Rainbow of Blood

[67th Tigers]

As to the basis of the Union being able to fight off the British and French, as well as the South in 1864. Certainly it is arguable, very arguable, from either position. The South certainly didn't have the manpower to conquer any state at any point in the previous years when things were going relatively well. The British might be able to concentrate the resources for temporary occupation of areas, but the French sure can't. They have too much at stake on the European Continent to deploy much more than they did historically in Mexico, which note is not remotely conquered, just partially occupied.

So really, the only nation with the wherewithall to seriously threaten the Union is Britain. Lee, Longstreet, and the other Southern Armies can tie down large numbers of Union troops, but there simply are not the necessary manpower reserves after losses to attrition and combat in any extended campaign for them to do much. If the Union uses economy of force, which it could very well do in this situation, it could mass sufficient troops to fight the more dangerous enemy.. in this case the English. All the Union has to do is wait for developments in Europe or elsewhere to draw off the English and French (which are alluded to in the books) and then the Confederacy will lose. It will add years, but probably not more than one or two.

Keep in mind that Grant complained in 1864 bitterly about tens of thousands of Union troops that were not doing anything useful. There are reserves available, and Tsouris has also given the Union a patriotic second wind in the books. A not unreasonable one really, considering the British have launched an ill advised, marginally justified war to begin with.

The French Army of 1st January 1863 has 404,400 effectives with the colours (meaning enlisted troops, excluding officers and employees). It was a relatively small army compared to say, 1860 (559,902 in that category) or 1856 (526,056), but the French Army strength varied depending upon the demands placed on it. Their conscription system only took a small proportion of the fit men in each class. For example, in 1863 the breakdown of the enlisted men is:

65,911 Volunteers
111,266 Re-enlistees
171,412 Conscripts
1,141 Substitutes
36,505 Replacements
18,435 Musicians

In the previous seven years (the length of a term) 740,000 had been enlisted (100,000 in 6 of the years, 140,000 in 1859). Of these over 400,000 were released back to civilian life as reservists (commuted), but were still liable to recall. The class of 1864 could be drafted at 140,000. Whatever the French Army needed could be pulled from those commuted (as happened in 1854 and 1859 - the latter seeing an immediate and sudden expansion of ca. 200,000 men).

Should the French decide to send 250,000 men to America, they could do it and maintain their strength in Europe with a reasonable reserve.

I'm not sure where these Union reserves are meant to be. Nor where they aren't matched by a Confederate force. At the time of Gettysburg the approximate strengths were:

Army of the Tennessee 75,000 and 16th Corps(+) 25,000 (guading supply lines) vs Army of Mississippi 56,000 and the Army of the West 32,000 and 5,000 cavalry
Army of the Gulf 20,000, besieging Port Hudson 8,000
Army of the Cumberland 65,000 vs Army of Tennessee 45,000
Army of the Ohio 15,000 vs 15,000 detached from the Army of the Tennessee
Department of Western Virginia 10,000 vs Army of Western Virginia 8,000
Army of the Potomac 90,000 vs Army of Northern Virginia 75,000
Dept of Virginia 15,000 facing Richmond Defences 12,000
Dept of North Carolina 15,000 facing Dept of South VA and NC 12,000
Dept of SC 17,500 facing Dept of SC, GA and FA 11,000 at Charleston

Plus 30,000 in the Washington defences, plus the trans-Mississippi depts etc. (and the force at Mobile)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The intervention of the RN alone breaks the Union blockade, ensures that the CSA will have whatever loans or equipment are needed and also ensures that the Union will not and will also suffer severe economic dislocation. At best the Union navy and merchant marine are crippled, the economy in disarray and unless Lincoln orders an immediate retreat tens of thousands of Union soldiers holding various coastal enclaves in the south are cut off from all hope of supply forced to surrender.

After that it will take little in the way of British or French troops to leave the Union with no gains from that point in the war, thus dooming Lincoln in the 1864 election, while if they intervene with, say, 75K it should suffice to drive the Union from Louisiana and paralyze the Union as forces once available against the south are rushed to various ports and the border with Canada.


galveston bay, a few more months without the victory at Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea and Lincoln is out of office. Time will be on the coalition's side, not the US.



Free Lancer, the only part of that post I can even comprehend was the part continuing to claim a position I have never taken. My position, that a nation which could have lost to the CSA alone would certainly have lost to the CSA backed by Great Britain, France, Canada and more still stands.

 

[galveston bay]

The French Army of 1st January 1863 has 404,400 effectives with the colours (meaning enlisted troops, excluding officers and employees). It was a relatively small army compared to say, 1860 (559,902 in that category) or 1856 (526,056), but the French Army strength varied depending upon the demands placed on it. Their conscription system only took a small proportion of the fit men in each class. For example, in 1863 the breakdown of the enlisted men is:

65,911 Volunteers
111,266 Re-enlistees
171,412 Conscripts
1,141 Substitutes
36,505 Replacements
18,435 Musicians

In the previous seven years (the length of a term) 740,000 had been enlisted (100,000 in 6 of the years, 140,000 in 1859). Of these over 400,000 were released back to civilian life as reservists (commuted), but were still liable to recall. The class of 1864 could be drafted at 140,000. Whatever the French Army needed could be pulled from those commuted (as happened in 1854 and 1859 - the latter seeing an immediate and sudden expansion of ca. 200,000 men).

Should the French decide to send 250,000 men to America, they could do it and maintain their strength in Europe with a reasonable reserve.

I'm not sure where these Union reserves are meant to be. Nor where they aren't matched by a Confederate force. At the time of Gettysburg the approximate strengths were:

Army of the Tennessee 75,000 and 16th Corps(+) 25,000 (guading supply lines) vs Army of Mississippi 56,000 and the Army of the West 32,000 and 5,000 cavalry
Army of the Gulf 20,000, besieging Port Hudson 8,000
Army of the Cumberland 65,000 vs Army of Tennessee 45,000
Army of the Ohio 15,000 vs 15,000 detached from the Army of the Tennessee
Department of Western Virginia 10,000 vs Army of Western Virginia 8,000
Army of the Potomac 90,000 vs Army of Northern Virginia 75,000
Dept of Virginia 15,000 facing Richmond Defences 12,000
Dept of North Carolina 15,000 facing Dept of South VA and NC 12,000
Dept of SC 17,500 facing Dept of SC, GA and FA 11,000 at Charleston

Plus 30,000 in the Washington defences, plus the trans-Mississippi depts etc. (and the force at Mobile)

I am not denying that France has a large army. What I am saying is that it's army available for foreign adventures overseas is limited. The French sent less than 40,000 men to Mexico to put Maximilian in power. They fought a war with Austria in 1859, have to garrison their possessions in North Africa, have ambitions elsewhere and keep a sizeable home force. So sending 250,000 men to North America at this point seems a great big stretch considering the situation in Europe and their ambitions elsewhere.

 

[galveston bay]

The intervention of the RN alone breaks the Union blockade, ensures that the CSA will have whatever loans or equipment are needed and also ensures that the Union will not and will also suffer severe economic dislocation. At best the Union navy and merchant marine are crippled, the economy in disarray and unless Lincoln orders an immediate retreat tens of thousands of Union soldiers holding various coastal enclaves in the south are cut off from all hope of supply forced to surrender.

After that it will take little in the way of British or French troops to leave the Union with no gains from that point in the war, thus dooming Lincoln in the 1864 election, while if they intervene with, say, 75K it should suffice to drive the Union from Louisiana and paralyze the Union as forces once available against the south are rushed to various ports and the border with Canada.


galveston bay, a few more months without the victory at Atlanta and Sherman's march to the sea and Lincoln is out of office. Time will be on the coalition's side, not the US.

As to the French and British withdrawing? Based on the situation presented it is clearly impossible politically at the time the second book ends for either of them to do so. They have won just enough to think they can win, and lost enough lives (British mainly) to make a withdrawal clearly look like defeat. Short of defeat in North America, or something happening with the Russians (or someone else) in Europe, the French and British governments can not at this time withdraw.

Look at World War I for a comparision. Even after 2 years of war in 1915 and the obvious fact that any victory was likely to cost far more than it was worth, the warring nations could not even consider a negotiated peace because their national blood was up. Too many had died for peace to be considered without victory. Another example is Vietnam, where in spite of extremely painful losses, the Vietnamese won a war of attrition against the US not on the battlefield, but by lasting long enough for the Americans to give up and go home because of domestic political will. The War of 1812 was a draw militarily because the British recognized that victory (as in conquering the United States) was impossible, and even minor gains in the border or other gains was not worth the military cost to achieve them.

The Union has a good chance to survive. It will take tremendous blows, but in the end the Europeans will go home and the South is now too weak to by itself defend itself when the Union recovers (which it will do a lot faster than the South will). The Union is facing temporary economic dislocation, but the South has suffered significant damage to what industry it has, and will not have time to recover before the Union does. The South has betrayed the Union not only by seceding, but also by siding with foreign invaders against fellow Americans.

How do you think England would react if Scotland had done something like that in the 19th Century, or if Ireland had?




Free Lancer, the only part of that post I can even comprehend was the part continuing to claim a position I have never taken. My position, that a nation which could have lost to the CSA alone would certainly have lost to the CSA backed by Great Britain, France, Canada and more still stands.

at this point, who would replace Lincoln? The Copperhead Democrats have been completely discredited by events in the Midwest and are essentially considered to be traitors to the country. McClellan? He seems unlikely to win considering the situation. Lincoln is a hero at this point, he stayed in Washington while it was under attack by a foreign enemy (not to mention the southern traitors) while Congress fled. Who else is going to get the nomination and for that matter, who in the Democratic Party would be likely to beat him.

Lincoln is pretty secure politically I think. He isn't merely trying to restore the Union (as in RL), at this point he is the hero who stayed in Washington to face the foreign invader and whose armies have won some victories. He is clearly defending the Union from foreign invasion and southern treason.

He doesn't need Atlanta to remain President.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Lincoln only won thanks to the successes of Sherman and Sheridan before the election so he is not secure at all.

Early in 1864 his situation in the GOP had become so precarious that he and Seward actually considered if there was a plausible Democratic candidate whom they could support instead of Republicans like Fremont or Chase.

As it was, despite avoiding a split in the GOP, the summer victories of 1864 and various problems the Democrats inflicted on themselves he still did not enjoy anything resembling a landslide in the popular vote.


If Lincoln is the man who turned an uncertain war against the south to a war the Union is certain to lose against an entire coalition then the Democrats are not traitors but realists in the face of the impending disaster caused by the Republicans. It also will not help him if he stays in DC, which then falls to the British, with or without Confederate support.

 

[galveston bay]

Lincoln only won thanks to the successes of Sherman and Sheridan before the election so he is not secure at all.

Early in 1864 his situation in the GOP had become so precarious that he and Seward actually considered if there was a plausible Democratic candidate whom they could support instead of Republicans like Fremont or Chase.

As it was, despite avoiding a split in the GOP, the summer victories of 1864 and various problems the Democrats inflicted on themselves he still did not enjoy anything resembling a landslide in the popular vote.


If Lincoln is the man who turned an uncertain war against the south to a war the Union is certain to lose against an entire coalition then the Democrats are not traitors but realists in the face of the impending disaster caused by the Republicans. It also will not help him if he stays in DC, which then falls to the British, with or without Confederate support.

as presented in the book (which I am talking about), DC does not fall and will not fall. In what political reality would people who side with invaders (which is essentially what the Copperheads have done) win the support of the majority of the population? In RL, 'waving the bloody shirt' got Republicans elected over Democrats until the early 20th Century. This would be even more of the case based on the events in the book.

The Union here has become more zealous and outraged by foreign invasion and is not the historical timeline anymore. You are making assumptions based on what happened in RL, which was Lincoln proscuting a war of reconquest. This timeline has Lincoln fighting a war brought to him by the British (who certainly did conduct hostile acts prior to the exchange of gunfire.. see the real life Alabama claims on how the real life post war world viewed supplying guns to the Johnny Rebs was viewed), the French (who have no justification other than imperialist dreams for entering the war) and the South, which not only betrayed the Union but is not helping foreign enemies pillage and burn Union cities (Portland, DC). The Democrat Party now must either become pro-war (to stay in office where they hold them) or face disaster The Peace plank of that party is now at best a bunch of appeasers (the term doesn't exist yet, but the concept does) OR seeks to betray the Union to foreigners and traitors.

Wars are not generally fought for rational reasons, and as presented by the book, events have taken a momentum of their own. Emotionally the Americans in the Union are not in the least ready to quiet now that the British and French have invaded.

Lincoln represents at this point fighting the enemy. Who have the Democrats got that could run for President based on that?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

galveston bay, the book is a work of fiction and one with a very poor grip on the facts, starting with the pretense that the Union would have the slightest chance if the British and French actually landed 100,000+ soldiers to support the CSA.

In particular the entire Copperhead revolt in the book can charitably be described as pure fiction of the lowest sort, nor is Russia's involvment remotely credible.

 

[Free Lancer]

galveston bay, the book is a work of fiction and one with a very poor grip on the facts, starting with the pretense that the Union would have the slightest chance if the British and French actually landed 100,000+ soldiers to support the CSA.

In particular the entire Copperhead revolt in the book can charitably be described as pure fiction of the lowest sort, nor is Russia's involvment remotely credible.

yeah i would Expect that from you Grimm, every Story or TL that has the British and the French in the American Civil war to you the Union Immediately Loses Which is Nothing but a Fantasy the Union is not going to come Crumbling down like a House of Cards like you and 67 tigers say

oh Yeah and the 100,000 Soldiers will Have to come Across the Atlantic which will Take MONTHS there not going to Hop on there Ships and be at the US East Cost in a Hour

 

[galveston bay]

galveston bay, the book is a work of fiction and one with a very poor grip on the facts, starting with the pretense that the Union would have the slightest chance if the British and French actually landed 100,000+ soldiers to support the CSA.

In particular the entire Copperhead revolt in the book can charitably be described as pure fiction of the lowest sort, nor is Russia's involvment remotely credible.

as we are discussing the book, which is indeed fiction, as is every other book or alternate history written about Britian fighting the US after 1815, I am sticking to what is being presented by the scenario in the book

your assertion is highly arguable, and has been rebutted in numerous threads in this forum. Just because you and 67th believe with unmistakeable passion that 19th Century Britian is invincible does not make it so as there was no historical test to this, and all we have is speculation.

Politically, as regards to Lincoln, you show a grave and complete misunderstanding of Americans and specifically American opinion in this kind of situation. If you were to read more carefully about the War of 1812 you would note that American passions increased after Washington DC was burned, the opposite of the desired effect. Any reading regarding nations that have gone to total war and nations at arms would show you that at best any British victory would be tremendously costly, very time consuming (years at least) and probably far outweighing the justification to begin such an ill-advised adventure to begin with.

Which is where I think you are completely missing the truth of the matter

 

[Mark 4 Morrel Barrel]

Agreed Galvaston, Lancer
remember its evidence before opinion not opinion before evidence

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Free Lancer, overnight? Hardly although who can say what Congress might have done when staring down the barrel of foreign powers intervening.

Now, in three months, when the Union blockade is broken, the Union navy and merchant marine shattered, 50,000 Union troops in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida lost, the North under a British blockade and the CSA free to get all the material it needs to wage war?



galveston bay, no, it is not highly arguable nor has it been credibly disputed anywhere on the board. Then again, accusing me of a passion for 19th Century Great Britain, in addition to undoubtedly having 67th Tigers rolling on the floor laughing after certain discussions I've had with him, suggest you do not have a clue as to my positions.

British victory would be both inevitable and cheap. They don't even have to send troops, victory at sea over the USN and replacing the blockade of the CSA with one of the Union will do the trick. You are aware that the Union had to import all the nitrates needed for gunpowder from overseas?



Basically the two of you have somehow convinced yourselves that the USA, which could easily have lost the war to the CSA alone would somehow have been better off against the CSA and several other enemies, which is absurd.

 

[Free Lancer]

Free Lancer, overnight? Hardly although who can say what Congress might have done when staring down the barrel of foreign powers intervening.

Now, in three months, when the Union blockade is broken, the Union navy and merchant marine shattered, 50,000 Union troops in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida lost, the North under a British blockade and the CSA free to get all the material it needs to wage war?



galveston bay, no, it is not highly arguable nor has it been credibly disputed anywhere on the board. Then again, accusing me of a passion for 19th Century Great Britain, in addition to undoubtedly having 67th Tigers rolling on the floor laughing after certain discussions I've had with him, suggest you do not have a clue as to my positions.

British victory would be both inevitable and cheap. They don't even have to send troops, victory at sea over the USN and replacing the blockade of the CSA with one of the Union will do the trick. You are aware that the Union had to import all the nitrates needed for gunpowder from overseas?



Basically the two of you have somehow convinced yourselves that the USA, which could easily have lost the war to the CSA alone would somehow have been better off against the CSA and several other enemies, which is absurd.

First of the British Blockade I'm Going to go and say you have never Read about Americas Shallow Waters and the British Ironclads? Read it and you will Understand why a Blockade will be Hard to Keep for the British.

Second your top Sentence is Assuming that the Union Generals and Admirals are Morons who don't know how to Count to two,

Dispite what you May Believe the British are not Invincible, your Second Sentence Tell me what is the war of 1812 when the British COULD NOT WIN before the Main British Military Forces Arrived and after they Did it was still a Stalemate.

and last but not Least the Union all Most Lousing the war to the CSA, i am just going to say that that goes both ways Grimm

 

[galveston bay]

Free Lancer, overnight? Hardly although who can say what Congress might have done when staring down the barrel of foreign powers intervening.

Now, in three months, when the Union blockade is broken, the Union navy and merchant marine shattered, 50,000 Union troops in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida lost, the North under a British blockade and the CSA free to get all the material it needs to wage war?



galveston bay, no, it is not highly arguable nor has it been credibly disputed anywhere on the board. Then again, accusing me of a passion for 19th Century Great Britain, in addition to undoubtedly having 67th Tigers rolling on the floor laughing after certain discussions I've had with him, suggest you do not have a clue as to my positions.

British victory would be both inevitable and cheap. They don't even have to send troops, victory at sea over the USN and replacing the blockade of the CSA with one of the Union will do the trick. You are aware that the Union had to import all the nitrates needed for gunpowder from overseas?


.

based on the book, which is what we are discussing here, the situation is not as you have laid out. The British (in the book) have suffered serious casualties on land and sea, and have just imposed the blockade. So the cheap part is past. Certainly British victory is possible, potentially likely, if no other factors come into play. But other factors, in the book, are coming into play.

Whether the British could beat the United States while it was embroiled in the Civil War is certainly possible, and could potentially go as you have indicated. But that is not the scenario in this thread.

I have seen some of your discussions between you and 67th. In this case however you are in agreement, but you are arguing something outside of the scope of the book. At least 67th argues the book, which I happen to find disagreement with him on (and have on other threads). So in the debate at hand, you are incorrect in some of your assertions. In other debates, in a different scenario than it is possible you are correct about the inevitability of British victory.

Although there are no air tight blockades, and never have been. Even Imperial Germany occasionally got ships in and out and that was probably the most effective blockade in the history of warfare. As to the US problems with nitrates, I am reading how Tsouris is handling it, and will defer to him as someone with a published and proven record over people whose body of work is entirely on the internet in an inactive yahoo group (67th) or I have not seen at all (yours). There may be work you have produced, but unless you let us know where it is so it can be read and criticized as we are with what Tsouris writes, we have just your assertions on how brilliant you are.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

What to say? I have two people becoming hysterical because I refuse to accept fiction of low accuracy as if it were factually correct, because the alternative is to accept that Union, which had trouble fighting the CSA alone, would not be face disaster against the CSA backed by a vastly more powerful coalition.

I'll assume that I'm wasting my time here.

 

[Free Lancer]

What to say? I have two people becoming hysterical because I refuse to accept fiction of low accuracy as if it were factually correct, because the alternative is to accept that Union, which had trouble fighting the CSA alone, would not be face disaster against the CSA backed by a vastly more powerful coalition.

I'll assume that I'm wasting my time here.

Exactly my Thoughts Grimm im wasting my Time with this, you who Dictates what Can and Can not Happen i mean Really Good sir you have to Admit Dispite what you and i Believe that this war is not going to be a Certain British win the US have a Chance of Winning

 

[galveston bay]

What to say? I have two people becoming hysterical because I refuse to accept fiction of low accuracy as if it were factually correct, because the alternative is to accept that Union, which had trouble fighting the CSA alone, would not be face disaster against the CSA backed by a vastly more powerful coalition.

I'll assume that I'm wasting my time here.

\

not hysterical, just critical of your soapbox stand when there is no reason to assume you are not some guy who thinks he is an expert because he read a book once. Show us something otherwise then we will be inclined to take your word as worthy of consideration. At least Tsouris provided a bibliography of actual (as well as fictional) sources, and one can trace generally were he might have gotten his information where it is not attributed.

If you are just some guy who read a book once, than yes, you are wasting our time here.

 

[galveston bay]

The French Army of 1st January 1863 has 404,400 effectives with the colours (meaning enlisted troops, excluding officers and employees). It was a relatively small army compared to say, 1860 (559,902 in that category) or 1856 (526,056), but the French Army strength varied depending upon the demands placed on it. Their conscription system only took a small proportion of the fit men in each class. For example, in 1863 the breakdown of the enlisted men is:

65,911 Volunteers
111,266 Re-enlistees
171,412 Conscripts
1,141 Substitutes
36,505 Replacements
18,435 Musicians

In the previous seven years (the length of a term) 740,000 had been enlisted (100,000 in 6 of the years, 140,000 in 1859). Of these over 400,000 were released back to civilian life as reservists (commuted), but were still liable to recall. The class of 1864 could be drafted at 140,000. Whatever the French Army needed could be pulled from those commuted (as happened in 1854 and 1859 - the latter seeing an immediate and sudden expansion of ca. 200,000 men).

Should the French decide to send 250,000 men to America, they could do it and maintain their strength in Europe with a reasonable reserve.

I'm not sure where these Union reserves are meant to be. Nor where they aren't matched by a Confederate force. At the time of Gettysburg the approximate strengths were:

Army of the Tennessee 75,000 and 16th Corps(+) 25,000 (guading supply lines) vs Army of Mississippi 56,000 and the Army of the West 32,000 and 5,000 cavalry
Army of the Gulf 20,000, besieging Port Hudson 8,000
Army of the Cumberland 65,000 vs Army of Tennessee 45,000
Army of the Ohio 15,000 vs 15,000 detached from the Army of the Tennessee
Department of Western Virginia 10,000 vs Army of Western Virginia 8,000
Army of the Potomac 90,000 vs Army of Northern Virginia 75,000
Dept of Virginia 15,000 facing Richmond Defences 12,000
Dept of North Carolina 15,000 facing Dept of South VA and NC 12,000
Dept of SC 17,500 facing Dept of SC, GA and FA 11,000 at Charleston

Plus 30,000 in the Washington defences, plus the trans-Mississippi depts etc. (and the force at Mobile)

this source, by the way, gives the total manpower, present for duty and absent for the CSA and Union armies during the war

as of Jan 1864, the Union Army has a total of860,737 men
present for duty 611, 250 and absent 249,487
plus 132,000 sailors


the Confederate Army is down to 233,000 men present and another 3600 sailors

those Union figures compare pretty well what what you are giving for the Europeans

http://www.civilwarhome.com/armysize.htm

source listed is "Civil War Day by Day" by EB Long

these are the RL figures, and do not take into account losses from the book, or new recruits indicated (but not specified numerically in the book, although indicated as 'large')

Grants specific complaint was about all of the soldiers guarding bridges and depots or held back in cushy duty by the governors and was made during the Wilderness Campaign. He was specifically irked because he couldn't get the governors to release those troops without a lot of arm twisting.

 

[Timmy811]

Free Lancer, overnight? Hardly although who can say what Congress might have done when staring down the barrel of foreign powers intervening.

Now, in three months, when the Union blockade is broken, the Union navy and merchant marine shattered, 50,000 Union troops in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida lost, the North under a British blockade and the CSA free to get all the material it needs to wage war?



galveston bay, no, it is not highly arguable nor has it been credibly disputed anywhere on the board. Then again, accusing me of a passion for 19th Century Great Britain, in addition to undoubtedly having 67th Tigers rolling on the floor laughing after certain discussions I've had with him, suggest you do not have a clue as to my positions.

British victory would be both inevitable and cheap. They don't even have to send troops, victory at sea over the USN and replacing the blockade of the CSA with one of the Union will do the trick. You are aware that the Union had to import all the nitrates needed for gunpowder from overseas?



Basically the two of you have somehow convinced yourselves that the USA, which could easily have lost the war to the CSA alone would somehow have been better off against the CSA and several other enemies, which is absurd.

Most of those troops were evacuated.

This is late 1863, the Union has a full years supply of nitrates in it's storehouses. Whether Tsouras has a plausibly way to deal with the coming shortage toward the end of '64 is yet to be seen. Aside from that obviously serious and possibly fatal problem, the Union is capable of producing anything else needed for the war effort at this point.

We don't think it would be easier, it would be much harder. But as long as it is willing to fight on, as the Confederacy did in the face of harsher odds, then they have a chance. All they have to do is hold on for Russia's spring offensive and then the Brits and French will have a fire in their own backyard to deal with.

You act like the Union has had everything it's way. It hasn't, there were lots of disasters. The Blockade broken, the Gulf Fleet destroyed, the Union Army in Louisiana obliterated, Albany sacked and upstate NY put to torch, Portland besieged and the attempted relief by VI corps thrown back, Washington D.C. half burned, Chicago temporarily occupied by Copperheads/Freed CSA POWs.

However, the Union has had just enough victories to stave off immediate collapse and keep morale up. Lee's attack on Washington was turned back with heavy casualties, the British army in NY was creamed, the Copperhead rebellion put down, Portland is hanging on and the USN won a tactically impressive but strategically meaningless victory outside of Charleston.

Comparing those two lists I'd have to say that US is obviously losing, and barring the UK and France being forced to apply the brunt of their power elsewhere would be doomed to defeat by the middle of '64. However, we do know that there will be a major war in Europe and that changes things.

The CSA has been badly bled to this point. It spent OTL '64 on the defensive and was still exhausted by the end. With Longstreet in charge out west, and a generally more optimistic outlook I don't see the CSA restraining it's offensive impulses. It's entirely possible for fighting in the spring and early summer to be heavy enough to break the CSA army.

 

[GeshronTyler]

One of Tsoura's main premises in the series is supposed to be about how "centralizing" intelligence sources, collating, analyzing, and then re-distributing it to those that needed it was a revolutionary idea, and quite a force multiplyer, that was used somewhat OTL ACW, but will be much more focused on, and permanent in his TL. That, and the fact that in OTL, the North aparently didn't have a true centralized industrial war mobilization program, but this TL will have Carnegie aparently coordinating the war economy for the North. The main strategic material the North can't get within it's borders is Nitrates, which Tsouras has recognized. Wether he thinks the Military/industrial complex is up to producing a blockade-breaking ironclad in a year or less, remains to be seen. He did make the point that the iron-clad program was screwed up at this time, OTL, and in NTL. How long that will take to resolve, he hasn't hinted.

Tsouras also makes the point, that European nations were constantly fighting one war after another amongst themselves- The British and French weren't exactly allies, and other nations could well try to use the NA focus of those two powers to try to "even the score".


I can't say off the top of my head, but are Nitrates necessary for gun-cotton? You need nitric acid for that I guess, but I can't remember the chemistry details of how to produce that.

As for pivot points in wars- in major conflicts where the tide of battle could have turned and changed the war- certainly there are many. That doesn't mean the the "final" outcome can't be arrived at by another route, longer or not. After all, there could always be a different pivot point, that arises out of the new situations. How about this one- Wasn't Waterloo a pretty damn close thing? All that saved the British from defeat was a French General that didn't march to the sound of the guns, IIRC.

Something that nobody has mentioned- there are aparently plans for a raid on an Armory in England in the making- I have both books, but I'm too lazy to check right now.