DBWI: George B. McClellan does not crush Lee during the Peninsula Campaign

OOC: Indeed. Venezuela's a more likely flashpoint and the primary butterflies here are cultural from the USA having grown far too cocky for its own good. Mexico would happen if and only if the Race invades with WWI technology in 1863. ;)

OOC:

I get the basic meaning of IC and OOC, but what do the letters actually stand for?

Cockiness is a bad thing. But I would imagine the Royal Navy is a LOT more worried about GERMAN cockiness:eek: (or French, for that matter) than American. Besides, after the US Civil War the British adopted a solid, friendly, and even conciliatory attitude towards the United States. It was policy that didn't change until the arrival of the buffoon Chamberlain.

The US NEEDS a big navy, even though we forgot that from 1865 until 1879 (when during a dispute the Chileans threatened to bombard our West Coast!:eek). Germany does not, and never has, had a need for a big navy. Such a thing would exist ONLY as a threat to the British.
 
OOC:

I get the basic meaning of IC and OOC, but what do the letters actually stand for?

Cockiness is a bad thing. But I would imagine the Royal Navy is a LOT more worried about GERMAN cockiness:eek: (or French, for that matter) than American. Besides, after the US Civil War the British adopted a solid, friendly, and even conciliatory attitude towards the United States. It was policy that didn't change until the arrival of the buffoon Chamberlain.

The US NEEDS a big navy, even though we forgot that from 1865 until 1879 (when during a dispute the Chileans threatened to bombard our West Coast!:eek). Germany does not, and never has, had a need for a big navy. Such a thing would exist ONLY as a threat to the British.

In Character, Out Of Character.

OOC: True, but the British are more likely to be hostile in a more limited sense to this alternate USA. I'm not sure a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1871) would be either signed or ratified by a McClellan Administration and his likely successors. Britain won't go to war, but it would be far from averse to seeing the USA get sense knocked into it. The defeat would be primarily a naval one, as France has no need or logistics to invade the USA.
 
In Character, Out Of Character.

OOC: True, but the British are more likely to be hostile in a more limited sense to this alternate USA. I'm not sure a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1871) would be either signed or ratified by a McClellan Administration and his likely successors. Britain won't go to war, but it would be far from averse to seeing the USA get sense knocked into it. The defeat would be primarily a naval one, as France has no need or logistics to invade the USA.

But it would also mean no war loans for France, no weapon sales, and a WWII-style set of Neutrality Laws in WWI. So no Zimmerman Telegram, no U-Boat War against US ships, and no US entry.:mad:

Besides, France's position vis-a-vis Germany precludes ANY possible Western Hemisphere adventurism. Germany could see the chance for going to war with France while having the US as an ally.:eek: The French know that.

Question: Would the French Navy of 1900 be strong enough to take on the USN and the German High Seas Fleet at the same time?:confused:

Actually, as the Confederate raiders would have had shorter war cruises, with less damage done, I could see the treaty as being easier to pass.
 
In Character, Out Of Character.

OOC: True, but the British are more likely to be hostile in a more limited sense to this alternate USA. I'm not sure a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1871) would be either signed or ratified by a McClellan Administration and his likely successors. Britain won't go to war, but it would be far from averse to seeing the USA get sense knocked into it. The defeat would be primarily a naval one, as France has no need or logistics to invade the USA.


OOC: More to the point by 1900 it would take ASBs for France to successfully invade the US. It was a continental highly industrialized power by then with railroads connecting all major cities. The French Army would be crushed if it tried.
 
But it would also mean no war loans for France, no weapon sales, and a WWII-style set of Neutrality Laws in WWI. So no Zimmerman Telegram, no U-Boat War against US ships, and no US entry.:mad:

Besides, France's position vis-a-vis Germany precludes ANY possible Western Hemisphere adventurism. Germany could see the chance for going to war with France while having the US as an ally.:eek: The French know that.

Question: Would the French Navy of 1900 be strong enough to take on the USN and the German High Seas Fleet at the same time?:confused:

Actually, as the Confederate raiders would have had shorter war cruises, with less damage done, I could see the treaty as being easier to pass.

OOC:

The answer to the question is no, but then Germany would probably be delighted to set two of its former rivals at war against the other, and any such war would be initiated from US overconfidence in itself. The POD's far enough for rather wide-sweeping alterations in US relations with other powers, the USA may be rather assertive in a high-handed fashion akin to its 20th Century variant and equally alienating to Europe.

My point about the Treaty of Washington is that very shortness of the raids themselves would be rather likely to lead to US leaders never even considering a treaty in the first place. The POD is in 1862, which is plenty of time for European politics to vary drastically as Mr. Lincoln's war has ended in the year of the Schleswig-Holstein War, the USA will have been at peace for four years by the time of the OTL Austro-Prussian War and for nine by the time of OTL Franco-Prussian War. In politics nine years is an eternity.
 
OOC: More to the point by 1900 it would take ASBs for France to successfully invade the US. It was a continental highly industrialized power by then with railroads connecting all major cities. The French Army would be crushed if it tried.

OOC: It would not take ASB, however, given the gap between 1862 and the 20th Century for a hypothetical USA to get so self-assured that it's invincible that it triggers a naval war with France that results in a complete naval defeat and humiliation. 1862-1902 is a long time and the ATL's politics haven't really been gone into that well. I was essentially trying to turn that one comment into a viable means for it to happen over a flashpoint more likely to result in war than Mexico.
 
But it would also mean no war loans for France, no weapon sales, and a WWII-style set of Neutrality Laws in WWI. So no Zimmerman Telegram, no U-Boat War against US ships, and no US entry.:mad:

Besides, France's position vis-a-vis Germany precludes ANY possible Western Hemisphere adventurism. Germany could see the chance for going to war with France while having the US as an ally.:eek: The French know that.

Question: Would the French Navy of 1900 be strong enough to take on the USN and the German High Seas Fleet at the same time?:confused:

Actually, as the Confederate raiders would have had shorter war cruises, with less damage done, I could see the treaty as being easier to pass.


OOC: WWI as we know it would be butterflied away. However, the US would be more hostile to France than OTL. If it does go to war with Germany at some time fairly soon afterwords the US will, at the very least, strictly neutral. It could well be neutral leaning German. There is at least some possibility it could help Germany in some fashion. France will have even more problems with the Germans if the US is allied with Germany in any way.
 
OOC: It would not take ASB, however, given the gap between 1862 and the 20th Century for a hypothetical USA to get so self-assured that it's invincible that it triggers a naval war with France that results in a complete naval defeat and humiliation. 1862-1902 is a long time and the ATL's politics haven't really been gone into that well. I was essentially trying to turn that one comment into a viable means for it to happen over a flashpoint more likely to result in war than Mexico.


OOC: True enough, just pointing at that a French invasion of the US would be impossible by 1900.
 
OOC: True enough, just pointing at that a French invasion of the US would be impossible by 1900.

OOC: Which is what I said here: The defeat would be primarily a naval one, as France has no need or logistics to invade the USA.

France is guaranteed a naval victory here, it has no incentive to do the impossible and give the USA an easy victory and itself an obvious humiliation.
 
OOC: WWI as we know it would be butterflied away. However, the US would be more hostile to France than OTL. If it does go to war with Germany at some time fairly soon afterwords the US will, at the very least, strictly neutral. It could well be neutral leaning German. There is at least some possibility it could help Germany in some fashion. France will have even more problems with the Germans if the US is allied with Germany in any way.

WWI AS WE KNOW IT. But WWI was essentially an inevitability considering all the entangling alliances, France's Revanche, and the Schleiffen Plan. The Franco-Prussian War is also going to happen, as Prussia is as determined to unite the German States as Napoleon III is to prevent it.

SOME minor details may change. The spark that ignites it could happen sooner (more likely later). States such as the Ottoman Empire and Portugal might manage to stay out of it, Russia may be less (or more) efficient in its mobilization. But few wars were as unavoidable as WWI, simply because too many of the participants were too stupid/ignorant to realize the consequences of war in the age of the machine gun.
 
OOC: It would not take ASB, however, given the gap between 1862 and the 20th Century for a hypothetical USA to get so self-assured that it's invincible that it triggers a naval war with France that results in a complete naval defeat and humiliation. 1862-1902 is a long time and the ATL's politics haven't really been gone into that well. I was essentially trying to turn that one comment into a viable means for it to happen over a flashpoint more likely to result in war than Mexico.

This self-assuredness you refer to doesn't change the US naval rearmament program starting in 1880, nor does it alter the environment for the Spanish-American War. And with the US still fighting the War of the Philippine Insurrection, I don't see the US being sufficiently arrogant enough to fight two wars at once, especially with one of them being against a major power.

What was the naval balance between the US and France in 1900?:confused:

The US isn't facing a "world power" in the Pacific (Japan hasn't made its entry onto the world stage yet), so in defense of the hemisphere the USN can be concentrated. Would the French Navy leave the Mediterranean and France's Atlantic coastline entirely in the hopes that Germany and Italy (still thought of as an enemy at the time) will play nice while they're away?
 
WWI AS WE KNOW IT. But WWI was essentially an inevitability considering all the entangling alliances, France's Revanche, and the Schleiffen Plan. The Franco-Prussian War is also going to happen, as Prussia is as determined to unite the German States as Napoleon III is to prevent it.

SOME minor details may change. The spark that ignites it could happen sooner (more likely later). States such as the Ottoman Empire and Portugal might manage to stay out of it, Russia may be less (or more) efficient in its mobilization. But few wars were as unavoidable as WWI, simply because too many of the participants were too stupid/ignorant to realize the consequences of war in the age of the machine gun.


OOC: Then it's not going to go as well for the Allies. The US will either be strictly neutral or hostile. With the RN in the way I doubt it will end up in the war directly but you could see a whole lot of smuggling to Germany via Italy which may well stay neutral in this TL to take the middle man's cut.
 
OOC: Then it's not going to go as well for the Allies. The US will either be strictly neutral or hostile. With the RN in the way I doubt it will end up in the war directly but you could see a whole lot of smuggling to Germany via Italy which may well stay neutral in this TL to take the middle man's cut.

OOC:

Via the Ottomans, too. I wonder if the Allies would dare a Gallipoli Campaign in these circumstances.
 
Last edited:
OOC:

Via the Ottomans, too. I wonder if the Allies would dare a Gallipoli Campaign in these circumstances.

OOC: Possibly but the Ottomans were at war with GB. Didn't the Brits blockade them too? Italy was neutral at the begining in OTL and well may stay that way if they can make money doing so. A ship bound for Italy is harder to sieze then one bound for the Ottoman Empire. Of course the Ottomans might not be on the Central Powers side in an alt WWI so it is possible.
 
Last edited:
Top