Questions about my alternate World War after a CSA victory concept

Without imperial ambitions? Really? What about the Ostend Manifesto? Or the filibusters? Or the 1860 southern Democratic Party platform.



Why would slavery fail for economic reasons? Mechanical cotton pickers only became generally available in the 1950s in OTL. And owning slaves was a status symbol.



Then they'd want to stay well away from any alliance with the CSA. Even if the Confederate government doesn't directly support them, CSA filibusters are going to be doing things in Central America and the Caribbean that the British don't approve of. Plus slave smuggling will put the CSA directly into conflict with the British anti-slavery patrols.

More importantly by doing so it may well wind up fight both the US and the UK! :eek::eek::eek:
 
Why would slavery fail for economic reasons? Mechanical cotton pickers only became generally available in the 1950s in OTL. And owning slaves was a status symbol.

With competition from Egyptian cotton the price drops and slavery is too expensive.
Share cropping is more profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil
"The boll weevil infestation has been credited with bringing about economic diversification in the southern US, including the expansion of peanut cropping. The citizens of Enterprise, Alabama erected the Boll Weevil Monument in 1919, perceiving that their economy had been overly dependent on cotton, and that mixed farming and manufacturing were better alternative"

Then they'd want to stay well away from any alliance with the CSA. Even if the Confederate government doesn't directly support them, CSA filibusters are going to be doing things in Central America and the Caribbean that the British don't approve of. Plus slave smuggling will put the CSA directly into conflict with the British anti-slavery patrols.

Importing Slaves in to the CSA was illegal during the civil war as it was before the civil war.

Smuggled slaves were heading for Brazil.

Without a strong central government there is no in the CSA one inserted in creating an empire.
The French had anti slavery patrols too.

What are the CSA going to do in central and south America that would annoy the British?
 
Last edited:
With competition from Egyptian cotton the price drops and slavery is too expensive.
Share cropping is more profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil
"The boll weevil infestation has been credited with bringing about economic diversification in the southern US, including the expansion of peanut cropping. The citizens of Enterprise, Alabama erected the Boll Weevil Monument in 1919, perceiving that their economy had been overly dependent on cotton, and that mixed farming and manufacturing were better alternative"



Importing Slaves in to the CSA was illegal during the civil war as it was before the civil war.

Smuggled slaves were heading for Brazil.

Without a strong central government there is no in the CSA one inserted in creating an empire in the CSA.

The French had anti slavery patrols too.

What are the CSA going to do in central and south America that would annoy the British?

The boll weevil would not have stopped slavery as the planters would have the slaves work other crops instead.

The CSA claimed every slave state as its own whether the people there wanted to be in the CSA or not, invaded AZ and was in talks with Mexico about trying to acquire Mexican land. In fact the war broke out largely because the South wanted its "fair share" of the western territories.

Southerners did a lot of filibustering in Central America before the war and there is a decent likelihood they would have tried again after the war was over.
 
The boll weevil would not have stopped slavery as the planters would have the slaves work other crops instead.

The CSA claimed every slave state as its own whether the people there wanted to be in the CSA or not, invaded AZ and was in talks with Mexico about trying to acquire Mexican land. In fact the war broke out largely because the South wanted its "fair share" of the western territories.

Southerners did a lot of filibustering in Central America before the war and there is a decent likelihood they would have tried again after the war was over.

Not sure what you mean by filibustering.

I never said that the boll weevil would would stop slavery.

edit
The CSA government can hardly be held accountable for the action of private mercenaries in south, central America or else where.
 
Last edited:
With competition from Egyptian cotton the price drops and slavery is too expensive.

No, that merely means growing cotton is less profitable. And the things that the other half of the slaves were doing are just as profitable as ever. Any slaveholder who fails due to the boll weevil will not set his slaves free, he will sell them to pay his debts.

Importing Slaves in to the CSA was illegal during the civil war as it was before the civil war.

An estimated 50,000 were smuggled into the slaveholding states of the US between the 1808 ban on the international slave trade and the end of slavery in the US. The Clotilde, the Wanderer, and the Erie were just some of the ship involved.

Without a strong central government there is no in the CSA one inserted in creating an empire.

This is demonstratably false. I already mentioned William Walker and filibusters in general. Other examples are John Quitman and Mansfield Lovell. I also mentioned the Ostend Manifesto. There were also the Knights of the Golden Circle.

What are the CSA going to do in central and south America that would annoy the British?

I said filibusters from the CSA would be acting in Central America and the Caribbean. They would be doing what southern filibusters did, trying to overthrow existing governments and install pro-slavery regimes.
 
Calm down people. I started this thread and if you all are just going to use it to argue I'll have it locked. Now its true that many southerners wanted to expand into central america but in my TL they will not have to power to do so let alone try so thats not an issue I wish to discuss. Also I'll handle slavery within my TL on my own. Please focus on the questions I have already asked in my previous posts thank you.

To add on I think that the best way to introduce organized crime into Africa would be to have Irish and Italian mobsters immigrate there post war. How might I accomplish this? Could I have the Allies send Irish troops ad the CPs send Italian troops to Africa and then have some decide to stay and create their own niche there?
 
Last edited:
To add on I think that the best way to introduce organized crime into Africa would be to have Irish and Italian mobsters immigrate there post war. How might I accomplish this? Could I have the Allies send Irish troops ad the CPs send Italian troops to Africa and then have some decide to stay and create their own niche there?

The Irish were all over Africa at this time in the police British army and running schools, hospitals, Police and mercenaries.
Possible Irish deserters from the British army as the British withdraw for the colonies in Africa.
I thought that Italy was neutral.
 
Last edited:
Churchill resigns as he is blamed for the American invasion of Ireland.

Churchill never regains high office again.

Who is this Churchill of which you speak? British intervention in the ACW will butterfly the trend of American heiresses marrying British aristocrats for at least a generation, so Lord Randolph Churchill will not be marrying Jennie Jerome in 1873. While Lord Randolph will almost certainly marry and may even name his oldest son Winston, that man will not be the Winston Churchill of OTL.
 
Who is this Churchill of which you speak? British intervention in the ACW will butterfly the trend of American heiresses marrying British aristocrats for at least a generation, so Lord Randolph Churchill will not be marrying Jennie Jerome in 1873. While Lord Randolph will almost certainly marry and may even name his oldest son Winston, that man will not be the Winston Churchill of OTL.
Agreed, I don't plan on having OTL's Churchill in my TL.
 
on the Ireland front.
Michael Collins does not get killed in the Irish civil war as the civil war never happens because Ireland is not partitioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_(Irish_leader)
Portrait_of_Miche%C3%A1l_%C3%93_Coile%C3%A1in.jpg
 
Reviewing Africa's tribes and borders

"

UNLIKE hyphenated Americans, most Africans are not mere ethnics who wear funny hats and eat indigestible food on the national day of their old country. They are proud tribes people. They honour their ancestors, respect traditional customs and have a strong sense of solidarity with fellow members of their tribe. Yet any mention by outside commentators of tribalism in twenty-first century Africa is taboo, unless it is a mocking reference to the 'white tribe' which dominated the continent's southern tip during the apartheid era.
So Robert Guest, one of the best and brightest of the younger generation of journalists on my old paper, The Economist, must be congratulated. He is a brave man when he confronts tribalism directly in the longest and strongest chapter of his new book, The Shackled Continent (Macmillan, [pounds sterling]20.00. ISBN 1-4050-3388-6). Most Africans, he writes incontrovertibly yet controversially, 'feel more loyalty to their tribe than to the young nation-states of which they are citizens'.
A main reason for this non-national loyalty is obvious, and oddly, given the aversion to any mention of tribalism, is accepted by everybody who takes an interest in Africa. All agree to the following. The borders of African countries were drawn up arbitrarily by the European powers during the age of imperialism. In consequence, national boundaries cut through the middle of some tribes, and place parts of them in two or more countries. Worse still, insensitive borders sometimes compel tribes that hate each other to share a country. The colonial powers made bad matters worse by exploiting, and so widening, tribal differences. They did this in part on the old imperial divide-and-rule principle and in part because they favoured some tribes over others. The British, in particular, had a fondness for 'warrior tribes' in Africa, the Hausa of Nigeria, the Masai of Kenya, the Ndebele of then Southern Rhodesia and so on, just as they had for the 'martial' Gurkhas and Sikhs on the Indian sub-continent.
The solution seems plain: why not, at least in extreme instances of ethnic tension, consider redrawing boundaries so that they are based on modern African realities rather than past European colonial fantasies? Here even Guest has lost his nerve, just as I lost mine on the same issue when I wrote a lengthy article on Africa for The Economist about ten years ago. Neither of us was willing to question the territorial status quo--to suggest that there might just be a case for some adjustments in the map of Africa. As Guest writes: 'African countries have themselves determined not to tamper with the colonial borders, for fear that this might spark new conflicts, rather than end old ones.'
Any outsider who questions this decision risks being labelled a reactionary, if not a racist by Africans. Debate is just as inhibited in the United Nations, where the old colonial powers sometimes seem even more determined than the Africans themselves to avoid what is pejoratively called Balkanisation of Africa. Indeed, in the mid-twentieth century, when the imperial powers became more well-meaning and less exploitative, Britain promoted the precise opposite of Balkanisation. It aimed instead for the 'Yugoslavation' of Africa through regional groupings of its colonial territories. Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) were combined by Whitehall into the Central African Federation: an arrangement that fragmented within a decade. The looser grouping of Tanganyika (now Tanzania), Uganda and Kenya proved no more durable. Post-colonial Nigeria remained united but only after one million lives were lost in a civil war in which Western governments financed the central government's offensive against the secessionist eastern province of Biafra. Ditto in the ex-Belgian Congo, where secessionist Katanga was forced back into the fold.
This is not to sneer at the generally well-intentioned outside powers which promoted such amalgamations. In an ideal world it would make sense for African countries not just to retain their existing boundaries but to co-operate more with their neighbours. For, as Guest eloquently argues, tribe and state should be separated in African countries just as faith and state are separated in the United States. Governments, he writes, should not discriminate on grounds of ethnicity. Civil servants should be recruited on merit alone. State contracts should be awarded to bidders who offer the best value for money. Aid to the poor should go to the poor, not to the rich members of ethnic groups that are, on average, poor. One can only say 'amen'.
As he concedes, his vision may be 'hopelessly idealistic'. In the real world, as opposed to Guest's Utopian one, tribalism remains the most potent political force in Africa. That is not to say that all divisions in African countries are as extreme as those in, say, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, where the Shona are fed and the Ndebele starved. Or indeed in Sudan, where the Islamic Arabs in the north are no more likely to make common purpose with the Christian Africans in the south than the Israelis are to befriend the Palestinians. But it is to say that in many African countries neither politicians nor their constituents feel much sense of national identity. A politician expects, and is expected, to favour members of his own tribe. Far from being deplored, nepotism is applauded.
Only a few countries are immune from the virus. In some, like Tanzania, tribal communities were shattered by the depredations of the slave trade. In consequence, the tribes are now so weak and numerous that they have only a marginal influence at the national level. Other countries, like Botswana, are granted immunity by the fact that almost everybody belongs to associated tribes and speaks the same language.
The trend in some other African countries is mostly in the right direction, away from tribalism and toward a shared national identity. South Africa, the continent's most successful big economy, is the most important case in point. Inspired by such extraordinarily enlightened leaders as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and F.W. de Klerk, people of all tribes and races there are learning to rub along together. Which is just as well, since they have no sensible alternative. Indians and Zulus, Xhosas and coloureds, Anglos and Afrikaners are so geographically and economically integrated that they could not be parted without catastrophic consequences. It is now obvious even to the Afrikaners that the apartheid fantasy of a South Africa split up into tribal homelands, known as Bantustans, was bound eventually to collapse under what Marxists would term its own contradictions.
In some other African countries redrawn boundaries are conceivable but undesirable. Zimbabwe, perhaps surprisingly is among them despite the apparently strong case for the formation of an independent Matabeleland along the lines of the quasi-tribal southern African states of Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. The widening of tribal divisions in Zimbabwe between the dominant Shona and the cowed Ndbele are largely a result of Mr Mugabe's exploitation of atavistic forces. When this increasingly rancid dictator finally goes, voluntarily or involuntarily, there is still a chance that Zimbabwe will be able to rebuild its once enviably strong civil society and that tribal differences will narrow again.
But in some African countries a redrafting of boundaries could do more good than harm. Not, unfortunately, in Rwanda. After the Holocaust of 1994, its Tutsi and Hutu people have good reason to distrust each other but their lives are so closely interwoven in one of the most densely populated areas of Africa that new borders are impractical. Sudan, fortunately, has more room to manoeuvre. The hatred between its Arab/Islamic north and its Christian/animist black south is palpable. Even African nations are now ready to concede, however reluctantly, that there is an argument for new frontiers drawn along racial/tribal/religious lines. If all goes according to the current peace plan, the people of the south will eventually be given the opportunity in a referendum to vote on whether or not they want to form an independent country.
Similar plebiscites ought also to be considered in Nigeria, the most populous country in black Africa and the most powerful after South Africa. The main argument against a break-up is by now tired and discredited. During the forty years since Nigeria gained independence from Britain, the one-Nigeria lobby has incessantly argued that if its oil-rich parts were allowed to break up they would monopolise the oil revenues and leave less lucky regions destitute.
Somehow they are unable to see that Nigerians are destitute anyway. As Guest notes, between 1974, when oil prices soared, and 1998, Nigeria received some $280 billion in oil revenues. 'Through corruption, waste and foolish investments, governments squandered the lot. In fact, since they borrowed billions against future oil revenues and squandered that money too, it is fair to say that Nigeria blew more than all of its windfall. By 1998 Nigerians were poorer than when the oil boom began.'
Surely, in such circumstances, the possibility of a new beginning could at least serve to concentrate minds. Nigerians need to ask themselves whether the existing borders make sense; whether the 130 million people who now call themselves Nigerians would not be better off if they were divided into three nations based on its northern, western and eastern regions. For each of these regions has a shared sense of identity that Nigeria as a whole lacks.
Other Africans states riven by tribal loyalties could also usefully contemplate a correction of the old colonial boundaries. As Nigeria's sad experience has shown, it does not make much sense for countries to operate on the premise that their people share a national identity when the premise is patently false. Disunity is undesirable. It ought to be resisted, but not at all costs. Sometimes unity saps strength."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1663_285/ai_n6172492/?tag=content;col1
 
Thanks BELFAST!

I've got a few new ideas and those maps give me a few others to. So firstly I'd like to make some revisions to what I want to add to my TL.

  • I'd like to have Maximillian’s adopted children marry into Brazil's royal family and I'd like to see if I can make if plausible for either or both countries making there own claims in Africa. I've read on other board that its possible Brazil could have purchase portions of Portugal's colonies so I'd like to use that but I can't decide which colony to divide yet. Also I imagine that if that’s possible then Maximillian might be able to purchase land in Africa from the French if he still stays loyal to them.
  • I’m thinking about having Kaiser Wilhelm I killed in an explosion that he survived in OTL at the Strassberg railway station in 1883. This will allow Fredrick III to stay in power longer before his death. One poster told me that this may lead to Germany making claims to Africa earlier than OTL. So with a year ahead of OTL’s Germany I wonder if Fredrick could make larger claims as well. Also I’m told Fredrick would have improved British-German relations if he had been in power longer so this POD may justify Britain’s intervention in WW1 and the second Franco-German war I’m considering.
  • I’m considering on perhaps having a second Spanish-American war as well. I’ve stated before that I plan on having one in the 1870s that frees Cuba but at this time I doubt the USA could then go and fight for claims in the Philipeans as it did in OTL during 1900. So in this TL I’d like to have America aid Russia in the Russo-Japanese war helping it win the war and then have the victorious Russia and USA then somehow go and make war on Spain for claims in the Philippians. They then win this war to due to Spain still having the weaknesses it did in OTL at this time and America make an additional claim in Africa for Equatorial Guinea. I’ve also considered having them take Spanish Morocco and then give it to Morocco due to them also having an alliance in my TL but I don’t know how this may upset the balance in the Mediterranean.
  • I like your earlier post on how to start a different WWI but I'd rather not have it in the same year as OTLs. I think that having it start in perhaps 1915 would be better.
  • I'd like the Spanish Flu impact the course of the war more than OTL but I'm not sure how to handle that in my TL. According to studies of the flu the virus that evolved into it most likely originated in Kansas and then mutated after US troops where shipped to France. With this in mind I think it may be possible to have the flu pop up sooner in this TL if I have US troops moved to France near the start of the war. The thing is that I'm afraid a thing such as this is very susceptible to butterflies. Ideas?
  • I'd like to change the actions of Britain in my TL and have it initially stay out of the war but eventually come in on Germany's side. This way the Allies and CPs will be on more even ground initially. Then after Britain joins Germany they use there navies to make are large attacks on the coasts of Frances African Colonies, arm rebels in that area, and help them form nation states on the coast to help weaken France. This way the North-West African coast in this TL will look similar to today’s with many small countries on it.
Do you have any ideas on how this could all be worked together into one TL? Preferably in a plausible wya but if you don't think it can say so.
 
Thanks BELFAST!
I'd like to have Maximillian’s adopted children marry into Brazil's royal family and I'd like to see if I can make if

plausible for either or both countries making there own claims in Africa. I've read on other board that its possible

Brazil could have purchase portions of Portugal's colonies so I'd like to use that but I can't decide which colony to

divide yet. Also I imagine that if that’s possible then Maximillian might be able to purchase land in Africa from the

French if he still stays loyal to them.

Not sure about Maximilian children marring into Brazil royal family. Mexico is Spanish speaking and Brazil is

Portuguese speaking. Argentina or Colombia might be better to ally with. Not sure why Brazil would want colonies

in Africa as the had more land already than they could use. with Maximillians problems with instability not sure

why he would need to get involved in acquiring foreign colonies. Unless he improves the economy, possibly land

reform distributing the land to the peasants. Possibly an alliance with Nicaragua to build a Canal.
Nicaragua Canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal

I’m thinking about having Kaiser Wilhelm I killed in an explosion that he survived in OTL

at the Strassberg railway station in 1883. This will allow Fredrick III to stay in power longer before his death. One

poster told me that this may lead to Germany making claims to Africa earlier than OTL. So with a year ahead of

OTL’s Germany I wonder if Fredrick could make larger claims as well. Also I’m told Fredrick would have improved

British-German relations if he had been in power longer so this POD may justify Britain’s intervention in WW1 and

the second Franco-German war I’m considering.

if Kaiser Wilhelm I is killed then Bismark is not made Chancellor.
this changes things a lot. We could change things more so that Frederick III does not get throat cancer and lives until 1921. Frederick III make peace with Britain more possible. But makes second Franco Prussian war not a as credible, unless the French start it.


I’m considering on perhaps having a second Spanish-American war as well. I’ve stated before that I plan on having one in the 1870s that frees Cuba but at this time I doubt the USA could then go and fight for claims in the Philipeans as it did in OTL during 1900. So in this TL I’d like to have America aid Russia in the Russo-Japanese war helping it win the war and then have the victorious Russia and USA then somehow go and make war on Spain for claims in the Philippians. They then win this war to due to Spain still having the weaknesses it did in OTL at this time and America make an additional claim in Africa for Equatorial Guinea. I’ve also considered having them take Spanish Morocco and then give it to Morocco due to them also having an alliance in my TL but I don’t know how this may upset the balance in the Mediterranean..

I agree with the second Spanish American war, not sure about the Philippines.
Do the Russians and Americans share the Philippines?
Colonies in Africa might over stretch the Americans.



I like your earlier post on how to start a different WWI but I'd rather not have it in the same year as OTLs. I think that having it start in perhaps 1915 would be better.
I'd like the Spanish Flu impact the course of the war more than OTL but I'm not sure how to handle that in my TL. According to studies of the flu the virus that evolved into it most likely originated in Kansas and then mutated after US troops where shipped to France. With this in mind I think it may be possible to have the flu pop up sooner in this TL if I have US troops moved to France near the start of the war. The thing is that I'm afraid a thing such as this is very susceptible to butterflies.


Part of how damaging the flu was the very long amount of time the troops were in the mud of the trenches under constants stress for years. also malnutrition due to the Britsh food blockade on the Germans and Austrians. In this time line there is not food blockade and war in the trenches is much shorter.
in the real world the flu had a much bigger impact after the war.

Ideas?
I'd like to change the actions of Britain in my TL and have it initially stay out of the war but eventually come in on Germany's side. This way the Allies and CPs will be on more even ground initially. Then after Britain joins Germany they use there navies to make are large attacks on the coasts of Frances African Colonies, arm rebels in that area, and help them form nation states on the coast to help weaken France. This way the North-West African coast in this TL will look similar to today’s with many small countries on it.

Do you have any ideas on how this could all be worked together into one TL? Preferably in a plausible wya but if you don't think it can say so.

I could see the British staying out at the start. I think the royal navy and the German navy would be too busy fighting the American and French navies in the battle of the Atlantic to be attacking French colonies. Arms could be smuggled in by merchant ships with no need the CP navies for this.
I would like to see the rebellion in Africa coming being more tribal based and lead by the tribal leaders and or witch doctors.
 
Last edited:
Not sure about Maximilian children marring into Brazil royal family. Mexico is Spanish speaking and Brazil is

Portuguese speaking. Argentina or Colombia might be better to ally with. Not sure why Brazil would want colonies

in Africa as the had more land already than they could use. with Maximillians problems with instability not sure

why he would need to get involved in acquiring foreign colonies. Unless he improves the economy, possibly land

reform distributing the land to the peasants. Possibly an alliance with Nicaragua to build a Canal.
Nicaragua Canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal



if Kaiser Wilhelm I is killed then Bismark is not made Chancellor.
this changes things a lot. We could change things more so that Frederick III does not get throat cancer and lives until 1921. Frederick III make peace with Britain more possible. But makes second Franco Prussian war not a as credible, unless the French start it.




I agree with the second Spanish American war, not sure about the Philippines.
Do the Russians and Americans share the Philippines?
Colonies in Africa might over stretch the Americans.






Part of how damaging the flu was the very long amount of time the troops were in the mud of the trenches under constants stress for years. also malnutrition due to the Britsh food blockade on the Germans and Austrians. In this time line there is not food blockade and war in the trenches is much shorter.
in the real world the flu had a much bigger impact after the war.



I could see the British staying out at the start. I think the royal navy and the German navy would be too busy fighting the American and French navies in the battle of the Atlantic to be attacking French colonies. Arms could be smuggled in by merchant ships with no need the CP navies for this.
I would like to see the rebellion in Africa coming being more tribal based and lead by the tribal leaders and or witch doctors.

Have Max's kids marry into Brazil's royal family is something that has been used in other TL so I figured I could use it as well. Also I saw it as a way to make Brazil more powerful by having French Mexico share its wealth with Brazil which could allow it to buy African land in Portugals south African colonies. The reason that I want this is to help create the larger African front I'd like in this TL by having Brazil enter the war earlier than OTL due to its close relations with French Mexico and thus also having an Ally controlled african colony next to the German and British controlled southern colonies in the south. Without this purchase South Africa could be pretty inactive in this TL since Portugal may stay out of the war due to this TL's alliances and if it did join it would probably be with Britian.

Otto von Bismark was already 1st Chancellor of the German Empire by 1883 so I can't butterfly that away and he could still help cause a 2nd Franco German war if his request to make war is better accepted after this TLs Schnaebele incident. Which is something I'd like to work in if it will help sell the WWI alliances I'd like.

Why are you not sure about the Phillipeans? Also its possible for them to share but I hadn't thought of it. Also I just wanted the USA to take Equ. Guinea so that they would be in the midst of a German colony and could them make a battlefront there.

Also from what I've read the Spanish flu killed healthy and sikly alike which is why it was so scary. Plus why would trench warfare be less in this TL? I'd really like to have more of it.
 
Have Max's kids marry into Brazil's royal family is something that has been used in other TL so I figured I could use it as well. Also I saw it as a way to make Brazil more powerful by having French Mexico share its wealth with Brazil which could allow it to buy African land in Portugals south African colonies. The reason that I want this is to help create the larger African front I'd like in this TL by having Brazil enter the war earlier than OTL due to its close relations with French Mexico and thus also having an Ally controlled african colony next to the German and British controlled southern colonies in the south. Without this purchase South Africa could be pretty inactive in this TL since Portugal may stay out of the war due to this TL's alliances and if it did join it would probably be with Britian.

Otto von Bismark was already 1st Chancellor of the German Empire by 1883 so I can't butterfly that away and he could still help cause a 2nd Franco German war if his request to make war is better accepted after this TLs Schnaebele incident. Which is something I'd like to work in if it will help sell the WWI alliances I'd like.

Why are you not sure about the Phillipeans? Also its possible for them to share but I hadn't thought of it. Also I just wanted the USA to take Equ. Guinea so that they would be in the midst of a German colony and could them make a battlefront there.

Also from what I've read the Spanish flu killed healthy and sikly alike which is why it was so scary. Plus why would trench warfare be less in this TL? I'd really like to have more of it.

Anglo is the colony for Brazil/Mexico to acquire then.
who are the central powers fighting in South Africa?

Phillipeans are a problem this gives the Russian naval war water ports in Pacific. This changes the balance of power in the area.

Spanish flu mutated in the trenches because of the stress and poor nutrition this made it a bigger killer. if the flu arrives early in the war it might not mutate as much or be as damaging.
The flu killed mostly the young whose immune system were stronger. Look like the flu caused the immune system to over react.
Flu normally kill the old and very young.

The length of time in the trenches depends on when the war starts and ends .
 
Top