I'm still considering NA with the three Mason-Dixon wars they would be happy if they make independant nations of the old dixie weak enough never become anything that puppets, i can imagine either socialist or republicans getting their brain and did trully wanting to integrated(even if pretty slowly) with canada as they've lower population and not as virulent as Dixie at times, that is just my ideas, so i can imagine USA after 'cleaning' the south and make sure the surviving black lives well(or the idea of a 'black border state' along several dixie nation or moved them to Deseret.... they would make puppets of the old dixie...if think they will keep Sonora, Chihahua and maybe Cuba...the rest is not as worth having dixie as future electors....The idea I had presented of the USA rebuilding the South and endearing the Confederates to their cause sounds like a pipe dream, but honestly, I think the only US figure who could pull off something like that would be Robert McNamara. It'd be his "Only Nixon could go to China" moment of realpolitik; however, I sincerely think that McNamara could ultimately bring the Canadian and Confederate territories under Yankee control. After quietly removing Southron nationals and Canadian nationals, of course.
Any thoughts on that?
TL 191: The Southern Occupation
- Thread starter m0585
- Start date
Maybe there'd be a NKVD equivalent in charge of holding down dissent in occupied territory called the Internal Security Bureau.
I don't think many American blacks would relocate to Haiti or Liberia, that has always been the problem with those who've tried to move the blacks to Liberia, it simply makes more sense for them to live in the US. However, many of them probably will move to northern cities so they may not be as useful in holding down the south as one would hope.
Britain is a nuclear power which concluded a sudden peace with Germany, they'll probably pull out of Ireland and the like, maybe surrender a few colonies, but I can't see them giving up on their nuclear weapons. They already have them and an intact Royal Navy, the King would sooner put Churchill back in the irradiated rubble of Downing Street than give them up.
Leaving aside how difficult it would be to stop an unoccupied empire which has already built nuclear weapons from building more.
The war with Japan will probably drag on for at least a few years (the US can't stop Japan from trying to conquer India and Australia and it certainly is not in their interests to discourage the British from saving them).
Britain would probably align with Germany out of a recognition that German dominance in Europe is simply the NWO. They have a lot in common, both being colonial powers, monarchies, it would make sense for them to align against the USA, which, now masters of North America, can indulge in their longstanding traditions of anti-imperialism and republicanism, probably with a lot of anti-racism thrown in.
The USA could easily pick a fight with Germany over the freedom of the peoples of Africa and Europe. That, coupled with German attempts to secure her influence in Latin America are what would be the basis of a new cold war.
I don't really see the point of a CNP.
If one wants to work within the system the Republican Party would be the only logical choice (also the only logical choice for the South, which is wonderfully delicious irony). If one wants to work outside the system a Sinn Fein style Tory party which refuses to take their seats is the most logical choice.
I've always kind of doubted that the Mormons would be kicked out of Utah.
The problem is that so far as I'm aware Utah is not very prime real estate. They are completely surrounded and really not in a position to become a viable nation-state. Would it really be wiser to move them to Hawaii or somewhere else? I could see some population reductions, but I'm just not sure where would be a wiser location to put them.
I see Canada being divided later on if America suffers a collapse similar to that of OTL Soviet Union with a portion becoming the [insert name] of Canada, while the other half remains a US territory. I kind of see modern day TL-191 being the PRC/Russia of the world.
I don't see TL-191 America trying to end colonialism. I think general consciousness of the Union people would be "we want to be left the hell alone and if you don't mess in our affairs we won't mess with yours, oh and we'll happily accept anybody who wants a better life so long has they don't cause problems. If they do we'll kill them."
I don't see TL-191 America trying to end colonialism. I think general consciousness of the Union people would be "we want to be left the hell alone and if you don't mess in our affairs we won't mess with yours, oh and we'll happily accept anybody who wants a better life so long has they don't cause problems. If they do we'll kill them."
That is very plausible (I can't see the US government letting the Emperor stay) but even if the US hands Sonora et al back to the new United Mexican States as I think is likely that doesn't mean that the US puppet Mexico would do all that well. Integrating former Confederate territory will be difficult, and I could see some sort of Christero war erupting against what is likely to be a strongly secularist republican regime.
bguy
Donor
Would Britain really have a choice? I can't see the Germans agreeing to make peace on any terms that let the British keep atomic weapons, and since Germany is clearly producing atomic bombs much faster than the British are (and seems to have a more capable air defense network in place), the British are going to get the worst of a continued nuclear war. Nor would the British have an intact Royal Navy for long if the war continues since Scapa Flow and Rosyth will inevitably get nuked if the war continues much longer.
Would the British be willing to risk it though as long as the U.S.-German alliance holds? The Dewey Doctrine seems to mean the U.S. and Germany will use nuclear weapons on any other country that tries to develop nuclear weapons. I don't think the British would want to gamble that the Americans and Germans are bluffing.
I doubt the post-SGW Britain will even have an empire. The British couldn't hold onto their empire OTL, and they're in much worse shape in TL-191. And for that matter it is far from certain that the British monarchy itself survives the loss of the SGW. If Britain loses both its empire and its monarchy then there is no reason for ideological conflict with the Americans. (And of course the British people have far more reason to hate the Germans than the Americans, since it wasn't American bombs that obliterated London, Norwich, and Brighton.)
The U.S. already has more than enough on its plate with holding down Canada, the South, and Utah and dealing with a hostile Japanese Empire. Why would it pick a fight with Germany? (And the same holds true for the Germans who face more than enough challenges in Europe, Africa, and the Mid-East so that they really have no reason to want to antagonize the Americans.)
Isn't a "Sinn Fein style Tory party which refuses to take their seats" what were are talking about with the CNP?
That is 19th century thinking, the sort of thinking which lead to the US being alone and losing to its foes.
The US has grown quite accustomed to active involvement in global affairs, I don't think isolationism is likely, particularly as the US develops a sense of mission, a "never again" mentality given their record of appeasement of the CSA....
Britain makes an early peace in 1944 precisely to avoid having to surrender everything. They still had various allies in the field at the time fighting a two front war against Germany. Britain clearly lost, but is still in a strong position. She has nukes, and probably at least an OTL bioweapon capability. If Germany chooses to continue the war Germany may win, but it will be ruinous, and the survival of the British Empire is actually in the interests of both Germany and the US - they don't want Japan to replace the British in the Indian Ocean after all.
And neither side really has the influence to force the Japanese to make peace right now either, I think you are inevitably looking at a few years of war between the British and the Japanese at least.
If there is a British Revolution then of course those considerations disappear, but I don't see any hints of it in the book, it could happen though.
I don't think the British would hold too much of a grudge for the nuclear attacks, they nuked the Germans first, they are going to be more concerned about Ireland and to a lesser extent Canada. In part because they simply have to accept German domination of Europe at this point, but their grudge against the USA is of even longer standing.
Decolonization would be different in this world, Britain abandoned most of her colonies for various factors, but in most of them there was no serious separatist movement, or the rebels were actually losing (and Rhodesia for instance lasted until 1980 despite spending nearly 15 years in opposition to London) if the British government chose to hold onto what colonies it would have after SGW it would probably retain them. There is no USSR supporting national determination, though I could see the USA attempt to fill that gap.
As to your final comment, that is not how I'd interpreted the CNP but if that is what people thought then I kind of agree with it.
bguy
Donor
If an early peace lets them avoid getting occupied then that is already a pretty big win for the British given how bad their strategic situation is in 1944. If they try to hold out for keeping their nukes as well they are likely to lose everything.
I doubt the British in TL-191 had any meaningful bioweapon capability because if they did then Churchill would have certainly used it after London was nuked.
That may be true for the U.S., but I doubt the Germans care that much about checking the Japanese Empire. (If anything a strong Japanese Empire is in Germany's interest as it doesn't threaten any German interests and is a potential counterweight to the U.S.)
Assuming the British are even willing to keep fighting against Japan. The British populace is clear very war weary by 1944 (or else they wouldn't have stood for Churchill being booted from power). As such any British government that insists on keeping the war going in the east is likely to be very short lived. (Think what happened to Kerensky in OTL once he took power and didn't immediately get Russia out of the First World War.)
But the British only nuked Hamburg after the Germans had already nuked Paris and Petrograd, so I'm sure they still believe the Germans are at fault for the war going nuclear. And do you really think the British people are going to be more upset about losing Ireland and Canada than losing London??? Or even care about losing Ireland and Canada at all when compared to losing London? Even aside from London being both the British political and financial capital, OTL the Greater London area had about 1/6 of Britain's total population in 1941. It was enormously important to the British people, so they will definitely hold a massive grudge against the people that destroyed it.
And even putting aside the German nuclear attacks (which already gets us into "other than that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?" territory), the U.S. barely laid a glove on the British during the SGW. Pretty much all of Britain's ground fighting was against the Germans, which means the lion's share of British military casualties in the war also would have been caused by the Germans.
And again Britain's "grudge" against the USA for the loss of Ireland and Canada is going to be insignificant compared to their grudge against the Germans for the loss of London (to say nothing of Norwich, Brighton, and all the British service members and civilians killed by Germans in the war.)
Britain may be forced to cozy up to the Germans for real-politic reasons, but they can probably get a better deal from the US, since Britain is a much more useful potential ally for the US than it is for Germany.
Except the British financial capital has been destroyed. And Britain is unlikely to be receiving any Marshall Plan style aid in TL-191. (Both Germany and the U.S. have their own extensive war damage to repair, so it is doubtful either country will have extra money to send to Britain.) So how exactly is Britain going to afford to pay for fighting a series of colonial wars? (Much less afford to fight a lengthy conventional war against an undistracted Japanese Empire that is considerably more powerful than its OTL counterpart?)
Also the Tories are going to be absolutely destroyed in the next election. Do you really think the incoming Labour Government is going to be interested in trying to hold onto India or Malaysia or Egypt?
What were you envisioning the CNP as? I agree with your thoughts that any Canadians that want to work within the US political system will probably become Republicans.
I think it is borderline ASB for Britain not to have had a meaningful bioweapon capability, they had one OTL after all. Britain made peace, what, a week after London was nuked? I sort of envision Edward and company intervening before Churchill went too far. At that point Britain is the first great power to drop out, Germany has other fish to fry.
A fair point, though Britain can also serve as an anti-American counterweight (I believe Hitler envisioned it as such) I suppose it comes down to how you envisioned WWI to have ended, I think Germany would want her Pacific colonies back, but it is fair to assume that Japan annexed them post-war.
I would have to disagree with you there, we have no real means of judging British enthusiasm, but given that they voted for Churchill and Mosley....
The downfall of Churchill was very explicitly a court intrigue, the King did it with other politicians. I don't recall any indications of public support for it (then again, if we did receive any they would have just been US propaganda).
Given how long the war has been ongoing and OTL I think Britain could be expected to keep fighting the Japanese. They have to as the Japanese clearly intend to conquer Australia and India. This is a defensive war, the British public wouldn't stand for letting that land fall to Japan, and I don't think the US can force Japan to quit either.
I think nuclear weapons won't be viewed as all that serious given that both sides used them, they won't have the same moral quality that we assign to nuclear weapons OTL.
Also don't overestimate the size of nuclear weapons, just one nuke was dropped on London.
Are you familiar with nuke map? http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ It's fun, I'm not sure you can see it when you click the link but I used a Hiroshima bomb to hit Westminster and the blast doesn't even reach Hyde Park.
I really doubt that the Germans would be able to drop their bomb on Westminster, probably they'd just hit a part of London no one cares about. I just don't think the nuking would be that big a deal.
That is entirely true, and Germany clearly proved it can beat Britain up, but on the other hand Britain didn't do too badly against the Yanks....
As I noted London's not in as bad a shape as one might think (probably) in terms of Labour, even assuming they win (I would expect some sort of national government or if need be military dictatorship sponsored by the king would be likely give the ongoing crisis) Labour was historically not as anti-imperialist as some think.
I mean they had a majority government for over 5 years and still most of the Empire was lost by Macmillan.
It is actually quite interesting to look at Labour policy regarding say Palestine, they were determined to hold it (largely to secure Suez) even in 1948 in the face of some pretty stiff opposition.
And I just don't think they'd be willing to give up India and Australia to Japanese 'tyranny'. I also think Labour probably got itself caught up in the wartime government same as historically so they can't put all the blame on other parties.
And Independent Labour would probably be too radical to really succeed electorally.
I think I thought that people were saying the CNP would be something like the Bloc Quebecois or the SNP, a regular political party that was nationalist, and I really can't see the point of that in the US system.
I still think Canadians and Southerners electing the Republican party to power is the most plausible and frankly hilarious option though.
bguy
Donor
I'm not sure we can assume that just because Britain devoted the resources to a bioweapon program in OTL that they would also do so in TL-191. The British have much greater demands on their purse springs in TL-191 than they had in OTL (what with having to simultaneously fight a world wide conventional war against both Germany and the United States while also fully funding their own atomic weapons program), and they have much less financials resources than OTL (given they aren't getting any Lend Lease or support from Canada.) Under those circumstances the British at some point are going to have to start robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the biowarfare research program could easily be one of the programs that was cut.
But Britain is by far the most dangerous of the Entente powers, so it would have to be the center of German attention. (Especially after Hamburg.) The Germans letting Britain off easy so they can settle accounts with France or Russia would be like the OTL US concluding a quick peace with Hitler so we could crush Mussolini.
Do popular Prime Ministers who have wide spread support in the country get toppled from power though? The very fact that Churchill could be toppled suggests either that 1) Britain was militarily on its last legs and continuing to fight the war would be suicide or 2) Churchill had lost the support of the British people. Neither of those options suggests that the British would be interested (or capable) of fighting on against the Japanese.
OTL in 1917 the Germans clearly intended to carve off great chunks of the Russian Empire, that did not mean the Russian people were ok with Kerensky continuing the war (and Russia's strategic situation OTL in 1917 was much brighter than Britain's circa 1944 in TL-191 is). The TL-191 British population by 1944 would be much more concerned about having enough food to eat then they would about what happens to India or even Australia.
I have to disagree. Nuking the other guys capital only makes sense if you are trying to take out their leadership. You don't hit the capital if you are just trying to make a demonstration to compel surrender since if you end up killing the other sides leaders then there is no one in authority to authorize a surrender. (That's why the US didn't nuke Tokyo OTL.) Thus if the Germans nuked London they were definitely trying to hit Westminster. (Whether they succeeded or not is another question, but regardless of where the bomb hit in London we are probably looking at a minimum of 100,000 British citizens killed.)
Well the British and US never really fought on land in the SGW. (The US does seem to have done better than the Germans against the Royal Navy during the conflict.)
If Labour did join the wartime government then that might make communist revolution even more likely, since all the major parties would be discredited in the eyes of the British people.
Agreed. Its also the only way I can see the Republicans ever regaining the presidency in TL-191.
So are we in agreement that TL-191 America would end up like the OTL USSR? Possibly with Putin type figure in power in modern day?
I think Japan would be the one of the big three powers of the world ITTL? Possibly filling the role of OTL US.
I think Japan would be the one of the big three powers of the world ITTL? Possibly filling the role of OTL US.
What?
Some people take the "America is the USSR analogue in TL191" a little too literally. It is in terms of the War and there are some very dubious actions but its still a democracy with a market economy, albeit with some extra social democratic frills.
I'd imagine the American political scene wouldn't be too different to OTL by the modern era - there'd certainly be a more militarist-patriotic tone in line with Russia due to the sacrifices of their own Great Patriotic War but the United States will still be affluent, rich in resources and land, beacon for immigration (after the war against the South maybe even more so for certain groups), massive economic might etc. Politics would be to the left comparitively but maybe no more than Britain. The Socialists would moderate, becoming a 'progressive' party. The Democrats might be more in the vein of European Christian Democrats though I doubt rugged individualism would come close to vanishing.
Which does bring up the question of how much of the South is empty of people, because the US army did go through killing a lot of civilians....