Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.

Tags:
  1. eschaton Muckraker & Rabblerouser

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Mexico's winning of the war depends entirely upon if their allies can win their own theaters, and how much territory they hold at settlement. However, given Mexico is stronger ITTL, and the DSA is smaller than the USA, I'd say the DSA starts out a favorite, but Mexico is no slouch. I'd expect either a stalemate along most of the fronts (after the surprise of the initial assault) or else the DSA makes some headway, but doesn't march on to Mexico City. Either way, I don't think they'll take too much more from TTL's Mexico, as I really don't think they want to be troubled with a restive Mexican population. I think they'd be more likely to ask for Nicaragua for the canal than OTL's South Texas.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2011
  2. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    No, it is not bad. It is good.

    Don't they have most of it now?:confused:
     
  3. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    [​IMG]

    With war fever spreading across the globe, the United States stood in odd quietude. However, some Americans were not content to stand on the sidelines as the world erupted in fire. While some of the volunteeers would be absorbed into the armies of Germany, France, and Britain, some did not come as individuals, but whole units. Many Americans had family roots in Europe and felt the pull of defending the liberal West against the Korsgaardist East. Very few were interested in fighting for the Korsgaardian regimes, and were seen as suspect by them even if they were so inclined. However, when the war expanded to their own doorstep in Texas, many more Yankees headed for the South to fight off the Mexican invasion.
     
  4. SpazzReflex Induce vomiting if contacted

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Location:
    The Pit

    You're in the Nick Roosevelt Brigade. In The United States of China. Facing a charge of Chuen Infantry. And all you have is a hammer....

    I love the idea already.

    Now that I think of it, What might the USA gain out of this battle (If it gets involved)? Could America snag a few Pacific Islands or Parts of Russia?
     
  5. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    Not the portion known as Russian Karelia
     
  6. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Yes, they are being wildly overenthusiastic in some respects, though not in all. Note that the big powers of France and Britain don't lose anything territorially. Germany, Italy, and the Roman Republic are in some ways very recent entities, existing only 40 years at most in their current forms. There is a degree of Racism operating in their assumptions of defeating the Ottomans (completely unwarranted, I might add). The biggest stretches are in their claims on Scandinavia, interestingly enough. Note that the Russians are pushing for access to the North Sea and the Mediterranean as their major war objectives. This was always their best case scenario plans for expansion, but they thought they would have more time and surprise on their side. I should also add that the West has presented their 'dream' plans as their absolute war aims, thus making them look more grandiose than they might be.
     
  7. Mac Gregor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Yeah, this makes the most sense for the United States. While it would be cool to see them get into the war, there is no plausible reason for them to do so. I see them sitting it out, like they have been doing sense independence, and making a lot of money off selling arms and loans to the west. By the war’s end, I think the United States' position in the world will have gone up dramatically like in OTL even if they don’t become involved militarily.
     
  8. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    It would make things interesting, now, wouldn't it?
     
  9. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    [​IMG]

    The second year of the Global War, 1890, would later be referred to as "The Year of Blood" due to the loss of life during this phase of the war. With the further introduction of smokeless gunpowder and rapid fired automatically reloading guns on both sides, the balance of the war swung to the defense. While the Eastern powers in Europe could not be pushed out of the land they had invaded during this year, they also could not make progress further. This stalemate was most prevalent in the European theater, with others across the globe having more or less fluid lines depending on the terrain, weapons available, and manpower involved in the fight. The Western Powers, though chafing at the occupation of their lands, settled for the time on a policy of strong defense believing that time would favor them and weaken their opponents. The Eastern powers seemed equally concerned that without further advance, the war would swing ot the West's favor, and launched a number of offensives to try to break through, most of which met little success. By the end of 1890, the losses were far greater on the part of the East than the West.
     
  10. bolhabela Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Location:
    Csikszereda
    Oh, this is going to be epic!
     
  11. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    Ah, interesting. It'll be interesting to see what this war does to the US Korsgaardian Party. To paraphrase a well-known song, "I predict McCarthyism, I predict McCarthyism"
     
  12. stevep Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Glen

    This seems to suggest that there's only one year of fairly total stalemate. [Since it refers to a year of blood]. Wonder what happens, presuming I'm right, to break the grip of the defence. Even with a more advanced technology than OTL I think its really too early for a practical tank type vehicle. However could have serious internal discontent in one or more power, Germany because of the occupation of parts of it or one of the eastern powers because of the heavy losses suffered. Or a Gallipoli like operation, probably by the western powers, to turn a defensive position. Another option might be a major breakthrough by either side in China or one of the more thinly populated regions where trench warfare is probably more difficult. Although in such areas the gains are likely to be substantially less important strategically.

    Good for the western powers that their able to realise that with new weapons coming in the defence has the edge and hence to hold their lines rather than retake occupied areas. This could also be useful for the DSA as it means that Britain is likely to be able to give substantial support to defeating the Mexican attack. A lot would depend on the relative resources available but being probably outnumbered, heavily outclassed industrially and with long exposed coastlines Mexico could come under heavy pressure very quickly, especially if the centralising nature of the Korsgaardians prompt separatist instincts in some of the Mexican provinces.

    Steve
     
  13. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Hope springs eternal - why might you hope such a thing?:rolleyes:
     
  14. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ah, but they are divided per the feverish dreams of dominion by the Eastern powers.;)

    As Steve noted, this is somewhat due to the division that is being proposed being along religious and ethnic lines. Therefore Serbia goes to the Russian sphere.

    The West considers them pretty European, the East considers them Oriental barbarians and heathens. Therefore the Eastern Powers think it is reasonable (should they succeed in all particulars) whereas the West is highly unlikely to accept these terms.

    The East sees it as only fitting. Before the Liberal War of the 1850s, Prussia and Austria vied for dominance of this very region. They see it as their natural right to rule these German lands, but now instead of all, they seek to divide the Germans very roughly between them based on both Geography and Religion, with some exceptions (Prussia sees redemption of the Rhineland as an imperative even though it is predominantly Catholic).

    The Eastern Powers were plotting this only if they experienced complete victory - they had more modest gains planned as well - however, oddly enough, it was their most grandiose schemes that were publicized by the West, go figure.:rolleyes:



    Redemption of Finland would just be a return of the status quo before the Liberal War. Taking part of Denmark (or all of it in this scenario) is quite frankly over-reaching, but if they could take it, even part of it, they could gain the much coveted outlet to the Atlantic.

    See above.

    As mentioned, these are not meant to be realistic war objectives, but rather what they would do if they defeated their enemies abjectly. These are the pie-in-the-sky dreams of the Eastern Powers. They were never meant for publication, and were not even seriously felt to be entirely acheivable. However, they were perfect for the propaganda needs of the West.
     
  15. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    [​IMG]

    At the beginning of the Global War, the British Royal Navy was the largest in the world, and had been known for centuries for naval innovation, as evinced in recent decades by their use of newer, stronger armor. However, the average age of ships of the Royal Navy was the oldest in the world, and no other navy tried to cover as many regions as the British, so that while in absolute terms the largest navy, they often faced local inferiority in numbers. By the close of 1889, two disasters for the Royal Navy would have the Admiralty rethinking the policies of the British Navy.

    Off the coasts of Mexico, the Shark Ships had proven surprisingly effective in warding off the larger, more heavily armed, British Battleships. While the brave Mexican navy faced horrendous casualties, as even one hit would usually mean the destruction of a Shark Ship, their speed, maneuverability, and ability to launch sharks that could cripple and even sink the larger battleships with but a few hits meant that the British were often forced to retire from the battle, with only their superior armor and endurance allowing them to escape.

    In the Far East, the Russian Navy had played a game of 'keep-away' from British forces for most of the year, bolstering British confidence in their superiority. What the British didn't know was that the Russian fleet was waiting for the completion of reloading their ships with new, smokeless shells. When the Russian fleet suddenly turned on the British and went on the offensive with clear lines of sight for their long range guns due to the lack of billuous smoke, whereas the British within a few salvos lost clear targeting on the Russian fleet. The British lost more ships and men in the Battle of the Japanese Straits (sometimes called Korean Straits) than they had in over a century.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. General_Finley Liberty Prime

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    OH MY GOD!!

    I love seeing British Naval dominance challenged by my homeland (Mexico)!
     
  17. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Indeed you can. I am glad that you have so much enjoyed your cameo.

    Indeed, a salient point! I would point out that the Central Powers in WWI had some pretty ambitious war aims and goals (Mitteleurope anyone? The recarving of Africa?). But as you say, we will not go into that too much here.

    Exactly!

    Yep, that is what should be of more interest, agreed.
     
  18. Vosem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Location:
    Real America
    Let's go Russia!
     
  19. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thank you! Praise is always welcome!!

    An understandable position.

    Yes and No. Naples is actually pretty liberal, and a supporter of the Roman Republic, among other reasons as a buffer to Northern Italian dreams of unification. Hellas has close ties to the British, and the Russians have no intention of letting them have Istanbul, which would be about the only thing that would entice them enough to join the Eastern Powers - granted, if the West looked like it was utterly crumbling, they might jump on board at the end for table scraps.

    And in the eventuality of an actual Eastern victory, it probably would be less. But these are the dreams of avarice, the best case scenario, a working out among the Eastern powers of what they would be willing to see the other get.

    Well, Russia is interested in Serbia for themselves.

    At least, but they probably would want somewhat more than that.

    Assuming Naples gets involved...

    Yes, they would likely.

    Well, yes.

    Naw, this is Tsarist Russia on Steroids. They would rule directly.

    But they still dream of some access to the Atlantic directly.

    Wow, and I thought my war aims map was ambitious! Of course, you are doing much as what was attempted in WWI. If they were to join, it would be a possibility as a promise, but again, I think it is unlikely to be realized.

    Yeah, in the case of an epic fail by the West, I think that is a possibility, though not a likelihood.

    Yes.

    I actually think not. Taking part of France would make for an even harder peace and would be minor compared to all the other gains. The Eastern powers think they can get away with some or in the event of absolute victory, all, of these war aims because they are targeting the secondary powers, not the big two of France and Britain. Although, again, I am gratified that you can dream even further than the Eastern powers!

    Be sure that Russia is eying that territory.

    Time will tell....

    I suppose it is possible....

    Thanks again!

    As do many - but so far, I think you are the only one who has more ambitious ones!:D
     
  20. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    They are the top end of war aims, and I agree it is unlikely to all come to pass.