I’d say that’s broadly accurate. Depends how you define “better” but the US is, while not the world’s superpower, politically more functional with a more equal economy with the South not being inside the tent
I'd say a lot of that is that the United States *has* to keep troops close to home. Even if the border of El Paso to San Diego looks like the OTL US/Canadian Border, from the various flash forwards, the Canadian border is far worse and the question becomes when does the Missouri/Arkansas border change from being guarded by Regular army troops to the equivalent of a Border patrol. Sort of makes me wonder what the longest border in the world is in TTL's 2023.

By comparison, the longest borders iOTL in km rounded to 100km
US/CA 8800
Kazakhstan/RU 7600
AR/Chile 6700
China/Mongolia 4600
Bangladesh/India 4100
Russia/China 4100
Russia/Mongolia 3400
Bolivia/Brazil 3400
India/Pakistan 3200
US/Mexico 3200
US/CA will be about 85% of OTL without Quebec. The Argentina/Chile border is about 1/2-2/3 of OTL. Bolivia/Brazil might not change much. no clue on the Eastern Hemisphere...
 
I can't believe what I'm reading, Cadorna was the best general Italy ever produced, no Italian general after him, save for perhaps, Guglielmo Nasi has ever come close to him in terms of tactical and stratagems.

Cadorna was very good a logistic and organization and yes was better than most italian general in term tattical and strategic thinking...unfortunely was also a micromanager that brought 'my way or the highway' to his logical extreme, don't accept criticism or responsability for failure (always throwing some scapegoat), extremely hard with the soldiers to a degree that frankly many simply surrender with all the risk involved because it was nevertheless safer, He almost lost the war a couple of time, the first time with the battle of the solstice when the K.u.K launched at attack through Trentino, sure he recoup from that and retook the greater part of the territory lost but he was in this position because he stubbernly continued to refuse to accept any intel from the defector from the Hapsburg Empire.
And naturally there is Caporetto, sure he wasn't the only guilty part but as you pretend to be 'the only man in charge' well you get the honor but also the consequences, not considering his lack of defensive preparation and i don't mean the almost last minute note about them but serious training and preparation as the offensive was harldy a surprise but the attack minded Cadorna alwasys 'forgotten' the training for deep defense
 
Bleeding Heartland: The Midlands Front of the Great American War
"...summer-long Red River Offensive that captured the Chickasaw Nation's capital at Tishomingo and placed American cavalry on the border with Texas at the Red River for the first time; additional infantry thrusts deeper into hillier, more remote Choctaw territory to clear out the most stubborn war bands ended with the first American push into northeast Texas with the capture of Texarkana on September 11th, and six days later American forces four hundred kilometers west raided across the Red River, capturing Wichita Falls for a period of ten days before withdrawing thanks to a counterattack by the Texas State Militia, though not before dynamiting the city's grain elevators and train depot and ripping up railroad tracks, leaving them tied around nearby trees. With the US Army having occupied Amarillo even further west in the Panhandle region for over a year and capturing Lubbock in early October with the focus on Los Pasos entirely satisfied, the defenses of northern and western Texas were essentially in tatters, a fact on the ground that was not lost on Native leadership.

It was in this context that the defeated leaders of the Six Tribes - the Five Nations along with the Osage - gathered at Kansas City on October 8th, 1915, to sign instruments of surrender to the "Great White Father," as American leadership was derisively known amongst Natives. Considering the bloody and cruel history of relations between white settlers and indigenous nations in North America, the Treaty of Kansas City was, by all accounts, fairly mild, though many Natives didn't particularly consider it that way. To the Cherokee in particular, Kansas City represented the final chapter in a century-long humiliation that began with the tensions in northeastern Georgia and evolved into the Trail of Tears of the 1830s. In hindsight, the terms imposed on the Five Nations could have been considerably worse.

The Indian Territory had been regarded as a protectorate of the Confederacy since 1863 and the Five Nations were permitted under treaties with Richmond to send non-voting delegates to advocate on their behalf in the Confederate Congress. That the Indian Territory had escaped being absorbed as a state by the Confederacy and the Natives within it put to the sword was, in some ways, a quirk of history - all Five Nations kept slaves themselves, and in elite Confederate circles this was taken as a sign that it was possible to "civilize" the indigenous peoples of the Americas, because keeping Negro slaves was to them after all the epitome and end stage of white civilization. Accordingly, though it was a minority and oft-unspoken view, there were a fair deal of Confederate leaders throughout the previous fifty years who considered the Five Nations more civilized and enlightened than the Yankees; the more common, indeed plurality, opinion was that the Natives were useful as a buffer and as allies and thus in good esteem.

To many Confederates, then, they were of the mind that the Five Nations should have allowed Richmond to negotiate on their behalf at the end of the war, but Natives had always viewed their relations with Richmond as bilateral, and now sought to approach Philadelphia the same way. It was a stroke of luck that the American delegation sent to Kansas City was inexperienced and that the United States was in the midst of secretly negotiating Mexico's exit from the war as well; unlike with Chile, the United States was in the mood to be more gracious than it would have been had the titanic victories of spring and summer 1915 not occurred.

The most straightforward demand of the United States was the transfer of protectorate status from Richmond to Philadelphia; American diplomats would represent Native interests with the rest of the world, and the Six Nations and the smaller tribes who leased their lands would make no bilateral agreements with any other nation independently of one another or without consultations with the United States. Beyond that, though, the "Indian Territory" would be regarded as the territory of "all the tribes residing within it" and not as an integral part of the United States. However, Americans would enjoy considerable extraterritorial rights; they could not be tried for crimes under tribal law, their property rights would be respected, and they would enjoy free movement and rights of residency within the Indian Territory. In practice, this meant that Americans could come to Native lands as often as they pleased and do essentially whatever they wanted, lending to the area's reputation for vice and violence in the decades to come.

Furthermore, lands in central, northwestern and southwestern Indian Country would be carved off as new "nations" for white and Black settlers, who would be on those lands permitted to write their own local laws which Natives would be governed by. With the exception of the Oklahoma Country in the central part of the state adjacent to the Choctaw, Seminole and Pottawotamie lands, these territories were generally harsher and less suitable for agriculture than other areas of territory, and freedmen who flocked to the possibility of a new life in the Indian Territory were often left with desolate, difficult land that performed poorly in good times, to say nothing of the severe droughts twenty years later during the Dust Bowl.

The United States was satisfied with leaving Indian Territory out of its borders, though, thanks to a unilaterally favorable minerals treaty. The Indian Territory would be permitted to export all agricultural, industrial and, crucially, raw resource products exclusively to the United States for a period of twenty years and would be beholden to importing finished and raw goods exclusively from the United States for a period of forty. This economic vassalization was intended to leverage American advantages in the Osage Hills oilfields, which some Congressmen of both parties had otherwise suggested simply annexing to Missouri or Kansas outright. In part, too, it reflected the lack of awareness that Philadelphia had in terms of just how much oil there was on Native land - it was generally thought that the Osage Hills would be exhausted as soon as 1940. Additionally, there was some partisan scuffle over exactly how far to go with the Indian Territory - Liberals generally assumed that due to its similar economic profile an Indian state would be quickly overrun with white settlers and soon vote lockstep Democrat like Missouri or Kansas, while Democrats assumed that due to Natives and Blacks generally favoring Liberal candidates historically, a future Indian state would simply add another two Liberal Senators. With both parties assuming that adding the Indian Territory to the United States would benefit the opposition, keeping it a supine vassal for the next half-century while sucking it dry seemed the better solution.

The chiefs of the various Native tribes begrudgingly signed this treaty on October 12th, still celebrated as Treaty Day in what is now the Confederated Nations of Sequoyah. The Indian Territory had exited the war with, all things considered, relatively low loss of life and, as it turned out, a remarkably favorable settlement on mineral rights, particularly for the Osage and Cherokee. The United States now had the perfect place from which to attack the industrial nodes of northern Texas directly, and one more domino had fallen for Philadelphia in terms of removing opponents from the board..."

- Bleeding Heartland: The Midlands Front of the Great American War [1]

[1] Once again, full confession that my thumb is pretty heavily on the scale here in keeping alt-Oklahoma out of the United States, but having an Indigenous Dubai/Kazakhstan in the middle of the continent is too interesting a hook to avoid even if, realistically, there's little chance that either the Liberal administration and Democratic Congress of the United States would ever be this magnanimous in dealing with the Five Nations. Mutual mistrust and, unspoken but surely considered, the potential for perpetual guerilla violence is my in-story excuse for making this happen.
 
[1] Once again, full confession that my thumb is pretty heavily on the scale here in keeping alt-Oklahoma out of the United States, but having an Indigenous Dubai/Kazakhstan in the middle of the continent is too interesting a hook to avoid even if, realistically, there's little chance that either the Liberal administration and Democratic Congress of the United States would ever be this magnanimous in dealing with the Five Nations. Mutual mistrust and, unspoken but surely considered, the potential for perpetual guerilla violence is my in-story excuse for making this happen.
Honestly if micro-states like Monaco and San Marino can exist then I really see no reason why Sequoyah must be annexed by the US. It's pretty well-justified in-story, and it's more interesting, so I think it works.
 
Honestly if micro-states like Monaco and San Marino can exist then I really see no reason why Sequoyah must be annexed by the US. It's pretty well-justified in-story, and it's more interesting, so I think it works.
This.
It's likely that the US would annex it but it's not inevitable. There's tons of stuff that was likely in history that didn't happen.
Also when you look at history broadly the odds that everything occuring being likely becomes statistically implausible. There's always going to be weird stuff happening.
 
[1] Once again, full confession that my thumb is pretty heavily on the scale here in keeping alt-Oklahoma out of the United States, but having an Indigenous Dubai/Kazakhstan in the middle of the continent is too interesting a hook to avoid even if, realistically, there's little chance that either the Liberal administration and Democratic Congress of the United States would ever be this magnanimous in dealing with the Five Nations. Mutual mistrust and, unspoken but surely considered, the potential for perpetual guerilla violence is my in-story excuse for making this happen.
Aaron Sorkin, when asked why the Social Network had almost no basis in reality: "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to story-telling."

This is, at the end of the day, fiction, and fiction relies on good storytelling. Keep up the good work, interested to see where this story goes.
 
So just to clarify, does the US still end up the primary global hegemon in this timeline? I recall you breaking down their modern population and approximate GDP per capita a while back, but was wondering how that translates to global soft and hard power. It also seems that, at least in the Americas, most everyone who could pose any kind of challenge to the US in future is getting shafted short and/or long term. Can't speak for Europe after the CEW or the Ottomans, Indians or Chinese, though China seems like it will be more like OTL's Mexico - large population and high potential held back largely by powerful drug cartels (no offence to any Mexican users).
 
So just to clarify, does the US still end up the primary global hegemon in this timeline? I recall you breaking down their modern population and approximate GDP per capita a while back, but was wondering how that translates to global soft and hard power. It also seems that, at least in the Americas, most everyone who could pose any kind of challenge to the US in future is getting shafted short and/or long term. Can't speak for Europe after the CEW or the Ottomans, Indians or Chinese, though China seems like it will be more like OTL's Mexico - large population and high potential held back largely by powerful drug cartels (no offence to any Mexican users).
Idk if I’d say that, moreso that they are one of several hegemons/great powers, and certainly the primary one in the Americas
 
I see the Indian nation as a headquarters for various shell companies, semi legal and illegal schemes and organized crime.
Absolutely! Not-OKC as an alt-Vegas too, perhaps? The ultimate node of Native gaming? 😛
Can a Socialist Country have that?
I wouldn’t say the Six Nations are anything close to Socialist - they had slaves after all! Traditional native land ownership is communal, which sure maybe is socialist but they’re not approaching it from that standpoint
 
I wouldn’t say the Six Nations are anything close to Socialist - they had slaves after all! Traditional native land ownership is communal, which sure maybe is socialist but they’re not approaching it from that standpoint
OOPS!! Seems like he was talking abiut Insian Territorry and I replied about India under Bose.
BTW, hows Ghadar Mutiny going?
 
Jix
"...its own advantages. As a ministerial deputy, rather than a Cabinet officer himself, Jix was in position to enjoy influence without vilification and final responsibility. It also should be noted that, as the chief aide at the Home Office during the period 1914-16, he was somewhat squirreled away from the two most crucial issues of the day - Ireland and India - while nonetheless in a position to serve as the architect of a much more muscularly nationalist and reactionary brand of politics for High Toryism than many of his more staid, aristocratic Old Etonian colleagues had perhaps thought possible. Jix, in his memoranda, outlined a policy doctrine meant to scratch for the first time the itch of the frustrated impulses of the post-Victorian middle class and appeal to their resentments rather than the peculiarities of the landed gentry and British nobility; before long, this would go from policy programme to political manifesto, even if Jix was reluctant to ever describe his proposals as such. [1]

The programme of the Home Office under Walter Long reveals shadows of the kind of skull-knocking ruthlessness for which Jix would be associated with in opposition-friendly press in the 1920s but also his curiously empathetic streak. In 1915 in particular, Jix was viewed by some of his colleagues as something of a soft-willed squish, which was one reason he was not handed the Special Branch portfolio in dealing with the troubles in Ireland; the junior ministerial deputy's main cause celebre in the early Cecil ministry was that of penal reform. Jix had visited a number of British prisons and come away appalled with the conditions in which British prisoners were kept, and was taken aback by the prevailing attitude that such depredations were what said prisoners deserved as the moral degenerates they were. [2] Jix had a different view, albeit one he did not arrive at from the same direction as the more liberally-minded reformers of the age. In his view, it was not the fault of common criminals that they lived in a morally degenerate society, and that the "near-medieval conditions of the British gaols" prevented them from escaping "the rot of the public order of modern Britain." In the prison systems, Jix saw the logical endpoint of the Liberal state that had begun under Chamberlain and been insufficiently challenged by the Nationals going back a quarter-century now. As he outlined in an extensive proposal to Long, the British prisons should instead be used to reform and rehabilitate criminals, that these reformed criminals could return to society as hardworking moral pillars rather than broken men chewed up and spat out by the penal system. Long was unmoved by this moralistic appeal - prisons were meant to punish, after all - and unpersuaded by Jix's considerably more radical suggestion that the question of the "hardship" of the gaols missed the point: a penal system meant to reform criminals could reform society if, for example, considerably more Britons were made to experience it to help "cure" their degeneracy.

Nonetheless, in a fairly vapid government largely filled and staffed by "old chums" who knew each other from Oxford if not Eton, Jix quickly earned a reputation as a man of ideas, and Long's opposition to his programme for penal reform did not place a limit on Jix's ability to quickly show off a darker streak in other matters. It was Jix who was the main proponent, author and enforcer of the Alien Act, which for the first time handed the Home Office control over the regulation of immigration, both regular and for claims of asylum, and allowed it to restrict the immigration of those who "could not support themselves" or were thought "burdensome upon the state." Within a year of its passage, the number of immigrants to Britain fell by close to 80%, primarily Jews fleeing persecution from Russia, and Jix's reputation as an anti-Semite was further cemented. In other notes to Long or Cecil, he advocated "joining the rest of the industrial world" in arming the British police to better counteract not just Irish terrorism, the chief concern of the day, but also to combat revolutionary trade unionism and "better demonstrate steel in the face of public degeneracy," taking the view that the vast amount of drinking, fornicating and gambling prevalent in London my the mid-1910s flowed from a general social permissiveness that began with elite mores but manifested itself in things such as unarmed Bobbies refusing to enforce the law for the good of public order.

In this vast array of missives and memoranda from his years under Long at the Home Office, the political ideology of William Joynson-Hicks can be seen charted out in its nascent stages and one can see why the sharp tongue, aggressively conservative propositions and lawyerly arguments on display earned the man a reputation as a well-informed MP capable to defending his views and outlining innovative ideas in a government often stuck gazing longingly into the past. The project of Jix, that being updating his evangelical Victorian zeal for the 20th century, had found fertile ground - it just hadn't quite been properly watered yet..." [3]

- Jix

[1] Recall that one reasons why the Tories/Nats fizzled out after the 1870s ITTL - since 1878 they've held power for only ten years on aggregate through 1915 - is that Disraeli and the Representation of the People Act never came as a package deal, and Disraeli's innovation of pitching nationalist but paternalist conservatism to the working and middle classes never really metastatized on the British Right. Jix is now doing that, but with a twist of the politics of the 1910s/20s which of course are very different.
[2] Up to here, this is true - William Joynson-Hicks (who it will never cease amusing me took his wife's last name despite being a late Victorian arch-reactionary) was very committed to reforming the state of British prisons during his time at the Home Office. Everything that follows is my darker extrapolation
[3] So yeah things are going to go great in Britain in ~8 years or so
 
Land of the Morning Calm: Korea's 20th Century
"...tight control. Kim Hong-jip's death in September 1915 thus became emblematic of the late Gojong period; the sense that the reformist zeal that had marked the late 1890s and all of the 1900s had run out of steam, and that Korea had stalled out and struck a plateau in terms of what it could accomplish. That is not to downplay the accomplishments of Kim Hong-jip, who had created out of the arch-conservative and flimsy Joseon administration he had inherited a functional state that had a professional army that could actually pay its soldiers and could credibly fend off a foreign invasion, had raised Korea's living standards from one of the poorest countries in Asia to a burgeoning light industrial economy, and had created a neutral foreign policy that expertly played Russia, Japan, the United States, France and China off of one another. [1]

His death came after many years of illness, however, and left something of a void in the middle of the Korean state as King Gojong himself began to see his health begin to fail him over the last three years of his life. The regionalism that Kim Hong-jip had largely crushed began to rear its head again, particularly encouraged by aggressive French emissaries in Busan pushing for more influence in Gyeongsang Province, which Paris had begun to more assertively view as their stomping grounds after years of neglect of their formal but unenforced protectorate. Conservative and liberal factions in Seoul began to more outwardly fight one another again, too; Kim Hong-jip's iron fist and long shadow had left many ambitious men without a place in the sun, and military officers trained by the Russians feuded almost publicly with progressive, Amerophilic merchants and religious leaders who viewed Korea's burgeoning Christendom as crucial to its emerging place out of the shadow of Japan and China.

That all this was paired with a general economic malaise as the Gojong Reforms lost their vigor created a volatile atmosphere in Seoul and to a lesser extent the churches and temples of Pyongyang, more dangerous less due to what could happen in Korea herself but rather due to the uncertainty domestic Korean concerns began to present to the Great Powers that surrounded her and depended on a certain predictability in the peninsula for managing their own affairs in East Asia..."

- Land of the Morning Calm: Korea's 20th Century

[1] You'll notice that this comparison sounds a good deal like Bismarck, which I think would be apt to think of as a good corollary for what Kim Hong-jip has accomplished so far in Korea
 
Jix sounds like a joy to deal with. The kind of guy who if you were cornered by him at a social function you'd be soon praying that the building itself would collapse, if only to get you out of the conversation.

When's the last time the Brits were involved in a war against another Great (or even semi-great) Power? Crimea in the 1850s?
 
Top