How did you live the war: Geo-Politics and Technology
- Thread starter Landshark
- Start date
Tetsu said:
Overall this would suggest that Texas went to war to annex Louisiana and was opposed by both Britain and Germany, thought the two European powers may not have been acting in concert.
From this it would seem that Texas attacked Louisiana which then recieved aid from Britain. However I'm sure Louisiana has been mentioned as a French client. It is though possible that Louisiana steered a course that kept both France and Britain onside and that during the initial Texan attack Louisiana turned to Britain for help as they were already engaged in America.
If Florida is a British ally/client and if there is some form of Texan/British annimosity then this makes sense. Britain would hardly want a potentially hostile nation so near it's Carribean colonies and clients, particularly if ICMAG favours Texas.
That could put a hostile power bloc running from the New Mexico border to the Atlantic.
It has been established that some of the balkanized north American powers have nuclear weapons albeit silo and bomber based ones. While both NA America and its individual power blocks are weaker than in OTL, I would imagine that more powerful ones would possess limited nuclear arms. These powers would probably be California, the great lakes confederation, the kingdom of new England, New York, the republic of Texas and possibly Pacifica, Virginia and the Carolinas. Each of these nations would be considered to be a regional power and have the technical/economic base comparable to middling European nations such as Italy or Spain (provided they exist in this TL)
As a result of the war, it sounds like the great lakes confederation will be disarmed and under the occupation of peacekeeping forces for quite some time. While a communist rebellion tentatively took over its territory, it seems as though either its neighbors intervened or it got involved in an ill advised war with multiple neighbors. The state of the Great Lakes confederation (as well as the Iowa free state) seems to be further worsened by the devastation of Chicago via bio-weapons and the emergence of a breakaway republic embodying upper Midwestern nationalism based in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Northern Illinois (although surprisingly not the UP, probably due to it being a principle base for Canadian and European peacekeepers.
The kingdom of New England sounds like a recalcitrant power, while they defeated their great rival the republic of New York, the war was costly in terms of blood and treasure, it awakened both lingering internal tensions and its not yet clear whether their gains were worth the cost. A lasting side affect of the war could mean the fall of its monarchy and possibly an international community brokered disarmament in exchange for economic investment, the forgiveness of debts and the ending of any tariffs or sanctions it garnered for its part in the war/human rights violations.
The Republic of New York seems to be a shattered shell of its former self, with hostile new Englanders occupying much of its eastern territories as well as most of its capital/principal city. If it had any Nuclear weapons I would imagine that they got neutralized in a first strike. The surviving government is probably based in Buffalo (whats left of it) and is heavily dependent on foreign assistance given it was both one of the wars principle battlegrounds and biggest losers.
The CSA or whatever it was until it fractured (provided it was more than the deep south) into multiple pieces may have had nuclear weapons but it was without a doubt the biggest loser because it no longer exists. Slavery seems to have ended as a side effect of losing the war, I would imagine that it is the worst off piece of NA due to the fact that A. it’s the most balkanized, B. it seems as if both Texas and Maryland took large territorial gains from it still quivering corpse.
Maryland was probably the wars biggest winner, it got large territorial gains with the help of its allies and appeared to have suffered very little damage to its core territories as a result of the war. My guess is that its going to spend the next few decades trying to establish centralized control over its war gains and attempt to become a counter to the Kingdom of New England’s regional dominance.
It sounds like California got some gains from the war but the war seems to have been an extremely expensive almost surreal endeavor of where dumb luck seemed to trump out right Californian incompetence and bluster.
Texas, while being militaristic and totalitarian, seems to have prospered taking over part of New Orleans, Louisiana and likely Arkansas as well. I’m quite frankly surprised they weren’t involved in a war with Mexico or whatever became of the territory it now occupies. Texas is probably NA’s strongest military power and is the probable instigator of NA’s next major war.
Pacifica seemed to have survived the war, battered but not broken. The Russians got a bloody nose, Pacifica got some national pride and the postwar period will be a time of reconstruction and reinvigorated nationalism. It seems likely that they will try to push further expansion into the northern great plains given their seeming power vacuum.
All the great plains states seem to have devolved into anarchy, the Iowa confederation is probably the strongest of the lot but the nascent “Wisconsin” could potentially deliver a crippling blow to its national sovereignty/viability. My guess is the remainder will fall into either Canada’s or Pacifia’s spheres of influence.
BTW on those maps Quebec should be marked as an independent nation as a series of posts have indicated that it exists and that it wasn’t conquered by triumphant Canadian forces although it could just be a case of politics interfering with cartography.
As a result of the war, it sounds like the great lakes confederation will be disarmed and under the occupation of peacekeeping forces for quite some time. While a communist rebellion tentatively took over its territory, it seems as though either its neighbors intervened or it got involved in an ill advised war with multiple neighbors. The state of the Great Lakes confederation (as well as the Iowa free state) seems to be further worsened by the devastation of Chicago via bio-weapons and the emergence of a breakaway republic embodying upper Midwestern nationalism based in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Northern Illinois (although surprisingly not the UP, probably due to it being a principle base for Canadian and European peacekeepers.
The kingdom of New England sounds like a recalcitrant power, while they defeated their great rival the republic of New York, the war was costly in terms of blood and treasure, it awakened both lingering internal tensions and its not yet clear whether their gains were worth the cost. A lasting side affect of the war could mean the fall of its monarchy and possibly an international community brokered disarmament in exchange for economic investment, the forgiveness of debts and the ending of any tariffs or sanctions it garnered for its part in the war/human rights violations.
The Republic of New York seems to be a shattered shell of its former self, with hostile new Englanders occupying much of its eastern territories as well as most of its capital/principal city. If it had any Nuclear weapons I would imagine that they got neutralized in a first strike. The surviving government is probably based in Buffalo (whats left of it) and is heavily dependent on foreign assistance given it was both one of the wars principle battlegrounds and biggest losers.
The CSA or whatever it was until it fractured (provided it was more than the deep south) into multiple pieces may have had nuclear weapons but it was without a doubt the biggest loser because it no longer exists. Slavery seems to have ended as a side effect of losing the war, I would imagine that it is the worst off piece of NA due to the fact that A. it’s the most balkanized, B. it seems as if both Texas and Maryland took large territorial gains from it still quivering corpse.
Maryland was probably the wars biggest winner, it got large territorial gains with the help of its allies and appeared to have suffered very little damage to its core territories as a result of the war. My guess is that its going to spend the next few decades trying to establish centralized control over its war gains and attempt to become a counter to the Kingdom of New England’s regional dominance.
It sounds like California got some gains from the war but the war seems to have been an extremely expensive almost surreal endeavor of where dumb luck seemed to trump out right Californian incompetence and bluster.
Texas, while being militaristic and totalitarian, seems to have prospered taking over part of New Orleans, Louisiana and likely Arkansas as well. I’m quite frankly surprised they weren’t involved in a war with Mexico or whatever became of the territory it now occupies. Texas is probably NA’s strongest military power and is the probable instigator of NA’s next major war.
Pacifica seemed to have survived the war, battered but not broken. The Russians got a bloody nose, Pacifica got some national pride and the postwar period will be a time of reconstruction and reinvigorated nationalism. It seems likely that they will try to push further expansion into the northern great plains given their seeming power vacuum.
All the great plains states seem to have devolved into anarchy, the Iowa confederation is probably the strongest of the lot but the nascent “Wisconsin” could potentially deliver a crippling blow to its national sovereignty/viability. My guess is the remainder will fall into either Canada’s or Pacifia’s spheres of influence.
BTW on those maps Quebec should be marked as an independent nation as a series of posts have indicated that it exists and that it wasn’t conquered by triumphant Canadian forces although it could just be a case of politics interfering with cartography.
OK, I've charted out (speculatively) the course of the war, through a series of maps of incalculable awfulness, written up on Paint. Just use them as rough guides, and avert your eyes if possible. Some of what I've said contradicts what Landshark has said, but it ends in reasonably the same position.
OK, here we go:
1997
New England and Quebec invade New York; New England after a border incident and because of historic rivalries, Quebec to stop New England from getting there first.
1998
Vermont Revolt begins, with partisan fighting from the so-called VC, Vermont Comms, disrupting New England war efforts. Quebec and New England are still allied, but this is becoming increasingly fragile.
1999
Quebec declare war on New England over division of New York's territory. VC rebels seize Montpelier and much of southern Vermont, and declare the Second Vermont Republic. Elections are held, with the Vermont Socialist Party (the political wing of the secessionists) beating the Liberals (former New England Whigs, who dominated New England politics; the Whig Party in Vermont split, with the main body boycotting the elections), against allegations of vote-rigging. See map.
2000
The fighting in Maine forces both Quebec and New England to scale down their commitments in New York. New York launches a counter-offensive into Connecticut, due to the drain on New England resources by the continuing wars against Vermont and Quebec. See map.
2001
The Vermont Republic is defeated, with Governor Dean, leader of the Socialist Party, killed in the Battle of Montpelier. The casualties incurred, however, prove disastrous, as Quebecois and New Yorker forces advance deeper into New England. The winter, however, proves decisive, as the badly-equipped New Yorker and Quebecois forces cannot keep up their logistics lines. In the Battle of Boston, both armies are defeated by the combined German-British forces, and forced to retreat. To make matters worse, the Canadian forces, previously deployed in Pacifica, launch a massive invasion of Quebec at the Battle of Montreal. See map.
2002
Quebec is rapidly forced out of New England. New Yorker forces are forced into a long retreat by the regrouping New Englanders. See map.
2003
Quebec falls to Canada. New York is finally expelled from New England. The strain of the war, coupled with its failure to retake New York City, means its economy is on the point of collapse. See map.
2004
New England launches a massive invasion of New York, and is only stopped once the angry British Commonwealth, now free from its Quebec commitments, forces them to halt their advance through force. However, to prevent a war with German forces (who are aiding New England), the British do not press their advantage further. See map.
2005
The Treaty of San Francisco is signed. Since New England are the victorious power, New York admits its war guilt, even though this is disputed. New England is forced to pay reparations to Britain, but keeps its captured territory to avoid a British-German war.
Yes, I know much of what I've said doesn't stack up with what's been discussed, but I think it's reasonably in line with the thread.
Now, for the pictures. The horrible, horrible pictures. Which I'll space out over several responses.
OK, here we go:
1997
New England and Quebec invade New York; New England after a border incident and because of historic rivalries, Quebec to stop New England from getting there first.
1998
Vermont Revolt begins, with partisan fighting from the so-called VC, Vermont Comms, disrupting New England war efforts. Quebec and New England are still allied, but this is becoming increasingly fragile.
1999
Quebec declare war on New England over division of New York's territory. VC rebels seize Montpelier and much of southern Vermont, and declare the Second Vermont Republic. Elections are held, with the Vermont Socialist Party (the political wing of the secessionists) beating the Liberals (former New England Whigs, who dominated New England politics; the Whig Party in Vermont split, with the main body boycotting the elections), against allegations of vote-rigging. See map.
2000
The fighting in Maine forces both Quebec and New England to scale down their commitments in New York. New York launches a counter-offensive into Connecticut, due to the drain on New England resources by the continuing wars against Vermont and Quebec. See map.
2001
The Vermont Republic is defeated, with Governor Dean, leader of the Socialist Party, killed in the Battle of Montpelier. The casualties incurred, however, prove disastrous, as Quebecois and New Yorker forces advance deeper into New England. The winter, however, proves decisive, as the badly-equipped New Yorker and Quebecois forces cannot keep up their logistics lines. In the Battle of Boston, both armies are defeated by the combined German-British forces, and forced to retreat. To make matters worse, the Canadian forces, previously deployed in Pacifica, launch a massive invasion of Quebec at the Battle of Montreal. See map.
2002
Quebec is rapidly forced out of New England. New Yorker forces are forced into a long retreat by the regrouping New Englanders. See map.
2003
Quebec falls to Canada. New York is finally expelled from New England. The strain of the war, coupled with its failure to retake New York City, means its economy is on the point of collapse. See map.
2004
New England launches a massive invasion of New York, and is only stopped once the angry British Commonwealth, now free from its Quebec commitments, forces them to halt their advance through force. However, to prevent a war with German forces (who are aiding New England), the British do not press their advantage further. See map.
2005
The Treaty of San Francisco is signed. Since New England are the victorious power, New York admits its war guilt, even though this is disputed. New England is forced to pay reparations to Britain, but keeps its captured territory to avoid a British-German war.
Yes, I know much of what I've said doesn't stack up with what's been discussed, but I think it's reasonably in line with the thread.
Now, for the pictures. The horrible, horrible pictures. Which I'll space out over several responses.
Last edited:
2003...the war begins to turn...
Actually, I'm not sure if New England should carve so much of out New York afterwards, and especially keep it. The thread specifies that New England keeps New York, and King Gorilla's version of events involves much of New York being occupied, but that contradicts Landshark to some degree. What do you think?
Actually, I'm not sure if New England should carve so much of out New York afterwards, and especially keep it. The thread specifies that New England keeps New York, and King Gorilla's version of events involves much of New York being occupied, but that contradicts Landshark to some degree. What do you think?
Ok...
Let's state what we know about Texas Louisiana War...
Participants:
Texas, Louisiana, ICMAG, Florida, Britain, Germany
Cause: Texas tries to annex Louisiana
Sides:
Texas, Britain & Florida, vs. ICMAG, Louisiana, and Germany???
Later:
Britain, ICMAG & Germany Vs. Texas & Neo Klan
Battles: Siege of Vicksburg, Siege of Baton Rouge
That's what I got out of it...
Let's state what we know about Texas Louisiana War...
Participants:
Texas, Louisiana, ICMAG, Florida, Britain, Germany
Cause: Texas tries to annex Louisiana
Sides:
Texas, Britain & Florida, vs. ICMAG, Louisiana, and Germany???
Later:
Britain, ICMAG & Germany Vs. Texas & Neo Klan
Battles: Siege of Vicksburg, Siege of Baton Rouge
That's what I got out of it...
Kidblast said:
I really need to finish going through the posts, but I think that who is on who's side is way off.
Definately Britian and ICMAG were not on the same side at any time. Britian was backing the Neo-Klan against ICMAG and Germany was helping ICMAG against Britian and the Neo-Klan. My guess is that Britian simply wanted to keep ICMAG tied up at home (sound reasonable?), that's the only way I can see the Brits backing someone like the Neo-Klan. Texas was also backing the Neo-Klan.
Will search more on this area.
Kidblast said:
Yes, post #262, right after this in post #261 about British concentration camps in Mississippi.
SionEwig said:
Then of course there was this from post #148 which was yours. Seems to put Britian and Texas on the same side early on. And the Germans against both.
Kidblast said:
So it could be taken (and would make some sense I guess), that perhaps ICMAG was supporting/allied with Louisiana and the Neo-Klan support by Texas and Britian was to keep ICMAG busy and not able to help Louisiana much.
I was also thinking that the British may have supported Tennessee in a moderate invasion of North Mississippi, in an attempt perhaps to draw off pressure during the siege of Baton Rouge. It sounds odd, but most of the leadership in Memphis really doesn't like north Mississippi IRL.