Napoleon's Victory [LONG]

Note about this update - Africa is not my strong suit, nor the Mideast for that matter, so if anyone has suggestions or comments, I am all ears. But about Africa...honestly, it's just colonial stuff.

Middle East and Africa

Middle East

Much like Africa, the Middle East remained under the domination of European countries. Unlike the Middle East, European nations did not exercise direct control but rather directed local rulers by its own interests. Three major independent countries dominated the Middle East. The first was the Ottoman Empire, which still retained a strong presence in Arab regions of the area despite weakening control in Europe. Propped up by France, the Ottoman Empire was a stabilizing and unifying presence. It brought millions of Arabs under its control.

The other two countries of the Middle East were the Kingdom of Arabia and the Persia Empire. Although independent, both nations were under the influence of some European power. The House of Saud had dominated Arabia since the eighteenth century, though in the early 1820s they were brought out of power by a joint Ottoman-Egyptian venture. The French conquest of Egypt in 1840 and subsequent alliance with the Ottoman Empire, coupled with the return of the Sauds to power in Arabia, sparked French interest in the area. A joint French-Ottoman venture in 1844 drew official boundaries between the then-neutral Saud state and the Ottoman Empire, which put Mecca and Medina under Ottoman control. In 1845, the French launched a military force from Egypt aimed at subduing the Saud state into an alliance with France. It was a brief, though harsh campaign and the Saud state, now the Kingdom of Arabia, allied itself to the Ottoman and French Empires. To Emperor Napoleon II, it seemed an excellent step toward the invasion of India.

France never invaded India and the domination of the Arabian Peninsula was the eastern extent of its direct influence. Arabia plodded through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a backwards land, ruled by an authoritarian government and lacking any abundance of any natural resource save sand. This changed on September 3rd, 1926 when oil was discovered in large quantities by the French oil company, Compagnie française des pétroles (CFP). This roughly coincided with the discovery of oil by the British in Persia. The double discoveries greatly increased Western interest in the Middle East. After 1926, the revenues of Arabia swelled rapidly. The country moved closer toward secularism and away from its Islamist roots it has always embraced. It began to move on a path toward modernization.

Persia too was beginning to move toward modernization. French influence in the Shah’s court was minimal, however, and Russian and British factions dominated the ancient country throughout the nineteenth century. During the Russian Civil War, Britain took advantage of significant Russian distractions to put an anglophile member of the Qajar family onto the Persian throne. Shah Mohammad Ali Qajar became Shah in 1907 in Britain’s first major foreign policy victory in the postwar world. Though condemned by the French, the Shah proved himself to be a capable leader, despite the signing of a lopsided Anglo-Persian Treaty. This treaty gave Britain favorable trading rights and a virtual monopoly on the oil discovered in Persia in 1910. Persia became a virtual British ally, a rarity in a world dominated by virtual French allies (i.e. most of Europe, Siam, Ethiopia, and Arabia). In 1922, the Ottoman Empire signed a treaty of friendship with Persia, a remarkable step considering centuries of rivalry and animosity. In the late 1910s and 1920s, Zavtra Russia began to look at Persia once again with interest. Anton Morchenko knew Persia was an alternative to the much-coveted warm water port of Constantinople. However, British influence of Persia remained strong in the 1920s and 1930s despite growing Russia activity.

Strengthening of Colonial Power in Africa

Africa remained an entire continent under European domination, save for the Empire of Ethiopia. Although isolated and neutral, it was friendly to France, a country that supported its ancient monarchy. After the Great War, British and Prussian colonies in West Africa were handed over to minor victorious powers: Prussia West Africa became Polish West Africa and British West Africa became Southern Lusitanian West Africa. Spain was given Nigeria as compensation for the failed British invasion of Spain. Except for Spain, these countries had little experience in colonial affairs and control over the colonies quickly became a difficult affair. By 1908, Poland and Southern Lusitania essentially allowed the police forces to run the colonies and the levels of brutality in governing dramatically increased. Sensing that the Polish and Southern Lusitanian methods of governing were out of control, Napoleon IV called the first Africa Congress in 1913. Representatives from French, Portuguese, Spanish, Neapolitan, Greek, Polish and Southern Lusitanian colonies and colonial offices attended (British and Brazilian officials declined the offer).

The first Africa Council was a success for the colonial powers. France decided that its large colonies needed to be divided into more administrative units and immediately set about doing this. Also, Polish and Southern Lusitanian officials were taught less violent ways of governing. In each country, colonial offices expanded and linguists from across Africa and Europe were trained to be able to communicate more effectively with the local people. However, the Council did little for the people of Africa. It merely was a meeting between imperial powers discussing how to better govern their colonies. Ironically, the Council coincided with the meeting of top business leaders involved in colonial economies, Africa included. European control of Africa increased after 1913. More soldiers were sent to Africa and more Africans were armed for colonial control. Unfortunately, government-sponsored human rights advocacy organizations were still in their infancy during this period and the people of Africa were more or less forced to fend for themselves. Africa continued to be an exploited continent.

In the Dominion of South Africa, the British and Boer populations lived in peaceful coexistence. The Boers were mainly situated in the autonomous Afrikaner Republic and Orange Free State, two Boer states that were a part of the Dominion but under local Boer control.
 
Kriegdämmerung said:
I expected more, but brilliant update anyways.

Nah, I know this was a pretty shoddy update but I hope to make that up in the coming weeks with WWII (or GW2 or SGW?).

Kriegdämmerung said:
So, is Persia going to be yet another act of appeasement?

Oh, no!
 
Nah, I know this was a pretty shoddy update but I hope to make that up in the coming weeks with WWII (or GW2 or SGW?).

Why not "The Global War"?

And, of course, appeasement isn't your thing. So will Persia be the straw that breaks the camel's (or perhaps bear's) back?
 
Nice update, Zach! I have a few questions and suggestions about the state of TTL's world.

1. How "free" is Western Europe at this point? I'm not very familiar with the Napoleonic system of OTL. I just read a little bit about it in Wikipedia and it says Napoleon was an "enlightened despot" who embraced liberal ideas like public education, emancipation of Jews, etc while rejecting democracy and freedom of the press. Has France changed by this point ITTL? Is there now some form of democracy? And freedom of speech and press? How close is TTL's Europe to the our Western Europe around the same time?

And are French satellites in Italy, Iberia and Germany pretty similar to France itself in the above terms? I imagine they are and that their laws and governments are based on France's. But are there any significant differences worth mentioning?

2. This one goes waaaaaaay way back to Napoelon the Great's time. I read back again to page 1 and noticed something in the Treaty of Paris. I know this TL has gone a long way and I'm definitely not asking you to change anything as it is already superb but I just really have to ask; Why didn't France grab India from the British? Didn't Napoleon and Tsar Paul I have plans to conquer India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_March_of_Paul). I figured it would be easier if Napoleon just demanded it from the British through a treaty. Or did Napoleon change his mind at some point and decided that India was no longer important or significant enough?

3. You mentioned that Europe was getting polarized in its west and east between liberalism and authoritarianism. The "Fascist-like" authoritarian strain has since grown out of Europe and into Asia with Japan's entrance into the Quadruple Alliance with Russia and her European allies. So as this has already happened, how about extending this ideological conflict to other parts of the world?

How about making China, already a Franco-British ally lean more toward Western European liberalism and modernism as it faces off against authoritarian Japan in its struggle for dominance in Asia?

In the Middle East, other than more European expansion of power into the region, not much is happening. So, how about planting the seeds of conflict there to expand the reach of the liberal-fascist struggle. Persia, could become more of a Franco-British ally with them supporting a progressive minded Shah into power, leading to it becoming a modern, liberal "W. European-like" nation. While Arabia could become the Middle Eastern outpost of conservative authoritarianism as you said it was ruled by the illustrious House of Saud who until now are still pretty strict and authoritarian due to their deeply-rooted association with the ultra-puritanical Wahhabi sect of Isalm. TTL's Saudi Arabia could be Russia's ally in the Middle East. I know they are officaly anti-Muslim but practicality and Realpolitik could enter Morchenko's mind, making him realize the need for an ally in the vital region. The Persians and the Ottomans, both being Franco-British allies and having signed a friendship treaty are already on the path to becoming stable allies. All of these factors could provide for the possibility of a great Middle Eastern theater for the upcoming Second Great War.

4. To avoid Africa becoming just one big plain, peaceful, dormant European colony, how about introducing to us a tale of a great African indigenous colonial revolt? It happens sometime in the late 19th Century and it is led by some inspiring pan-African independence figure. The revolt really shakes things up in whatever colony it takes place in, but most likely fails in the end after a combined force of European armies crushes it. This big revolt, although put down could lead to substantial and lasting changes in how Europeans perceive their African subjects, leading to even greater and more visible changes in European colonial policy. A positive thing, the Africans of OTL never had the pleasure of experiencing.
 
Hi Hamburger. Thanks for the questions; hopefully my answers can clarify some gray areas for you and other readers!

1. How "free" is Western Europe at this point? I'm not very familiar with the Napoleonic system of OTL. I just read a little bit about it in Wikipedia and it says Napoleon was an "enlightened despot" who embraced liberal ideas like public education, emancipation of Jews, etc while rejecting democracy and freedom of the press. Has France changed by this point ITTL? Is there now some form of democracy? And freedom of speech and press? How close is TTL's Europe to the our Western Europe around the same time?

Although I recently wrote recently that France and Britain have become increasingly "liberal", that term must be taken in context of a slightly more conservative world, at least in some areas. The French Empire is liberal in many ways and these include its labor laws, workers rights (passed pretty early on in the Napoleonic regime), its religious tolerance and especially its policies toward Jewish people. They live freely and without persecution, though that doesn't mean your average country bumpkin won't mutter something about Jews. Also, the former Papal lands remain under French control and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that France influences the Papacy, which continues to be a conservative force.

Ways in which France is not "free" include pretty heavy censorship, though this has decreased over time. Still, it is not as nearly as free as say the United States press is. Books are still banned, etc. Newspapers and later radio are under close state supervision. Newspapers were state-controlled under Napoleon I, but this has since changed in the "liberalizing" movement. Like a lot of other dictatorships, public opinion is of great importance in Napoleonic France and propaganda exists. Does a regular individual have political rights? Sure, to some extent, but not to the extent he/she may in the USA and certainly more than in Zavtra Russia.

There is no doubt that the monarch is the man in charge in France but he is indeed limited to certain extent. There is a central power in France, usually named Napoleon. The Revolution basically swept away any powers that used to block the monarch (i.e. nobility, remnants of feudalism, etc) which really opened doors for the Bonaparte monarchy. France continues to follow the constitution that it created in 1804. I admit, I haven't fully read over this document and there probably have been some changes in the world I've created. Perhaps, a new constitution shall arise in the coming years.

And are French satellites in Italy, Iberia and Germany pretty similar to France itself in the above terms? I imagine they are and that their laws and governments are based on France's. But are there any significant differences worth mentioning?

Things are pretty similar and I think it goes without saying that France continues to play unofficial roles in Germany, Iberia, Naples, etc. Italy (see map, basically under French control) is hardly more than a province of France, as the Emperor of France is the same as King of Italy. Probably the most authoritarian and authoritarian of all these states is Naples.

2. This one goes waaaaaaay way back to Napoelon the Great's time. I read back again to page 1 and noticed something in the Treaty of Paris. I know this TL has gone a long way and I'm definitely not asking you to change anything as it is already superb but I just really have to ask; Why didn't France grab India from the British? Didn't Napoleon and Tsar Paul I have plans to conquer India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_March_of_Paul). I figured it would be easier if Napoleon just demanded it from the British through a treaty. Or did Napoleon change his mind at some point and decided that India was no longer important or significant enough?

Wow, I realized I wrote that section over three years ago so let me try and imagine what my 15 year old self was thinking. I believe it was that the recent campaign on Britain itself was so costly and tragic that Napoleon either wanted to save himself the additional cost of occupying India (still not completely under British control anyway) or he wanted to show mercy upon the British by not demanding their prized colony. In a way, the Treaties of 1813 were favorable to the British simply because they did not take away significant British territories - India, Canada, Gibraltar. So, in conclusion, India was not taken from Britain due to cost (ignoring the long-term benefits), fatigue and mercy.

How about making China, already a Franco-British ally lean more toward Western European liberalism and modernism as it faces off against authoritarian Japan in its struggle for dominance in Asia?

In the Middle East, other than more European expansion of power into the region, not much is happening. So, how about planting the seeds of conflict there to expand the reach of the liberal-fascist struggle. Persia, could become more of a Franco-British ally with them supporting a progressive minded Shah into power, leading to it becoming a modern, liberal "W. European-like" nation. While Arabia could become the Middle Eastern outpost of conservative authoritarianism as you said it was ruled by the illustrious House of Saud who until now are still pretty strict and authoritarian due to their deeply-rooted association with the ultra-puritanical Wahhabi sect of Isalm. TTL's Saudi Arabia could be Russia's ally in the Middle East. I know they are officaly anti-Muslim but practicality and Realpolitik could enter Morchenko's mind, making him realize the need for an ally in the vital region. The Persians and the Ottomans, both being Franco-British allies and having signed a friendship treaty are already on the path to becoming stable allies. All of these factors could provide for the possibility of a great Middle Eastern theater for the upcoming Second Great War.

I think China will remain an imperial power, certainly not nearly as aggressive or authoritarian as Japan, but still authoritarian and conservative. Progressive movements in China exist in the form of reforms and the like but, in my view, rapid change comes in China only through violence, which will not happen here. No Chinese Civil War or Revolution.

Arabia is too close to France and Turkey to become a Russian ally. Nor would they want to be, not sharing a land border or a direct sea route. Arabia is still a backwards, sparsely populated land, not that important in international politics. Morchenko would seem like a hypocrite to ally himself with Muslims since one of the pillars of Zavtraism is the superiority of the Orthodox Church.

Interesting suggestions, nevertheless.

4. To avoid Africa becoming just one big plain, peaceful, dormant European colony, how about introducing to us a tale of a great African indigenous colonial revolt? It happens sometime in the late 19th Century and it is led by some inspiring pan-African independence figure. The revolt really shakes things up in whatever colony it takes place in, but most likely fails in the end after a combined force of European armies crushes it. This big revolt, although put down could lead to substantial and lasting changes in how Europeans perceive their African subjects, leading to even greater and more visible changes in European colonial policy. A positive thing, the Africans of OTL never had the pleasure of experiencing.

In this case, you read my mind! Except, I was going to make this happen during the 1950s or 1960s, after the war. It would have to happen in a backwards colony, since the British and increasingly the French are "liberalizing" their colonies.

Thank you for the questions and suggestions! :)
 
France continues to follow the constitution that it created in 1804. I admit, I haven't fully read over this document and there probably have been some changes in the world I've created. Perhaps, a new constitution shall arise in the coming years.

Ahem. That's an absolute necessity before you set an empress on the french throne. Which I seem to remember is the case in this TL. Yes, she's here. Catherine I, rules from 1948 to 1967. The new constitution needs to be in place before 1948, and preferable well beforehand. Unless you decide to retcon her out....



Under the 1804 consitution, it was absolutely impossible to have a woman in power ( or working, or in control of her own wealth, or having a bank account without agreement from her husband or tutor, or.... whatever ).
 
Last edited:
Haha, when I wrote that the very thought crossed my mind and I considered replacing her with a Napoleon V instead....I probably will.

Two hundred years and six Napoleons seems like a lot of fun. No country has seen that since...France's four Louis' in a row (1610-1791)?
 
Last edited:
Haha, when I wrote that the very thought crossed my mind and I considered replacing her with a Napoleon V instead....I probably will.

Two hundred years and six Napoleons seems like a lot of fun. No country has seen that since...France's four Louis' in a row (1610-1791)?

If you go by the Royalists count, you can go to 6 Louis in a row....:)
 
Just one minor bit of data which may be useful, Zach.
Chances are Southern Lusitania will be much poorer than ATL Portugal.
I hope it helps.
 
In this case, you read my mind! Except, I was going to make this happen during the 1950s or 1960s, after the war. It would have to happen in a backwards colony, since the British and increasingly the French are "liberalizing" their colonies.

Thank you for the questions and suggestions! :)

Glad to see that you're planning for that to happen! As you said it should happen in a backwards colony, what about it starting out in Greek Somalialand? Then it spreads to other parts of the Horn of Africa and really destroys the regional balance.
 
The Americas: 1905-1935

United States: Donnelly Doctrine, Pacific Interest and Scandals

President James P. Donnelly was a highly active president and forever changed the role of the United States in world affairs. It is arguable that it was only a matter of time before the industrial giant entered the international arena, but inevitable or not, Donnelly led the United States as a world power with a flourish and bang. His travels abroad gained respect to not only himself and his administration but also to the United States as a whole. Under his administration, the United States even expanded with the acquisition of Alaska.

Donnelly’s foreign policy became known as Donnelly’s Doctrine. It was characterized by partnership and consensus in dealing with crises. As merely an observer at the Congress of Copenhagen, Secretary of State Edward Sharpe (he was actually Secretary of State-elect, and traveled with outgoing Secretary of State Robert Baum) advocated cooperation between the member nations. He gained significant clout among the official delegations with his short and potent speeches, often to the surprise of Baum who was content to sit and watch. It was a microcosm, of sorts, between the new Donnelly administration and the outgoing Mills administration.

Donnelly’s Doctrine was also characterized by the idea of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations in the Western Hemisphere. This came about as a result of a unilateral American decision to help Brazil to quash its short-lived communist revolution in 1906 even despite Brazilian assurances it had the rebels under control. The unpopularity of the move in Brazil, coupled with a strongly worded letter from Emperor Alfonso I, changed Donnelly’s mind about using intervention. Instead, he advocated a policy of “help only when asked or when absolutely necessary”. Donnelly’s opponents scoffed at this clause, calling it the “Lazy Policeman Clause”. Another aspect of Donnelly’s foreign policy was its interest in the Pacific. The purchase of Alaska was proof of this. A sense of a new “Manifest Destiny” dominated his second term and Donnelly set about building the American Pacific Fleet. There had been, among some circles in the nineteenth century, that America ought to continue expanding westward into the Pacific for economic, political or humanitarian reasons. Nothing had come of that due to a general isolationist policy but the Donnelly administration’s interest in the Pacific sparked Americans to look west once more.

The American Pacific Fleet was a small force compared to its Atlantic Fleet. Although it had a much longer coastline to protect, it faced very few actual threats until the rise of Japan and China. Britain hardly ventured past the Sandwich Islands and for years, the American Pacific Fleet lacked a single capital ship. This changed with Donnelly who greatly expanded the United States Navy, especially in the Pacific. Four battleships became the largest American ships in the Pacific and naval vessels began to boldly sail further west.

Donnelly’s successors, Republican Harvey Hawkins and Democrat Stephan Devereux, more or less followed the Donnelly Doctrine. This was more significant with Devereux, because the Democrats had traditionally been the more isolationist of the two parties. Devereux’s shift represented a change in American governing because for the first time both parties accepted that the United States must be active in world affairs. Devereux added to the Donnelly Doctrine of non-intervention in Latin America, consensus and agreement, and interest in the Pacific with his own Devereux Diplomacy. This referred to his personal attempts to gather the leaders of the Western Hemisphere to sit down and discuss the problems of the two continents and attempt to solve them. This first occurred in 1920 when all major leaders of the Western Hemisphere attended the meeting in San Francisco, California. It was a moderate success, as favorable trade agreements were forged, though human rights violations in Quito and Peru were ignored. The leaders met again in 1922 and 1923. By 1923, the meetings were referred to as Pan-American Congresses. In short, Devereux Diplomacy set the precedence for multinational meetings and ultimately organizations.

usastephandevereuxmy2.gif
usawalterkirkwoodnm4.jpg
usawalterkirkwood2oe7.jpg
Stephan Devereux (LEFT) and Walter Kirkwood (CENTER, RIGHT). The 1927 portrait of Kirkwood (CENTER) showed a younger man. The strain of scandal showed in this 1933 photograph (RIGHT).​

In 1924, Republican Chester Woodruff narrowly defeated the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Wallace Keppler. Despite the popularity of incumbent Devereux, Keppler was rather unpopular among the people for many of his disagreements with the President over labor issues. Considered too pro-business and anti-union, he was defeated by Woodruff, Republican senator from Vermont since 1890. However, Woodruff died in 1927 after a lackluster two and a half years of president and was succeeded by his vice president, Walter Kirkwood.

He became president on May 2nd, 1927 and was forced immediately into a series of scandals. The largest scandal became known as the Secret Pocketbook Scandal. Democratic Senator Jacob Mills (son of former President Alexander Mills) accused President Kirkwood of accepting bribes, embezzling government funds and tax evasion and demanded an investigation into the financial matters of the president. The investigation consistently turned up nothing and the name “Secret Pocketbook” stuck because the corrupt charges, if they existed, only existed in a secret pocketbook that were never seen by the eyes of the investigator. These proceedings lasted through the second half of 1927 and into the first few months of 1928. By then, a few other prominent Republicans were challenging Kirkwood in the Republican primaries. As if that weren’t enough, another scandal broke out as the Secret Pocketbook proceedings were underway, when a young woman came forth saying Kirkwood had fathered her illegitimate child via rape.

It would take until 1931 to find out that all of these allegations were false. In fact, the baby the young woman had produced was not even her own son, but her baby brother. The truth about the Secret Pocketbook Scandal was found out when Senator Mills, the man who initiated the investigation, admitted on his deathbed in 1931 that all the claims were fabrications and they were the workings of a group of 49 Democratic senators and congressmen who he refused to name. The point was to tarnish the new president so much that voters would send a Democrat to the White House in 1928. Throughout the whole proceedings, Kirkwood kept his head up high, and flatly denied all of the allegations. However, the pressure grew too great and in early 1928 he withdrew from consideration to be re-elected as president.

The Democrats were gleeful and easily won the 1928 election with Keppler in the lead. Disgusted with the Republican brand due to the Secret Pocketbook Scandal, voters sent former Vice President Wallace Keppler to the White House. In 1931, public opinion turned sharply against the Democrats instead of the Republicans. The “Gang of 49” scandal erupted. Coupled with the unpopularity and inefficiency of President Keppler, the Democratic brand became highly unpopular. There were brief witch hunts in Congress as other members of the “Gang of 49” were found, but in total only thirteen confessed. All of them failed in their re-election bids. There was a sense of paranoia among Democratic members of Congress.

In the 1932 election season, the Republicans unanimously nominated Kirkwood, although he was not even present at the convention and was taking an early retirement, scarred from his experiences in Washington. It was a “guilt nomination” but Kirkwood responded enthusiastically. He was elected in a landslide against the unpopular incumbent, ironically riding on a platform of ethics, corruption crackdowns and reforms. Kirkwood’s administration naturally embraced partisanship but this was no problem since Republicans enjoyed (for the first time) majorities in Congress as well as the White House. He followed the Donnelly Doctrine and continued to build the American navy. He had a successful first time as President, and engaged the various international crises that cropped up with a calming, steady and powerful hand. Domestically, he was aggressive and pursued his enemies with a heavy hand, oftentimes not showing mercy to his Democratic opponents.

During his administration, Russian-American ties deteriorated mainly due to the Swedish coup and Romanian Crisis. Also notable, was the complete deterioration of Japanese-American affairs. Kirkwood, and even Keppler and Woodruff before him, were highly critical of Japanese policies in the Philippines as word began to spread out from the islands of harsh rule. During Woodruff’s administration, the Korean War started to the shock and disgust of many western leaders, the United States included. The two countries had a very cold relationship.

In a way, it inspired Kirkwood to make Pacific humanitarianism a top priority of the administration. The brutal Japanese occupations of Korea and the Philippines (which until the 1920s remained secluded and heavily censored from the foreign press) affected many Americans, especially those in the small Korean and Filipino communities. The Chinese-American community, however, carried considerable clout as they had settled the West coast quite heavily and in the late 1920s and early 1930s lobbied the American government to condemn the Japanese. Kirkwood did so in 1933, thus further deteriorating Japanese-American relations. However, the general public did not mind and viewed the Japanese as generally evil and imperialistic. Kirkwood, to some extent, agreed.

Authoritarian Quito and Peru

Latin America continued on its progressive path forward with only two notable foreign policy developments of note that occurred in the pre-Second Great War period. They involved the extremely authoritarian states of Quito and Peru. In 1909-1910, Peru had lost a war to Gran Colombia, mainly its state of Quito, which had since seceded from Gran Colombia to become its own Republic of Quito. Peru remained a weak country, though dominated by the military.

Generalissimo Raul Castillo ruled Quito from its inception until his death in 1918. During his rule, he had flirted with Zavtraism and indeed adopted a militaristic style of governing, similar to that of Morchenko. In 1917, he outlawed all political parties except his own which was called the Party for Forward Movement. The creation of Quito into a single party dictatorship earned it the ire of much of the rest of Latin America. Castillo, and his handpicked successor, General Francisco Herrera, did not mind the various condemnations from the United States and Confederate states and continued on its authoritarian path. Quito's citizens were poor, men were conscripted into the large standing army for three years, and industry remained small.

Quito was not the only military-run state. In 1923, the leader of Peru's military junta, Benito Posada, and General Herrera signed an treaty of alliance between the two states. In subsequent years, they would also reject the alliances with other South American nations and the two countries became rather isolated on the continent. By the 1930s, they declined to attend the Pan-American Congress. This was no loss to the democratic North American states because by 1934, Quito and Peru were full allies of the Quadruple, the group of authoritarian and right-wing nations that followed similar ideologies to Russian Zavtraism.

quitoherreraip2.jpg
peruposadayl7.jpg

General Herrera of Quito (LEFT). General Posada of Peru (RIGHT).

Russia and Japan both found it beneficial to spread their alliance to a new continent and embraced Quitan and Peruvian envoys to their capitals with full pomp and ceremony. Quito itself became cross-Pacific allies with Japan, who actually began to supply the military of Quito with numerous weapons and older naval vessels. By 1934, the Quito navy was the second largest of the American navies in the Pacific, after the United States Navy. Peru was also supplied arms by Japan and Russia. The two nations had a military first policy and for many years ignored many basic civilian needs, such as public education and hospitals.

In 1933, Quito and Peru forged the South American Bloc for Progress, a thinly veiled name for their joint-alliance with the Quadruple. In reality, the international alliance should have been called the Sextuple but this was rejected in favor of the Quadruple League, with Quito and Peru as junior members. To Quitan and Peruvian leaders, this was an acceptable move, since they were still members of their own Bloc for Progress. Nevertheless, the spreading of the Zavtra-dominated alliance to South American caused some concern for Western Hemisphere nations, especially as Zavtra Russia began to rumble in Europe.

Secretly, Herrera of Quito and Posada of Peru possessed territorial ambitions of their own. Herrera wished to see Gran Colombia united once again, but under the leadership of a militaristic Quito. Posada wished to spread Peruvian territory at the expense of Argentina and Paraguay, thus creating a “super-Peru”. Posada saw himself as a sort of latter-day Incan Emperor, and sought to recreate the ancient empire. However, he made land claims almost at random and his proud, convoluted claims threatened the peace of South America.
 
Last edited:
Here you go!

I'm sure a few of you will ask about the Indian Nation. It is difficult to write about a country when there is very little going on there (see Africa section above). Indian Nation is doing fine...isolationist, exporting oil, living in peace with its federated tribal system. There really isn't anything terribly exciting going on there.

This may be the last update for awhile. I need to start thinking about the Second Great War, or 'Global War'; how it will start, how it will go, etc. Open to suggestions, as always, but I have a rough idea as to how it will go and I won't deviate much from that. It should prove to be an exciting update!

------------

Confederate States: A Nation of Problems​

CSA%20Flag%20First%20National%2013%20Star.gif

The Confederate States entered the twentieth century full of hope and progress. After all, slavery was no longer a legal institution in the country and it was accepted among the brotherhood of independent nations, no longer as the backwards little sibling it used to be. In the early 1900s, the industrial output of the Confederacy experienced exponential growth as factories and industries popped up across the land. Atlanta, Birmingham, Richmond, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Nashville all grew by at least 75% from 1880-1920 due to the increased number of factories.

However, the Confederacy was a racially divided nation. Former slaves and their descendants still worked the plantations, picking cotton, planting crops, and sowing the fields. Many still lived in dilapidated former slave quarters. These blacks were paid paltry wages but in many cases, they were not paid at all. Their labor was taken for granted. This changed beginning in the 1920s and into the 1930s as agricultural machines began to take away jobs from these sharecroppers. A machine, run by a single skilled worker, could now do the work of several men. Many of these skilled workers were actually white men and skilled white labor began to creep back onto the plantations, long the domain of blacks. Run out of work, hundreds of thousands of blacks moved to the cities looking for work.

For a time, whites and blacks worked together in the cities. Oftentimes, whites would work the day shift in a factory while a black man would work the night shift (for a fraction of the wage). The black sections of various cities grew larger and larger and spread outwards, often into small shantytowns. The newest urban dwellers, often arriving from the countryside with only a few dollars, would be forced to live on the outskirts in utter poverty. This system began to change as more and more blacks moved into the cities. Factory owners began to see that by employing blacks with lower wages would wave them money and thousands of whites were laid off, only to see their spots filled by an African worker.

Beginning in the early 1920s, white-on-black crime began to skyrocket. Black-on-white crime increased as a result, and racial polarization was a massive issue in the cities. Many whites viewed the newcomers as threats to their own work security and often randomly beat or killed a black person. In addition to the racial violence, many white workers demanded unions. To the conservative Confederacy, unions were a relatively recent phenomenon since labor problems did not exist in the formerly predominant agricultural country. Factory owners and black laborers, who found themselves unlikely allies, opposed the unions.

State governments felt pressured to act, especially as racial violence turned to riots in some cities. Many state legislators were in the pockets of the large business owners but since the white worker made up the majority of the Confederate electorate (as blacks could not vote), they, in state after state, sided with the unions and legalized them. This was a victory for the white population. The unions advocated worker security and most whites were given their jobs back by 1935. Thousands of blacks were laid off. Thus, the state legislators saved themselves and the average white worker at the cost of jobs for blacks and at the cost for record profits for large businesses.

For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed blacks in the Confederacy, there was little to do and very little to survive on. Most states provided no welfare or care for their black residents, as they were not citizens of the Confederacy. “Black Flight” refers to thousands of blacks leaving the Confederate States from 1928-1940. About 20% of the Confederate black population emigrated out of the Confederacy during this time. Some went to the United States, but there were severe limitations to African immigration to the United States. Many more crossed the border into the United States illegally, often swimming across the Ohio River, earning illegal blacks in the United States the derogatory nickname “wetback”. Thousands of other unemployed black immigrants traveled to Mexico or Central America, where they helped the new economies there with their industrial and agricultural skills. Some even traveled back to Africa, starting the Roots Movement. Many settled in Polish West Africa, a relatively tolerant colony.

The national Confederate government during the early twentieth century was extraordinarily laissez-faire. The states carried tremendous power during this time. In the 1910 election, Whig Bruce L. Baumgartner became president. Another Whig, George G. Green, replaced Baumgartner’s unusually uneventful administration in 1916. Green, in turn, was replaced by a National Party candidate, Lorenzo Bailey who ran on a platform of progressivism and modernization. However, it was during his administration that racial violence and unions began to disrupt the calm Confederate domestic scene. Bailey’s support for the unions established the National Party as the more populist party of the two dominant Confederate parties. In the 1928, they were re-elected with William “Billy” Stubbs. In the election of 1928, the Freedom Party, the fringe party that advocated citizenship and basic rights for all citizens of the Confederate States (blacks included) won big, winning a governorship in Sumter, several congressional seats and over 600,000 votes in the national election. Many credited the surprising performance of this third party with the ill-feeling in the country, but it was a remarkable achievement nevertheless.

Despite its domestic problems, there was no doubt that the Confederate States became a world player. They intervened militarily in Central America at the behest of their government to help crush a coup, they were actively involved in the Pan-American Congresses and were especially involved in keeping other Latin American nations from allying with the authoritarian Quito and Peru. The Confederate Navy patrolled the Caribbean at whim and through a mixture of discourse and action gained much respect in Latin America in its foreign affairs.
 
Top