Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[eschaton]

Guys

I think the Mexican Korsgaardist have just made a serious error. Suspect that the DSA outweighs them in both population and industrial might. Also while some troops may have gone to Europe its probably likely that there is a substantial number still training and war industries building up. Also I suspect the liberal DSA will not welcome Korsgaardits centralisation and militarism.

It will cause problems, especially if the Mexico shark boats do prove initially successful but the main barrier to invasion won't be the RN but the population of the DSA. Also, it depends on the situation in Europe but I suspect that the home country can spare at least some troops to help defend their oldest and most important dependency.

The only problem would be if the US has a sudden imperialist outbreak but barring something stupid that seems highly unlikely. They don't have claims on DSA territory and with the exception of a small number of characters are more inclined to the liberal bloc than the more militaristic and centralist Korsgaarders. Furthermore you could see US opinion turning strongly against Mexico for bringing the war to N America and for what sounds like a sneak attack on a friendly neighbour.

Steve

Mexico's winning of the war depends entirely upon if their allies can win their own theaters, and how much territory they hold at settlement. However, given Mexico is stronger ITTL, and the DSA is smaller than the USA, I'd say the DSA starts out a favorite, but Mexico is no slouch. I'd expect either a stalemate along most of the fronts (after the surprise of the initial assault) or else the DSA makes some headway, but doesn't march on to Mexico City. Either way, I don't think they'll take too much more from TTL's Mexico, as I really don't think they want to be troubled with a restive Mexican population. I think they'd be more likely to ask for Nicaragua for the canal than OTL's South Texas.

 

[Glen]

Is it bad I squee when I see the United Kingdom of Scandinavia on the map?

No, it is not bad. It is good.

Here's hoping they can nab Lappland in the war!

Don't they have most of it now?

 

[Glen]

With war fever spreading across the globe, the United States stood in odd quietude. However, some Americans were not content to stand on the sidelines as the world erupted in fire. While some of the volunteeers would be absorbed into the armies of Germany, France, and Britain, some did not come as individuals, but whole units. Many Americans had family roots in Europe and felt the pull of defending the liberal West against the Korsgaardist East. Very few were interested in fighting for the Korsgaardian regimes, and were seen as suspect by them even if they were so inclined. However, when the war expanded to their own doorstep in Texas, many more Yankees headed for the South to fight off the Mexican invasion.

 

[TapReflex]

Snippity Snip.

You're in the Nick Roosevelt Brigade. In The United States of China. Facing a charge of Chuen Infantry. And all you have is a hammer....

I love the idea already.

Now that I think of it, What might the USA gain out of this battle (If it gets involved)? Could America snag a few Pacific Islands or Parts of Russia?

 

[thekingsguard]

Don't they have most of it now?

Not the portion known as Russian Karelia

 

[Glen]

Those Eastern powers were a bit optimistic about The War...

How realistic!

I enthusiastically await this beginning of combat.

Yes, they are being wildly overenthusiastic in some respects, though not in all. Note that the big powers of France and Britain don't lose anything territorially. Germany, Italy, and the Roman Republic are in some ways very recent entities, existing only 40 years at most in their current forms. There is a degree of Racism operating in their assumptions of defeating the Ottomans (completely unwarranted, I might add). The biggest stretches are in their claims on Scandinavia, interestingly enough. Note that the Russians are pushing for access to the North Sea and the Mediterranean as their major war objectives. This was always their best case scenario plans for expansion, but they thought they would have more time and surprise on their side. I should also add that the West has presented their 'dream' plans as their absolute war aims, thus making them look more grandiose than they might be.

 

[Mac Gregor]

With war fever spreading across the globe, the United States stood in odd quietude. However, some Americans were not content to stand on the sidelines as the world erupted in fire. While some of the volunteeers would be absorbed into the armies of Germany, France, and Britain, some did not come as individuals, but whole units. Many Americans had family roots in Europe and felt the pull of defending the liberal West against the Korsgaardist East. Very few were interested in fighting for the Korsgaardian regimes, and were seen as suspect by them even if they were so inclined. However, when the war expanded to their own doorstep in Texas, many more Yankees headed for the South to fight off the Mexican invasion.

Yeah, this makes the most sense for the United States. While it would be cool to see them get into the war, there is no plausible reason for them to do so. I see them sitting it out, like they have been doing sense independence, and making a lot of money off selling arms and loans to the west. By the war’s end, I think the United States' position in the world will have gone up dramatically like in OTL even if they don’t become involved militarily.

 

[Glen]

I hope the Eastern Powers prove victorious.

It would make things interesting, now, wouldn't it?

 

[Glen]

The second year of the Global War, 1890, would later be referred to as "The Year of Blood" due to the loss of life during this phase of the war. With the further introduction of smokeless gunpowder and rapid fired automatically reloading guns on both sides, the balance of the war swung to the defense. While the Eastern powers in Europe could not be pushed out of the land they had invaded during this year, they also could not make progress further. This stalemate was most prevalent in the European theater, with others across the globe having more or less fluid lines depending on the terrain, weapons available, and manpower involved in the fight. The Western Powers, though chafing at the occupation of their lands, settled for the time on a policy of strong defense believing that time would favor them and weaken their opponents. The Eastern powers seemed equally concerned that without further advance, the war would swing ot the West's favor, and launched a number of offensives to try to break through, most of which met little success. By the end of 1890, the losses were far greater on the part of the East than the West.

 

[bolhabela]

Oh, this is going to be epic!

 

[Falastur]

Very few were interested in fighting for the Korsgaardian regimes, and were seen as suspect by them even if they were so inclined. However, when the war expanded to their own doorstep in Texas, many more Yankees headed for the South to fight off the Mexican invasion.

Ah, interesting. It'll be interesting to see what this war does to the US Korsgaardian Party. To paraphrase a well-known song, "I predict McCarthyism, I predict McCarthyism"

 

[stevep]

​

The second year of the Global War, 1890, would later be referred to as "The Year of Blood" due to the loss of life during this phase of the war. With the further introduction of smokeless gunpowder and rapid fired automatically reloading guns on both sides, the balance of the war swung to the defense. While the Eastern powers in Europe could not be pushed out of the land they had invaded during this year, they also could not make progress further. This stalemate was most prevalent in the European theater, with others across the globe having more or less fluid lines depending on the terrain, weapons available, and manpower involved in the fight. The Western Powers, though chafing at the occupation of their lands, settled for the time on a policy of strong defense believing that time would favor them and weaken their opponents. The Eastern powers seemed equally concerned that without further advance, the war would swing ot the West's favor, and launched a number of offensives to try to break through, most of which met little success. By the end of 1890, the losses were far greater on the part of the East than the West.

Glen

This seems to suggest that there's only one year of fairly total stalemate. [Since it refers to a year of blood]. Wonder what happens, presuming I'm right, to break the grip of the defence. Even with a more advanced technology than OTL I think its really too early for a practical tank type vehicle. However could have serious internal discontent in one or more power, Germany because of the occupation of parts of it or one of the eastern powers because of the heavy losses suffered. Or a Gallipoli like operation, probably by the western powers, to turn a defensive position. Another option might be a major breakthrough by either side in China or one of the more thinly populated regions where trench warfare is probably more difficult. Although in such areas the gains are likely to be substantially less important strategically.

Good for the western powers that their able to realise that with new weapons coming in the defence has the edge and hence to hold their lines rather than retake occupied areas. This could also be useful for the DSA as it means that Britain is likely to be able to give substantial support to defeating the Mexican attack. A lot would depend on the relative resources available but being probably outnumbered, heavily outclassed industrially and with long exposed coastlines Mexico could come under heavy pressure very quickly, especially if the centralising nature of the Korsgaardians prompt separatist instincts in some of the Mexican provinces.

Steve

 

[Glen]

I hope Germany annexes Austria and Prussia and puppetizes Poland and Hungary, while the Ottoman Empire annexes the Crimea

Hope springs eternal - why might you hope such a thing?

 

[Glen]

As much as I'm interested to see how that war would play out, the Balkans are not divided realistically.

Ah, but they are divided per the feverish dreams of dominion by the Eastern powers.

The Empire of Austria could probably extend down to Albania, but once it extends with a sliver of land south it will be frankly impossible to defend, and difficult to support and administer. I would think they would far rather have Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, and Serbia under their direct control much more than one they would be getting otherwise (even if it includes Bosnia, Montenegro, and Albania).

As Steve noted, this is somewhat due to the division that is being proposed being along religious and ethnic lines. Therefore Serbia goes to the Russian sphere.

Further, the actual goals are far too harsh to be realistically acceptable by any power with the possible exception of the Ottomans depending on how "European" they are considered in this timeline.

The West considers them pretty European, the East considers them Oriental barbarians and heathens. Therefore the Eastern Powers think it is reasonable (should they succeed in all particulars) whereas the West is highly unlikely to accept these terms.

The Kingdom of Germany would be outright divided between the other two German Empires, this is something that wouldn't happen.

The East sees it as only fitting. Before the Liberal War of the 1850s, Prussia and Austria vied for dominance of this very region. They see it as their natural right to rule these German lands, but now instead of all, they seek to divide the Germans very roughly between them based on both Geography and Religion, with some exceptions (Prussia sees redemption of the Rhineland as an imperative even though it is predominantly Catholic).

It wouldn't even be remotely acceptable to the powers France, Netherlands, Belgium, and others.

The Eastern Powers were plotting this only if they experienced complete victory - they had more modest gains planned as well - however, oddly enough, it was their most grandiose schemes that were publicized by the West, go figure.

Scandinavia is treated second most harshly. They could either take Finland, or they could either take part of Denmark. Not both and then some.

Redemption of Finland would just be a return of the status quo before the Liberal War. Taking part of Denmark (or all of it in this scenario) is quite frankly over-reaching, but if they could take it, even part of it, they could gain the much coveted outlet to the Atlantic.

The Ottomans, again, depends on how European they are. Its just too harsh and the outside world will object.

See above.

This may be the point, but... I don't believe these are realistic war objectives.

As mentioned, these are not meant to be realistic war objectives, but rather what they would do if they defeated their enemies abjectly. These are the pie-in-the-sky dreams of the Eastern Powers. They were never meant for publication, and were not even seriously felt to be entirely acheivable. However, they were perfect for the propaganda needs of the West.

 

[Glen]

At the beginning of the Global War, the British Royal Navy was the largest in the world, and had been known for centuries for naval innovation, as evinced in recent decades by their use of newer, stronger armor. However, the average age of ships of the Royal Navy was the oldest in the world, and no other navy tried to cover as many regions as the British, so that while in absolute terms the largest navy, they often faced local inferiority in numbers. By the close of 1889, two disasters for the Royal Navy would have the Admiralty rethinking the policies of the British Navy.

Off the coasts of Mexico, the Shark Ships had proven surprisingly effective in warding off the larger, more heavily armed, British Battleships. While the brave Mexican navy faced horrendous casualties, as even one hit would usually mean the destruction of a Shark Ship, their speed, maneuverability, and ability to launch sharks that could cripple and even sink the larger battleships with but a few hits meant that the British were often forced to retire from the battle, with only their superior armor and endurance allowing them to escape.

In the Far East, the Russian Navy had played a game of 'keep-away' from British forces for most of the year, bolstering British confidence in their superiority. What the British didn't know was that the Russian fleet was waiting for the completion of reloading their ships with new, smokeless shells. When the Russian fleet suddenly turned on the British and went on the offensive with clear lines of sight for their long range guns due to the lack of billuous smoke, whereas the British within a few salvos lost clear targeting on the Russian fleet. The British lost more ships and men in the Battle of the Japanese Straits (sometimes called Korean Straits) than they had in over a century.

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

OH MY GOD!!

I love seeing British Naval dominance challenged by my homeland (Mexico)!

 

[Glen]

haha, and so my cameo is revealed, and I love it . As with most of the other cameos it will probably only be a one-post mention, but he still sounds awesome enough that I can now sit back in my chair as I read this thread and bask in the imaginary glory I can imagine him receiving off-camera, carefully orchestrating all of Britain's actions in the East from behind a veil of secrecy none can penetrate. Or that's how I like to picture it.

Indeed you can. I am glad that you have so much enjoyed your cameo.

I'll refrain from commenting about just how realistic I think the East's war goals are, partly because given the comparisons to fascism I find myself comparing them more with WW2-era war goals, against which they are far more tame.

Indeed, a salient point! I would point out that the Central Powers in WWI had some pretty ambitious war aims and goals (Mitteleurope anyone? The recarving of Africa?). But as you say, we will not go into that too much here.

Of course, I think we all know that the East won't be successful enough to actually pull this off anyway - when is anyone ever so successful as to completely get what they want in war? -

Exactly!

so I'm as ever far more interested by the war and the subsequent peace treaty's actual terms than anything.

Yep, that is what should be of more interest, agreed.

 

[Vosem]

Let's go Russia!

 

[Glen]

An excellent TL.

Thank you! Praise is always welcome!!

Personally, I am rooting for the Eastern Powers, if only because I think that would be more interesting than a Western victory.

An understandable position.

However, I do have some issues with the goals:

1. I think Naples and Hellas have more to gain from allying with the Eastern Powers, and, although they are playing cautious right now, they will likely join the EP if it starts to look like an EP victory.

Yes and No. Naples is actually pretty liberal, and a supporter of the Roman Republic, among other reasons as a buffer to Northern Italian dreams of unification. Hellas has close ties to the British, and the Russians have no intention of letting them have Istanbul, which would be about the only thing that would entice them enough to join the Eastern Powers - granted, if the West looked like it was utterly crumbling, they might jump on board at the end for table scraps.

2. Austria-Hungary's little piece along the coastline and giant thing in Italy are unlikely if it really wants such a giant piece of Germany.

And in the eventuality of an actual Eastern victory, it probably would be less. But these are the dreams of avarice, the best case scenario, a working out among the Eastern powers of what they would be willing to see the other get.

All I can see it want aside from that are Montenegro, Serbia, and the territory between them (Bosnia & Herzegovina) in the Balkans,

Well, Russia is interested in Serbia for themselves.

and Venice in Italy;

At least, but they probably would want somewhat more than that.

the other parts of Italy conquered by the Austrians would probably go to the Neapolitans, in addition, most likely, to Corsica and Sardinia.

Assuming Naples gets involved...

3. Russia, on the other hand, seems to be limiting itself in the south. The weird tail to the Hellan border is unlikely, but Russia would likely annex Moldavia, all of OTL Bulgaria, Romania, East Macedonia, Thrace,

Yes, they would likely.

European Turkey, and the entire southern coast of the Black Sea, including the city of Constantinople.

Well, yes.

This would probably be administered via a series of puppet-states (neo-Byzantium, neo-Trebizond, anyone?).

Naw, this is Tsarist Russia on Steroids. They would rule directly.

In the north, Russia probably wouldn't aim for much more than the OTL Russo-Finnish border (ie, total control of Lake Ladoga). The southern front would likely be the focus.

But they still dream of some access to the Atlantic directly.

4. The area of the Ottoman Empire not given to Austria or Russia in the Balkans would probably be partitioned between Naples and Greece (assuming, of course, that the two of them fight). Greece would also aim for Cyprus, Smyrna, and maybe some other parts of western Anatolia. They would want Constantinople, but I doubt the Russians would give it.

Wow, and I thought my war aims map was ambitious! Of course, you are doing much as what was attempted in WWI. If they were to join, it would be a possibility as a promise, but again, I think it is unlikely to be realized.

5. Although, again, I can see the partition of Germany,

Yeah, in the case of an epic fail by the West, I think that is a possibility, though not a likelihood.

I doubt that much would happen to Scandinavia. Border adjustments with Russia and Prussia-Poland (assuming the border in Jutland becomes one with PP); maybe handing some ports over to Russia or Prussia on the Swedish east coast, but Scandinavia would survive, if only on account of there being bigger fish to fry.

Yes.

6. I doubt the Easterners would mechanically stop at the French border; Alsace-Lorraine (approximately) would also be included in Prussian and Austrian gains.

I actually think not. Taking part of France would make for an even harder peace and would be minor compared to all the other gains. The Eastern powers think they can get away with some or in the event of absolute victory, all, of these war aims because they are targeting the secondary powers, not the big two of France and Britain. Although, again, I am gratified that you can dream even further than the Eastern powers!

7. The question of what happens to Britain is interesting; they're so far removed from the proceedings that it's difficult to see them losing land of any sort. Perhaps Central Asia and Afghanistan can be given to Russia,

Be sure that Russia is eying that territory.

but I think Russia would be fighting on too many fronts -- for this to realistically occur, the Eastern Powers might have to form some sort of covert alliance with Indian nationalists, resulting in widespread sabotage of British war efforts in the area of OTL Afghanistan - could this happen?

Time will tell....

8. Assuming Naples enters the war, could we see a North African front develop?

I suppose it is possible....

That said, this is an excellent TL, Glen.

Thanks again!

I just doubt a lot of those war aims.

As do many - but so far, I think you are the only one who has more ambitious ones!

 

[Glen]

They are war aims. Even if the Eastern Powers do well, I doubt they will actually get all they want from this war, particuarly with regards to Italy and Scandanavia.

They are the top end of war aims, and I agree it is unlikely to all come to pass.