TL 191: Which country should the U.S. attack first?

[The Gunslinger]

But wasn't Franco-Italian hostilities driven principally by the French Conquest of Tunisia which occurred in 1881 OTL. The Conquest of Tunisia would begin right before the outbreak fighting in North America in this timeline. However given likely greater French economic interest in Mexico in universe the conquest could be delayed till after the fighting in North America by which point the Italians could beat the French in conquering Tunisia and remove a major point of contention between. Everything I ever seen on the Spanish-Japanese War in Timeline 191 has dated the conflict to the late 1890s early 1900s a decisive Anglo-Spanish and likely Russian victory over Japan would render them virtually irrelevant in the near future and Spain is far more useful as and ally to the entente were it matters anyway. Spanish Divisions supporting the French in Western Europe against Germany are of more value than Japanese Divisions on random German islands in the Pacific.

I could see Europe watching on the sidelines while when Spain goes at it with Japan and then flipping out when they win much like they did with the Sino-Japanese War. But if Japan does get the green light there's a good chance the Russo-Japanese War is butterflied away when Japan gets bogged down in an probable Filipino rebellion.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

But wasn't Franco-Italian hostilities driven principally by the French Conquest of Tunisia which occurred in 1881 OTL. The Conquest of Tunisia would begin right before the outbreak fighting in North America in this timeline. However given likely greater French economic interest in Mexico in universe the conquest could be delayed till after the fighting in North America by which point the Italians could beat the French in conquering Tunisia and remove a major point of contention between. Everything I ever seen on the Spanish-Japanese War in Timeline 191 has dated the conflict to the late 1890s early 1900s a decisive Anglo-Spanish and likely Russian victory over Japan would render them virtually irrelevant in the near future and Spain is far more useful as and ally to the entente were it matters anyway. Spanish Divisions supporting the French in Western Europe against Germany are of more value than Japanese Divisions on random German islands in the Pacific.

Could be delayed, could not be delayed, but you have one of the greatest diplomats in history trying to recruit Italy into his alliance. UK and Japan were considering an alliance as early as 1895 (signed 1902). Japan's value is in her fleet, she secures the Entente colonies in the far east and frees up ships to face the HSF. If not bound by alliance then the Entente has to defend the far east, or provide Japan with a tempting target. Nobody really liked Spain and Japan was strong enough to take a major commitment to beat

I don't think the bread issue would be as dire as it sounds. Western Canada was opening up, Russia had exports, the CSA will have some, and Britain was a very wealthy nation. The Brits may need to diversify, but it'll be continental Europe who suffers. All this implies that the Americans have enough political support for the war that they can tell their farmers, "Sorry, no exports. We need you to till your crop under." This is all happening while they're being blockaded, their coasts are being raided, their offensives are bogged down, and economy is in a state of free-fall.

In the minds of the CSA, this is the second time in twenty years the USA has set out to destroy them. Britain shares a border of thousands of miles with the USA and will clearly see a vested interest in making adjustments to it to preserve Canada.

The power of alliances alone didn't prevent war with America this time, why would it happen again? America started an offensively war over the most spurious pretext and threatened a British ally and a loyal British colony, Britain would have no qualms about expanding the war (which they're already winning).

Cost still increases, supply and demand, supply goes down, demand goes up. US was a big chunk of supply. Plus Britain does not want to be in hock to Russia in 1881. It's a factor that has to be considered

US does not have the support to fight on assuming a peace like canon 191. If France-UK tries to impose something like Versailles (and at least that harsh would be needed given the US has over twice the pop of CSA+Canada and is more industrialized to boot), well that would give the US the support to fight on. There are wars of choices and wars of necessity, the latter generates a lot more support than the former, 2MW started as a war of choice for US, UK and France, necessity for the CSA. A harsh peace would make it a war of necessity for the US, which would give it support to fight on a lot longer, while it is still a war of choice for the UK and France

Just because one is winning a war does not mean one wants it to go on, or that it is popular. America has just received a harsh lesson, that if they try attacking the CSA backed by the UK and France, they will lose and get their coast ravaged and blockaded for their pains, and economy in freefall

Edit: Plus any treaty actually capable of making the US unable to pose a threat would be ahistorical, look at the Crimean war, the last time the UK and France fought on the same side, despite a worse defeat Russia lost only a tiny sliver of land, had to demilitarize some positions (but not enough to compromise her security) and lost some rights vis a vis the Ottomans, but still gained some of their Balkans objectives. Treaty ending Franco Prussian War, France lost 16000km2 and paid an indemnity. Six Weeks war, annexation of minor states, Austria only takes minor territorial losses.

 

[The Gunslinger]

There won't be a Versailles Treaty that keeps America down forever, but it'll more than the slap on the wrist they got in the book. The whole 'destroy them as a power' thing is really product of the Great War and doesn't exist yet.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

There won't be a Versailles Treaty that keeps America down forever, but it'll more than the slap on the wrist they got in the book. The whole 'destroy them as a power' thing is really product of the Great War and doesn't exist yet.

What exactly do you propose? Too much more than Canon and the US would fight longer (you could probably do some adjustments to the arrowhead region, minor islands in St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, Gulf of Maine and Salish Sea, and the Gadsen Purchase without making the US fight longer, but this would still, by your definition be a slap on the wrist)

 

[bguy]

And why would America start a war with the CSA when they it's allied to France and the UK? That's suicide. And if America was bone headed enough to start a great power war the peace would have been far more onerous than OTL because they would have an eye on the horizon for America joining up with a foreign power and be looking to knock America down a peg.

I'm going to defend Blaine on that one. To get British intervention on behalf of the Confederates, you have to have:

1) the British going to war with their primary source of food imports in order to support an expansionist slave state. (An eventuality that would seem extremely improbable to any objective observer); and
2) the Confederates being willing to voluntarily give up slavery just so they can acquire Sonora and Chihuahua. (An eventuality that would seem outright impossible to any objective observer.)

Both of the pre-conditions necessary for British intervention are so incredibly unlikely, that I really can't blame Blaine for not considering British intervention to be a realistic possibility.

I don't think the bread issue would be as dire as it sounds. Western Canada was opening up, Russia had exports, the CSA will have some, and Britain was a very wealthy nation.

Western Canada would be in the middle of a war with the U.S. which might limit grain production somewhat. There are serious geopolitical problems with the British going begging to the Russians for a million tons of grain. (Are the British really going to be willing to give Constantinople and Persia to the Russians just so the Confederates can acquire Sonora and Chihuahua?) And the Confederate states were never large grain producers and will also be in the middle of a war which is going to further reduce their grain crop.

Anyway, I think you are underestimating just how much grain the British were purchasing from the U.S. in the 1880s.

Per the Institute of Economics at the University of Copenhagen, 62.8% of the British population was dependent on foreign wheat imports in the 1880s.

http://www.economics.ku.dk/research/publications/wp/2004/0428.pdf pg. 8

And more to the point, the UK's biggest source for wheat in the early 1880s was by far the United States. Per Michael Atkins, The International Grain Trade, Second Edition, pg. 18, for the period of time from 1878-1882, the UK's annual average of wheat imports from the Untied States was 1,753,000 tons. During that same period the UK's annual average of wheat imports from Russia, Germany, Canada, India, Australia, and Argentina combined was 1,026,000 tons.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4...VSwCm8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=1,753,000&f=false

So if 62.8% of the British population is dependent on foreign wheat imports in the 1880s, and the UK is getting more than half its wheat imports from the United States, then 1/3 of the British population is dependent on US grain exports.

That's a staggering amount of grain which is going to be very difficult for the British to replace. Best case scenario still sees the price of grain in Britain skyrocket which makes the existing government very unpopular. Worst case scenario sees widespread starvation in Britain which will inevitably lead to revolution at home and abroad and probably ends with Queen Victoria being guillotined by some London Soviet.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I think the British would have the defence of Canada as their top priority and being vindictive for the sake of being vindictive as the last.

There's no way a war gets fought and Britain doesn't grab the south bank of the St. Lawrence. The strip between Plattsburgh and Sackets Harbor adds huge strategic depth to Canada, enables the British to build a proper St. Lawrence canal and blocks a valuable ingress into Canada. There are other regions they'd like to have, but this one above all others really adds to their survivability (and could actually make some money to boot). The northwestern shore of Lake Superior, Maine north and east of the Penobscot, the Red River basin and everything north of the Columbia would be the most Versailles terms I think they could reasonably ask for... and none of that is heavily settled or threatens the USA so badly that it makes the demands unpalatable.

I think if anyone wants onerous terms it will be the CSA and who knows what they'll ask for. The Gadsden Purchase? Missouri? Maryland? West Virginia? The New Mexico Territory east of the Rio?

But in all honestly I can't see America going to war to begin with without British support... support which would be incredibly easy to get given the whole slavery thing.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I think the British would have the defence of Canada as their top priority and being vindictive for the sake of being vindictive as the last.

There's no way a war gets fought and Britain doesn't grab the south bank of the St. Lawrence. The strip between Plattsburgh and Sackets Harbor adds huge strategic depth to Canada, enables the British to build a proper St. Lawrence canal and blocks a valuable ingress into Canada. There are other regions they'd like to have, but this one above all others really adds to their survivability (and could actually make some money to boot). The northwestern shore of Lake Superior, Maine north and east of the Penobscot, the Red River basin and everything north of the Columbia would be the most Versailles terms I think they could reasonably ask for... and none of that is heavily settled or threatens the USA so badly that it makes the demands unpalatable.

I think if anyone wants onerous terms it will be the CSA and who knows what they'll ask for. The Gadsden Purchase? Missouri? Maryland? West Virginia? The New Mexico Territory east of the Rio?

But in all honestly I can't see America going to war to begin with without British support... support which would be incredibly easy to get given the whole slavery thing.

Yeah that makes demands unpalatable. As it is you are only screwing Maine and not that badly, and Britain can claim it is just Revising Webster Ashburton of 1842.

The Rest? You are screwing Maine even more, New York, Minnesota and Washington. Even just the St. Lawrence strip means you are screwing New York, at least doubling the number of Americans in Canada, plus adding another 2 senators in the "never vote to ratify the peace treaty until their state capital is occupied" category, senate ratifying Peace Treaties

Plus Britain seemed to have made its demands on the basis of "Uti Possidetis", asking for what they held, they held northern Maine so that is what they ask for, they got beaten out west so didn't ask for anything there, unless they've taken the strip south of the St. Lawrence they won't ask for it. In 1812 they did want this, but got beaten at Plattsburgh and it was thus off the table

Longstreet was playing for international sympathy as best he could, he knows the CSA can't fight the US alone, and doesn't want to appear the aggressor so won't make demands. Plus likely doesn't want to add more Yankees to his nation, given the issues the CSA would have had with rebels plus pacification of the new Mexican territories

 

[Tiro]

I've always thought that there was no formal Alliance between the Confederacy and the United Kingdom prior to the Second Mexican War, merely an alignment on the understanding that the best way to preserve the balance of power in Great Britain's favour was to support the second strongest power rather than the local Heavyweight Champion; without the Manumission Amendment I tend to agree that it would be almost impossibly difficult to swing a full-blown Alliance (which might help explain how President Longstreet was able to convince a slender majority of Congress to pass that particular amendment without triggering a second War of Secession).

I agree that with hindsight this was not a particularly Good Idea, but at the time the United States was making a mess of the Second Mexican War (as it had of the War of Secession) while the Confederate States appeared to be cleaning up in more ways than one; I'm more disappointed that the United Kingdom stuck with the CSA after the First Great War than I am surprised that they would back a Dark Horse in the first place (especially given the resentment in the USA over Perfidious Albion's latest fit of intervention).

 

[m0585]

I think the CSA allied itself with Britain and France after the U.S. allied itself with Germany and Austria Hungary. To be fair to Britain, maybe it saw backing the CSA in its strategic interests (if not necessarily in their moral interests). During the 19th Century, Britain did have a constant fear of the U.S. turning north and seizing Canada. Britain supporting the CSA (which would lead to a divided North American continent), would help to ensure that such a thing would not occur, at least in its mind. Ironically, this just put a bigger target on Canada's back.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Britain did things the nice way and war still broke out. Now they know the Americans can't be trusted and will be gunning them regardless. They may as well slice a few bits off that help protect the Canadian frontiers in case they come back again. And once Britain is involved the Confederacy may as well go for broke and grab as much as possible for the same reason.

But the whole war hinges on Britain being allied to the CSA (not likely) and America being audacious enough to fight them both at once (even less likely). What's more likely to happen is that the CSA and Britain drift apart over the slavery thing and if war does break out Britain twiddle its thumbs and watches America take a big slice of Virginia, Kentucky Sequoia, Sonora, Chihuahua and free Texas.

 

[m0585]

So if I may expand this thread a little: what happens in 1917 when the CSA surrenders, Canada is overrun, and Britain refuses to surrender? What options does the U.S. have?

 

[The Gunslinger]

So if I may expand this thread a little: what happens in 1917 when the CSA surrenders, Canada is overrun, and Britain refuses to surrender? What options does the U.S. have?

All of them. The USA can do whatever it wants! Who's left to stop them?

I doubt Britain would refuse to surrender, they'd know they were on the ropes when they started running out of food.

 

[m0585]

All of them. The USA can do whatever it wants! Who's left to stop them?

I doubt Britain would refuse to surrender, they'd know they were on the ropes when they started running out of food.

Maybe that decisive battle between the U.S. and British Fleets in the South Atlantic?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Britain did things the nice way and war still broke out. Now they know the Americans can't be trusted and will be gunning them regardless. They may as well slice a few bits off that help protect the Canadian frontiers in case they come back again. And once Britain is involved the Confederacy may as well go for broke and grab as much as possible for the same reason.

But the whole war hinges on Britain being allied to the CSA (not likely) and America being audacious enough to fight them both at once (even less likely). What's more likely to happen is that the CSA and Britain drift apart over the slavery thing and if war does break out Britain twiddle its thumbs and watches America take a big slice of Virginia, Kentucky Sequoia, Sonora, Chihuahua and free Texas.

How exactly did the USA in 191 show they could not be trusted in How Few Remain? I figure given the description in the book it was obvious to anyone looking that the US was just waiting for an excuse for war once Blaine was elected. Blaine figured that European support to the CSA was a bluff, called it and found out it was not a bluff and the US got blockaded, coasts raided and lost northern Maine. US knows not to do that again

Slicing off more bits would require the UK controlling those at the time of the Peace Treaty, principle of "Uti Possidetis", which requires more offensives and lengthening the war

 

[m0585]

And of course the more territory the British take from the U.S. in How Few Remain, the more revanchist they'll make the U.S. population. Look what providing support to the CSA and taking the northern half of Maine got the British?

 

[The Gunslinger]

And of course the more territory the British take from the U.S. in How Few Remain, the more revanchist they'll make the U.S. population. Look what providing support to the CSA and taking the northern half of Maine got the British?

I take the view that since the Americans have already thrown caution into the wind and started a war over a flimsy pretext that there isn't much point in dealing normally with a reckless state. The British and Confederacy may as well carve off their pound of flesh for when the Americans come back again.

I think the British would have stayed out of the conflict entirely, but if they do enter it'll be like falling on America like a hammer.

 

[Dave Howery]

I enjoyed the series, but it doesn't hold up to serious inspection.

which is the usual consensus on here. Most of us agree that the 'we're going to declare war on the CSA because it's building a railroad' idea is rather silly, but HT really needed something to set up the whole TL-191 timeline, and that was it. The series is probably the most popular AH fiction out there, but it doesn't really hold up in plausibility. That said, it is rather internally consistent... the UK/France coalition keeps backing the CSA because they want to keep a 'divided USA/balance of power' thing going on in NA... and of course, have no idea that Germany is going to unite sometime in the future and be a counterweight to them..

 

[Michael B]

which is the usual consensus on here. Most of us agree that the 'we're going to declare war on the CSA because it's building a railroad' idea is rather silly,

The reason was that the USA did think not that the CSA should have any part of Mexico that extended its border with the USA.

As for silly reasons, I am sure that we can find a fair few on OTL.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I take the view that since the Americans have already thrown caution into the wind and started a war over a flimsy pretext that there isn't much point in dealing normally with a reckless state. The British and Confederacy may as well carve off their pound of flesh for when the Americans come back again.

I think the British would have stayed out of the conflict entirely, but if they do enter it'll be like falling on America like a hammer.

Then by that standard why was Britain willing to ally with France, who started a war in 1870 over a private telegram being published written in such a manner to insult France? By the standards of the time this isn't really that far of a reach

Plus the harder terms the UK wants to enforce, the longer they have to keep fighting an unpopular war, risking internal political issues

 

[The Gunslinger]

Then by that standard why was Britain willing to ally with France, who started a war in 1870 over a private telegram being published written in such a manner to insult France? By the standards of the time this isn't really that far of a reach

Plus the harder terms the UK wants to enforce, the longer they have to keep fighting an unpopular war, risking internal political issues

We're just going in circles here. And I'm tired of arguing that America, Britain and France are all busy carrying the idiot ball in a fictional war when the diplomacy doesn't actually hold up to closer inspection.

A) Britain would never be allied with a slave holding state. They'd probably be on friendly terms with the USA
B) America would never be audacious enough to declare war on a CSA aligned with two major powers
C) Britain would make a harsher peace on the USA than the book

We're arguing C, which is kind of pointless because A and B are even more preposterous.