Decades of Darkness

So probably not powerful enough that if that task force had arrived in time for East Anglia or Zero day it would have been able to tip the balance.

Unfortunately not, particularly given that they would also be facing an enemy with superior air power.

It's a little ironic that the RAN actually became rather more powerful by being able to absorb the tattered remains of the RN (and even stole their name)!

They didn't steal the name; they just borrowed it until the time has come to return it. :D

I've been waiting with baited breath since you first mentioned this one.

It's now up and progressing steadily (next update will be posted later this morning).
 
With Jared's permission, reposting a few election maps I made of the *US. I will be carrying this on as far as the data in the TL document will allow me to, so watch this space.

Some DoD elections, because once I grapple onto something I'm physically incapable of letting it go. There'll be more of these, but I'm starting out with the two presidential elections held in the *US under the 1850 census, which also helpfully include the same voting states. All credit to Jared for the TL, which is a classic of the genre and should be read by anyone who likes grimdark, American regionalism, weird neo-imperialism or all of the above.

First up: 1852. This was a Patriot landslide, in which incumbent President Lewis Cass used the enormous popularity of his conquests in Mexico to cruise to a second full term in office. The Democrats put up Governor James Guthrie of Kentucky, largely to have a chance at a big state outside their stronghold, and as expected did not break into three figures in the electoral vote.

dod-el-1852-png.275802


1856 couldn't have been more different if it tried. The Patriots had been in power for sixteen years, and were getting somewhat complacent - their nomination of incumbent VP Sam Houston didn't help them appear fresh, while the Democrats nominated the immensely popular war hero General Jefferson Davis. The latter won a narrow but convincing victory, backed by nearly the entire South (obviously not called the South ITTL, but you get the point) while the northernmost tier of states backed Houston, as did North Carolina and his home state of East Texas. Senator John Bell of Tennessee launched a third-party bid under the banner of the Freedom Party, campaigning on a nativist platform, but won only Maryland.

dod-el-1856-png.275803

Continuing with the DoD maps from here.

The 1860 elections saw the reelection of the hugely popular incumbent President Davis against Patriot candidate Charles Faulkner of Virginia. Davis, unlike most of those US Presidents considered truly great by posterity, had not led the US through any major war, but he had presided over the annexation of significant tracts of land in Central America, including the entire nation of Nicaragua, as a result of US filibuster campaigns. Davis also articulated the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny", the notion that the white race was destined by God Almighty to rule all the lands of the Americas and that the US was the champion of the white race, which was to guide the US for the remainder of its history. He also settled the "free negro question" by signing into law the Citizenship Act of 1859, which restricted US citizenship to whites whose parents were also US citizens (although white immigrants in the northern states continued to be able to get citizenship easily enough until the North American War). With this in mind, it's also fairly natural that his greatness was somewhat more disputed while he was in office, and so we explain the relatively narrow margin of his reelection.

dod-el-1860-png.276187


Jefferson Davis may have planned a third term, as with Jackson before him and Mitchell after him, but he would never live to fulfil that ambition, as he was struck down by an assassin's bullet in 1863. The US got its first Jewish President, and the assassin's motives were traced back (however truthfully) to the Mexican government, leading to the renewal of war between Mexico and the US. This was quite easily won by the US, which took yet another tier of states off Mexico and expanded its reach to the entire Gulf coast of that nation. In spite of his religion, Abraham Myers' war record proved sufficient to see him reelected to the presidency in 1864.

dod-el-1864-png.276188


1868 was the first election in twelve years not to feature an incumbent, and the first in the same amount of time not to be won by the Democrats. The incumbent Vice-President Joseph Holt, a popular former federal prosecutor who had conducted the trials of both presidential assassins (that of Mangum in 1847 and Davis in 1863), was pitted against the relatively unknown Patriot Senator Hugh Griffin of Illinois, who was nominated as a compromise candidate but proved quite an adroit campaigner in his own right. Enough so, in fact, to take him to the White House, where he would show equal skill in handling the ship of state, becoming one of America's most successful presidents and the perhaps first one whose diplomatic influence was felt outside the North American continent.

dod-el-1868-png.276189
 
And continuing with the 1880s:

Continuing with the DoD maps from here and here. (The election data for the two elections held under the 1870 census is sadly unavailable, so we're skipping past those)

The 1880 election saw a rather nicely-encapsulated "struggle of personalities" between candidates who very much personified the ideals of their respective parties. The Patriots ran Thomas Corbin, an old-school rural populist very much of the "born in a log cabin he built with his own two hands" school, who lived as a frontiersman in the West for a long time before striking silver in the eastern backcountry of North California (where Nevada would be IOTL) and becoming immensely rich. The Democrats ran Wade Hampton III, a fabulously wealthy planter from one of South Carolina's most established old-money families. Both men had their appeal with certain groups and regions, and the election was very close, but ultimately Corbin would come out on top by a margin of four electoral votes.

dod-el-1880-png.277687


Corbin's years in office ended up highly eventful, with the Third Mexican War breaking out in 1881 after an incident on the Veracruz-Mexico City railroad line, which is believed by historians to have been a false-flag operation staged by rail magnate Brutus Junius Clay to embarrass President Corbin into declaring war. Mexico surrendered unconditionally within months, and the US annexed the country wholesale, but guerrilla warfare would linger for six more years, until the last commander with Mexican allegiance surrendered in January of 1888.

By this point, President Corbin had succumbed to the "twenty-year curse" that's killed every US President elected in a year ending with zero since Jefferson, and his Vice-President David Richards became President while the election race heated up. Richards was not a particularly skilled or interesting politician, but his Louisiana planter background was seen as an asset since it might allow the Patriots to cut into the core Democrat vote. For their part, the Democrats successfully courted General Edward Mahan, the Conqueror of Mexico City, who proved an immensely popular candidate. Both parties selected VP candidates from key battleground states: Richards' running mate was Senator Charles Ramsey of North Carolina, while Mahan ran with Senator Lewis Mitchell of Westylvania, a man just barely old enough to be eligible but who was already turning heads on the political scene with his eloquent promotion of American exceptionalism and anti-British sentiment. Mahan ended up winning by a solid margin in the electoral vote, though less so in the popular vote - the biggest surprise of the election was certainly the fact that, perhaps because of Mitchell's presence on the ticket, the Democrats captured Westylvania, ending the "Free Trio"'s history of consistently voting Patriot.

dod-el-1888-png.277689
 
Jared, I do have another question about the timeline, if you don't mind me asking: but I'm wondering what Russia's goal was in the Great War towards India?
 
I have another question too, actually, about the population growth Down Under. A cursory glance at some of the figures during the 19th century gives 2.85 million for 1865, 6 million for 1885, and something like 11 million for 1900, I think. This translates to a growth rate of something like 4% a year, consistently held for decades. The 1900's boom is even more spectacular, 11 odd million to about 18 by 1910, which is about 5% a year. These are some truly enormous growth rates, held up for a very long time. My question is how the Australian economy was able to sustain such an incredible boom for such a long time? OTL the much lesser 1870's-80's boom led to the terrible 1890's depression, during which time the country languished and missed out completely on the immigration boom that was occurring in North America. Even a very modest share in this migration would have led to a population at least a million stronger by 1905-10 OTL. But here the economy does not seem to have suffered any set backs at all. It's not that the immigrants wouldn't exist ITTL, thanks to the changes to North America, but how did the economy down under continue to absorb a high level of immigration for what appears to be more than half a century?

Also, the original kick off of the boom was if memory serves an early gold rush, in the 1830's. This was however without the California rush as inspiration. How were the structural/cultural barriers overcome ITTL, which OTL held strong until after California?
 
The final *US election map, 1892.

Continuing with the DoD maps from here, here and here. This is the last *US election for which I have complete data, so expect a lull before I get to the Yankee ones.

The 1892 election was the first conducted after the 1890 census, which reapportioned the electoral vote to the strong benefit of the Northwest, and in particular the Great Plains, at the expense of the East and the Gulf States losing significant vote weight. In a different world, these changes would've benefitted the Patriots greatly, but as it stands, that was not to be. The Patriots' core vote of Plains farmers and Southwestern hacienda workers (who traditionally voted as instructed by their employers) was beginning to loosen throughout the 1880s, and only the incumbency and popularity of President Corbin staved off the party's decline. Until 1892, that is, when both factions walked out of the convention in protest. The Plains farmers had long been up in arms over the expansion of large-scale plantation agriculture into their region, which they saw as unfair competition against free labor, and when the Patriots had eight years in office and did nothing to stop this, the farmers began to grow discontented with the party. State parties such as the Wilkinson Progress Party and the Kansas People's Party had been founded during Corbin's years in office, but in 1892 they made common cause. When the Patriot convention looked like it was about to nominate notoriously pro-slavery Governor Emil Burke of Pennsylvania, the Plains delegates left the convention, forming a national People's Party and nominating maverick Senator William Shipstead of Wilkinson [a sort of William Jennings Bryan figure] for president. The People's Party adopted a platform calling for the abandonment of the gold standard, the abolition of national banks, and the curtailing of indentured labor in the northern states [although he did stop short of calling for abolitionism, because of course he did, this is DoD].

The southwestern blancos also bolted from the Patriots, forming the Reform Party and nominating Emilio Canalizo of Veracruz on a ticket of equality and justice for all white men [again, this is DoD; if you think anyone in the *US is going to give half a fig about the non-white population and still win significance, you're pushing your luck].

The rump Patriot Party decided to drop Burke, nominating instead the more traditional Eastern Patriot, Senator Charles Ramsey of North Carolina. His running mate was Colonel John Watson, a veteran of the Mexican war who still carried a bullet in his shoulder, and was hoped to add a bit of badly needed war-hero charisma to the ticket.

The Democrats, meanwhile, were chugging along just fine - they had a popular incumbent who looked like he was actually supporting the common man, notably setting up the Industrial Commission to prosecute cartels in the railroads. President Mahan decided to drop VP Mitchell from his ticket for re-election, instead choosing Governor Luis Terrazas of Chihuahua, a veteran politician of the southwest who was also the first blanco to be nominated by a major party.

Ultimately Shipstead's ticket proved even more successful than the Patriots had feared. He carried every single state in the Plains, coming close to second place in the electoral vote. What was worse, he split the vote in the Free Trio badly, allowing the Democrats to carry all three states despite Mitchell being absent from the ticket. The Reform Party, by contrast, was a damp squib, getting no more than 20% of the vote in any single state and failing to break 1% nationally. Its supporters would claim election fraud against them, but such claims weren't very likely - well, certainly not likely enough for anyone to ever act upon them.

The overall result was a Democratic landslide, with Mahan being confirmed in office by nearly three quarters of the electoral college. Having returned to the New White House, the President set about to deepen his reform agenda in hopes of attracting Populists to the Democratic fold. Before his second term was up, constitutional amendments had been passed to allow a progressive federal income tax and the direct election of senators. Moreover, civil service reform was instituted, and the remit of the Industrial Commission was expanded to include heavy industry as well as the railroads. America had entered a new age.

dod-el-1892-png.278301
 
Jared, I do have another question about the timeline, if you don't mind me asking: but I'm wondering what Russia's goal was in the Great War towards India?

The vaguely-formed goals were "break it out of the British orbit" and "grab some strategic border territory". Which goal was stronger depended on which government figure you were speaking about. The Russian government had rather contradictory objectives in the leadup to and during the Great War - which is why they vacillated before entering - but no serious government figures thought that they could actually conquer India on top of the other fronts, even setting aside the horrible logistics.

I have another question too, actually, about the population growth Down Under. A cursory glance at some of the figures during the 19th century gives 2.85 million for 1865, 6 million for 1885, and something like 11 million for 1900, I think. This translates to a growth rate of something like 4% a year, consistently held for decades. The 1900's boom is even more spectacular, 11 odd million to about 18 by 1910, which is about 5% a year. These are some truly enormous growth rates, held up for a very long time. My question is how the Australian economy was able to sustain such an incredible boom for such a long time? OTL the much lesser 1870's-80's boom led to the terrible 1890's depression, during which time the country languished and missed out completely on the immigration boom that was occurring in North America. Even a very modest share in this migration would have led to a population at least a million stronger by 1905-10 OTL. But here the economy does not seem to have suffered any set backs at all. It's not that the immigrants wouldn't exist ITTL, thanks to the changes to North America, but how did the economy down under continue to absorb a high level of immigration for what appears to be more than half a century?

It's not that there were no economic setbacks, but they were shorter and less severe than the 1890s depression, which was extremely bad because of a confluence of circumstances. There was a very large speculation boom, and an influx of foreign capital which supported that boom, and resultant high land prices. What followed was what can be expected for such a post-bubble bust: foreign capital withdrawn, balance of payments problems (in the gold standard era), banking collapses, and serious economic malaise.

ITTL, the higher local population means that in turn, the reliance on foreign capital is lower, and the domestic market is larger. This means that economic downturns are less severe (not as much foreign capital being pulled out), and the recovery is correspondingly quicker. It also helps that what's been set up has been a lot of family-chain migration (people calling relatives out) which continues even during relative economic downturns. In turn, this creates an ongoing construction/infrastructure demand (houses, roads, railways etc) which provide their own economic booster. Some of this is due to higher natural population growth than OTL; there's more people there before the demographic transition, and immigrants tend to have higher birth rates for the first generation, too.

Also, the original kick off of the boom was if memory serves an early gold rush, in the 1830's. This was however without the California rush as inspiration. How were the structural/cultural barriers overcome ITTL, which OTL held strong until after California?
The technological barriers were the development of clipper ships, which in OTL were more or less a product of the Australian gold rush, and so are developed sooner here with the need. The cultural barriers were lowered because there was already higher immigration before the gold rush (basically redirected from the USA), which meant that gold discoveries were publicised which were kept quiet in OTL. (More immigrants who wanted to make money, rather than a government which had an interest in keeping things quiet.)
 
I have a question. Looking back after what would have to be over 12 years, is there anything about this timeline you would have done differently?
 
I have a question. Looking back after what would have to be over 12 years, is there anything about this timeline you would have done differently?
The broad picture would be similar, but there's quite a few details I would tweak if I were redoing it. Some of them I even had plans to do a big retcon for and rewrite of the whole timeline, but the scale of the task was a bit off-putting, and the rewards limited, so I moved on to other projects.

A few of the planned changes:
- Retcon the history of the Canadian Maritimes. On reflection, it was implausible that both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick joined New England so early. I would have had the first plebiscite for Nova Scotia to go ahead more or less on schedule, figuring that it would be something which Britain would allow in the interests of good Yankee relations since they wouldn't expect it to ever succeed. Once lost there, though, they would not allow the same in New Brunswick. NB would not join New England until after the North American War.
- Make Germany less overwhelming in Europe before the Great War, with its previous territorial gains (particularly in the Second Napoleonic Wars) much less. On the whole, I think it was actually too overwhelmingly strong; while there were reasons which still allowed the Bouclier to hold out for so long, it was still pushing the bounds of plausibility a bit. A correspondingly weaker Germany (though still strong) would have made the course of the Great War in Europe less one-sided.
- Introduce an *American analogue to Sir Clifford Sifton in the 1840s-1860s timeframe. He would be setting an immigration policy designed to fill the "Empty Northwest" - the non-attractive areas to slaveowners, and which were near to Canada - along the same lines as Sifton encouraged settlement of the Canadian West. This would also involve setting up rules to clarify the process for citizenship for (white) immigrants, and recruitment drives in some disaffected areas of Europe, principally the Slavic subjects of the Habsburgs, and to a lesser degree some Russian subjects. This would boost the citizenship population of the US of A a bit, and also tidy up some of the history of citizenship changes in the *USA. (And at a minor level, also slightly reduce the population disparity in Europe during the Great War, since more recruits would be from the future German side than the Bouclier).
- Introduce a low-level border war breaking out between the *USA and Peru a couple of years before the Great War, over an outgrwoth of campaigns against guerrillas who were sheltering in Peruvian territory. This would lead to a gradual build-up of U.S. militarisation, expansion in shipping capacity, power projection etc, but not in a way which would teach the *USA any lessons in terms of Europe. The war would be limited deliberately because neither the *USA nor Peru are interested in making it any bigger and involving other countries, and the European powers have other things to interest them by then (mostly in Europe). But it would mean that some of the logistical lessons which the *USA needed to learn would have been learned sooner - I felt that the timeframes were a bit too compressed within the Great War.
- Rewrite pretty much the whole Canadian post-Great War arc. On reflection, Canada was much more unstable than it should plausibly have ended up being. I had a few alternatives in mind for how this would have turned out, but never needed to settle on one before I dropped the whole planned rewrite.
- Flesh out the "betrayal" of Britain by New England in the Great War, which would give more context to why the Vitalist government decided to pull out at the crucial time, and how the military effects played out. By that stage of writing the timeline, I think I was in too much of a rush to finish it, and didn't give enough depiction of the details about why things made sense.

There were other changes planned - including a few I'm sure I've forgotten about - but those were some of the bigger ones.
 
You're definitely on to something with these ideas - New England's withdrawal and Mullins' fall in particular felt like they came out of the blue first time I read it through, and the Great War may have been a bit too much of a lopsided German/*American slog through Europe/South America with no one except Rodney Ironfist seeming to put up a fight. I will say I loved the Canada storyline, but in hindsight you're probably right that they wouldn't go that far south that fast.
 
You're definitely on to something with these ideas - New England's withdrawal and Mullins' fall in particular felt like they came out of the blue first time I read it through, and the Great War may have been a bit too much of a lopsided German/*American slog through Europe/South America with no one except Rodney Ironfist seeming to put up a fight. I will say I loved the Canada storyline, but in hindsight you're probably right that they wouldn't go that far south that fast.

Glad you liked the Canada story line. I wrote much of it, all those years ago (With complete oversight by Jared, of course) :)
 
How different was the timeline going to be if the Allies had won the Battle of Long Island, or did you not extrapolate that much?

teg
 
How different was the timeline going to be if the Allies had won the Battle of Long Island, or did you not extrapolate that much?

teg

IIRC there was an alternate map which showed North America & the Caribbean after the USA lost battle and war.
In the long term, it would not really matter.
Rather than helping the Bouclier alliance in Europe against Germany, the USA would crush their allies in the Americas when they are distracted by the war against Germany and become the hegemon of the Americas.
 
How different was the timeline going to be if the Allies had won the Battle of Long Island, or did you not extrapolate that much?
I didn't flesh out all of the details, but in essence, *America would lose the war, have a peace imposed with a whopping great indemnity, loss of some border territory, some attempted military restrictions, etc (sound familiar?). That would go predictably wrong in all of the obvious ways, with *America ending up quasi-fascist, extremely revanchist, and at war with New England, Canada, and parts of South America, right when Britain and other European powers would prefer to have no distractions outside of the Continent, because they still faced problems with Germany.

Life would have been better for Brazil, Argentina and maybe Chile, but everywhere else in South America would have ended up as American vassals, although not as much territory under direct control.
 
So in this alternate alternate timeline what would generally happen to Canada and New England after they lost the war against the revanchist USA?
 
So in this alternate alternate timeline what would generally happen to Canada and New England after they lost the war against the revanchist USA?
Honestly, I think that might be even more dystopic than the actual DoD. When the story ended in 1933, the *US still had some measure of democracy, even if it was a white supremacist one and it looked like Alvar O'Brien was a dictator in the making, while New England had endured a bout of fascism but had just seen democracy restored, and it looked ready to prosper in the future as a neutral, social democratic state. A revanchist *US, though, is gonna turn very nasty very quick.

That said, I think an alt-Maginot Line along the border of Niagara, Hudson, and New Jersey might work better with the geography of New England than it did for OTL's France, especially if New England cleaves off parts of northern Pennsylvania/Westsylvania in the North American War settlement. OTL's Maginot Line was designed to funnel the German army through Belgium, which it did; the only reason it failed was because of a strategic blunder by the French and British in underestimating the Germans' ability to send an army through the Ardennes and outflank them. In New England, though? A similar defensive line would run from the Atlantic Ocean to Lakes Erie and Ontario. A very short secondary fortification line could also be established in Ontario around the St. Clair River to protect eastern Canada and cover that flank. There's absolutely no other route around the line like there was in OTL's Ardennes; the only way into the New England heartland is the hard way. The only alternative is an amphibious landing, either across Lake Erie to invade from the west through Ontario, or across a stretch of the Atlantic to land in Long Island and Cape Cod, and either of those would take strategic planning and resources on the order of OTL's D-Day -- meaning that it's more likely to wind up an alt-Sealion or Market Garden instead, a catastrophic blunder that does more harm than good to the *US war effort.

All told, I think it's likely that, in this scenario, we see western Canada and Michigan overrun quickly, but with eastern Canada and the New England heartland holding out like OTL's Britain. They'd get the shit bombed out of them, and without help they'd probably fold in a couple of years, but they won't get overrun in six weeks like France was in OTL. And that's if they don't get assistance. They're likely co-belligerents against the *US with several Latin American nations, who are either fielding armies and fleets or engaging in guerrilla warfare, so they won't have the *US military's undivided attention. And in Europe, even if it looks like Britain and France are losing, New England could very well turn to Germany for assistance.
 
We know that NE was going to survive in either scenario, my guess is that however it occurs NE ends up surrendering conditionally after it is obvious that Canada is toast. They probably lose Michigan, New Jersey in full, and anything in the Caribbean. I do wonder how Germany would be able to win in Europe to the same extent with Russia actually fighting against them though. Massive US assistance after finishing off New England/Canada? It would certainly make for some entertaining scenes - Britain sandwiched between the US and German navies... I do wonder at the relations between Russia and the alt-Restored Empire though. If there's a Russian betrayal a la OTL DoD then it's probably not that different, but if Russia and the RE are on the same side the entire war and there's no major tensions in China then that could possibly lead to quite good relations between the two. That would be an extremely potent bloc, even after losing the Great War.
 
Top