BURNISHED ROWS OF STEEL: A History of the Great War (Foreward)

[TFSmith121]

Most definitely - the US is far more likely to be

All true. Don't forget, however, the U.S. still by 1914 OTL had a lot of $$ in Brit & French investment (one reason the U.S. was pro-Entente); given Britain is at this time still #1 banker in the world, I'm not sure that changes. Not to the point of drying up entirely, I don't think. More $$ from France &/or Germany, yes, IMO that's likely. (And that impacts U.S. foreign policy in re Germany in Africa {cf The Scramble} & later.)

Most definitely - the US is far more likely to be much more "neutral" in its relations with the European powers in the aftermath of an Anglo-American war in the 1860s, certainly in a strategic situation in Europe that mirrors what the situation was historically in the later half of the Nineteenth Century.

As it was, the Anglo-American rapprochement of the 1870s and afterward depended on the sucessfuly resolution of the Alabama claims, among other issues; in the event of active hostilities between the US and UK, memories will be long, no matter which combatant ends up coming closer to achieving their wartime goals.

As it was, historically in the 1860s and 1870s, the US was friendlier toward the Russians and Prussians and Latin American states than the US was toward the British and French and Spanish, for obvious reasons; one would expect those realities would last longer in a BROS-type of world.

Best.

 

[Xenophonte]

To alternate Post

Thanks for reading and the kind words; I definitely am planning to post the final, revised version there, but I have really enjoyed and appreciate the discussion - I'm serious when I've asked for people to try and keep it "honest" because I'm really trying to avoid a-historicality - once past the original points of divergence, of course.

Anything in particular you have enjoyed? Or not enjoyed?

Best,

Overall I like the attempt to make it as realistic as possible, careful attention to detail , the development of the war in the north ... but with respect to the story itself, see my previous post ''Partisan'' is in my opinion, the more detailed thematic point.

Although maybe it's just in my opinion, could to alternate posts on Canada and the facts on the stage of origin of the story ... the war of reunification against the Confederates and their British allies.

Finally some other post located in London, where the government probably will be worried and pressured by the course of events, for a Post with the vision from England.

Maybe some post might be located in Paris, for perspective and European reactions to war.

 

[TFSmith121]

I can see three developments from an Anglo-American

I'm not sure how the next 10 or so years for France & Germany impact this idea. There's the OTL upheavals: Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian war, the heavy flow of Germans immigrating to the US, Maxmillian to Mexico, and so on. Both the Germans & French were certainly cutting edge in technology for the era, so that might be an attraction. Still, that's a lot of uncertainty for financial types to deal with. They might be more likely to opt for the "devil" they know.....

OR, might the British plow even more private investment money into some of the colonies as opposed to the US, or even Canada (depending on how the war ends)?

Worth considering is that the US had a higher relative share of world manufacturing output in 1860 than any of the powers but the UK and France, and had surpassed France by 1865; the US actually had a higher level of per capita industrialization than France in 1860.

So I can see three developments from an Anglo-American conflict in the 1860s, in terms of economic relationships:


1) US economic ties are split more more evenly with the major European powers; imports and exports are - as much as they are ever impacted by politics, rather than prices and markets - likely to be split between the UK, Germany, and France, with Russia and the other European powers trailing. There are some natural synergies between the US and Russia, however, and if politics influence economics, Russia may get more attention than historically from the US.

2) US and Latin American relations, in the aftermath of no less than three (historical) and four (in the event of an Anglo-American war) attempts by European powers to realize political goals via military force in the Western Hemisphere, are likely to be very good; not quite the Alliance for Progress, but quite possibly a Good Neighbor type policy. This will be in contrast to reality, where British interests - certainly in South America - generally won out.

3) Britain is unlikely to pay the costs of a permanent defense of BNA, whatever amount of territory "BNA" includes - and absent the British forces, BNA's resources are never going to be enough to secure the territory against a US, absent truly ASB-ish results - so British territories elsewhere in the Empire are probably going to be seen as a better investment.

Best,

 

[Admiral Halsey]

So reading some Wikipedia for a scenario in Railroad Tycoon 3 i'm improving when I stumble upon something you might find interesting. Apparently Cassius Marcellus Clay the US ambassador to Russia was able to get Russia to tell both Britain and France that if they declared war on the US they declare war on Russia. Now i'll admit I don't know if that was before or after the Trent affair but it's still something for you to chew on.

 

[TFSmith121]

John J. Abbott? Galt?

Yet the Americans had a cabal of leaders pining for independence who were competent and the Irish had been fighting for independence for centuries.

Not exactly an apt comparison.

Now for some reason a group of radicals who could barely secure popular support in their home territory when the populace had a list of legitimate grievances is somehow going to attain said support on the side of foreign invaders said population had no reason to like or support.

This in the face of years of East/West political cooperation, responsible government enacted by the Imperial power that went to great and in some cases unpopular lengths to address said grievances, and are supposedly inspired by a man who ducked out on the revolution and who managed to be an uninspiring politician who has at this point been retired from politics for close to a decade.

Then they are to make common cause with people who have every reason to go against them and can install themselves as a government without earning the ire of a majority populace who doesn't even like them.

That's just not believable.

Abbott and Galt?

Perhaps not, but is it more believable that a man who signed the Annexationist Manifesto in '49 would become the third prime minister of the dominion and another who supported annexation at the same time was the serving minister of finance who met with Lincoln about the possibility of an Anglo- American war in 1861?

Look, in wartime, attitudes change and evolve, for reasons ranging from the sublime to the brutally realistic; Lincoln's evolution on slavery and civil rights for AAs is evidence of that ... Given the depth of the political history of Anglophone and Francophone Canada by 1861-62, I don't see what I have sketched out here so far as unimaginable; you will note that I have not, for example, suggested that NB, NS, PEI, and NF would rise, have I?

Thanks for the read and the thoughtful comments; I appreciate it.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Happy New Response!

EnglishCanuck;10119901 - My point is that the US just can't leave the territory unoccupied in any fashion. Not only does it leave Confederate agents free to run amok in their rear (like they happily used Canada for OTL) but it provides a potential headache and if they fail to help their erstwhile allies, which also provides a very pointed example for the British to latch on to in order to proclaim how the US will leave them high and dry. It just can't be done.

Certainly a valid point, but any parish or county that can be kept quiet by coopting the locals - for whatever reason - is one less the US has to have a presence in, which is obviously an advantage for the US. And there are those who, I'd expect, could be coopted in Upper and Lower Canada; much less likely in northern Maine, upstate New York, or the like. Pennefather's "Army of Maine" would not have ANY overland/interior supply lines from New Brunswick, for example, given the lack of railroads and/or canals that crossed the US-BNA border in the northeast.

Well it doesn't prevent some from getting weapons or taking them anyways since most certainly won't be accommodating enough to line up and hand them over. Considering you described many of the militia as simply 'going home' it doesn't suggest the US did much to hamper them from taking weapons with them or had toe opportunity to do so.Then a government that installs themselves which these formerly apathetic militia have no reason to like pops up and voila, problem.

Well, probably not; anywhere in Upper Canada that surrenders after a siege (Toronto or Kingston or Montreal) will have to observe a formal procedural surrender, complete with parole and turnover of weapons and military stores. Again, would there be some resistance in Upper Canada, even after a surrender? Possibly - would it be of tremendous signficance to the armies facing off in Lower Canada? Probably not. The other thing worth keeping in mind is if any of the Upper Canada/Canada West cities and towns get out of hand (as in terms of violating what the US would insist on, which would be right of passage) then there is the question of policing via gunboat, at least on Ontario and Erie. If the forts are occupied or disarmed, hard to see a "guerilla" force being able to do much against the USN's lake squadrons, even extemporized, absent the RN - which, considering the realities of the winter of 1861-62, is unlikely to reach the Lakes before the US controls Montreal (as suggested in BROS, I think).

Granted.

Thank you. I do not think "Imperial Storm" or "Eaglelord: 1862" were likely; the US would have some initial advantages because of the time of year and distances involved in a conflict that broke out in the winter of 1861-62; at some point in the summer-autumn, there would be a point of equilibrium reached, at which point winter in the northern theater and developments elsewhere would set the pace for resolution of the conflict, one way or the other.

I would indeed like to know who has a surplus of nitre lying around in Europe since all the European powers imported British nitre to some degree. There is literally no other power who has as much access to the stuff.

How'd the Russians get it in 1854-56? Likewise, how strict were the arms export regimes in terms of end users in the middle of the Nineteenth Century? ITAR it was not.

Locomotives can be built quite easily locally. Producing enough rail stock to just maintain and repair said railroads let alone building new ones, is another matter. Steel components for said railways all must be imported since the US did not have a facility which could use the Bessemer process for the mass production of steel until 1865.

So what I mean here is that it was cheaper, easier, and more efficient for the US to import said parts from the UK while also importing rail stock from there too. Otherwise it must now take longer to produce the necessary items to keep the railroads going, much less build new ones. There's a reason British investors owned so much stock in American railways.

Sure, but iron rails will work, as well; cripes, various interests were building railways with wooden rails as late as the 1860s in Canada. And, with the amount of duplicative commercial road mileage in the US in 1861, simply taking up excess or underused tracks and relaying where needed - say, to connect or even doubletrack lines from Albany and Montpelier north to Montreal, seems an obvious response.

Some will. The feelings about living under American rule aren't exactly mild. And there are precious few who would turn them over to the authorities.

North of the line in Canada West/Upper Canada, perhaps not. In Lower Canada, or certainly south of the line? The life of a British partisan is going to be exciting and short.

As an addendum I should say most of this is what I consider nitpicks since on the broadest terms I don't actually disagree with most of the conclusions you arrive at. Clearly there are some but it doesn't subtract from the broader portion of the TL.

Many thanks; truly appreciate the close read, thoughtful posts, and the addendum. If I am over the top, in your opinion, please let me know. I am trying to finish off the last stages of Berthierville in some detail, and then will be back to the "month-by-month" and less exhaustive postings, at least as soon as I can get though the BROS versions of October-December, 1862... But I thought Berthierville, as the "major" contest in the north, presumably deserves it.

Thanks again.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

The Big 4 stock exchanges in the second half of the Nineteenth

I may have misled: my understanding is, it's Brit & French $$ in the U.S. You do raise the interesting issue of where U.S. money goes; given the amount of upheval in CEur, Germany seems less likely, & the "known devil" might get the nod--or France might, despite war.

OTOH, if TTL's Canada is changed, the amount of immigration from anywhere is likely to change, & Ger/CEur immigration to the Prairies wasn't exactly preferred until (IIRC) well into the 1900s (Brits were), so the U.S. might just attract quite a few more settles displaced by war(s).

The Big 4 stock exchanges in the second half of the Nineteenth Century were London, New York, Paris, and Berlin. The UK invested largely within the Empire and the US, and in Latin America; the US invested largely within its own territory and Latin America (second to the UK); Germany specialized in lending to European countries, mostly to Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy, and was competing with France in lending to these countries. Along with its European neighbors, France also invested in its own empire, the Mediterranean littoral, and, to a lesser degree, in Latin America. Great Britain, the largest international financial center, was not generally competitive in lending to European countries.​

As far as European emigrants go, between the open frontier of the Great Plains and the rapidly growing cities, the US had a) plenty of opportunity, and b) some of the least expensive transport costs (interestingly, largely in British and German-flagged shipping, historically).​

Best,​

 

[TFSmith121]

One thing to keep in mind;

Good points. If the US comes out of the war in good shape, or even just with an acceptable, stable peace, the French & Germans may well see the US as a good fertile ground for investments. Lots of resources to draw upon for rebuilding a war damaged economy, etc.

I had not considered the potential investment in an altered Canada. The OTL Midwestern US benefited from the huge numbers of Germans immigrating from the 1840's and on. Could it be that an altered Canada might see more of those Central Europeans go to the prairie provinces? Again, you have an area with great natural resources that could be a good place for investment growth.

The Prairie provinces - outside of the Manitoba/Red River/Selkirk region - were settled very late, and remained "unorganized" for a long time. The climate is difficult, even in comparison to the northern tier of the northern US states, and communications and transportation was easier (relatively) into the US states on the Great Plains then to the Canadian provinces on the Prairies.

As an example, Winnipeg did not incorporate until 1873, and had a population of less than 4,000; Minneapolis, which incorporated in 1867, had 13,000, more than three times as many people in the 1870 census. Saint Paul, due west across the Mississippi in Minnesota, had 20,000 people, so if including the two US cities, the twin cities had eight times the population of Winnipeg.

If the HBC-administered territories of BNA are essentially cut off from the east in the 1860s, it's possible they may remain "unsettled" for decades.

Best,

 

[CV12Hornet]

Found this timeline a few days ago, and just finished marathoning it. Excellent work here. My one gripe is that the earlier chapters have an issue with thoughts, in that you were writing them basically as narration instead of dialogue like they should have been. As of chapter nine, though, it seems to be fixed.

 

[TFSmith121]

Kleine Haus on zee Veldt

I honestly don't know what foreign investment in the U.S. looked like, so your guess is as good as mine. It sounds credible, anyhow.

As for immigration, my question is about who controls *Prairies afterward. If it's U.S., I'd bet on pretty steep increases in Germans & Russians as far north as Battleford or Edmonton; if BNA, not... And lots of farmers in the good farm land there is makes things really good for the economy out here. OTOH, you risk a "dustbowl" of epic proportions if they get sold on good land that really isn't in the Palliser Triangle (cf Oklahoma Panhandle).

There's also lots of gold, oil, & potash to be found...

As for the balloon corps, I'm thinking it won't be long before the Brits are tipping howitzers on their trails & trying to get Congreve rockets to climb 1000' hi.

I'm also thinking there's going to be a lot more entrenchment on the Brit side, & some hard lessons for American attackers about charges into entrenched riflemen...

There are some interesting ramifications for this conflict in the lands west of the Great Lakes; I do have a section sketched out that will address some of the issues of the region, from the Dakota War north and west to the Metis on the Red River, which will set the stage for what I think might occur in the aftermath of an Anglo-American conflict in the Great Plains/Prairie region(s)...

The 1860s is well before the bonzana dryland farming techniques that led to the Dust Bowl, however; outside of Minnesota to the east, Kansas and Nebraska to the south, and the Red River area to the north, in the 1860s thee region is, essentially, "Indian Country" - this predates the Black Hills gold rush, for example.

As far as aeronautics goes, my take is the US would consider any sort of technological development that could give an edge against the British - as, one can see, the ironclad and fast cruiser programs were designed to do, historically. This is the country of Colt and Fulton et al, so Lowe's efforts and LaMountain's, if they are seen as useful, may have greater impact in the remainder of the century. The perception by the Europeans, who I think would be even more interested in an Anglo-American war than the historical conflict, will also have interesting impacts. So, yes, anti-aircraft artillery will probably get some attention, as it did historically; the rebels tried it against Lowe et al during the Peninsula Campaign.

Field entrenchments were in widespread use on both sides in the Civil War by 1864; I expect this would come about in 1863 in an Anglo-American war, for obvious reasons.

Thanks for the read, and the comments.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

According to HMSO in 1862-63, in Petrie and

I've poked around a little and have not had much success in finding population figures for the prairie provinces in the mid 19th century. The closest I've found is 1871 census for Manitoba was 25,000+; so for OTL Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta; maybe 50,000-60,000 total in 1862? An altered western Canada, disconnected from the UK, following the war, could be overrun by the Germans. (in an ironic twist on the phrase)

According to HMSO in 1862-63, in Petrie and James' Organization, Composition, and Strength of the Army of Great Britain, the population of British North America - outside of Canada, the Maritimes, and the BC & VI colonies - totalled 80,000 in what was referred to as the "Hudson's Bay Company Territories" all 2.6 million sqaure miles of them.

Presumably this includes all "settled" population, but even so, it's not a lot.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Many thanks - certainly reinforces the lack of strategic

Maybe this map has surfaced earlier: 1862 Colton's Railroad map of the United States (and parts of Ontario & Quebec). If you look carefully, you can pick out major railway lines. The original map must be quite large.

Many thanks - certainly reinforces the lack of strategic dept in BNA west of New Brunswick...almost every place worth bothering with, including the entire Saint-Lawrence-Great Lakes "route" from the Atlantic to the interior of the continent, is within a day's march or less of the US border, including multiple railheads and canals/waterways, which even if they don't cross the border, certainly make it simple to get men and material to the border.

The importance of Montreal is clear, and Lake Saint Pierre shows up nicely, as well.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

British figures for ALL of the HBC-administered territories

In the 1860s, I'd be surprised if it was that high; there wasn't much here but beaver trappers & prospectors for a long time, while Winnipeg was something of a hub for travel east & west. By the 1870s & 1880s, you'd see more ranchers in Alberta, but even then, SK was pretty much empty.

The numbers really didn't climb much until into the 1880s & concentrated efforts to settle (by railway), & even into 1910 or so, SK pop was maybe 500K (not over 1 mil until pretty recently, & it's hovered just under that for 20yr, tho IIRC, it was over 1 mil in the '50s). (Reader's health alert: that's all based on vague recollection, not really good numbers.)

I should also say, the Native/Metis pop in SK & AB is probably pretty high, which I'd guess is why Manitoba's was; a lot of that would be Metis.

Bear in mind, too, Northern BC could well be "clipped off" by the U.S. if she buys Alaska; the pop was concentrated (as you'd expect) around Vancouver/Victoria, with not much north of that until the Frazer River & subsequent Gold Rushes (& many of those were Americans).

As for "overrun by Germans", you'd not be wrong, & I have a feeling that's what a lot of "Brit (immigrant) First" types felt they were (when they weren't Russians or other Slavs).

Cuiously, tho, this could make the Prairies one of the centers for a kind of *Northern Swing (or something), based on polka crossing with Scots-Irish music, not unlike what happened in Texas OTL.


As I think I said before, when you're done, a post of all your sources would be very welcome by me. I've no doubt you've tried to be honest & faithful to them, within the bounds of fiction, but I can't resist a good source, just in case I ever want it for my own use.

And an OT question of sorts: I'm seeing the title as "BROS (Forward)". Did I miss an "afterward" somewhere?

British figures for ALL of the HBC-administered territories was 80,000 in 1862-63, which works out to a population density in terms of "census" population of 1 person to every 32 square miles, or thereabouts...not exactly Manhattan or the City of London, even in 1862.

I won't speculate much on the future of the Prairies before I write something, but the region is a long way from anywhere with much surplus population, and without railroads, it's a long slow trip...

Northern Swing sounds fun, however; "banda" of the north.

I will include a source list when I'm done; some have been mentioned as they are, and a lot of have been referred to with the "twist" of being in BROSworld (basically the authors change genders, but titles and publishers and publishing dates are all - pretty much - as historic.)

"Foreward" was when I thought I'd be posting separate chapters, rather than a long thread...although one could read this as a "foreward" to a very different Twentieth Century, perhaps? I have been thinking about updates as of 1877, 1897, 1907, 1917, etc., once I'm done...

Thanks for the read, and the comments.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Some interesting points...and thanks for the kind words

I usually do not comment much on this excellent TL, this too specialized discussion.
I arose a question ... because it is assumed without further discussion the possibility that a group of Canadian settlers Anglo speakers,are decide to the US invasion, to their homeland, leaving their families to become Partisans risking leaving their families helpless and exposed to safe reprisals.

Because in my opinion for more than '' silk glove '', it was the American occupation, if partisan attacks, would appear the '' iron fist '' beneath the glove, like any invader in occupied territory.

It is somewhat surprising to me of course, they could take that attitude and regardless of the effectiveness of their struggle, since from the beginning of this kind of struggle, in the modern era,
in the Iberian Peninsula against Napoleon, until the time of the Pod, it is not returned to be used by Westerners.

Factors that influenced the Spanish case (rivalry, pillage, massacre and religious opponents, intense wounded national pride, preaches against the infidel, mountainous terrain, etc) beyond the fact of invasion itself and the logical patriotism, not are present in the Canadian case.

Without Talking that most men of fighting age, they would do in the militias or self formed after the invasion and would fight, or at least try to fight a conventional manner.

In areas where respect for the law and constituted authority is traditional, it is difficult to achieve change or even conceive the mindset required for small bands of men survive and be effective in this kind of struggle, what was evidently the case Spanish.

Even so were not sufficient in themselves.

Some interesting points...and thanks for the kind words.

That's a good question - the southern "side" of modern day Ontario, although obviously great farmland, isn't exactly "rugged" so the idea of a guerilla movement that can fade into the back country doesn't really work; the "backcountry" are lakes Ontario and Erie to the south, for example.

To the north, in the Upper Canada/Canada West of the 1860s, the farms get larger and the population gets less dense, but the farther north any 1860s Anglophone versions of the maquisards go, the farther away from anything worth attacking - the ports and railway towns, or the railroads and canals themselves of Upper Canada - they get...

So the alternative of a "free state" (Vercours) type strategy is what amounts to a "swim among the people" strategy (Mosby's Rangers type of approach) which depends upon a) a guerilla/partisan force of men willing to fight; b) a population willing to let said force "fade" into the civilian population; and c) a civilian population willing to take the cost of supporting such an operation.

The above is not unknown in this era; it pretty much describes Mosby's operations in Virginia and is a fair estimate of the situation of the state of Missouri during much of 1861-63, but still; it does seem, as you have suggested, somewhat unlikely in the population of Upper Canada in 1862...

I asked earlier who the equivalents of Bloody Bill Anderson and Quantrill would have been in Upper Canada in 1862, and although I have a candidate or two, I'm interested in the suggestions of the Canadian readers.

Your point:

Factors that influenced the Spanish case (rivalry, pillage, massacre and religious opponents, intense wounded national pride, preaches against the infidel, mountainous terrain, etc) beyond the fact of invasion itself and the logical patriotism, not are present in the Canadian case.

Without Talking that most men of fighting age, they would do in the militias or self formed after the invasion and would fight, or at least try to fight a conventional manner.

Is a good one, as well. In BROS, any Canadians who want to fight do have the option (with some hardship, of course) of simply traveling east toward the British lines in Lower Canada and then joining up, either with the mobilized Canadian volunteers and militia or enlisting in the British regulars, which allows them both to a) serve if they so desire and b) prevent the expected reprisals that will come to their loved ones in a guerilla war.

Again, many thanks for the read, and the post - truly appreciate it.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Excellent; many thanks - I am definitely planning some

Overall I like the attempt to make it as realistic as possible, careful attention to detail , the development of the war in the north ... but with respect to the story itself, see my previous post ''Partisan'' is in my opinion, the more detailed thematic point.

Although maybe it's just in my opinion, could to alternate posts on Canada and the facts on the stage of origin of the story ... the war of reunification against the Confederates and their British allies.

Finally some other post located in London, where the government probably will be worried and pressured by the course of events, for a Post with the vision from England.

Maybe some post might be located in Paris, for perspective and European reactions to war.

Excellent; many thanks - I am definitely planning some sections following the September, 1862 "Berthierville" chapter that will visit other theaters of the conflict (within North America), and Europe, as I try and wrap up BROS' version of 1862...

Sometime in the New Year (2015) I expect to be back on the month to month track...probably end of January or early February.

Thanks for the read and the comments.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

I would be a little cautious; Clay was an interesting

So reading some Wikipedia for a scenario in Railroad Tycoon 3 i'm improving when I stumble upon something you might find interesting. Apparently Cassius Marcellus Clay the US ambassador to Russia was able to get Russia to tell both Britain and France that if they declared war on the US they declare war on Russia. Now i'll admit I don't know if that was before or after the Trent affair but it's still something for you to chew on.

I would be a little cautious on that claim; Clay was an interesting character, but there was quite a bit of ambition in him, and his ambassadorships to Russia were mixed. The Russians, of course, had plenty of reasons of their own to be wary of British and French interventionism on behalf of the Poles in 62-63...here's an interesting summary:

https://archive.org/details/lionofwhitehall001244mbp

Basically, the Poles rose against Russian rule in '63, and there was an effort to assemble a diplomatic coalition on their behalf (including the Austrians and French, who had their own purposes, of course); the organizers approached the US, and Seward saw it as an opportunity to offer a pro-Russian line with the goal of dividing the Russians and British.

It is also worth noting this conflict occasioned a Prussian agreement to support the Russians against the Polish insurrection, the Alvensleben agreement. How all this would have played out in the situation of an active Anglo-American war, of course, in a Europe with deep divisions between Prussia, Austria, France, and Italy, and numerous weak states (ranging from Hannover to Denmark) on the fringes of the greater confrontations, plus the great questions - Prussia or Austria in Central Europe? Austria or Russia in the Balkans? Austria or France in Italy? - were all still (mostly) open...

Definitely will be coming back at this in future chapters.

Thanks for the read and the post. Appreciate the comments.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Many thanks for the comment and the read;

Found this timeline a few days ago, and just finished marathoning it. Excellent work here. My one gripe is that the earlier chapters have an issue with thoughts, in that you were writing them basically as narration instead of dialogue like they should have been. As of chapter nine, though, it seems to be fixed.

Many thanks for the comment and the read; along with the writing style, anything else catch your attention?

Many thanks, and best,

 

[Driftless]

(a larger German immigrant presence on the Canadian prairie)
Curiously, tho, this could make the Prairies one of the centers for a kind of *Northern Swing (or something), based on polka crossing with Scots-Irish music, not unlike what happened in Texas OTL.

One of the joys of AH, is thinking on tangential ideas such as the one above. I thought on this point while driving across the Minnesota prairie these last couple of days.

A 1954 CBC radio program featuring Lorenz Wilkinson and his "Prairie Playboys" performing "Calgary Rose" (sung by Gisele MacKenzie with Myron Floren on the accordion)

 

[mrmandias]

3) Britain is unlikely to pay the costs of a permanent defense of BNA, whatever amount of territory "BNA" includes - and absent the British forces, BNA's resources are never going to be enough to secure the territory against a US, absent truly ASB-ish results - so British territories elsewhere in the Empire are probably going to be seen as a better investment.

Best,

Actually, the less powerful the BNA, the less risky investment there is. The US is going to respect private investment and private property, while if there is no defense to speak of in the BNA, the chances that an investment is damaged in the event of invasion is minimal.

 

[TFSmith121]

There's a Garrison Keillor riff in here somewhere...

One of the joys of AH, is thinking on tangential ideas such as the one above. I thought on this point while driving across the Minnesota prairie these last couple of days.

A 1954 CBC radio program featuring Lorenz Wilkinson and his "Prairie Playboys" performing "Calgary Rose" (sung by Gisele MacKenzie with Myron Floren on the accordion)

There's a Garrison Keillor riff in here somewhere...just don't know if I can pull it off.

Best,