TL-191: Filling the Gaps

[Wolfpaw]

I think people might be thinking of The Guns of the South, in which the Democratic president is specifically mentioned to be Seymour.

Yeah, but it makes a good deal of sense. McClellan was a weird choice for the Dems in '64 since he disagreed with a lot of their platform and his VP was anti-war while he was pro-war.

Seymour has a good record and is governor of a very important state. Match him up with a Midwesterner (maybe even Vallandigham like in GotS) and they'll likely boot the Republicans out of office easily.

 

[Craigo]

There was no peace treaty signed between the USA and CSA in the Great War. The armistice just lasted until Jake Featherston broke it in 1941.

Late in Breakthroughs, TR tells Custer that he plans to trade those portions of Tennessee that the US held for the remaining Confederate chunk of Kentucky. If the armistice were final, that bit of Kentucky would have remained in the CSA. In addition, the US imposed reparations and military limitations on the CSA, neither of which would fall under the scope of an armistice. Though it's never explicitly named, the presence of a peace treaty is logical.

I think people might be thinking of The Guns of the South, in which the Democratic president is specifically mentioned to be Seymour.

You're right, that's probably what I was thinking of - although I seem to remember Turtledove himself stating it explicitly years ago in an online Q&A. In any case, I don't think the books ever made it clear.

 

[Craigo]

Reader request: Are there are any mention of overall casualty figures from the wars in the books? I'd like to do something on that, but I fear that I'll end up giving conflicting information. I seem to remember an estimate of around a million Confederate casualties, but I don't know if that includes wounded and missing, civilians, or those killed in the Red rebellions.

For that matter, did the Destruction end up around six million?

 

[JSmith]

Are you going to continue. There is still interest.

 

[Vivisfugue]

In Breakthroughs, Morrell commiserates with his CS opposite number after the Great War cease-fire that US military fatalities were over a million men dead, while CS military fatalities were just under a million. It's hard to tell whether the figures are overall or whether they only account for fatalities in the US-CS Front, leaving out figures for Canada. Civilian figures are harder to figure (has anyone got good numbers on OTL civilian casualty rates in occupied WWI France and Belgium?), but the impression that I got was that civilians generally evacuated before the armies arrived (that convoy that the McGregors missed out on joining). Turtledove is utterly silent on casualty figures in the Second Mexican War and GW2 (I would expect civilian casualties to be much higher in the Second Great War-all that gleeful strafing, nighttime terror-bombing, and nukes, not to mention the Population Reduction campaign). Generally, the implication of the novels is that the CS takes fewer casualties numerically than the US, but that taking a casualty hurts the CSA disproportionately worse than the US as they have a smaller population.

 

[Trotsky]

The Population Reductions reduced about 6-10 million blacks, with the latter number estimated more often than the former.

 

[Trotsky]

Late in Breakthroughs, TR tells Custer that he plans to trade those portions of Tennessee that the US held for the remaining Confederate chunk of Kentucky. If the armistice were final, that bit of Kentucky would have remained in the CSA. In addition, the US imposed reparations and military limitations on the CSA, neither of which would fall under the scope of an armistice. Though it's never explicitly named, the presence of a peace treaty is logical.

Roosevelt was going to force the handover of the Kentucky Rump as part of the general armistice demanded for the following week - the first armistice being on First Army's (Custer) front south of Nashville only. The war continued on all the other fronts, including the rest of Tennessee.

Also, in a few spots throughout American Empire it is specifically mentioned that the armistice was the instrument that forced the Confederacy to disarm, namely its machine guns, barrels, chemical weapons, and airplanes.

 

[Craigo]

Roosevelt was going to force the handover of the Kentucky Rump as part of the general armistice demanded for the following week - the first armistice being on First Army's (Custer) front south of Nashville only. The war continued on all the other fronts, including the rest of Tennessee.

Also, in a few spots throughout American Empire it is specifically mentioned that the armistice was the instrument that forced the Confederacy to disarm, namely its machine guns, barrels, chemical weapons, and airplanes.

1. When Morrell and Landis are examining Confederate trenches late in Breakthroughs, post-armistice, Morrell says that the US will "confiscate any (barrels) you do have, and do our damnedest to make sure you don't build any more of them." p. 458, Del Rey hardcover. Clearly, the armistice did not include the military restrictions, as it was in effect at this point.

2. When Lansing goes before the Transportation Committee, he says that the US will "annex such land as we now hold, pending adjustments to create frontiers appropriate to our needs and acceptable to the Confederate States, which may be required to exchange territory for any we yield back to them (sic)." p. 474, Del Rey hardcover. Again, this is post-armistice.

3. Flora says, moments later, "The peace will be as harsh as you make it." Clearly, no one at the time was under the impression that the armistice was the final word.

4. Morrell later discusses military restriction with General Wood. Morrell specifically uses the word treaty. p. 478.

And it goes without saying, of course, that it's completely nonsensical to handle such complex, weighty matters via an armistice, which is intended to end the fighting until peace can be made.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I've got this weird theory that Craigo is really Harry Turtledove who--after seeing his opus magnum repeatedly eviscerated on this Board--is making a contrite and absolutely solid attempt to make it up to us.

 

[Craigo]

The casualty figures are interesting. Germany is the closest analog we have for a rump US, with roughly equal population in 1914. Assume for a moment that the above figures (1M plus for the US) are for deaths. Germany had over two million military deaths in real life. Subtract another 20% from the fourth year of war (deaths tolls tended to be highest in the first years of the war), and we're now at about 1.6m German deaths, versus maybe 1.2m US dead.

(I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find WWI casualty figures broken down by year.)

The Red Rebellion is another hobby horse of mine. I believe it was mentioned at one point that roughly one in ten Negroes rose up, which is probably about 1 - 1.2m. Given that the Red republics were crushed, casualties well over 50% wouldn't be out of the question. Hundreds of thousands of Negroes may have been killed either in the fighting or in reprisals.

How many whites were killed? Even though they had the upper hand for most of the fighting, they probably took terrible losses nonetheless. And that's not counting white civilians who were killed early in the rebellion, when the Reds cleansing their territory.

Given that we can infer "less than a million" Confederate deaths from the above quotation (800K), this probably means that Rebellion deaths were not included in the war dead. Overall Confederate deaths - Great War + Red Rebellion - may very well have equaled the US's (who probably didn't count Mormon dead, for that matter). The US likely has twice as many people overall as the CS - that's a terribly high death toll, roughly 5%, give or take a point. Very few major combatants lost more than 4% in the real Great War, even with a longer conflict.

I've theorized in the Canada post that they mobilized, and lost, roughly in proportion with Serbia, which lost about 15% of its people in WWI. That would equal over a million Canadian deaths as well, if my guess is accurate. That's about fifteen times as many in real life.

 

[jycee]

The casualty figures are interesting. Germany is the closest analog we have for a rump US, with roughly equal population in 1914. Assume for a moment that the above figures (1M plus for the US) are for deaths. Germany had over two million military deaths in real life. Subtract another 20% from the fourth year of war (deaths tolls tended to be highest in the first years of the war), and we're now at about 1.6m German deaths, versus maybe 1.2m US dead.

(I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find WWI casualty figures broken down by year.)

The Red Rebellion is another hobby horse of mine. I believe it was mentioned at one point that roughly one in ten Negroes rose up, which is probably about 1 - 1.2m. Given that the Red republics were crushed, casualties well over 50% wouldn't be out of the question. Hundreds of thousands of Negroes may have been killed either in the fighting or in reprisals.

How many whites were killed? Even though they had the upper hand for most of the fighting, they probably took terrible losses nonetheless. And that's not counting white civilians who were killed early in the rebellion, when the Reds cleansing their territory.

Given that we can infer "less than a million" Confederate deaths from the above quotation (800K), this probably means that Rebellion deaths were not included in the war dead. Overall Confederate deaths - Great War + Red Rebellion - may very well have equaled the US's (who probably didn't count Mormon dead, for that matter). The US likely has twice as many people overall as the CS - that's a terribly high death toll, roughly 5%, give or take a point. Very few major combatants lost more than 4% in the real Great War, even with a longer conflict.

I've theorized in the Canada post that they mobilized, and lost, roughly in proportion with Serbia, which lost about 15% of its people in WWI. That would equal over a million Canadian deaths as well, if my guess is accurate. That's about fifteen times as many in real life.

Damn! This is impressive!

Awesome work on the Mexico updates. Personally I think HT really screwed up in the way he handled Mexico in the series, particularly him ignoring Maximilian's adopted childred (which you corrected by having Salvador take another name) and having way too many Emperors (5) when Maximilian was actually younger than Porfirio Diaz who lived till the 1930s in OTL. But killing them off with diseases and rebellions makes perfect sense.

Personally I think FJ II would have it best if he abdicated and helped create a republic (under conservative terms). In the end.

It is a bit sad though how screwed up Mexico ended. But once agin TL 191 in one screwed up TL, with lots of evil in it.

 

[Trotsky]

1. When Morrell and Landis are examining Confederate trenches late in Breakthroughs, post-armistice, Morrell says that the US will "confiscate any (barrels) you do have, and do our damnedest to make sure you don't build any more of them." p. 458, Del Rey hardcover. Clearly, the armistice did not include the military restrictions, as it was in effect at this point.

2. When Lansing goes before the Transportation Committee, he says that the US will "annex such land as we now hold, pending adjustments to create frontiers appropriate to our needs and acceptable to the Confederate States, which may be required to exchange territory for any we yield back to them (sic)." p. 474, Del Rey hardcover. Again, this is post-armistice.

3. Flora says, moments later, "The peace will be as harsh as you make it." Clearly, no one at the time was under the impression that the armistice was the final word.

4. Morrell later discusses military restriction with General Wood. Morrell specifically uses the word treaty. p. 478.

And it goes without saying, of course, that it's completely nonsensical to handle such complex, weighty matters via an armistice, which is intended to end the fighting until peace can be made.

1. In The Center Cannot Hold, Clarence Potter in 1924 encounters a US Navy officer telling a crowd of Charlestonians, "Avast that shouting...We've got every right to be here under the terms of the armistice agreement. We're inspecting to make sure you Confederates aren't building submersibles in these parts." p. 44, second-version hardcover*

2. In The Center Cannot Hold, Morrell in 1925 tells his superior officer, a Colonel Donaldson, "These barrels [in Mexico] have Confederate mercenaries as crew. They've got to have Confederates designing them, too. And the Confederate States aren't allowed to build barrels. The armistice agreement makes that as plain as the nose on my face." p. 100, second-version hardcover.

3. In The Victorious Opposition, Carsten wasn't sure if the Confederate Citrus Company was "a smokescreen to get around the military restrictions the armistice had imposed on the CSA." p. 132 hardcover.

*I have a smaller version of the TCCH hardcover which means that the page numbers won't line up with the original edition.

 

[Craigo]

So let's unpack this.

If we assume that every statement quoted is true then:

1. An armistice was signed in July 1917.
2. In late summer, early fall of 1917, after the armistice, no territorial swaps had occurred, and no military restrictions or reparations had yet been imposed.
3. At the same time, a treaty was stated to be in the offing.
4. Years later, several characters state that military restrictions were included in the armistice, which contradicts earlier information.

So either the characters in Breakthroughs are discussing past events in the future tense; or the characters, talking about events already a decade or more old, got things mixed up; or this is a simple of case of Harry Turtledove forgetting that he did not include those terms in the armistice.

Or maybe Sam Carsten really did visit Ireland during the Great War.

Turtledove made an error somewhere along the line. I'm being charitable and assuming that his original idea made sense, and it's only later, when he got sloppy, that he decided that an armistice would include financial reparations.

Anyway, to get back to the original point of this side discussion:

"There was no peace treaty signed between the USA and CSA in the Great War"

Breakthroughs says there was, however. Case closed.

 

[Craigo]

Some more alterations/additions:

The US's machine-guns in the GW were stated to be Maxims. Instead of emigrating to Britain, Hiram Maxim's weapons is purchased by the US Army in 1887, during its post-Second Mexican buildup. British machine-guns are instead Vickers-made knockoffs of the US's weapons.

The US Army in 1914 consisted of fifty-four divisions, in six field armies. The Sixth Army (created in 1912) was responsible for everything west of the Mississippi. The Fifth Army (organized 1901) dealt with the eastern seaboard. First Army and Second Army (originally the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Ohio) shared the region between the Mississippi and the Appalachian Mountains. Fourth Army, created in 1891, was always intended to operate against Canada. Third Army (once the hapless Army of the Potomac) was originally based in the old Eastern theater, but after 1901 it was used as a swing piece - depending on whether Case Red, White, or Blue were activated, it would be sent to Virginia, Canada, or Kentucky.


The US Marine Corps was re-envisioned in the 1890s as the American counterpart to Germany's elite Guards Corps, though the Marines retained their focus on amphibious operations. It numbered six divisions in 1914, brining total US ground strength to sixty divisions. The Corps' history during the GW was spotty: Early operations in Canada were complete failures, though two Marine divisions managed to spearhead the crossing of the Ohio. The capture of the Sandwich Islands was a complete success, albeit a joint Army/Navy/Marines operation led by Admiral Dewey. Marine divisions were raised at a slower rate than their Army counterparts as amphibious operations lost their importance.

I haven't finished the Luxemburg/Liebknecht/Russia article, mostly because I can't remember what I intended for it. I'll finish it one day.


I'm still not sure where to go in the Middle East. I have a few ideas, but nothing I've settled on. Suggestions welcome.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

Some more alterations/additions:

I'm still not sure where to go in the Middle East. I have a few ideas, but nothing I've settled on. Suggestions welcome.

I suggest this Young Turk reforms take hold Ataturk becomes Grand Vizier after the war and spearheads Ottomans into modern Imperial Muslim State

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I suggest this Young Turk reforms take hold Ataturk becomes Grand Vizier after the war and spearheads Ottomans into modern Imperial Muslim State

I like that idea!

Concerning the Middle East/ Ottoman Empire, it would be interesting to know about any one of these...: Mustafa Kemal, Enver Pasha, the Rashidis OR the Saudis...and that's all that comes to my head at the moment...

 

[Raptor22]

Do you think that Japanese-Americans were interned like in OTL?

 

[GreatScottMarty]

I like that idea!

Concerning the Middle East/ Ottoman Empire, it would be interesting to know about any one of these...: Mustafa Kemal, Enver Pasha, the Rashidis OR the Saudis...and that's all that comes to my head at the moment...

Ditto those people. In any TL-191 continues thread we seem to forget the mid-east.

Let elaborate a little further.

Since the Ottomans and Germany grow closer after the Great War Germany begins participating in modernization projects continuing with the army and navy reforms begun before the war as the 20s progress the Ottomans begin to Meiji (forgive the anachronism but what else can you call it?) starting with oil exports in from their Caucus and Iraqi possessions. The Ottoman Army led by General Mustafa Kemal reach a deal with the Bedouin tribes of Saudi Arabia in exchange for representation in a House of Lords style parliament that become part of the an altered Young Turks movement seeking more representation for the growing middle class (think early American property qualifications) but the Minority faiths are still marginalized. The Bedouin Chiefs in return agree to give the Ottomans Draft rights to tribesmen and mineral rights.

The Canal is ceded to the Ottomans by the English in 1928 (just as Churchill is returning to politics in England) as part of the armistice (this ensures 3rd party control of the canal something everyone can live with). The Ottomans also gain De facto control over Egypt in 1932 as Ataturk once again leads the victorious and rejuvenated Ottomans against the Egyptian sultanate now stripped of British support.

Sound alright so far? Craigo let me know what you think.

 

[Imperator Frank]

Ditto those people. In any TL-191 continues thread we seem to forget the mid-east.

Let elaborate a little further.

Since the Ottomans and Germany grow closer after the Great War Germany begins participating in modernization projects continuing with the army and navy reforms begun before the war as the 20s progress the Ottomans begin to Meiji (forgive the anachronism but what else can you call it?) starting with oil exports in from their Caucus and Iraqi possessions. The Ottoman Army led by General Mustafa Kemal reach a deal with the Bedouin tribes of Saudi Arabia in exchange for representation in a House of Lords style parliament that become part of the an altered Young Turks movement seeking more representation for the growing middle class (think early American property qualifications) but the Minority faiths are still marginalized. The Bedouin Chiefs in return agree to give the Ottomans Draft rights to tribesmen and mineral rights.

The Canal is ceded to the Ottomans by the English in 1928 (just as Churchill is returning to politics in England) as part of the armistice (this ensures 3rd party control of the canal something everyone can live with). The Ottomans also gain De facto control over Egypt in 1932 as Ataturk once again leads the victorious and rejuvenated Ottomans against the Egyptian sultanate now stripped of British support.

Sound alright so far? Craigo let me know what you think.

What happens with Anglo-Egyptian Sudan?

 

[GreatScottMarty]

What happens with Anglo-Egyptian Sudan?

Well it is Craigo's TL so the decision resides with him. I don't recall any sort of League of Nations in the series so I would imagine if we use my template than it would become a Germano-Egyptian Sudan with the Ottomans opting for a soft power role by pulling the Egyptian puppet strings. Ottoman priorities would be modernization first. Besides they have no historical role that far south but do have one on the med. coast and it suits German interests to remove the French from Algeria and unbalances the Italian position as well.

The real question is what to do with Greece and Serbia, I am unclear if that gets addressed by Craigo previously or not. If the Ottomans are victorious they would want their Balkan territories restored which directly conflicts with Austrian, Bulgaria and Romanian interests. So anyone's guess maybe a shared Mandate similar to what happened OTL in the Mid-East. I think Germany remains the ultimate arbiter on all decisions regarding this area so I think whatever is Germany's best interest is what get done.