Dixieland: The Country of Tomorrow, Everyday (yet another Confederate TL)

Fascism has always been a left-wing ideology. It was started by Giovanni Gentile, its philosopher, himself a socialist who saw that it wasn't class struggle that motivated people in Europe to fight, but nationalism (what Americans would also call patriotism, as opposed to Nationalism, centralized control of provinces, i.e. a unitary state, as opposed to a federation or confederation like the Swiss or Americans in 1776).

Fascism is derived from socialism in OTL, effectively transferring the organizing concept from class struggle to Nationalism and subordinating self to the state.

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but fascism is left-wing. The back and forth in the 1930s between communists and fascists denouncing each other in their propaganda is why nowadays some people believe fascism isn't left-wing.

Eh, I've always thought the "is xxx right-wing or left-wing" to always be a not useful argument because right and left are all relative terms that don't have any absolute meaning (ie, right-wing and left-wing mean totally different things in the People's Republic of China in 2000, the United States in 2000, or France in 1790."

That being said, I'd argue that in the political spectrum of 1900's Europe, fascism was very much a syncretic ideology that combined both right-wing and left-wing elements. If you were a left-wing Erfurt Program follower of Marx or a right-wing Prussian junker landowning aristocrat, you would see both things you hated and things you liked about fascists (probably not the same things lol).

ITL Italy right now...well, would people consider Crispi on the left or right? He literally goes from being on the historical far-left to being on the right...without changing any of his views (this part is largely OTL lol).

One weakness I think some TLs have are they assume the political spectrum that they as a modern person live in is more or less an inevitable development, as opposed to well, the products of local conditions that are in a sense also a product of history.

IMO, since right-wing and left-wing are more or less just relative terms, people arguing about whether xxx is right-wing or left-wing are really just asserting THEIR political views. I guess even I'm doing that, because I'm a participant in more or less two different political spectrums (in two different nations)...and I'm hard-right in one...and hard-left in the other, so I really can't view the right/left distinction as relative/socially constructed.
 
Last edited:

Baldrick

Banned
Interesting as always...
Two questions:

One, is there a lot of pressure in the CSA to join the Celestial Powers (great name, by the way), given that Britain is their closest ally?
Two, with neither main planned enemy (France or Austria) in the war, what's North Germany planning to do?
 
FYI I've been working on one of the world and I'd be happy to try to make one of the Mediterannean-Caucacusus theater if I get the chance.

You're awesome!

Interesting as always...
Two questions:

One, is there a lot of pressure in the CSA to join the Celestial Powers (great name, by the way), given that Britain is their closest ally?
Two, with neither main planned enemy (France or Austria) in the war, what's North Germany planning to do?

1) Yeah, a lot of pressure. And with USA on the other side, the CSA is noping out as hard as they can.
2) King Wilhelm II is probably planning on mediating between Russia and the UK, because he views both as friendly enough powers (both the Russian Emperor and the British King are his cousins).
 
Chapter 73 - The North American Front
The North American Front
The North American front began sleepily simply as a result of neither the United States nor Canada having an actual serious standing army. Both sides began calling up men and the first confrontation of men, but as the Canadians began as soon as the Russians invaded the Ottoman Empire, they finished first. A brief Canadian incursion into New Hampshire from Montreal, took place in Hanover, New Hampshire just outside Dartmouth College, which provided several of the American officers. The Canadians were far more technologically advanced. The Americans were armed with Springfield 1873s, a breech-loading single shot rifle, in comparison to the Canadians, who were armed with Lee–Metford rifles, a bolt-action rifle. Neither of these were cream of the crop of either army - the most advanced british rifle was the Lee-Enfield, introduced in 1894, and the most advanced American rifle, the Springfield 1892 was introduced in well, you know when. However, the Americans had a massive advantage in numerical superiority, which allowed them to eventually force the Canadians to retreat. Ultimately, the Battle of Hanover saw 115 Canadians and 406 Americans killed, alongside 90 Canadians captured.

On sea, the Americans had 5 pre-dreadnoughts and the British 12. The American strategy, remembering the Confederate experience in the Spanish-Confederate War, was largely to negate the possibility of a British blockade of the Eastern seaboard by concentrating 4 of those pre-dreadnoughts in a super fleet and more or less patrolling down and up the coasts in order to make it impossible for the British to maintain a blockade. With a large group of coastal ironclads renovated from the Civil War to be a lot more firepowery (though not faster), the threat of the American Navy was enough to dissuade the British from trying to mount a blockade, fearing that splitting up their navy might mean being attacked by a unified American navy. As a result, the naval war on the Eastern Seaboard was largely just small commerce raiders trying to target merchant marines. The British were able to temporarily blockade several ports, but the blockades never lasted that long. Although the American economy suffered, it didn't totally collapse. Really, the biggest economic harm to both sides was that they simply weren't trading with each other anymore.

A brief American attack was launched across Michigan into the city of Sarnia in South Ontario. The Battle of Sarnia, although expected to lead to the liberation of Canada, was also an abject failure. Crossing the river, American militiamen were immediately confronted with Maxim machine guns, barbed wire, and trenches, which all worked together gunned them down in droves. In one hour, 1,300 Americans were dead. One Canadian lost his foot after he accidentally shot his own foot. The Canadians followed up on this glorious success on a large offensive, backed by British officers, into Northern Maine. American militiamen, many of them actually of Canadian descent, stayed remarkably loyal to the United States, launching constant attacks on Anglo-Canadian forces in the forests of Maine. Joshua Chamberlain, President of Bowdoin College, led a group of volunteers in ambushing and harrassing Anglo-Canadian forces as they tried to push towards Portland. After the third time an American ambush destroyed all of their supplies, the Anglo-Canadian force, sick and tired of the forests of Maine, finally retreated back to Canada. Although the American casualties were unknown, 240 Anglo-Canadians were killed in action, and roughly 500 dead of sickness.

Canadian forces did somewhat better in Alaska at first, facing mostly only token resistance, often by Russian Cossacks placed on the Russo-Canadian border. The real threat to the Anglo-Canadian Armies was honestly just climate, as marching through Alaska in the winter was beyond awful. Although in theory some soldiers on both sides were apparently shot to death, 90% of casualties on both sides were a result of frostbite. The Anglo-Canadian offensive was eventually stopped dead when the Russians had more or less supplied their soldiers far better by using Siberian huskies as cargo animals to haul food and supplies around Alaska. Even though the Anglo-Canadian Army was more advanced than the Russians and was able to occupy the major cities along the coast, they were never able to establish any meaningful control elsewhere due to "those god damn dogs."

The Americans, chastened by the disaster of Sarnia, decided to play a totally different card. General Wesley Merritt, a cavalry commander who had served in the Indian Wars, realized the best way to hurt Canada. The Lakota tribal chiefs, Sitting Bull and Red Cloud, volunteered several of his men in exchange for additional tribal concessions, which the Americans easily accepted. A joint Lakota-American force marched across the great plains and straight into Saskatchewan - with one mission only - to severe the Canadian Pacific Railway. As the region was very lightly populated and the Lakota were experts in traveling across plains, the operation was a total success, as the Americans tore up much of the railway and seized all the goods from the next train that had arrived.

In retaliation, the British, realizing that taking American territory would be very hard, realized they also had their own cards to play that would push the Americans to the negotiating table. The cities of Detroit and Buffalo both seemed rather vulnerable...
 
Last edited:
On sea, the Americans had 5 pre-dreadnoughts and the British 12.
Interesting they're still called pre-dreadnoughts. I'm guessing the brits will make a Dresdnought similar to OTL with the lessons from this war. I'm curious where TTL's Big Pre-Dreadnought Battle will happen.

With a large group of coastal ironclads renovated from the Civil War to be a lot more firepowery (though not faster)
Well that must be unweildly as fuck. I imagine that early 1860s Ironclads retrofitted with 1890s technology are an awkward sight, and not actually useful for much beyond coastal defense. They'll get shot up badly by anything their size that manages to get in range I bet, and with their slow speed the enemy will dictate terms of engagement.
 
Interesting they're still called pre-dreadnoughts. I'm guessing the brits will make a Dresdnought similar to OTL with the lessons from this war. I'm curious where TTL's Big Pre-Dreadnought Battle will happen.

Well that must be unweildly as fuck. I imagine that early 1860s Ironclads retrofitted with 1890s technology are an awkward sight, and not actually useful for much beyond coastal defense. They'll get shot up badly by anything their size that manages to get in range I bet, and with their slow speed the enemy will dictate terms of engagement.

Yeah, they're basically just slightly mobile coastal defenses, but there's a lot of them, which heavily discourages the British from trying to mount a coastal blockade (which is why the USA keeps them around).

Though to be quite fair, the Union can probably take a blockade way better than the CSA - because it has far larger internal markets and is far less dependent on both imports and exports. This is OTL too - I'm fairly familiar for personal reasons with WTO politics and the first thing to understand about America at the WTO was that before 2000 (NAFTA + Chinese ascension to the WTO), the United States was actually one of the most insulated markets in the world (the trade policy term is "large, closed economy").
 
Last edited:
Americas DTCOTT.png

Here's a map of the Americas that I've just about finished. Not sure how accurate everything is but I'm going off what I remember from the TL. The World map accidently got cropped and I lost the Southern Hemisphere (I'll probably finish it after the war ends) and the one of the middle East front I mentioned is about 50% done. I tried to make the maps look as old timey as I could without going to extreme lengths.

Tastyspam, perhaps you want to add some arrows and lines to show where the fighting was and where the maximum advance of the Americans and Canadians were and what's going on in Brazil? You could also label battles with a red star-like symbol. I left that stuff out because you know your TL better than I do. If you'd like me to draw that in, just go ahead and PM me.

And of course, if there are any errors, don't hesitate to point them out.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they're basically just slightly mobile coastal defenses, but there's a lot of them, which heavily discourages the British from trying to mount a coastal blockade (which is why the USA keeps them around).


Not a bad idea on the USA's part.. I think they'd free up the fleet (or so they hope anyway - how these rust buckets would perform if the British actually try to engage them is uncertain) so thay they don't have to waste ships defending the most obvious targets: New York Harbor (believed to be Britain's number one target in OTL 1890s war plans), Boston, Long Island Sound and the Chesapeake, though the entry is controlled by the Confederacy. In order for these ships to do their jobs then, they need only have equal or greater range than the enemy battleships. If they never have to do battle, then they worked.
Actually, the US navy was planning on using mines extensively but with their fleet much larger than IOTL, this is no longer as necessary or desirable.


But what about the Great Lakes? The great lakes are of the tremendous importance but nobody was counting on a war, so everything has to be improvized. The Americans need to get building and the Brits need to port something up from the St. Lawrence. And an unseaworthy ship on these lakes is... well, let's just say less than safe.




Oh, and one more thing. I think we're gonna see those weird "Zalinski guns" the Yankees built actually do something! Probably not hit much, but a giant potato cannon lobbing 300 pound tin footballs filled with nitroglycerine is the epitome of Victorian whimsy. There are probably some other weird Victorian weapons too come to think of it.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 497188 Here's a map of the Americas that I've just about finished. The World map accidently got cropped (I'll finish it when the war ends) and the middle East is about 50% done. I tried to make it look as old timey as I could without going to extreme lengths. Perhaps you could add some arrows and lines to show where the fighting was and where the maximum advance of the Americans and Canadians were and what's going on in Brazil (I left the states there just in case). You could also label battles with a red star-like symbol. I left that stuff out because you know your TL better than I do. If you'd like me to draw that stuff in, would be, you can PM me.

And of course, if there are any errors, don't hesitate.
This map is perfect. I'm not a fan of the whole world in a single picture because I can't appreciate the details as much as I'd like to.
 
This map is perfect. I'm not a fan of the whole world in a single picture because I can't appreciate the details as much as I'd like to.
I'd been working on maps of the TL's local theaters for just that reason. I would have made just North America but it would wouldnt have saved much space and I wanted to show Brazil and Cape horn in case battles happen somewhere far away. I might make a map of the US Canada border or the Alaska fight as an excuse to show Russian settlements and defenses. Also, a map of the Confederate-Spanish War, including Cuba would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 74 - The Battle of Hawaii
The Battle of Hawaii
Well, the American Marines had one hell of a job to do. The Marines had disarmed most of the native forces and armed many of the pro-US settlers. Amusingly, most of them were actually former Confederates, including a few veterans of the US Civil War. Many of the natives were outraged, but lacking arms after the surrender of the Hawaiian Royal Guard and the small Anglo-Qing garrison, they had no method of resisting.

The US Marines were also escorted by the only American pre-dreadnought not on the East Coast, the USS Iowa, the most advanced battleship in the American arsenal (the other four battleships were members of the Indiana-class, which were primarily designed for coastal defense, the job that they were handling right now). That being said, three battleships from the undefeated Royal Navy were sailing towards Hawaii. Admiral George Dewey, stationed on the USS Iowa, led the Royal Navy on a wild chase around the islands of Hawaii. The Hunt for the USS Iowa delayed the British landing by several weeks, though eventually a confrontation was forced, at which point the USS Iowa was sunk off the coast of the Big Island (albeit taking down two British cruisers with it). Ironically, the sailors of all three ships had to swim to the same island, at which point they declared a cease-fire against each other, because there was honestly just no point in fighting anymore there.

The real confrontation would be in Oahu, still under American occupation. Although two Qing cruisers had arrived as support, the actual landing force would be primarily British, largely but not entirely recruited from the British Raj in India. Although troops from the Australian crown colonies had been raised, those had largely been directed to Aljaska/Canada as they were raised before the confrontation with America. The British landings focused primarily on Ewa Beach, just west of Pearl Harbor, Lanikai Beach on the windward coast of Oahu, and Waikiki Beach right in Honolulu.

The Waikiki landings were an absolute disaster. The Americans had set up large amounts of artillery in the Koolau Mountains and had a tendency of shifting their artillery after a few shots, making it impossible for British battleships to properly estimate their location. A successful landing in Waikiki would have endangered the Iolani Palace, which the US Marines had turned into their HQ. Taking the Palace would have been a huge win for the British, as the conquest of Hawaii was largely accomplished by US troops storming the Palace. However, in the wide open beaches of Waikiki, American-dug fortifications and machine gun emplacements (using captured Maxim guns!) just massacred landing troops. British battleships were unable to support the landing out of fear that the shelling of Honolulu (the most heavily populated part of Hawaii) would alienate the natives from British influence.

In contrast, the landings in Kailua were largely successful, as American forces were concentrated on the leeward coast of Hawaii. However, advancing outside of Kailua was difficult, as it was separated from the rest of Hawaii by the Koolau mountains, where the Americans had put most of their artillery. Attempts to move to the rest of Hawaii, alongside fairly narrow roads alongsides the coasts, ended in total disaster as British troops were simply sitting ducks for American artillery and harassing attacks.

As such, the main British advance would truly have to be on the Ewa Beach, where they had both the benefit of easy support, and enough distance away from the Koolau Mountains to minimize American artillery support. After a fairly successful landing, British forces settled into a grueling siege of Pearl Harbor, confronted with the fact that the Americans had built all kinds of trench-works blocking the road leading to the Harbor. An attempt by British troops to circumvent the Americans by trying to go around them failed as the British forces were totally unprepared for warfare in the rice paddies in that region, while the Americans were bizarrely overenthusiastic about fighting in swampwater (many of them were Southerners, disavowed by their home country, very used to the swamp). As a result, the strategy quickly became for British battleships to slowly create rolling barrages into the American earthworks, while British troops advanced slowly. Although the British were able to fan out and occupy much of the North and West of the Island, their advance into Pearl Harbor was steady...but excruciatingly slow due to extensive American defensive preparations. In addition, even in the "liberated" parts of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the difficulty of dealing with hostile, armed, and very skilled settler-guerillas was obvious, as they refused to meet the British troops in open combat, simply fighting them in assymetric warfare. The natives generally supported the British and provided labor and logistical support, but generally lacked experience in industrial warfare, so the British still had to do the heavy lifting.

As most of the pre-existing support staff was actually from Qing China (such as "coolies"), the British forces in Hawaii were interestingly remarkably multicultural, including native Hawaiians, Chinese of all stripes (both Han and Manchu), Indian soldiers, and British officers, which stood in contrast to the American forces, who were a mix of both USA and CSA nationals (the latter disowned by their home country, which pledged neutrality in the conflict).
 
Last edited:
The general implication seems to be a somewhat short war, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it only lasts a year or two. It’s hard to say who the winner will be, considering that on paper the Russo-American side is stronger, yet is also significantly more disunited then Britain’s allies.

If I had to guess I’d say America and Britain fight a couple of big naval battles around Hawaii before eventually signing a peace deal, which I’d wager leans towards Britain, while the main fighting remains between Britain, the Ottomans, and China vs. Russia. It’s hard to say for sure who would win that match up, but I’d probably swing it toward Russia considering the military weakness/incompetence of Britain’s allies.

Whatever happen it’s gonna be an interesting couple of years for sure.
I'd suppose that the Russians will win where it counts, ie Anatolia. I'm also pretty skeptical of Canada's ability to resist any serious American incursions. Overall I just don't think the Celestial Alliance can really win. I just don't see what victory would look like beyond Status Quo Ante Bellum. Canada can't force the Americans out, the Turks aren't likely to push back into the Caucasus, and I think the Qing too concerned with stability/risk averse in general to risk a major offensive.
 
Last edited:
I'd suppose that the Russians will win where it counts, ie Anatolia. I'm also pretty skeptical of Canada's ability to resist any serious American incursions. Overall I just don't think the Celestial Alliance can really win. I just don't see what victory would look like beyond Status Quo Ante Bellum. Canada can't force the Americans out, the Turks aren't likely to push back into the Caucasus, and I think the Qing too concerned with stability/risk averse in general to risk a major offensive.
IMO the war with the United States doesn't seem like it's really about taking much of anything from the Americans as much as it as much as it responding to a challenge; rember that America effectively started the war, presumably betting that Britain wouldn't have the bollocks to actually do anything about it and if they did, then they would fold quickly rather than risk it, kind of like Spain did when the US joined that war.

But Britain actually declared war after a long, consistent series of American provocations and most importantly, increasingly aggressive moves toeard the empire and to British policy throughout the Western hemisphere. I think the tension came in three phases. The first phase after the war of 1812 but before the war of secession was mostly bluster and simmering Anglophobia. This often took the form of threatening war with British North America for various reasons, but the US by and large didn't actually intend to follow up on threats (like the Pig War). The second phase, around the mid 1800s, was more aggressive and involved issues related to American reactions toward European, and especially British (OTL's trouble with Spain and Cuba was more of a Confederate issue and was diffused early anyway. The third phase involved more serious threats of power projection over disputes, a naval build up and involvement in Latin America and now, a willingness to interfere in the Eastern hemisphere. The way I see it, the underhanded surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (lol) was something of a final straw and that is probably, one reason that the British public's enthusiasm for this war ppears so much greater than for the one with Russia (the other being the issue of the Armenians). It's kind of a "if we don't stand up and fight now then when?" sort of situation. Otl this tension between the two nations was surprisingly severe at the time but didn't get bad enough to cause a war and slowly diffused. Not the case here, with the USA's totally different foreign policy. This kind of behavior also doesn't play well with a Victorian Britain accustomed to certain rules and procedures that the Americans,at this point, basically couldn't care less about.

So I personally think victory against the US might simply look like taking the US down a peg by not yielding, hopefully so it won't try anything next time there's a dispute (like the Guyana border) , restoring security to the Pacfic, regaining rights forfeited in Latin America and of course, recovering Hawaii. Territorial gains are basically put of the question, save for Santo Domingo, which Britain likely didn't actually want. Finally, either side could demand exclusively ve rights to a canal in Panama or in Nicaragua.

While a bit of a bloody nose could snap the US back into isolationism though, I'm concerned that it might have the opposite effect....
 
Last edited:
IMO the war with the United States doesn't seem like it's really about taking much of anything from the Americans as much as it as much as it responding to a challenge; rember that America effectively started the war, presumably betting that Britain wouldn't have the bollocks to actually do anything about it and if they did, then they would fold quickly rather than risk it, kind of like Spain did when the US joined that war.

But Britain actually declared war after a long, consistent series of American provocations and most importantly, increasingly aggressive moves toeard the empire and to British policy throughout the Western hemisphere. The first phase after the war of 1812 but before the war of secession was mostly bluster and simmering Anglophobia. This often took the form of threatening war with British North America for various reasons. The second phase, around the mid 1800s, was more aggressive and involved issues related to American reactions toward European, and especially British (OTL's trouble with Spain and Cuba was more of a Confederate issue and was diffused early anyway. The third phase involved more serious threats of power projection over disputes, a naval build up and involvement in Latin America and now, a willingness to interfere in the Eastern hemisphere. The way I see it, the underhanded surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (lol) was something of a final straw and that is probably, one reason that the British public's enthusiasm for this war ppears so much greater than for the one with Russia (the other being the issue of the Armenians). It's kind of a "if we don't stand up and fight now then when?" sort of situation. Otl this tension between the two nations was surprisingly severe at the time but didn't get bad enough to cause a war and slowly diffused. Not the case here, with the USA's totally different foreign policy. This kind of behavior also doesn't play well with a Victorian Britain accustomed to certain rules and procedures that the Americans,at this point, basically couldn't care less about.

So I personally think victory against the US might simply look like taking the US down a peg by not yielding, hopefully so it won't try anything next time there's a dispute (like the Guyana border) , restoring security to the Pacfic, regaining rights forfeited in Latin America and of course, recovering Hawaii. Territorial gains are basically put of the question, save for Santo Domingo, which Britain likely didn't actually want. Finally, either side could demand exclusively ve rights to a canal in Panama or in Nicaragua.

While a bit of a bloody nose could snap the US back into isolationism though, I'm concerned that it might have the opposite effect....
Ohh I definitely agree with that last point. I can see any US that loses a war to Britain turning violently retributive. So much of America's national myth is based around the Revolution, that losing a war to the former colonial master would be a national humiliation on an unprecedented scale.
 
Ohh I definitely agree with that last point. I can see any US that loses a war to Britain turning violently retributive. So much of America's national myth is based around the Revolution, that losing a war to the former colonial master would be a national humiliation on an unprecedented scale.
And now with a third conflict, in an age of propaganda, jingoism and the peak of yellow journalism, it's pretty much guarenteed to be drastically reinforced. Once again, Britain would probably be portrayed as a classest, unprincipled (remember the Boxer incidents?) and perfidious empire with the additional stereotype here of the British being too multicultural (not that the term exists back then), mainly in response to their working with the hated Chinese. Now granted, the US wouldn't go all TL191 and swear doom on Britain and however the war ends, the US will come out reasonably OK. If Britain bombards any mainland US cities 1812 style, which at this point, is kind of the only good option for them, then yes, the US is going to resent it, but it is probably also the best and least costly way to get the Americans to start negotiating and letting the war drag on for a long time is likely to be much worse IMO.

Actually, Id expect that one positive thing that could come out of this is a mending of relations between protestants and catholics in the USA after the country comes to acknowledge the contribution of Catholic European immigrants in the war, many of whom would have served in the war side by side with protestant Yankees.
 
Last edited:
As always, thanks for everyone for well, discussing. In all honesty, I do a lot of things in my TLs without having any idea how they will actually end/turn out. I have some broad strokes for the future, but thing isn't well-planned out at all. I'm especially not sure how this war turns out.
 
Top