Ok, I may be late to the party on this one, but I just saw the cover art for the new Harry Turtledove book dealing with the USA/CSA storyline. I know he can be a crappy alternate historian (ie: staying too closely tied to the timeline of real life), but I did enjoy his Great War /American Empire sets, and can't wait until August to read the begining of this new trilogy. What does everyone expect from it? I mean, obviously, the first book will have a CSA blitzkreig through places like Sequoyah {spl} and West Virginig and that other chunk of Virginia that the US kept after the great war. What else do you see happening? What are your expectations?
Return Engagement: Settling Accounts Trilogy
- Thread starter Underboss_3
- Start date
I think the US will be expecting gas attacks and trench warfare, but the CS is going to shock them majorly with the new style of mobile warfare, rendering both obsolete. The conversation between Dowell and Morrell make it clear that the CSA is probably going to launch a major attack way to the west of where everybody is expecting the major push... the US seems to think that all the fighting is going to happen between Richmond and Philadelphia, but I'm guessing that there will be a major push up through the midwest. Keeping in line with HT's tendency for historical parallels, I'm thinking that there will be three CS army groups... one will attack towards Philadelphia and not quite reach it, one will go up through the midwest, and one will go into CA. I'm thinking there will be counterparts to Leningrad (LA), Stalingrad (Des Moines), and Kursk (somewhere in IL?). Morrell will be Patton without the latter's idiosyncracies, Forrest III will be Rommel, etc....
I would actually pick Potter to be Rommel since he has no love for Featherston and has already attempted an assassination.
Since Turtledove hasn't changed much of the timeline thus far, does anyone think that he would give us the ultimate switch and have the series end with the bad guys (IE Featherston and his Fascists) win the war? Just a thought I had.
doubtful.. it's pretty obvious that Featherston is overreaching when he takes on the US, and his own people are telling him that. Remember all the discussion about "we better win fast or we'll lose slow"? Like Russia/Germany, I imagine the CSA will kick butt at first, mainly due to the new tactics and machines, but the US will use time and space to recover and then push them back....
I'm not so sure that the Nazi Germany - Russia analogy is correct in this case. While Featherstone's CSA is a direct parallel, the USA is in no way similar to the USSR. For this, and a few other reasons, I would speculate that a rerun of the 41-45 Eastern Front is unlikely.
The USA is a fractured society with a divisive Labour - Capital struggle - more like France 1940. Its political leadership has been weak even to the extent of caving in to some of the CSA's demand. Even after a surprise attack by the CSA, I can't see the Democrats wholeheartedly supporting the Socialists. Again, I see a parallel with 'defeatist' parties in France.
It is too easy to assume that because OTL America was an industrial powerhouse, the USA here will be the same. It may have the potential but remember here the Depression was not moderated by 'New Deal' politics. Also, the USA hasn't had the two years of 1939-41 to begin an increase in military related industry. Also, in OTL, the USA was an invulnerable base area. Attacks on its own territory may degrade capacity significantly. Also, unlike OTL is doesn't have the resources of the areas now ruled by the CSA.
That leads me to the next big difference. Oil. As far as I can tell almost all the oil produced in North America at that time was in Texas-Oklahoma (Sequoyah). This is either now (or assumed soon to be) in CSA hands. As an aside President Smith should be impeached for letting Houston go. The other major oil sources in the world are a) overseas or b) in unfriendly hands or both. The USA's overseas trade is vulnerable to CSA, Japanese and British intereference.
On the military front, the USA is woefully under prepared. As remarked by both Morrel and Dowling it is preparing to refight the last war. Even Morrel's new tanks (barrels) are a state of the art design from the 1920s. I certainly doubt that they have evolved a useful doctrine for them. Gas may be an impediment but I suspect as in our WW2, it is unlikely to be used. Again, Morrel and Dowling's distaste of it is made obvious and I feel they reflect a majority opinion. Quite aside from which gas is only useful against an unprepared enemy, preferably one that can't retaliate. Also, in a defensive war, the gas will have a serious negative impact on the local civilian population. Killing ones own civilians is not generally considered a good thing.
The other problem with the USA is its obsession with a large navy - understandable after the wars (WW1 and the Pacific War). Unfortunately it is a battleship navy at a time when these monsters are about to be consigned to oblivion. Its bases are vulnerable to blockade and it has a major liability in Bermuda. (Anyone care to guess this is going to be the Malta of these books?)
The Home Front - as I have said, the USA is divided on class lines. The CSA is much more united and will remain so, as long as it keeps winning. Even then, major unrest is not certain. Most opponents are either dead or in work camps. The USA also has the problems of Canada and Utah. One needing to be occupied, the other a major potential headache.
One other "problem" is that the USA is a democracy. Democracies react badly to losing - even Churchill was nearly voted out of office in 1942. President Smith appears to be no Churchill. I can't see him rallying people after a few disasters.
The main thing the USA has is space. Unfortunately that may not be enough. The main industrial areas of the mid west are (especially with the border now on the Ohio river) within striking range of CSA armies and air forces. Louisville-Chicago is approximately 250 miles as the bomber flies. Whether or not the CSA has a strategic bombing capacity is not clear from what has been in the books so far. I am also assuming that as with everything else the CSA will have an advantage in the air.
So, anyone for a blitzkrieg followed by a "Vichy" USA ?
The USA is a fractured society with a divisive Labour - Capital struggle - more like France 1940. Its political leadership has been weak even to the extent of caving in to some of the CSA's demand. Even after a surprise attack by the CSA, I can't see the Democrats wholeheartedly supporting the Socialists. Again, I see a parallel with 'defeatist' parties in France.
It is too easy to assume that because OTL America was an industrial powerhouse, the USA here will be the same. It may have the potential but remember here the Depression was not moderated by 'New Deal' politics. Also, the USA hasn't had the two years of 1939-41 to begin an increase in military related industry. Also, in OTL, the USA was an invulnerable base area. Attacks on its own territory may degrade capacity significantly. Also, unlike OTL is doesn't have the resources of the areas now ruled by the CSA.
That leads me to the next big difference. Oil. As far as I can tell almost all the oil produced in North America at that time was in Texas-Oklahoma (Sequoyah). This is either now (or assumed soon to be) in CSA hands. As an aside President Smith should be impeached for letting Houston go. The other major oil sources in the world are a) overseas or b) in unfriendly hands or both. The USA's overseas trade is vulnerable to CSA, Japanese and British intereference.
On the military front, the USA is woefully under prepared. As remarked by both Morrel and Dowling it is preparing to refight the last war. Even Morrel's new tanks (barrels) are a state of the art design from the 1920s. I certainly doubt that they have evolved a useful doctrine for them. Gas may be an impediment but I suspect as in our WW2, it is unlikely to be used. Again, Morrel and Dowling's distaste of it is made obvious and I feel they reflect a majority opinion. Quite aside from which gas is only useful against an unprepared enemy, preferably one that can't retaliate. Also, in a defensive war, the gas will have a serious negative impact on the local civilian population. Killing ones own civilians is not generally considered a good thing.
The other problem with the USA is its obsession with a large navy - understandable after the wars (WW1 and the Pacific War). Unfortunately it is a battleship navy at a time when these monsters are about to be consigned to oblivion. Its bases are vulnerable to blockade and it has a major liability in Bermuda. (Anyone care to guess this is going to be the Malta of these books?)
The Home Front - as I have said, the USA is divided on class lines. The CSA is much more united and will remain so, as long as it keeps winning. Even then, major unrest is not certain. Most opponents are either dead or in work camps. The USA also has the problems of Canada and Utah. One needing to be occupied, the other a major potential headache.
One other "problem" is that the USA is a democracy. Democracies react badly to losing - even Churchill was nearly voted out of office in 1942. President Smith appears to be no Churchill. I can't see him rallying people after a few disasters.
The main thing the USA has is space. Unfortunately that may not be enough. The main industrial areas of the mid west are (especially with the border now on the Ohio river) within striking range of CSA armies and air forces. Louisville-Chicago is approximately 250 miles as the bomber flies. Whether or not the CSA has a strategic bombing capacity is not clear from what has been in the books so far. I am also assuming that as with everything else the CSA will have an advantage in the air.
So, anyone for a blitzkrieg followed by a "Vichy" USA ?
nope; I'm not betting on the Eastern Front counterpart because of the situation on the ground... I'm thinking that's what it'll be because that's what Turtledove is most likely to write (he has a thing about rewriting the EF..). A lot of your points are valid, but pretty much irrelevant. Did you note that the war started on June 22, '41? 
Though it might not be a total parallel, I think Chicago will be analogous to Stalingrad. Cold winters, Strategic posistion. One Hell of a fight instore.
David, you are, regrettably, probably right in how the story is planned. It may be heresy but I think the 'Master of Alternate History' has become a bit lazy fitting stories around well known historical events.
However, I am currently re-reading Great War: American Front and there is one tiny scene that may suggest a different future.
Reggie Bartlett (the 'good' confederate killed by Freedom party thugs) is drinking in a Richmond hotel and it is clear that one of his companions, a British naval officer totally disapproves of the way some of his country's allies treat their underclass. (Yes, pot and kettle spring to mind).
After the officer leaves there is a short conversation in which one (nameless) character remarks that if the CSA ever does anything to make the UK and France like them less than the USA, then the CSA is doomed.
I just wonder if Featherstone's endlosung could be that anything.
OK, probably extremely far-fetched but it would have the benefit of being unpredictable
However, I am currently re-reading Great War: American Front and there is one tiny scene that may suggest a different future.
Reggie Bartlett (the 'good' confederate killed by Freedom party thugs) is drinking in a Richmond hotel and it is clear that one of his companions, a British naval officer totally disapproves of the way some of his country's allies treat their underclass. (Yes, pot and kettle spring to mind).
After the officer leaves there is a short conversation in which one (nameless) character remarks that if the CSA ever does anything to make the UK and France like them less than the USA, then the CSA is doomed.
I just wonder if Featherstone's endlosung could be that anything.
OK, probably extremely far-fetched but it would have the benefit of being unpredictable
even if he does replay the EF, there still could be some neat stuff in these books.... the siege of LA (Leningrad), the failure to capture Philadelphia (Moscow), the drive to Des Moines (Stalingrad), carrier battles against the British in the Atlantic (the Brits stand in for the Japanese here)..... HT could still depict a lot of interesting things even in the context of retelling the EF in America....
Peter Cowan said:
Why the devil not? This an unprovoked attack.
You had socialists in office. What do you mean it wasn't moderated?
Which made up like 20% of our GDP. And in any case, the US has been fighting a war with Japan.
Califorina has some oil, actually, as does Canada.
I seem to remember the US using lots of tanks, and lots of planes to break enemy lines.
Everyone's navy is battleship; and the US wouldn't be obsessed with a large navy in TTL.
US isn't really divided; they just have a socialist party. Big woop.
And in my scenario, setting up camps for blacks is a bad idea.
So? Churchill is not the president of GB; he's the prime minister, huge difference. No one thought about giving up.
Let's hear it for authorial fiat, making an idiotic scenario work!
Actually it makes sense, but if so, will prove he can't right.
What about the pilot guy, was it Moss? Seems like a bit of attention was shined on him as he came out of retirement and began flying for the army again. Maybe the US will be able to halt the CSA advance with aircraft instead of the army.
Did they ever build those dams in Washington? Seattlle was a big manufacturer of aluminuim for aircraft in OTL. If they didn't then I guess they're screwed.
I remember Ross wishing that he could drop a huge bomb on Canada after his family was killed. Does it mean that he's gonna drop the Big One? They didn't really talk about how big the US Army airforce was, but I'm guessing its going to be a suprise for the CSA.
The west and the east will smash the CSA in the middle and then keep pushing them back to their lands. where they'll probably fight for every house, every lane, but here comes the new bomb and pow there goes Richmond.
Did they ever build those dams in Washington? Seattlle was a big manufacturer of aluminuim for aircraft in OTL. If they didn't then I guess they're screwed.
I remember Ross wishing that he could drop a huge bomb on Canada after his family was killed. Does it mean that he's gonna drop the Big One? They didn't really talk about how big the US Army airforce was, but I'm guessing its going to be a suprise for the CSA.
The west and the east will smash the CSA in the middle and then keep pushing them back to their lands. where they'll probably fight for every house, every lane, but here comes the new bomb and pow there goes Richmond.
I seriously doubt HT is going to have the US lose the war... who'd want to read such a depressing trilogy? Unlike France, there'd be nobody to come to our rescue. Yeah, sure, we have Germany as an ally, but just where would they build up their forces over here? They'd have to invade straight out of Europe; that's a long ways to sail assault craft...
The US navy does have lots of battleships, but it also has 4 or 5 carriers... they were fighting a carrier with Japan, remember? If Japan doesn't enter this war, I think the US will be fighting Brit carriers in the Atlantic (imagine Midway and Leyte Gulf fought in the Atlantic.. Azores? Iceland? this would be way cool). I would imagine that the US, Japan, and Britain each have quite a few carriers...
The US just created the Custer tank... from the sounds of it, it is going to have the same role as the T-34....
I think the CSA will fail to take Philadelphia for the same reason the Germans failed to take Moscow.... Featherston will send the bulk of the armor away from the Philadelphia front to make a pincer movement out in the midwest and trap a bunch of US troops ala Kiev. Later, when the armor is sent back, the US will have fortified the Philadelphia front too much for the CSA to penetrate.
The US navy does have lots of battleships, but it also has 4 or 5 carriers... they were fighting a carrier with Japan, remember? If Japan doesn't enter this war, I think the US will be fighting Brit carriers in the Atlantic (imagine Midway and Leyte Gulf fought in the Atlantic.. Azores? Iceland? this would be way cool). I would imagine that the US, Japan, and Britain each have quite a few carriers...
The US just created the Custer tank... from the sounds of it, it is going to have the same role as the T-34....
I think the CSA will fail to take Philadelphia for the same reason the Germans failed to take Moscow.... Featherston will send the bulk of the armor away from the Philadelphia front to make a pincer movement out in the midwest and trap a bunch of US troops ala Kiev. Later, when the armor is sent back, the US will have fortified the Philadelphia front too much for the CSA to penetrate.
Raymann
Banned
The big question I'm thinking of is Europe, Turtledove dosen't talk much about it and although his focus is on the US, one way or another the war is going to end in one thearter and renforcments are going to be sent to help the other unless the defeated side capitulates at once.
Some specific questions I have are the nature of the European navies. Is Germany going to be bottled up and will Britian and France be able to challenge America in the North Atlantic?
And then of course there is Japan. What incentive is there for them to fight the allies? They can sit in East Asia by themselves and do whatever they want while everyone else is busy.
As for the oil, American needs at the time were a fraction of what they are now and even without the South I believe we can supply ourselves with the fields in Pennsuvania, Indiana, Ohio and Canada; possiably with the help of rationing.
Finally I think space will eventually work out in America's favor. If the CSA attacks the west and midwest initionally it would take a large occupation army to hold it. I think Turtledove portrayed the South so resemble Nazi's, not be them so we won't have the wholesale slaughter of people in the North (except blacks of course). I think it would be like France OTL but on a much larger scale and with a greater resistance.
Some specific questions I have are the nature of the European navies. Is Germany going to be bottled up and will Britian and France be able to challenge America in the North Atlantic?
And then of course there is Japan. What incentive is there for them to fight the allies? They can sit in East Asia by themselves and do whatever they want while everyone else is busy.
As for the oil, American needs at the time were a fraction of what they are now and even without the South I believe we can supply ourselves with the fields in Pennsuvania, Indiana, Ohio and Canada; possiably with the help of rationing.
Finally I think space will eventually work out in America's favor. If the CSA attacks the west and midwest initionally it would take a large occupation army to hold it. I think Turtledove portrayed the South so resemble Nazi's, not be them so we won't have the wholesale slaughter of people in the North (except blacks of course). I think it would be like France OTL but on a much larger scale and with a greater resistance.
Well, whatever problems the USA has, the CSA has more; less industrialization, less resources, fewer men, and a navy that doesn't begin to compare. So, if HT wants to rewrite the Eastern Front in America, he can certainly do so... it'll just be on a LOT smaller scale. The books don't say anything about Germany having any carriers.. probably a battleship only fleet... they aren't going to break out into the Atlantic in the face of Britain's carriers. Perhaps Germany will be playing the French role in this ATL war... the overconfident victor of the last war who has failed to grasp the potential of the new tanks and airplanes. Maybe Germany will fall to France/UK, and the US will have to come to her rescue... although, there's no good place for the US to build up it's forces in Europe (Russia?).
I always thought that the series after the war would have made more sense if the US and Germany had a falling outs and this led to a cold war. Then by the late 30's France, and Great Britain swing into America's orbit while the Germans, Confedederates, and Japanese(the Masters of China and Southeast asia0 ally against them.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
----I always thought that the series after the war would have made more sense if the US and Germany had a falling outs and this led to a cold war. Then by the late 30's France, and Great Britain swing into America's orbit while the Germans, Confedederates, and Japanese(the Masters of China and Southeast asia0 ally against them.----
This wouldnt have been much of an atl. HT's purpose here apparently was to flip the roles of OTL WW2 by making GB and France ( and maybe Russia) be the fascists and the aggressors and Germany being the menaced nation.In this atl the US has a deep-seated rift with GB and France over their original diplomatic support for the CSA which was a major reason it acheived independence. The US actually fought GB in Canada in the 2nd Mexican War and in Canada,the Pacific and Atlantic during WWI. The US and Germany are natural allies in this atl ( as are the CSA,GB and France) and I think its really interesting how HT demonstrates that given the right conditions Britons,French and former Americans could be numbered among histories greatest villians rather than the Germans as per OTL.
This wouldnt have been much of an atl. HT's purpose here apparently was to flip the roles of OTL WW2 by making GB and France ( and maybe Russia) be the fascists and the aggressors and Germany being the menaced nation.In this atl the US has a deep-seated rift with GB and France over their original diplomatic support for the CSA which was a major reason it acheived independence. The US actually fought GB in Canada in the 2nd Mexican War and in Canada,the Pacific and Atlantic during WWI. The US and Germany are natural allies in this atl ( as are the CSA,GB and France) and I think its really interesting how HT demonstrates that given the right conditions Britons,French and former Americans could be numbered among histories greatest villians rather than the Germans as per OTL.
I think for about the third time in the 2 years I've been on this board, I agree with something Michael said
It's hard to imagine Britain and France allying with the US, when the US was one of the instruments in her defeat in the great war. As for France, she was beaten by the US's ally Germany. I have no problem at all seeing the three defeated nations becoming the counterparts of the Nazis and Fascists... not because they are prone to it any more than anyone else, just because they went through the same horrid economic meltdown that Germany did in OTL. In times of sheer desperation like that, people will turn to anyone who promises better times.. and then seems to deliver on it...
It's hard to imagine Britain and France allying with the US, when the US was one of the instruments in her defeat in the great war. As for France, she was beaten by the US's ally Germany. I have no problem at all seeing the three defeated nations becoming the counterparts of the Nazis and Fascists... not because they are prone to it any more than anyone else, just because they went through the same horrid economic meltdown that Germany did in OTL. In times of sheer desperation like that, people will turn to anyone who promises better times.. and then seems to deliver on it...