Challenge: Reverse Versailles

[JJohnson]

I do have another question for you - is this the timeline where the US has expanded across both North and South America? Being a bit more expansionist and having settled the Western Hemisphere, I could seriously imagine a more Anglo-German-philic TR as president pushing neutrality to the limits before jumping in midway or at some point in this.

If not, and it's just the bookworm, why here is Wilson piddling around Latin America? (You can tell I'm not too fond of the president...no disrespect to you, Zod ) At this time, are our ventures into Mexico going to gain the US any territory, perhaps Baja and some of the northernmost Mexican states?

James

 

[General Zod]

I do have another question for you - is this the timeline where the US has expanded across both North and South America?

If I can knit all together in a (semi-)coherent whole, yes. That's my intent. I've not yet 100% sure how much of South America the USA would have conquered by WWI, but surely Guyana-Great Colombia, probably Peru-bolivia, maybe Chile-Argentina.

Being a bit more expansionist and having settled the Western Hemisphere, I could seriously imagine a more Anglo-German-philic TR as president pushing neutrality to the limits before jumping in midway or at some point in this.

Well, quite possibly, even if it is also quite possible that an ongoing long-term stretegic rivalry with the Beiriths Empire (which I expect to flare up in Asia someetime in the 1920s-1930s) could damp ther Anglophilia somewhat.

Anyway, so far I've kept the Super-USA out of WWI (say, they are distracted by a war with Brazil or somesuch) because I wanted to avoid the "gangbang" effect on the Entente. I did not want the strategic disadvantage for FR-RU-OE to become so pronounced that the war is over very soon, and all that lovely totalitarianism-breeding civil unrest in France and Russia is entirely avoided, and the victors are not PO enough to hand draconian reverse Versailles peace deals. Nor I did want the war to last so much (difficult with these lineups, anyway) that the victors would be totally exausted as to make a serious effort and remake the international picture to their tastes.

But it is entirely my purpose to make TR shine even more in this outstanding super-USA (I love the man as much as I despise his cousin in his 3rd-4th terms, that is, quite a lot), and to butterfly Wilson to obscurity or an ignominous electoral defeat (I despise the man much the same as late Roosevelt or GWB).

Nonetheless, if I can find a decent reason why the TR-led USA enter the war and send some troops near the end, without causing a premature outcome, I'm open to the idea.

At this time, are our ventures into Mexico going to gain the US any territory, perhaps Baja and some of the northernmost Mexican states?

Oh, the way I picture things, Mexico has been wholly gone for decades by the time WWI turns around. The pro-US secessionist republics of Rio Grande and Yucatan got statehood along with Texas, the rest of Northern Mexico down to the 22° Parallel was grabbed in the first Mexican-American War, and the rump Mexico was conquered and made a territory by the end of ACW when they followed the unwise counsel of France and sided with the Confederacy.

By the way, what's your opinion on the WWI draft ? Does it make sense, strategtically (and politically) ?

 

[Imperator Frank]

If I can knit all together in a (semi-)coherent whole, yes. That's my intent. I've not yet 100% sure how much of South America the USA would have conquered by WWI, but surely Guyana-Great Colombia, probably Peru-bolivia, maybe Chile-Argentina.



Well, quite possibly, even if it is also quite possible that an ongoing long-term stretegic rivalry with the Beiriths Empire (which I expect to flare up in Asia someetime in the 1920s-1930s) could damp ther Anglophilia somewhat.

Anyway, so far I've kept the Super-USA out of WWI (say, they are distracted by a war with Brazil or somesuch) because I wanted to avoid the "gangbang" effect on the Entente. I did not want the strategic disadvantage for FR-RU-OE to become so pronounced that the war is over very soon, and all that lovely totalitarianism-breeding civil unrest in France and Russia is entirely avoided, and the victors are not PO enough to hand draconian reverse Versailles peace deals. Nor I did want the war to last so much (difficult with these lineups, anyway) that the victors would be totally exausted as to make a serious effort and remake the international picture to their tastes.

But it is entirely my purpose to make TR shine even more in this outstanding super-USA (I love the man as much as I despise his cousin in his 3rd-4th terms, that is, quite a lot), and to butterfly Wilson to obscurity or an ignominous electoral defeat (I despise the man much the same as late Roosevelt or GWB).

Nonetheless, if I can find a decent reason why the TR-led USA enter the war and send some troops near the end, without causing a premature outcome, I'm open to the idea.



Oh, the way I picture things, Mexico has been wholly gone for decades by the time WWI turns around. The pro-US secessionist republics of Rio Grande and Yucatan got statehood along with Texas, the rest of Northern Mexico down to the 22° Parallel was grabbed in the first Mexican-American War, and the rump Mexico was conquered and made a territory by the end of ACW when they followed the unwise counsel of France and sided with the Confederacy.

By the way, what's your opinion on the WWI draft ? Does it make sense, strategtically (and politically) ?

bump....................

 

[JJohnson]

To continue this thread, I'm assuming some of the traits of the original post:

Assuming:
*USA
-Canada joined the American Revolution
-Through the 19th century, the US grows to cover all North America, Cuba, Guyana/French Guyana/Suriname, Dominican Republic, several Caribbean islands, and the Panama Canal zone.
-TR is not president, but someone moderately like him, but not a Progressive. I'm thinking possibly to avoid the Roosevelts altogether, along with Woodrow Wilson.
*Gran Colombia becomes a successful and stable republic modeled after the USA (politically speaking), and a first world nation by the 20th century.
*Brazil - smaller, relatively stable, maybe fractured.
*United Kingdom
-still holds all of Ireland
-Loyalists moved to Africa and Patagonia, sparking a series of South American wars that led to the annexation of OTL Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and bits of Peru
-Africa colonized and industrialized more heavily
*Germany
-1812-1845 - Germans from across the HRE colonized Uruguay fighting on the British side, eventually forming a Prussian colony of Neu Preußen.
-1866 sowed seeds of AH collapse
-1870 absorbed Bohemia/Moravia from AH
-1871 - French/Prussian War won, though AH collapsed due to the casualties; Germany absorbs Austria and gets Mediterranean access, Hungary becomes its own Kingdom again. Italy gets Corsica, Nice, but not Savoy as the French promised. Germany holds OTL, Luxembourg, and Austria.
-Ferdinand III leads Germany firmly into the British camp, leading France to Russia; Wilhelm II (not a breech birth) is much like Ferdinand, and continues the policies, including more extensive German colonization/industrialization in Africa
*France
-to counter the UK/German partnership, seeks Russian, and eventually Ottoman alliance.

Q: What would be an appropriate trigger for WW1? We can't let Franz Ferdinand repeat OTL here; and would there be multiple possible causes for it?

Also, assume France performs a Schlieffen-like maneuver through Belgium during WW1, and in general, assumes the OTL Germany role, what would be an appropriate Allied response? Would France make some quick grabs into Germany, such as into Baden/Luxembourg and then entrench? What's a likely course for the war, also assuming the now Mega-US stays out for all but the last 2 years of the war? And assuming Greece had a better 19th century, and has some footholds on Asia Minor, how far into OTL Turkey can she get (at least Constantinople)?

I'm assuming the Allies here include the US, UK, Germany, Hungary, Greece, and Italy, while the Entente includes France, Portugal, Russia, Ottomans, Bulgaria, Spain.

Perhaps making a more fully fleshed out timeline from Zod's timeline might be in order.

 

[JJohnson]

I would move the war up to 1912/1913, instead of keeping it in 1914.