Isn't the Dominican Republic basically a Spanish protectorate now? Also, can this German-SIamese approachment lead to the Kra canal post war?

I believe that it was directly annexed by Spain - and Dominica's own instigation - and will eventually become something akin to a Dominion (perhaps with its own Monarch), but is still being ruled directly from Madrid at this point in the narritive.
 
I believe that it was directly annexed by Spain - and Dominica's own instigation - and will eventually become something akin to a Dominion (perhaps with its own Monarch), but is still being ruled directly from Madrid at this point in the narritive.
I think during the American Civil War, the Spanish had their brief attempt at colonialism, by trying to reconquer Dominican Republic, which failed OTL, as USA won the war, and the Spanish already lost their will to fight anways, though ITTL, the changes ensured that the Spanish finally managed to reconquer the Dominican Republic, though at the end, they gave them autonomy like they did to Cuba.
 
"...simply as a function of geography, it was clear that Switzerland would be caught up, to some extent, in the ongoing war."
Appreciate this is jumping back a few posts, but this was excellent. As indeed it all is - taking me a fair while to get from the start of CdM to here, but it's been great all the way. I'm always interested to see a Post-1900 TL where Switzerland gets some of the limelight. It has a funny blend of 'if we don't move they won't see us' and 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.'

Your post seems pretty clear to me that France & Germany don't follow through with their contemplated invasions, but if you find yourself wanting more info on Swiss military/social/industrial preparations in WWI & WWII this playlist on Youtube has quite a bit of info: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYYU4WyjIAN23T0xwnNmQlEIY3lJRMcN&si=lu3HvgsU4ymUGxQo
 
When the Ottoman Empire seems to inevitably lose land in a future conflict/war in Africa and Asia, I don't see them being reduced to OTL Turkey's boarders in Asia.

I think its likely that all their African territory (that they basically control de jure will be lost), and in Asia regions like Hejaz and Kuwait will also be lost. Where I think the borders will be south of OTL is in Mesopotamia and the Levant (there is no way the Ottomans wont fight like mad to keep oil producing territories there). I think Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Southern Mesopotamia (from Basra to to up to Baghdad) could likely be lost, but I think OTL's Syria and most of Lebanon, and the northern half of Iraq could still be kept.
 
The Root of the Problem: The Tumultuous Term of America's 29th President
"...from both a political and military angle; Mayhew Wainwright may have been a committed champion of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments policy, but in his own words he "was no magician." Assessments from March or Pershing were no less blunt, and by the middle of 1919, with the world's attention focused upon the sudden eruption of a general war in Europe, Root was starting to worry that the basic facts on the ground aligned with what was increasingly becoming clear: the reduced occupation the United States traded in return for the Third Amendment was inconsistent with the enforcement of public order within the borders of the Confederacy and wholly incompatible with seeing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments actually implemented.

The previous year of occupation - since the final passage of the abolition of slavery in August 1918 and Patton's resignation thereafter - had been considerably less violent than the previous three. It's most violent month, December of 1918 (the time of the Sand Hills Rebellion), had still been only as bloody as an average month the year before, and attacks on US servicemen had declined by nearly seventy percent since the new year. Confederate ports, with the exception of the utterly destroyed Charleston, were again functional and had attracted a robust population of freedmen who sought out American protection and quickly established a parallel economy of their own; the interior, however, told a very different story, with the reduction of American presence outside of key ports and rail junctions. Due to the near-destruction of most hillboy networks the previous summer and fall, into the void stepped local bosses, typically county sheriffs, judges and landowners who could organize small but effective cadres of relatives, friends and employees to protect their interests. Some of these "fiefs," as they quickly came to be known, were as small as a town; others covered multiple counties. In parallel, in the northwest of Mississippi just south of Memphis, the Yazoo League's numerous bosses consolidated into a unified command structure with its own uniforms, governing institutions and commercial base; fiefs were not just for the economically devastated rural white man, but for the free but struggling Negro as well.

This turn of events - a drop in politically unpopular violence towards Americans, and the replacement of central authority with hyperlocal governance systems - began to weigh on Philadelphia. The evacuation of Dixie's interior, as per the treaty terms, effectively meant that the United States had no way to actually force the passage of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, what with the passage of the Third near-impossible as it was. This increasingly daunting reality was chased with the fact that the eruption of war in Europe cut off import materiel to the Confederacy from France and Germany most prominently but also redirected exports from Canada, the United Kingdom, and even the United States towards the Continent. As such, the burden of keeping Dixie fed and supplied with goods would increasingly fall on the War Department once again, now as the American depression slid back into its second phase following the French Crash. Anti-war protests were picking up increasingly, with a particularly large one bringing Cleveland to a standstill on July 4th, 1919, and labor action throughout the second half of the year rivalled the tensions and chaos of the Red Summer.

The attractiveness of evacuating the Confederacy's interior entirely thus started to grow. Wainwright circulated a memorandum in September 1919 spelling out the implications of a phased reduction in American troop presence throughout the next eighteen months that was overruled by Root but which introduced the conversation in Cabinet for the first time. It was a conversation that was already being had amongst Congressmen in the shadow of the new Capitol being built at Fairmount; the dam colloquially broke when George Turner, the hawk of hawks and arguably the most powerful Senate Democrat, stated his support on October 10 for a "negotiated withdrawal" that would aim to dramatically reduce the American troop presence on Confederate soil by the end of 1920 and a total withdrawal by the end of 1921. Within days, Speaker Clark had suggested the same, and powerful members of the House Liberal Caucus including former Speaker James Mann suggested likewise, and in an interview with the New York Herald, Root's predecessor Hughes declined to directly question the administration's execution of the occupation but did concede that "permanent occupation cannot, and as far as I know is not, a viable plan for the President to attempt to pursue."

As 1919 advanced, then, it became clear that the hawks were dwindling one by one, in both parties; the loss of Turner's support for the full continuation of the terms of Mount Vernon, which he had helped negotiate, was the death knell. Whether via unilateral evacuation or Turner's proposal of directly renegotiating occupation terms with the Confederacy, political consensus within both parties shifted rapidly towards an end to occupation, and it left Lodge bitter and alone in his support for sustaining it, politically isolated even from members of his own party, and he even threatened resignation should he personally be forced to negotiate terms with Confederate counterparts. Root was not quite ready to throw in the towel, hoping instead that the continued stabilization of Confederate society that had been seen throughout 1919 would create a window of opportunity to pass something - but before long, he too had to admit that the outlook for the dreams of Mount Vernon looked dire, as thin as the appetite of the American public to continue perpetuating the war years as they yearned for some kind of forward-looking hope..."

- The Root of the Problem: The Tumultuous Term of America's 29th President
 
I love the book name so cool
Thank you!
When we get to present day is Cambodia going to have a significant German speaking population?
Definitely. Probably a lot of people with half or quarter German heritage, too.
So, it seems that we are moving in the direction of a German-dominated SE Asia after the war. What will be interesting, of course, is that German policy in this region (based on the precedent of our Bavarian administration in Cambodia) is much more hands-off than that of the French. No doubt this region will get its independence eventually - but I wonder if the German way of handling things will mean that the independent SE kingdoms remain in the German economic sphere even once independence is attained. Certainly, there doesn't seem to be much anti-German sentiment in Cambodia and soon-to-be-ally Thailand.
Definitely. Though I'll note that just because Germany has been hands-off up until now, does not mean they always will be.
I also wonder how long it is going to take for Japan to get itself involved. There is no way that, after the humiliation of the Phillipines, it isn't going to look at French colonies with some adore - especially once it becomes evident that Cambodia is putting up a fight and is likely to tie the French down. Though I do wonder if there won't be some leary members of government who point out "Yeah, we beat the Spanish and the Europeans stripped us of our rightful prize in that war. What's so say that they wont use ur soldiers and sailors as cannon fodder and betray us at the peace table yet again."
Future update on this incoming
On an unrelated side note: I am STILL hoping Haiti throws its lot in with the Germans and is able to repudiate its debt to France and also some French carribbean lands. Though I suspect that the French navy is going to have to be bloodied before that happens - Haiti doesn't have a naval presence of its own and is going to need German naval support to get its troops on the ground in those places (though that would set up an interesting situaton: the US has a naval base in Haiti and isn't going to look kindly on the French actually threatening the island. Which means, Haiti in this situation would actually be pretty safe from invasion - the French try anything and the US will be mobilizing and sending strongly-worded diplomatic letters telling them to back off sooner than Nappy V can blink. Which means, Haiti would be in a very safe position to pursue its war aims: it can, with help, strike out but is safe from retaliation) Mind you this may jsut be pie-in-the-sky dreaming: but I just want to see a stable and prosperous Haiti, or, at least, a relatively stable and propserous one! :D
Haiti had a heavily-German and Germanophile elite in the early 20th century, so I could see a default on French debt and renegotiated credit with German banks being an attractive solution for them, though the US may definitely consider Haiti their backyard rather than Germany's...
Isn't the Dominican Republic basically a Spanish protectorate now? Also, can this German-SIamese approachment lead to the Kra canal post war?
Santo Domingo is outright part of Spain.

That could be an option, sure. It would make Singapore/Molucca much less important. One wonders if the UK would intervene in Siam to try to stop it?
Appreciate this is jumping back a few posts, but this was excellent. As indeed it all is - taking me a fair while to get from the start of CdM to here, but it's been great all the way. I'm always interested to see a Post-1900 TL where Switzerland gets some of the limelight. It has a funny blend of 'if we don't move they won't see us' and 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.'

Your post seems pretty clear to me that France & Germany don't follow through with their contemplated invasions, but if you find yourself wanting more info on Swiss military/social/industrial preparations in WWI & WWII this playlist on Youtube has quite a bit of info: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnYYU4WyjIAN23T0xwnNmQlEIY3lJRMcN&si=lu3HvgsU4ymUGxQo
Thank you!

Switzerland is a small peripheral player in this conflict, but purely due to geography it needs to be mentioned, especially with how important the Gotthard Rail is for keeping German supplies (especially coal) flowing south into Italy.
When the Ottoman Empire seems to inevitably lose land in a future conflict/war in Africa and Asia, I don't see them being reduced to OTL Turkey's boarders in Asia.
I can at least promise that in present day, Istanbul will still be called "Constantinople" colloquially in the West and will still be ruled by a Sultan.
I think its likely that all their African territory (that they basically control de jure will be lost),
Tunisia in particular is looking very appealing to the Italians, especially with how large the Italian community of Tunis was.
and in Asia regions like Hejaz and Kuwait will also be lost.
Note that Thicc-Kuwait is already not in the OE anymore, per the Anglo-Ottoman Concordat of 1913
Where I think the borders will be south of OTL is in Mesopotamia and the Levant (there is no way the Ottomans wont fight like mad to keep oil producing territories there). I think Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Southern Mesopotamia (from Basra to to up to Baghdad) could likely be lost, but I think OTL's Syria and most of Lebanon, and the northern half of Iraq could still be kept.
So what you're suggesting is that Halep, Beirut, Damascus, and Mosul remain Ottoman but Baghdad is iffy, and everything south of that line is excluded
 
"...from both a political and military angle; Mayhew Wainwright may have been a committed champion of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments policy, but in his own words he "was no magician." Assessments from March or Pershing were no less blunt, and by the middle of 1919, with the world's attention focused upon the sudden eruption of a general war in Europe, Root was starting to worry that the basic facts on the ground aligned with what was increasingly becoming clear: the reduced occupation the United States traded in return for the Third Amendment was inconsistent with the enforcement of public order within the borders of the Confederacy and wholly incompatible with seeing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments actually implemented.

The previous year of occupation - since the final passage of the abolition of slavery in August 1918 and Patton's resignation thereafter - had been considerably less violent than the previous three. It's most violent month, December of 1918 (the time of the Sand Hills Rebellion), had still been only as bloody as an average month the year before, and attacks on US servicemen had declined by nearly seventy percent since the new year. Confederate ports, with the exception of the utterly destroyed Charleston, were again functional and had attracted a robust population of freedmen who sought out American protection and quickly established a parallel economy of their own; the interior, however, told a very different story, with the reduction of American presence outside of key ports and rail junctions. Due to the near-destruction of most hillboy networks the previous summer and fall, into the void stepped local bosses, typically county sheriffs, judges and landowners who could organize small but effective cadres of relatives, friends and employees to protect their interests. Some of these "fiefs," as they quickly came to be known, were as small as a town; others covered multiple counties. In parallel, in the northwest of Mississippi just south of Memphis, the Yazoo League's numerous bosses consolidated into a unified command structure with its own uniforms, governing institutions and commercial base; fiefs were not just for the economically devastated rural white man, but for the free but struggling Negro as well.

This turn of events - a drop in politically unpopular violence towards Americans, and the replacement of central authority with hyperlocal governance systems - began to weigh on Philadelphia. The evacuation of Dixie's interior, as per the treaty terms, effectively meant that the United States had no way to actually force the passage of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, what with the passage of the Third near-impossible as it was. This increasingly daunting reality was chased with the fact that the eruption of war in Europe cut off import materiel to the Confederacy from France and Germany most prominently but also redirected exports from Canada, the United Kingdom, and even the United States towards the Continent. As such, the burden of keeping Dixie fed and supplied with goods would increasingly fall on the War Department once again, now as the American depression slid back into its second phase following the French Crash. Anti-war protests were picking up increasingly, with a particularly large one bringing Cleveland to a standstill on July 4th, 1919, and labor action throughout the second half of the year rivalled the tensions and chaos of the Red Summer.

The attractiveness of evacuating the Confederacy's interior entirely thus started to grow. Wainwright circulated a memorandum in September 1919 spelling out the implications of a phased reduction in American troop presence throughout the next eighteen months that was overruled by Root but which introduced the conversation in Cabinet for the first time. It was a conversation that was already being had amongst Congressmen in the shadow of the new Capitol being built at Fairmount; the dam colloquially broke when George Turner, the hawk of hawks and arguably the most powerful Senate Democrat, stated his support on October 10 for a "negotiated withdrawal" that would aim to dramatically reduce the American troop presence on Confederate soil by the end of 1920 and a total withdrawal by the end of 1921. Within days, Speaker Clark had suggested the same, and powerful members of the House Liberal Caucus including former Speaker James Mann suggested likewise, and in an interview with the New York Herald, Root's predecessor Hughes declined to directly question the administration's execution of the occupation but did concede that "permanent occupation cannot, and as far as I know is not, a viable plan for the President to attempt to pursue."

As 1919 advanced, then, it became clear that the hawks were dwindling one by one, in both parties; the loss of Turner's support for the full continuation of the terms of Mount Vernon, which he had helped negotiate, was the death knell. Whether via unilateral evacuation or Turner's proposal of directly renegotiating occupation terms with the Confederacy, political consensus within both parties shifted rapidly towards an end to occupation, and it left Lodge bitter and alone in his support for sustaining it, politically isolated even from members of his own party, and he even threatened resignation should he personally be forced to negotiate terms with Confederate counterparts. Root was not quite ready to throw in the towel, hoping instead that the continued stabilization of Confederate society that had been seen throughout 1919 would create a window of opportunity to pass something - but before long, he too had to admit that the outlook for the dreams of Mount Vernon looked dire, as thin as the appetite of the American public to continue perpetuating the war years as they yearned for some kind of forward-looking hope..."

- The Root of the Problem: The Tumultuous Term of America's 29th President
Amazing work as always! Love reading the polical landscape
 
Definitely. Though I'll note that just because Germany has been hands-off up until now, does not mean they always will be.
OTL German colonial policy was a very mixed bag, ranging from genocide in Namibia to a very ahead of its time policy in East Africa. This Germany is even less focused on their empire, so that would probably be just as bad.

I doubt that they are cracking down on Cambodia, given that through their decent performance in the war they would’ve “proved their loyalty”, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for newly acquired colonies.
 
OTL German colonial policy was a very mixed bag, ranging from genocide in Namibia to a very ahead of its time policy in East Africa. This Germany is even less focused on their empire, so that would probably be just as bad.

I doubt that they are cracking down on Cambodia, given that through their decent performance in the war they would’ve “proved their loyalty”, but that doesn’t guarantee anything for newly acquired colonies.
Yeah, I feel like Cambodia will be the model protectorate the Germans would love to point as an example of their great and humanitarian policies, with it perhaps even gaining a dominion-esque statue in near future, while other colonies will definitely not be.
 
Due to the near-destruction of most hillboy networks the previous summer and fall, into the void stepped local bosses, typically county sheriffs, judges and landowners who could organize small but effective cadres of relatives, friends and employees to protect their interests. Some of these "fiefs," as they quickly came to be known, were as small as a town; others covered multiple counties. In parallel, in the northwest of Mississippi just south of Memphis, the Yazoo League's numerous bosses consolidated into a unified command structure with its own uniforms, governing institutions and commercial base; fiefs were not just for the economically devastated rural white man, but for the free but struggling Negro as well.
Looks like we've arrived at full Warlord Era China. At this rate it will take decades for the central Dixie government to re-establish the same level of control they had over their territory pre-war.
The attractiveness of evacuating the Confederacy's interior entirely thus started to grow. Wainwright circulated a memorandum in September 1919 spelling out the implications of a phased reduction in American troop presence throughout the next eighteen months that was overruled by Root but which introduced the conversation in Cabinet for the first time. It was a conversation that was already being had amongst Congressmen in the shadow of the new Capitol being built at Fairmount; the dam colloquially broke when George Turner, the hawk of hawks and arguably the most powerful Senate Democrat, stated his support on October 10 for a "negotiated withdrawal" that would aim to dramatically reduce the American troop presence on Confederate soil by the end of 1920 and a total withdrawal by the end of 1921. Within days, Speaker Clark had suggested the same, and powerful members of the House Liberal Caucus including former Speaker James Mann suggested likewise, and in an interview with the New York Herald, Root's predecessor Hughes declined to directly question the administration's execution of the occupation but did concede that "permanent occupation cannot, and as far as I know is not, a viable plan for the President to attempt to pursue."

As 1919 advanced, then, it became clear that the hawks were dwindling one by one, in both parties; the loss of Turner's support for the full continuation of the terms of Mount Vernon, which he had helped negotiate, was the death knell. Whether via unilateral evacuation or Turner's proposal of directly renegotiating occupation terms with the Confederacy, political consensus within both parties shifted rapidly towards an end to occupation, and it left Lodge bitter and alone in his support for sustaining it, politically isolated even from members of his own party, and he even threatened resignation should he personally be forced to negotiate terms with Confederate counterparts. Root was not quite ready to throw in the towel, hoping instead that the continued stabilization of Confederate society that had been seen throughout 1919 would create a window of opportunity to pass something - but before long, he too had to admit that the outlook for the dreams of Mount Vernon looked dire, as thin as the appetite of the American public to continue perpetuating the war years as they yearned for some kind of forward-looking hope..."

- The Root of the Problem: The Tumultuous Term of America's 29th President
This occupation was doomed from the beginning. Just an absolute shitshow.
 
The only way to truly enforce the equality of Black Confederates would be to have White Confederates be re-educated and the US doesn’t have the appetite for that.
 
I commented several months (years?) ago that the Heavily Negro areas along the Mississippi in the Northwest part of the state of Mississippi could be supplied with supplied along the Mississippi with weaponry equal to or exceeding the weaponry of the local governments until the 1950s or so and with the limitations on the Military in the treaty of Mt. Vernon, it could be even later than *that*. A fief where the relationship between White and Black is *only* a generation behind the relations north of the Ohio might not be a hiddeous place to live (as opposed to the coastal Carolinas)
Speaking of relationships. I presume that in the heaviest use of Miscegination laws ittl is on the pacific coast and largely written so that asians have to marry asians, with a marriage between a white and a black person being OK. It does lead to the question of whether a Chinese Man can marry a South Asian (India) woman and what grouping the Persians are in. (Does Britain have Burma ittl?)
 
Yeah, I feel like Cambodia will be the model protectorate the Germans would love to point as an example of their great and humanitarian policies, with it perhaps even gaining a dominion-esque statue in near future, while other colonies will definitely not be.
The German government may be hands off but the German companies may be more involved., see banana republics.
 
I commented several months (years?) ago that the Heavily Negro areas along the Mississippi in the Northwest part of the state of Mississippi could be supplied with supplied along the Mississippi with weaponry equal to or exceeding the weaponry of the local governments until the 1950s or so and with the limitations on the Military in the treaty of Mt. Vernon, it could be even later than *that*. A fief where the relationship between White and Black is *only* a generation behind the relations north of the Ohio might not be a hiddeous place to live (as opposed to the coastal Carolinas)

Yeah, I suspect there is going to be a rather lively contraband trade going on between Northern African-American communities and Black Fiefdoms/rebel groups all up and down the Mississippi. After all, many in the North may have families down South (especially or those who escaped the South during the GAW) and even for those two don't, there are likely going to be many whites and blacks in the Union who are sympathetic to the Freedmen and their descendents in the South.

I wonder when sustained and organized civil rights movements will begin to form in the Confederacy. The 20s are potentially a bit early as people are still catching their breaths after the war and doing their best to hold on to what they have. The 1930s you are probably going to see a Long Consensus form - especially since Long is probably going to be supportive of the Freedmen community (albeit, not as supportive as he will be of poor whites - but certainly better than any CSA politician before him and likely many after). So it won't be until the Long Consensus breaks down during the 1950s or so that we really see things pick up steam: though its going to be a long fight as it seems legal segregation doesn't end until the 1980s/90s if I remember correctly.

 
I commented several months (years?) ago that the Heavily Negro areas along the Mississippi in the Northwest part of the state of Mississippi could be supplied with supplied along the Mississippi with weaponry equal to or exceeding the weaponry of the local governments until the 1950s or so and with the limitations on the Military in the treaty of Mt. Vernon, it could be even later than *that*. A fief where the relationship between White and Black is *only* a generation behind the relations north of the Ohio might not be a hiddeous place to live (as opposed to the coastal Carolinas)
Speaking of relationships. I presume that in the heaviest use of Miscegination laws ittl is on the pacific coast and largely written so that asians have to marry asians, with a marriage between a white and a black person being OK. It does lead to the question of whether a Chinese Man can marry a South Asian (India) woman and what grouping the Persians are in. (Does Britain have Burma ittl?)
I think that the black fiefdoms while it might be unofficially independent in all but name for at least a generation I think they will be brought into line less by weaponry than playing them against each other. Black warlord states after all might share some common struggles but would compete over cash land ect...that is till they get a reminder of how bad the CSA is when they reconquer a area.

At least that's what I think might be dynamic that occurs, ironically any CSA group wishing to unify the nation has to go ''mask on'' for a bit to have the hope, to remove the need to rely on black labour for example you need good relations with the US to try and develop mechanised agriculture, to try and retake the black mini states ideally you need them divided and fighting each other both because the US would tolerate them expelling their rivals more and to reduce the amount of casualties the CSA would face breaking the area and subsuming it.

Of course when the CSA actually does take some land I imagine horrific atrocities take place because the CSA are the CSA leads to pushback as black warlords unite against their common foe, aid and other supplies start surging and the CSA core faces eruptions from dissent at these actions which might be enough to discredit that CSA revivalist clique only for a new one to try the same method a few years later.
 
Poor Cabot Lodge, the stodgy stubborn old reactionary fighting a forlorn battle for the rights of the emancipated in the lame duck days of a rudderless administration. You can't say he's not living up to the example set by Sumner and Hoar.
 
Top