Confederacy Wins and Europe Never Changes

[BlondieBC]

The Royal Navy says no. End of story.

RN is much weaker ITTL. Much of there budget is being spent on large 500K to 1,000 K standing army expansion, probably stationed in Canada. USA will also invest in a navy. USA had almost no military budget OTL, so we will see most of increase come out of standard of living. UK had larger budget, so much bigger share of Army budget increase comes out of other government budgets (think Navy). Unless you write a really odd TL where both the CSA wins and the UK supports the union, the USA army alone will change the whole military structure of UK. The UK could afford a large navy only because of lack of standing army.

So lets look at Prussia to get grasp of USA army. A decade or two after war, the USA will below 40 million population or above. If we take the 1914 model for Germany to get mobilization rates (65 million or so), we get a standing army of 550K or so USA with mobilizable strength of 3,000K. The usa may not go as high as germany, but even if we cut down to a 2 million man army available within 90 days of outbreak of war,and assume 1 million go against CSA, then 1 million are free for Canada.

IF, and it is a big IF, the UK supports the CSA directly, they are in bed with the CSA. It sounds nice to say the will leave the CSA, but the USA will be out for blood and revenge. The CSA is the only realistic counterweight to the USA simply taking all of Canada as compensation.

Now this also gets me to another bug I have with TL where UK sends ground troops to ACW and the south wins. One book had 35K UK troops. The USA first response in such a war is to split Canada into pieces. We had a huge number of troops and the east west RR are not that far into Canada. All you really get is something like the in the West stands on defensive and Sherman march to see becomes Sherman taking Ontario. And yes, he would burn it down too. Unless UK intervene early (1861) before USA has large army, I am not sure its army is big enough to save CSA.

 

[Mikestone8]

Would Britain have been in the war?

After all, if Nappy III is prepared to fight a war for Southron independence, why shouldn't we just let him get on with it and make a penny or two selling arms to both sides. Iirc, Anglo-French relations weren't all that great in the 1860s.

 

[Johnrankins]

Would Britain have been in the war?

After all, if Nappy III is prepared to fight a war for Southron independence, why shouldn't we just let him get on with it and make a penny or two selling arms to both sides. Iirc, Anglo-French relations weren't all that great in the 1860s.

Agreed, my comments assumed France alone backs the CSA. Nappy was far more eager to back the CSA than Palmerston was. Unless Lincoln does something really stupid France is on its own. Palmerston really didn't want a war with the US and Lincoln didn't want one with the UK. Nappy was more willing but wanted British backing before he attempted even recognition not talking about war. I think even French backing is unlikely but of the two France is the more likely. At least Nappy was willing to seriously consider recognition while GB (In large part due to the slavery issue) was not.

 

[Johnrankins]

The other poster’s point was that the Union could and did do a much better job of force projection into Arizona Territory than the Confederacy. Even if the entirety of the Territory was pro-Confederate, the Union had the capability. Few men from Arizona Territory were willing to fight for the Confederacy and almost all of them were from the southeastern part of the territory. A half of the Union men who defeated the Confederates in Arizona Territory were Colorado and New Mexico volunteers. As in Texas, Hispanics were far less likely to support the Confederacy than Anglos.

The Confederates had virtually no chance of taking, let alone keeping Ft. Yuma. The Confederate overland route to Ft Yuma was much longer and over more inhospitable terrain than the Union route from the west. The Union could also have sent forces by sea, an option not available to the Confederates. Even if the Confederates held Ft Yuma for a while, the Union could have moved troops south from Colorado into Arizona territory, which is what they did in OTL.

Exactly, there is virtually no chance for the CSA itself taking Ft Yuma and none of keeping it. The French could take it but it would be damned expensive and keeping it would be even more so. War with the US wouldn't exactly be cheap for France.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Iirc, Anglo-French relations weren't all that great in the 1860s.

They weren't great, but they weren't terrible. After all, only a few years had passed since the French and British had fought side-by-side as allies against the Russians.

 

[ProfJets]

3) Italy is interesting. I would tend to go with it not forming.

The Kingdom of Italy already existed before the Civil War started, lacking only Venetia and Latium

 

[History_Pintobean]

IMHO the reason for TL-191 having left Europe the same and for having WWI happen in 1914 as in OTL (mostly) was so Harry Turtledove could make a parallel to OTL WWI but set on the North American continent. Hence he could have General Custer operate alongside General Pershing in Kentucky, Teddy Roosevelt as the U.S. president and Woodrow Wilson as the C.S. president, references to the Christmas Day truce only applied to North America, etc..

As far as AH goes it is generally very well written and well researched, and isn't so egregious later on in the series. By the time WWII rolls around, Europe is under German hegemony while much of the world is different (a surviving Chinese Empire, a fascist France and Britain, a United States which includes Canada, a Russian Empire, etc.)

However, I think that Turtledove, in writing a form of popular fiction, wanted to play it safe rather then have WWI happen earlier and have the war and/or world be virtually unrecognizable from real history esp. to those who only have a passing interest in history-in-general let alone AH.

As such timelines on this forum should IMHO have significantly more leeway in changing history more so then TL-191, they can take more risks and allow for a much different Europe and world, a much different war or wars, etc.

It's almost become a cliche, a "Harry Turtledove did it so why can't I"-type scenario, to depict Europe and WWI and the world as more or less the same. IMHO cliches should be avoided by TL authors, esp. authors who don't care about writing popular fiction and who want a much more daring and interesting Confederate victory scenario.

 

[Johnrankins]

They weren't great, but they weren't terrible. After all, only a few years had passed since the French and British had fought side-by-side as allies against the Russians.

Yeah, but they would have to be great for GB to fight the US merely because France is. For one thing there is the "Free Rider" problem. If France blocks the blockade the international price of cotton goes down without GB sending a single ship. It gets the benefit and lets France pay the entire price.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Here's my issue with the cliche of GB interceding on behalf of the Confederacy. They may recognize it out of feelings of political necessity, but I doubt the US would then actually go to war with GB.

It's simple really, neither nation gains anything from said war, and then the US will be fighting two great powers at once. Not a winning proposition. Had GB recognized the CSA I don't think Lincoln was foolish enough to actually declare war on them, and then only France would probably have fought, and then only to ensure the success of the Mexican adventure.

My other issue is that many assume (and wrongly so IMO) that if Britain supports the CSA in any way they will be tied to them as an ally. That makes no sense. The US and GB are far to connected economically (and market forces drive them together more often than not) and many in England and the US don't hate each other.

I can't see GB sticking by the CSA for very long, and by strategic necessity, not opposing the USA,

 

[Johnrankins]

Also GB was fully aware how vulnerable British North America was to invasion by the US. It would either have to be willing to maintain a large number of troops there for decades or be willing to kiss it good bye the next time there is a great war in Europe that involves them. In a worst case scenario GB could maintain hundreds of thousands of troops in British North America and then have to call them home during a great war in Europe and watch helplessly while the US grabs it then.

 

[Mikestone8]

I can't see GB sticking by the CSA for very long, and by strategic necessity, not opposing the USA,

Esp if the CS gov't turns a blind eye to illegal slave ships - which southern states sometimes did in the ante-bellum era. Iirc GB and the US signed a treaty on this matter as early as 1862. If they both get tough about it, British-CS relations will soon be on a downward path.