Any changes to Timeline-191/Southern Victory

Soooo let me get this straight.

The Confederacy who already broke away from the US just to maintain slavery does a sudden 180 and institute civil rights for the massive non-white underclass they have zero sympathy for and only see as a cheap, uneducated labor force.

Boy you're username isn't suspicious at all. I bet you have tons of reasonable opinions on numerous subjects that relate to the Confederacy.
......thats his first and only post?
thats more confusing...
 
Ban
Soooo let me get this straight.

The Confederacy who already broke away from the US just to maintain slavery does a sudden 180 and institute civil rights for the massive non-white underclass they have zero sympathy for and only see as a cheap, uneducated labor force.

Boy you're username isn't suspicious at all. I bet you have tons of reasonable opinions on numerous subjects that relate to the Confederacy.
I will not deny that Slavery was a reason for Secession, after all 4 of the seceded States did say it was in their Secession documents. Though there is more to it then just slavery, I mean hell, every unbiased look at the War of Northern Agression shows that it wasn't about slavery (I'm from the North by the way, so checkmate)
 
Okay, so I'm gonna bet this is either a troll or someone decided to rp as a lost caused person. Just ignore them and they'll probably go away
 
Okay, so I'm gonna bet this is either a troll or someone decided to rp as a lost caused person. Just ignore them and they'll probably go away

Their first post wasn't report worthy but calling the ACW the "War of Northern Aggression" certainly is.

Just report him, I already did.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I will not deny that Slavery was a reason for Secession, after all 4 of the seceded States did say it was in their Secession documents. Though there is more to it then just slavery, I mean hell, every unbiased look at the War of Northern Agression shows that it wasn't about slavery (I'm from the North by the way, so checkmate)
Nice, a Yankee Lost Causer.

Life is too damned short.

To Coventry with You.
 
Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series is one of my favorite alternate histories. However, there are a few things that I would change about it. For one, I would calm down on the parallelism despite enjoying aspects of it. I would also try to give Mexico a more USSR-like history, at least in origin, like kicking out the monarchy and becoming the first proclaimed socialist state (with a more calm government and not a Stalin hellhole). Lastly, I'd probably change the Freedom Party name to the Dixie Party, based off of OTL's Dixiecrats. Those are just a few I listed, I will probably list more changes during discussion.

What changes would you make to Timeline-191/Southern Victory?
Well...

Keeping the POD:
--Lee wins a Pyrrhic victory near Gettysburg.
--A couple of months later Grant wraps up the whole ANV near DC and the South loses anyway.

With a different POD:
--Trent goes hot because, IDK, some idiot shoots the diplomats or something. Britain invades Maine and the Union peaces out after a year or two of two-front war.
--Circa 1880-1885 the Union finds a pretext for war (IMO, most likely the Confederacy trying to intervene in the collapse of the French puppet regime in Mexico) and invades. At this point, EITHER the British recognize that the Confederacy, by this point all but certainly a decaying unstable joke, is a lost cause (in which case the Union crushes it like a grape) or decide to throw good money after bad and have a much closer, scarier fight with the Union before peaceing out with a Union victory on points because the new Kaiser is ranting about matching the Royal Navy. In this latter case, *WW1 sees whatever unstable gutted remnants of the Confederacy are left getting rolled up in short order by the Union while the Brits suddenly find themselves without food, without Canada, and with Germany laughing all the way to the bank. Whoops.
 
What changes would you make to Timeline-191/Southern Victory?
I would have the Confederacy's industrialization be fleshed out with it being stated that the Confederacy basically "pulled a Kishi" through industrializing slavery much like how Chinese peasants in Manchuria were transformed into what amounted to industrial slaves by the Japanese.
 
Why does the US have to annex Canada? Personally, I always disagreed with that in the books. Most of Canada's geography is uninhabitable. Nowadays in our timeline, most of Canada lives near our border, and I assume they did back then. The change I always had in mind was for the US to create not one, but two allied states. Quebec, and Republic of Canada (after a few years of US occupation). Canada would be a backup ally during WW2 or at the very least neutral but leaning towards the US.

I don't really see why the US wants to annex a country that is barely habitated above the US-Canadian border. I could see them annexing New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the piece of Ontario that is in the Great Lakes though.
Quite simply, Canada is a lightly populated country where 99% of everything of importance is within 100 miles of the extremely long border. It's easy to control everything important, and you don't want a big enemy military base with a small country attached sitting right above your main industrial region. So annex Canada, swamp the region with settlers, and set up some naval patrols to remind London who's boss in the hemisphere. Insurance policy, basically.
And another non-sense annexation is CSA at end of GW2. How USA even think that they could annex country which has been independent more than 80 years with millions of people who are not going to accept that? Or if they would think that, it is not going to be easy thing and probably failure at end.
No American government would be able to let the CS go as a coherent independent nation after the CS nuked an American city. Look at what we did to Japan IOTL, WITHOUT ever launching a coherent ground invasion. We damn near completely disarmed the place and caused a sea change in its politics that are still reverberating. It is our most reliable ally in the region except maybe Taiwan and has only elected a leader from a party other than the main pro-American party ONCE (and his administration fell apart soon after) since we occupied the place. And that was a country all the way across the Pacific, composed effectively entirely of non-white people, WITHOUT a US city being a radioactive crater.

(this is handwaving all discussion of the CSA's military performance in TL-191 canon, which as has been litigated an infuriating number of times, makes no logical sense and basically depends upon a series of handwaves making the CS not only a powerful industrialized nation but also a powerful industrialized nation with its primary opponent sabotaging itself repeatedly for no reason)
I feel like you could write a whole novel about Cassius and the Red Rebellions during the First Great War. That being said historically agrarian societies have found Anarchism rather than Marxism more appealing. I feel like labourers on the plantations where the rebellions break out ITTL would be more likely to organise along anarchist lines.
Considering the more leftward swing of the US, I think it's beyond reasonable to have the US back the Red Rebellions. From a how I would write it POV, have a reporter with a radio get embedded with the rebels somehow, then have them regularly send back reports about the Noble Negro Rebel Heroes fighting bravely for Father Abe and Comrade Marx. They go from raiding plantations to prepping for a big strike on a CS military base that they take over and use to launch a coherent breakout attempt towards advancing Union forces.

Call it "Three Hundred Thousand More" after this song:
 
It's been said already, but trench warfare shouldn't have been nearly as widespread as it was.

If anything, in TL-191's America, cavalry should have been having its last heyday. The open nature of many of the territories where battles would have been fought would have been perfect for cavalry in a way that Europe in 1914 wasn't.
 
It's been said already, but trench warfare shouldn't have been nearly as widespread as it was.

If anything, in TL-191's America, cavalry should have been having its last heyday. The open nature of many of the territories where battles would have been fought would have been perfect for cavalry in a way that Europe in 1914 wasn't.

I thought that everything west of the Mississippi was more or less that. Whereas the east was predominantly Trench warfare?
 
I thought that everything west of the Mississippi was more or less that. Whereas the east was predominantly Trench warfare?
IIRC he had a bit of it in Book 1, but then we saw trenches in Texas and such after that. And Custer's constantly giving out about 'WHY CAN'T WE USE THE CAVALRY, DAMN IT!??' even though Kentucky should be OK for that kind of warfare too.

Which was a real missed opportunity IMO: I'd have focused on it being fundamentally different to RL WWI, not have it be 'The Western Front BUT AMERICA'.
 
Top