where virtually wiping out confederate towns and cities on mass as they drove through the confederate heartland, and mass executions for any US soldier shot or killed in a bombing attack with no evidence to suggest that such tactics will change or not grow larger in scale and scope against the Canadians.

The CIA no matter how brutal in its methods will not be able to come even close to the level of brutality that the US can and most likely will inflict in retaliation, in this TL where such tactics and reprisals are most still in use since no international forum has come in place to out law such things.

And i have to disagree with you in regards to the CIA effectiveness, (both military and politically) much can be said about this issue, but i will just say this that it is likely going to be like a bee stinging a bear, (given the massive size of annexed Canada)

Sure its painful and annoying to deal with but not a effective deterrent to the larger goal at hand, a couple of bombings in Canada or North East United States, Quebec or Texas or shootings no matter how frequent (or how successful) or going to change anything, and bear in mind you have to keep US public perception in mind, dead Americans on their own soil is not going to be meet hands down given this TL bloody history.

Apologies in advance for any spelling or sentence errors I'm writing this in a hurry before i have to leave

No worries, I like when people critique works I produce. It makes me think and become better. And don't worry about any spelling mistakes

I don't believe I'm underestimating the US of TL-191. It's been a while since I've read the books, but I don't think I'm underestimating them. Yes, the US in TL-191 has a lot more experience with guerilla warfare (especially with the two Canadian uprisings and at least two Mormon risings) than OTL; but the military can only hold the territory if there is the political will to do it. The French in OTL more or less won the Algerian War militarily, but couldn't keep it because the French people had no interest in keeping politically.

It's one thing if Canadian or Mormon rebels/CIA target US military units. It's another thing entirely if they're targeting US civilians. It's the civilians who have the political will to keep up the occupation, and they're not used to being attacked for their government's policies. It's happened once, and that was the (failed) superbombing of Philadelphia by the CSA. They're not used to having CIA operatives target them, explode bombs in stadiums, car bombs, people bombs, shootings, because of US government policy.

And while the US armed forces are mighty (they fought a two front war on their own continent), they can't be everywhere at once. They don't have the manpower for it, there's only so many soldiers. They can't occupy everything. And unless they do scorched earth in Canada and raze everything Canadian to the ground, which would only drive more Canadians into the arms of the CIA and CNP, there are going to be gaps in their occupation.

My idea was to make Canada become like Northern Ireland in the Troubles or Algeria during the Algerian War. It's going to be bloody, and brutal, and the US is going to be maintaining two separate occupations of very hostile people, and that's going to drain on their economy (which would make their citizens very unhappy).

 

[Rifleman134]

I don't believe I'm underestimating the US of TL-191. It's been a while since I've read the books, but I don't think I'm underestimating them. Yes, the US in TL-191 has a lot more experience with guerilla warfare (especially with the two Canadian uprisings and at least two Mormon risings) than OTL; but the military can only hold the territory if there is the political will to do it. The French in OTL more or less won the Algerian War militarily, but couldn't keep it because the French people had no interest in keeping politically.

It's one thing if Canadian or Mormon rebels/CIA target US military units. It's another thing entirely if they're targeting US civilians. It's the civilians who have the political will to keep up the occupation, and they're not used to being attacked for their government's policies. It's happened once, and that was the (failed) superbombing of Philadelphia by the CSA. They're not used to having CIA operatives target them, explode bombs in stadiums, car bombs, people bombs, shootings, because of US government policy.

And while the US armed forces are mighty (they fought a two front war on their own continent), they can't be everywhere at once. They don't have the manpower for it, there's only so many soldiers. They can't occupy everything. And unless they do scorched earth in Canada and raze everything Canadian to the ground, which would only drive more Canadians into the arms of the CIA and CNP, there are going to be gaps in their occupation.

My idea was to make Canada become like Northern Ireland in the Troubles or Algeria during the Algerian War. It's going to be bloody, and brutal, and the US is going to be maintaining two separate occupations of very hostile people, and that's going to drain on their economy (which would make their citizens very unhappy).

Ah you misunderstand, what i am trying to say that TL 191 is a much more bloodily world, than ours, a world where about seven nuclear weapons where dropped on heavily populated cities, where their is no Geneva convention or any sort of alternate to it, where tactics of mass shootings of civilians in retaliation of a resistance/ terrorist cell attack are common place, where imperialism is still alive and well, the new norm.

Yes i gathered that the CIA would and was targeting civilians but quite frankly that is even worse, yes political will is needed but again this is not the US of the OTL, this isn't the seventies US while in the middle of the Vietnam war where Americans where untouched by war at the home front, this is a heavily Militarized United States, conscription is mandatory, for the entire male population (the female population soon enough).

Where quite frankly as sad as it is the US national identity is heavily based on its history of war, to name a few, the war against England, for the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the quasi war, the indian wars, the war against mexico, then the war of succession, the second mexican war, then the great war and then the second great war, the basically was war every decade or two.

This is a US that had the entire state of Ohio virtually overran by the Confederates, and massive swaths of Pennsylvania destroyed, and areas of New England and Maryland bombed, and attacked at will by every instrument of war, a US cut in half, where yet another Mormon uprising happened, not to mention the Japanese and English Naval actions.

Side the military casualties, the death rates among the civilians would most likely be just as high due to the fighting(and the reprisals, mass targeting and other such acts), during the war to be heavily high, not to mention the Super bombing of Philadelphia, that type of trauma, the memories of that are going to last a long time, especially since a heavy population that survived the Second Great War are still going to be around ten to twenty years later.

So when a CIA or Confederate diehard bomb goes off in lets say independence square, or times square or in a heavy populated area in a major US city that kills about a dozen or so Americans, on American soil, in American streets, i would imagine that no their wouldn't be a weakening of will to continue to fight against such cells, dead bodies in such a scenario do not weaken will to continue to fight they strengthen it, ( the nazi bombings of london for example,) and this TL D.C and Philadelphia bombings, if anything Americans are going to be calling for revenge.

Which would inevitably lead to mass executions, which i do agree with you both that the US wouldn't just go scorched earth and level practically every city and town since it wouldn't just kill the Canadians who generally either support the US or are just keeping their heads down.

Instead i would imagine that just like every major resistance cell it draws its strength from certain areas in the country, certain cities, communities and residents, ( kinda like a South Korea, South Vietnam, via a North Korea and North Vietnam) inevitably political difficulties of this kind of magnitude would lead centralization.

Anyway such areas would be the target of US reprisals, leading to many other issues, more Canadians joining up, some refusing to join or even assist the CIA in anyway or form due to fear of the US.

And in such a scenario, the Army would by need have to remain large, to hold down both the former Confederacy and Canada.

And i have to disagree with you in economic matters, the US as seen by a earlier post in the filling the gaps thread would instal a resource control board to better mange the economy and it managed to due so for the entirety of the first great war and the second great war, so i do to see how a low level guerrilla warfare (i say low level since i do not think that the CIA or any Confederate diehard would or even could publicly rise in open rebellion without be almost instantly crushed) could cause enough economic damage.

Ok again sorry for the hurry writing and any spelling errors in advance i am still working, had to write this during my break, i had a lot i wanted to write on and a lot i wanted to explain more, but don't have the time,

Look forward to your response.

 

[Tiro]

On a more cheerful note, at least Jake the Snake is STILL dead!

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

~snip~

Yes, the United States has had more experience with terrorism (Mormon people-bombs, specifically), and the mass shootings of civilians is common. I do understand that conscription was around in TTL's United States, but what I was saying is that the United States is maintaining three separate and brutal occupations and that it would split the number of troops to actually pacify the areas. The Southern states are going to be violent and restless in the immediate aftermath of the war, and that would require substantial numbers of US soldiers, in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Add Canada, just after a three year long rebellion, which would also need thousands of US soldiers (who can't be everywhere at once), and there's going to be gaps in US security because the soldiers can't be everywhere at once.

That's true, the US would remember the targeting of Philadelphia. But that was by a state actor, the Confederacy. US civilians wouldn't be used to having a non-state actor like the CIA target civilians. Yes, there were Mormon people-bombers, but they mostly targeted military targets. The CIA is targeting civilians. And these civilians wouldn't be used to that, not in the least.

While I do understand that Americans would band together after a terrorist attack by either Canadian nationalists or neo-Freedomites, it's civilians who aren't used to being targeted. They'll want protection, yes, but the military is stretched too thin between three separate occupations (Canada, Utah, and the ex-CSA) and rapid military production in a quasi-Cold War with Germany.

And if the US does try to do a scorched earth policy, or even do retaliation strikes against Canadians who are suspected of being CIA operatives or CIA sympathizers, it would only serve to drive more and more into the arms of the CNP/CIA. While a low-level insurgency won't cause a lot of economic damage, that's true, it will be disruptive in the sense that there are CIA operatives running around blowing up stadiums and cars and use people bombs.

The reason I mentioned an economic toll is because the US is maintaining three occupations in North America, trying to build up infrastructure in the US proper and its territories, spending on military hardware for a quasi-Cold War with Germany, and essentially an arms race to make more superbombs. It's going to have an impact on the US economy, and the strain is going to be impressive.

 

[bguy]

Yes, the United States has had more experience with terrorism (Mormon people-bombs, specifically), and the mass shootings of civilians is common.

The US also waged a protected counter-insurgency campaign against Freedom Party backed insurgents in Kentucky, Sequoyah, and Houston in the 1930s, so it has substantial experience fighting insurgents in TL-191.

The Southern states are going to be violent and restless in the immediate aftermath of the war, and that would require substantial numbers of US soldiers, in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Add Canada, just after a three year long rebellion, which would also need thousands of US soldiers (who can't be everywhere at once), and there's going to be gaps in US security because the soldiers can't be everywhere at once.

The US will have the political will to maintain a very large army though. (The Democrats are the hawkish party anyway, and the Socialists won't dare call for defense cuts after the Richmond Agreement.) Also, given that there has probably been substantial US immigration to Canada since the FGW, there is also the potential for the US raising a "Black and Tans" style force from amongst US settlers in Canada. And the Canadian population is probably much lower than OTL. (The Canadians were called "the Quarter Generation" after the FGW, implying they suffered horrendous casualties in that conflict, and they have had two bloody rebellions since then, so it is doubtful their population has recovered much.)

That's true, the US would remember the targeting of Philadelphia. But that was by a state actor, the Confederacy. US civilians wouldn't be used to having a non-state actor like the CIA target civilians. Yes, there were Mormon people-bombers, but they mostly targeted military targets. The CIA is targeting civilians. And these civilians wouldn't be used to that, not in the least.

From The Center Cannot Hold:

Since assassinating General Pershing, Mormon diehards had set off bombs from San Francisco to Pittsburgh. They were suspected in a couple of murders of prominent men, too, and of bank robberies to finance their operations. And so...

And so lines into the railroad station were long and slow. Everyone was searched: men, women, children, even babies in flowing robes. At least once, somebody had tried to smuggle out explosives hidden under baby clothes. Dowling only hoped the diehards hadn't succeeded at that game before the U.S. occupiers got wise to it. Every suitcase got searched, too. Some, the ones suspected of false bottoms, also got X-rayed.

Thus TL-191 US was already very used to the idea of insurgents targeting American civilians even before the SGW. Nothing the CIA is doing will be unexpected.

And if the US does try to do a scorched earth policy, or even do retaliation strikes against Canadians who are suspected of being CIA operatives or CIA sympathizers, it would only serve to drive more and more into the arms of the CNP/CIA. While a low-level insurgency won't cause a lot of economic damage, that's true, it will be disruptive in the sense that there are CIA operatives running around blowing up stadiums and cars and use people bombs.

Why would the Canadians be any more successful against the US's hard line tactics than the Hungarians or Czechs were OTL against the Soviet Union in '56 and '68?

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

The US also waged a protected counter-insurgency campaign against Freedom Party backed insurgents in Kentucky, Sequoyah, and Houston in the 1930s, so it has substantial experience fighting insurgents in TL-191.

I forgot about those. Well, I did say it had more experience than OTL.

The US will have the political will to maintain a very large army though. (The Democrats are the hawkish party anyway, and the Socialists won't dare call for defense cuts after the Richmond Agreement.) Also, given that there has probably been substantial US immigration to Canada since the FGW, there is also the potential for the US raising a "Black and Tans" style force from amongst US settlers in Canada. And the Canadian population is probably much lower than OTL. (The Canadians were called "the Quarter Generation" after the FGW, implying they suffered horrendous casualties in that conflict, and they have had two bloody rebellions since then, so it is doubtful their population has recovered much.)

I could see a Black and Tans type organization among Americans and Unionist Canadians to fight a CIA/CNP, but I can't see there being substantial immigration from the United States to Canada. I'm not saying that there isn't, just that the Americans would be a (very loud) minority inside Canada. I've always just figured that most Americans didn't move north, and the only ones who did wanted to reinvent themselves up north.

We also don't know how many Canadians there are, because with a more militarized country to the south, the British and the Canadians would want to shore up their population. In OTL 1940, it's 11.3 million, say in TTL it's 8-9 million. I'd guess by 1970, we're talking about 13-16 million Canadians at least (recovering from the FGW, SGW and the two rebellions).

From The Center Cannot Hold:

Since assassinating General Pershing, Mormon diehards had set off bombs from San Francisco to Pittsburgh. They were suspected in a couple of murders of prominent men, too, and of bank robberies to finance their operations. And so...

And so lines into the railroad station were long and slow. Everyone was searched: men, women, children, even babies in flowing robes. At least once, somebody had tried to smuggle out explosives hidden under baby clothes. Dowling only hoped the diehards hadn't succeeded at that game before the U.S. occupiers got wise to it. Every suitcase got searched, too. Some, the ones suspected of false bottoms, also got X-rayed.

Thus TL-191 US was already very used to the idea of insurgents targeting American civilians even before the SGW. Nothing the CIA is doing will be unexpected.

Guess I'm going to the library to get the books. Haven't read them in a while

and that's true, but the idea of the CIA I have is bigger and bolder. From the quotes you gave, the US will wise up to what the CIA is doing; but even in OTL the IRA pulled off terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland and Britain. There will be attacks that get through.

Why would the Canadians be any more successful against the US's hard line tactics than the Hungarians or Czechs were OTL against the Soviet Union in '56 and '68?

They'd be about as successful, but I always figured that the CNP would remain a very powerful force in Canada. And those who just keep their heads down, they'd take exception to American barrels rolling in.

 

[Tiro]

On the other hand in both those cases the success of short-term repressive measures lento a long-term failure to build a constituency that WANTED to retain any allegiance to the Soviet Union - neither Hungary nor Slovakia nor the Czech Republic seems very keen to return to any Alliance with Russia (and one could even argue that the long-term failure of the Soviet Union stemmed from the hard fact that it was in essence an Imperium of the Unwilling).

While the United States has probably never been as much of an economic basket case as the Soviet Union was, if it keeps running the risk of living with a bleeding ulcer on it's Northern AND Southern flanks (as well as putting down a serious Uprising every generation or so) then this might very well change.

In fact I would argue that the reincorporation of the Confederate States within the United States arguably makes the negotiation of some modus vivendi with the Canadians both necessary and practical - the Americans would unquestionably be negotiating from a position of strength, but it's a position that could not be sustained if it tries and fails to deal with TWO Fountainheads of Rebellion.

Given that the former Confederacy is indisputably the more dangerous of the two (and in all honesty the South is far riper terrain for a long-term 'Werewolf' resistance than the ashes of Germany, being rather larger and emptier) then it makes sense for a US Administration to conciliate the Canadians by offering some local autonomy (although probably not Independence) and greater political freedoms.

Perhaps by offering them a status somewhere between a full-blown State and a satellite of the United States? (the bitter-enders on both sides are likely to howl, but I think the Canadians in particular would have to admit that this is more than they have even come close to achieving by their own efforts); I remains convinced that if any such concessions were ever offered to the Canadians then it would have to come from the Democrats (who can flash their laurels as the 'Conquerors of Canada' and claim that they are simply rectifying yet ANOTHER of the Mistakes made by those pesky Socialists) on the principle that 'Only a Roosevelt could deal with the Tories'.


Admittedly the USA could try to play Mr Nice Guy with the former Confederacy, but I doubt that gambit would fly after the Great Snake War.

 

[bguy]

I could see a Black and Tans type organization among Americans and Unionist Canadians to fight a CIA/CNP, but I can't see there being substantial immigration from the United States to Canada. I'm not saying that there isn't, just that the Americans would be a (very loud) minority inside Canada. I've always just figured that most Americans didn't move north, and the only ones who did wanted to reinvent themselves up north.

Probably true about American immigration. Still there will always be some carpetbaggers, and beyond that the American "Black and Tans" could also recruit members from within the United States itself. (There are bound to be Soldier's Circle style lunkheads that would love the chance to up north to crack some Canadian skulls.) And if the US is feeling particularly nasty, it might even recruit former Confederate soldiers to fight for it (akin to how OTL the French Foreign Legion utilized large numbers of former Nazis post-WW 2.)

We also don't know how many Canadians there are, because with a more militarized country to the south, the British and the Canadians would want to shore up their population. In OTL 1940, it's 11.3 million, say in TTL it's 8-9 million. I'd guess by 1970, we're talking about 13-16 million Canadians at least (recovering from the FGW, SGW and the two rebellions).

Wouldn't a more militarized country to the south have discouraged immigration to Canada? (People aren't going to want to move to a country where they might soon be on the frontlines against an opponent that outweighs them 7-1).

and that's true, but the idea of the CIA I have is bigger and bolder. From the quotes you gave, the US will wise up to what the CIA is doing; but even in OTL the IRA pulled off terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland and Britain. There will be attacks that get through.

Absolutely. But this is a US that has faced domestic terrorism before (and even more so has faced its cities being bombed and shelled). The TL-191 US isn't going to wilt just because of the occasional terrorist bombing.

Given that the former Confederacy is indisputably the more dangerous of the two (and in all honesty the South is far riper terrain for a long-term 'Werewolf' resistance than the ashes of Germany, being rather larger and emptier) then it makes sense for a US Administration to conciliate the Canadians by offering some local autonomy (although probably not Independence) and greater political freedoms.

Perhaps by offering them a status somewhere between a full-blown State and a satellite of the United States? (the bitter-enders on both sides are likely to howl, but I think the Canadians in particular would have to admit that this is more than they have even come close to achieving by their own efforts); I remains convinced that if any such concessions were ever offered to the Canadians then it would have to come from the Democrats (who can flash their laurels as the 'Conquerors of Canada' and claim that they are simply rectifying yet ANOTHER of the Mistakes made by those pesky Socialists) on the principle that 'Only a Roosevelt could deal with the Tories'.

What you say is logical, but I don't think it will be politically possible. The problem is that to the TL-191 US conciliation just invites attack. Just consider the history. The US gave Utah statehood, and how did Utah react to that concession... it rebelled in the FGW. And then after a generation of military occupation the US finally restored Utah's statehood and ... Utah promptly rebelled again. There's also Japan. The US let them peace out in the FGW with no real punishment for opposing the US, and Japan repaid them by trying to incite rebellion in Canada. The US then let Japan off the hook again after the Pacific War, and Japan repaid that concession by attacking the United States again as soon as the US was distracted. And of course the big one, the Richmond Agreement. In that instance making concessions to a belligerent opponent led to millions of American dead and the country very nearly being overrun. With that kind of a history, the TL-191 US is going to be almost impossible to pry any concessions out of, because its history repeatedly shows it that making concessions to its adversaries just leads to it being betrayed and attacked.

(I also think that even the Democrats will likely have serious problems promoting a softer touch in the conquered territories, as Herbert Hoover probably did considerable damage to the Democrat's reputation for strength based upon how he resolved the Pacific War and his letting Featherston increase the size of the Confederate Army. No Democrat is going to want to be accused of being the next Hoover, just as no Socialist will want to be called the next Smith.)

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Probably true about American immigration. Still there will always be some carpetbaggers, and beyond that the American "Black and Tans" could also recruit members from within the United States itself. (There are bound to be Soldier's Circle style lunkheads that would love the chance to up north to crack some Canadian skulls.) And if the US is feeling particularly nasty, it might even recruit former Confederate soldiers to fight for it (akin to how OTL the French Foreign Legion utilized large numbers of former Nazis post-WW 2.)

I could see carpetbaggers up north, and Americans who want to reinvent themselves (isn't that why Moss went up too?). And when Canada rebels in 1924 and 1941, I'd be surprised if Soldier's Circle members didn't head up to crack some Canuck skulls. I can't see the US taking CSA soldiers to fight for them, especially since the CSA and Anglo-Canadian rebels were technically allies and so soon after the war.

Wouldn't a more militarized country to the south have discouraged immigration to Canada? (People aren't going to want to move to a country where they might soon be on the frontlines against an opponent that outweighs them 7-1).

I don't think so. The US and CS both managed to attract immigrants, so it stands to reason that Canada was able to pull some as well. Plus I'd imagine that a decent number of British immigrants in OTL to the United States between 1863 and 1914 wouldn't want to live in a country that considers them to be the "national enemy".

Absolutely. But this is a US that has faced domestic terrorism before (and even more so has faced its cities being bombed and shelled). The TL-191 US isn't going to wilt just because of the occasional terrorist bombing.

I wouldn't expect it to wilt from an occasional terrorist attack. But when it's a large minority of a population that utterly despises you, and does bombing after bombing after bombing, eventually the civilians will get tired of it. And for all the power of the US military, the civilians still hold the power to change the government.

What you say is logical, but I don't think it will be politically possible. The problem is that to the TL-191 US conciliation just invites attack. Just consider the history. The US gave Utah statehood, and how did Utah react to that concession... it rebelled in the FGW. And then after a generation of military occupation the US finally restored Utah's statehood and ... Utah promptly rebelled again. There's also Japan. The US let them peace out in the FGW with no real punishment for opposing the US, and Japan repaid them by trying to incite rebellion in Canada. The US then let Japan off the hook again after the Pacific War, and Japan repaid that concession by attacking the United States again as soon as the US was distracted. And of course the big one, the Richmond Agreement. In that instance making concessions to a belligerent opponent led to millions of American dead and the country very nearly being overrun. With that kind of a history, the TL-191 US is going to be almost impossible to pry any concessions out of, because its history repeatedly shows it that making concessions to its adversaries just leads to it being betrayed and attacked.

(I also think that even the Democrats will likely have serious problems promoting a softer touch in the conquered territories, as Herbert Hoover probably did considerable damage to the Democrat's reputation for strength based upon how he resolved the Pacific War and his letting Featherston increase the size of the Confederate Army. No Democrat is going to want to be accused of being the next Hoover, just as no Socialist will want to be called the next Smith.)

I think that the US may consider it, at the very least local autonomy, on the basis that the Canadians aren't being supplied by anyone are are surrounded by either the US and a loyal ally (Quebec). The issues the US ran into with Utah (admitting them as a state, and suffering attacks; putting them under a military government, readmitting them and suffering attacks) is going to be a main example for why Philadelphia/Washington shouldn't give the Canadians an inch. But I also think that the US will be able to say "the Canadians don't have the potential to overrun us, and they're hemmed in on all sides."

That's true - I think the Democrats and the Socialists will be scared of being the next Hoover or the next Smith. So it might fall to the Republicans, who have been out of the political establishment for decades, to push for a softer touch with the conquered territories.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

I don't think so. The US and CS both managed to attract immigrants, so it stands to reason that Canada was able to pull some as well. Plus I'd imagine that a decent number of British immigrants in OTL to the United States between 1863 and 1914 wouldn't want to live in a country that considers them to be the "national enemy".

And just as many of them could have gone to Australia or South Africa,k even India.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

And just as many of them could have gone to Australia or South Africa,k even India.

True. But I imagine that Canada, especially with such an enemy to the south, would be pretty persuasive with immigrants. Maybe like a land claim rush or something to pull people into the Prairies.

 

[Nivek]

So much canada make me wonder...some idea what will be of france? fight thrice against germany, loss all those battles, paris in rubble and the rest of country much not be better....

What will german ask to french? reparations?divided part of france?(make little sense but otl french tried it with germany) whatever colonies they remain or have not been lost?.

What will be of france post war? they are just there a nation in germany controlled europe?

 

[Tiro]

I suspect that poor France will be very badly off; after such a century of misfortune I wouldn't be surprised if there were very serious efforts by certain Provinces to pull away from Paris and establish themselves as Independent Nations (if only to escape the risk of yet ANOTHER Great War and apparently unavoidable humiliation).

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

So much canada make me wonder...some idea what will be of france? fight thrice against germany, loss all those battles, paris in rubble and the rest of country much not be better....

What will german ask to french? reparations?divided part of france?(make little sense but otl french tried it with germany) whatever colonies they remain or have not been lost?.

What will be of france post war? they are just there a nation in germany controlled europe?

Germany would probably demand reparations from France, and occupy north-western France. If they hadn't taken the rest of Lorraine after the FGW, they'll take it now, along with some minor "border corrections". I don't think there will be break-off states, like a Breton Republic or anything like that. But there will be massive distrust in France of a monarchy, and I'd doubt if any of the royal/imperial families will ever be allowed into France. They might all go into exile in Switzerland, Geneva is most likely, or in Brussels.

Colonies-wise, Germany will probably go for Gabon and Equatorial Africa. Most of France's other colonies weren't that successful. West Africa is put on a course for decolonization, either because Germany doesn't want France to have colonies or because the French are bankrupt and can't sustain them.

Algeria is going to be interesting, in the Chinese sense. In OTL, there was about 1 million pieds-noirs (European colonists) who lived there among 10 million Algerians. They might try and pull a Rhodesia/South Africa, go it alone.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Considering how much of the south would have been desolated and practically empty of population, how much of the US industries would move south?

And there would have to be a rather similar movement into Canada as well. And the oil industry would thrive in the Alberta region, would it not?

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Considering how much of the south would have been desolated and practically empty of population, how much of the US industries would move south?

And there would have to be a rather similar movement into Canada as well. And the oil industry would thrive in the Alberta region, would it not?

I'd imagine the US would want Southern resources pretty quick, and plus it makes sure that Haiti has easy access to US defense. Southerners might be angry at the carpetbaggers coming down, but they can't really do much.

I'd also imagine that Alberta is doing pretty well with the oil industry. The US might have moved infrastructure and industries north into Canada during the SGW just to keep them out of the way of Confederate bombers

 

[ZGradt]

I suspect that poor France will be very badly off; after such a century of misfortune I wouldn't be surprised if there were very serious efforts by certain Provinces to pull away from Paris and establish themselves as Independent Nations (if only to escape the risk of yet ANOTHER Great War and apparently unavoidable humiliation).

Germany would probably demand reparations from France, and occupy north-western France. If they hadn't taken the rest of Lorraine after the FGW, they'll take it now, along with some minor "border corrections". I don't think there will be break-off states, like a Breton Republic or anything like that. But there will be massive distrust in France of a monarchy, and I'd doubt if any of the royal/imperial families will ever be allowed into France. They might all go into exile in Switzerland, Geneva is most likely, or in Brussels.

Colonies-wise, Germany will probably go for Gabon and Equatorial Africa. Most of France's other colonies weren't that successful. West Africa is put on a course for decolonization, either because Germany doesn't want France to have colonies or because the French are bankrupt and can't sustain them.

Algeria is going to be interesting, in the Chinese sense. In OTL, there was about 1 million pieds-noirs (European colonists) who lived there among 10 million Algerians. They might try and pull a Rhodesia/South Africa, go it alone.

I'll have to agree with Josh on the whole breakaway provinces/nations scenario; barring the Basques (and their chances are now slimmer with TL-191 more willing to use deadly force than soft force), France isn't going to take entire provinces forming their own nations lightly. Losing another province and having half the country occupied is one thing, but separatists trying to create their own thing is not going to be taken sitting down. OTL Nazi Germany didn't even start carving out new states out of France, just occupying the northern half and putting a collaborator government in Vichy for the southern half.

Gabon and French Congo will most likely be Germany's most coveted prizes from the French; either merged into one entity or just merged with German Congo. French West Africa is too large and too varied to bother at the moment, they already have Congo and German East Africa to worry about. And German Southwest Africa is a whole different story. Lots of things could happen with French West Africa: breaking up into OTL successor states, attempt to glue together a cohesive federation, break into an eastern and western half, or even be gobbled up by other colonies or African nations.

Not that Germany cares about the Algerians in the slightest, but they'll be willing to make it hard on the Pied-Noirs by arming the Algerians. Conversely, they'll probably try to turn it into a forever war with neither side getting the advantage since Germany's arming all sides.

 

[Tiro]

That seems plausible, although I'd suspect that even if there is no SUCCESSFUL breakaway attempt by the Provinces of France, there will still be a number of Political and Military attempts to do so.

I particularly like the idea of the Pieds-Noir trying to go their own way in the style of Rhodesia.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I'll have to agree with Josh on the whole breakaway provinces/nations scenario; barring the Basques (and their chances are now slimmer with TL-191 more willing to use deadly force than soft force), France isn't going to take entire provinces forming their own nations lightly. Losing another province and having half the country occupied is one thing, but separatists trying to create their own thing is not going to be taken sitting down. OTL Nazi Germany didn't even start carving out new states out of France, just occupying the northern half and putting a collaborator government in Vichy for the southern half.

Gabon and French Congo will most likely be Germany's most coveted prizes from the French; either merged into one entity or just merged with German Congo. French West Africa is too large and too varied to bother at the moment, they already have Congo and German East Africa to worry about. And German Southwest Africa is a whole different story. Lots of things could happen with French West Africa: breaking up into OTL successor states, attempt to glue together a cohesive federation, break into an eastern and western half, or even be gobbled up by other colonies or African nations.

Not that Germany cares about the Algerians in the slightest, but they'll be willing to make it hard on the Pied-Noirs by arming the Algerians. Conversely, they'll probably try to turn it into a forever war with neither side getting the advantage since Germany's arming all sides.

Thank you I don't think the French would tolerate any more breakaway parts of their country, especially after Alsace-Lorraine being German is made final and three disastrous wars against Berlin. They'll be very brutal towards any independence movement.

I think French Congo will be merged into the Congo itself, if only to make it easier to administer. Gabon will probably be kept on its own, but it's probably a 50/50 shot of being merged into the German Congo. And West Africa is too large, I agree, for the Germans to try and swallow. In TL 191, with large empires, they might just try to keep West Africa united as an independent nation (might be one of the few places to be Francophone in Africa). The US might meddle to help out West Africa, out of a sense of guilt for not aiding the victims of the Destruction.

I think the Germans might just arm both sides and let them fight it out, as long as they don't interfere with German dominance of the continent. But in a time when France has been defeated, the Pieds Noirs of Algeria might just be crazy enough to try independence. There's bound to be a good number of French citizens who wouldn't want to live under Berlin's boot, so they'll either emigrate to Quebec (and substitute Berlin for Philadelphia's boot) or Algeria and try and make it on their own.

That seems plausible, although I'd suspect that even if there is no SUCCESSFUL breakaway attempt by the Provinces of France, there will still be a number of Political and Military attempts to do so.

I particularly like the idea of the Pieds-Noir trying to go their own way in the style of Rhodesia.

There may be political attempt, but I'm not so sure about military attempts.

And thank you