One thing that comes to mind - and you've already hinted at this - what this is going to do is lead to a diversification of the brewing and distilling industry and resembles (if I'm remembering correctly) Canadian laws where if a company wishes to sell beer in the province, then it needs to be producing it there. What we are ging to see if that if a business wants to compete on the national level, its going to have to have a distillery or brewery in each state that its selling in. That's probably not economically feasible, and so we're instead going to see a lot more regional companies thriving, even if their market is smaller.

One question, actually: are there any big whiskey distilleries in the US and what are the biggest ones? Many of the bigger ones from OTL are focused more on Appalachia and the South, and so they are going to be banned in any case.
 
And in the Confederacy, while Prohibition would have had a chance without war, it will probably be more than a decade before the Confederate Government will be strong enough to even consider enforcing it.

Oddly enough, I looked at Huey Long's wikipedia page and for someone who was Governor *during* Prohibition, the wikipedia page mentions neither the work alcohol or the word prohibition, any ideas where he was on the issue?

He was a wet or, at least, didn't seem to see any reason to try to enforce laws which he seemed to believe were unenforcible in Louisiana, anyway

 
He was a wet or, at least, didn't seem to see any reason to try to enforce laws which he seemed to believe were unenforcible in Louisiana, anyway

From https://www.hnoc.org/publications/first-draft/liquor-capital-america—new-orleans-during-prohibition

"One of America’s most famous agents was Izzy Einstein (right). A master of disguise—and followed by the press like a movie star—he came to New Orleans in 1923 as part of a nationwide investigation to learn where drinks were the easiest to find. New Orleans won with a score of 35 seconds. Between the railroad station and his hotel, Izzy asked his taxi driver where drinks were sold. The driver offered to sell him a bottle from under the seat."
 
Last edited:
"...for whatever the Prohibition Party had hoped to accomplish, the lack of a full wartime ban as they had hoped for proved there were limits to what they could accomplish, and a powerful cross-partisan alliance of "wets" had formed by the end of the conflict to prevent anything even approximating it. It was true that Liberals were, on general, much more likely to support prohibition east of the Mississippi while support for temperance was fairly bipartisan to its west; it was also the case that most Western states, with the exception of California and Oregon, had entered the Union with constitutional prohibition already built into their governing documents, or in the progressive spirit of the early 1910s drafted new constitutions that did so, such as in Dakota, Colorado, or even Midwestern Indiana. This created an ample block of drys in the Democratic ranks, but also a block who were less worried about passing a nationwide prohibition, as their states were already very prohibitive, and as 1918 came about the sense was increasingly on the Democratic side that the question of drink was one which badly split their party in an age (such as the case of Oregon, where feuding over it had become an internecine bloodbath) where they otherwise agreed on a great many things, in particular their contempt for President Root.

The votes were there for a law against alcohol at the federal level, but not a full constitutional ban, as the Prohibition Party had hoped, and Root, already embattled by the spring of 1918, elected to simply split the difference. The Milwaukee Beer Riots had badly burned his predecessor Hughes, who as a personal teetotaler felt much more strongly about the matter than Root ever did, and with enough on his plate - especially his much stronger opposition to women's suffrage, another parallel issue of the day - Root was unwilling to further damage Liberal prospects in strongly wet states like Wisconsin or his native by expending his political capital on a draconian Prohibition. The Liberal-controlled Congress thus pressed ahead with a bill that suited his views, as well as those of Democratic drys from the West, without offending wet Democrats and Liberal moderates on the question: the Interstate Liquor Control Act, which would govern American alcohol law at the federal level until its repeal in 1946.

The ILCA was composed of two parts, the Interstate Liquor Transport Regulation Policy and the Liquor Import Prohibition Policy, and they worked in tandem. Effectively, the ILCA did not ban the personal possession or consumption of alcohol, nor its production, as many drys had demanded, Rather, it made it a federal felony to transport liquor, wine or beer with an alcohol by unit content in excess of ten percent (modified to twelve percent in 1933) across state lines, regardless of whether the states it was moving between internally regulated or banned liquor. The import rules were even stricter - with the exception of light beer with an alcohol content of five percent or less, all alcohol was banned from being imported into the United States from neighboring countries or from overseas by train and boat or, by the late 1920s, by plane.

Temperance activists had spent decades building to this moment and thus were enormously frustrated; the ILCA did little more than make permanent the interstate commerce controls put in place during the war but relaxed a number of the Grain Board's restrictions on breweries and distilleries, and they were not wrong that the ILCA was a half-loaf compromise that only solved part of the problem. It was a mixed bag for Root; soft drys were generally happy with the Act, which the oft-Protestants viewed as largely targeting Catholics they did not trust or like, and the majority of them already lived in dry states in the West or New England. Midwestern wets were, by and large, fairly unaffected, and vibrant brewing and distilling economies exploded in places like Wisconsin, Illinois, New Jersey and New York where alcohol laws were fairly lax, at least as compared to Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio. But hard drys felt betrayed after years of building grassroots support through the Liberal Party, and many wets were skeptical that the ILCA would be the end of it. Politically, Root considered the ILCA the end of the war; for others, the battle had simply shifted back again to the states, this time with a growing "Liquor Control Agent," or "Lickies," often former veterans eager for work, supporting them to prevent transport across state lines and enforce the law federally..." [1]

- A Toast to the Devil: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition Politics

[1] So this is my long-previewed "split the difference" on Prohibition. Root IOTL was pretty skeptical of Prohibition compared to many of his peers so this seemed to fit his personality well, and without the South, the votes aren't there for Volstead/18A. This is still a pretty strong Prohibition in many ways, but well short of OTL, especially with a number of wet states - especially major ones like Wisconsin, Illinois and New York - redoubts of legal alcohol that can definitely avoid the Lickies as it fans out across the country surreptitiously
Amazing work as always! Keep it up!
 
"...for whatever the Prohibition Party had hoped to accomplish, the lack of a full wartime ban as they had hoped for proved there were limits to what they could accomplish, and a powerful cross-partisan alliance of "wets" had formed by the end of the conflict to prevent anything even approximating it. It was true that Liberals were, on general, much more likely to support prohibition east of the Mississippi while support for temperance was fairly bipartisan to its west; it was also the case that most Western states, with the exception of California and Oregon, had entered the Union with constitutional prohibition already built into their governing documents, or in the progressive spirit of the early 1910s drafted new constitutions that did so, such as in Dakota, Colorado, or even Midwestern Indiana. This created an ample block of drys in the Democratic ranks, but also a block who were less worried about passing a nationwide prohibition, as their states were already very prohibitive, and as 1918 came about the sense was increasingly on the Democratic side that the question of drink was one which badly split their party in an age (such as the case of Oregon, where feuding over it had become an internecine bloodbath) where they otherwise agreed on a great many things, in particular their contempt for President Root.

The votes were there for a law against alcohol at the federal level, but not a full constitutional ban, as the Prohibition Party had hoped, and Root, already embattled by the spring of 1918, elected to simply split the difference. The Milwaukee Beer Riots had badly burned his predecessor Hughes, who as a personal teetotaler felt much more strongly about the matter than Root ever did, and with enough on his plate - especially his much stronger opposition to women's suffrage, another parallel issue of the day - Root was unwilling to further damage Liberal prospects in strongly wet states like Wisconsin or his native by expending his political capital on a draconian Prohibition. The Liberal-controlled Congress thus pressed ahead with a bill that suited his views, as well as those of Democratic drys from the West, without offending wet Democrats and Liberal moderates on the question: the Interstate Liquor Control Act, which would govern American alcohol law at the federal level until its repeal in 1946.

The ILCA was composed of two parts, the Interstate Liquor Transport Regulation Policy and the Liquor Import Prohibition Policy, and they worked in tandem. Effectively, the ILCA did not ban the personal possession or consumption of alcohol, nor its production, as many drys had demanded, Rather, it made it a federal felony to transport liquor, wine or beer with an alcohol by unit content in excess of ten percent (modified to twelve percent in 1933) across state lines, regardless of whether the states it was moving between internally regulated or banned liquor. The import rules were even stricter - with the exception of light beer with an alcohol content of five percent or less, all alcohol was banned from being imported into the United States from neighboring countries or from overseas by train and boat or, by the late 1920s, by plane.

Temperance activists had spent decades building to this moment and thus were enormously frustrated; the ILCA did little more than make permanent the interstate commerce controls put in place during the war but relaxed a number of the Grain Board's restrictions on breweries and distilleries, and they were not wrong that the ILCA was a half-loaf compromise that only solved part of the problem. It was a mixed bag for Root; soft drys were generally happy with the Act, which the oft-Protestants viewed as largely targeting Catholics they did not trust or like, and the majority of them already lived in dry states in the West or New England. Midwestern wets were, by and large, fairly unaffected, and vibrant brewing and distilling economies exploded in places like Wisconsin, Illinois, New Jersey and New York where alcohol laws were fairly lax, at least as compared to Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio. But hard drys felt betrayed after years of building grassroots support through the Liberal Party, and many wets were skeptical that the ILCA would be the end of it. Politically, Root considered the ILCA the end of the war; for others, the battle had simply shifted back again to the states, this time with a growing "Liquor Control Agent," or "Lickies," often former veterans eager for work, supporting them to prevent transport across state lines and enforce the law federally..." [1]

- A Toast to the Devil: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition Politics

[1] So this is my long-previewed "split the difference" on Prohibition. Root IOTL was pretty skeptical of Prohibition compared to many of his peers so this seemed to fit his personality well, and without the South, the votes aren't there for Volstead/18A. This is still a pretty strong Prohibition in many ways, but well short of OTL, especially with a number of wet states - especially major ones like Wisconsin, Illinois and New York - redoubts of legal alcohol that can definitely avoid the Lickies as it fans out across the country surreptitiously
An update on Prohibition just before St. Patrick’s Day, oh the irony! And banning Irish whiskey to boot!
 
Same!

We know of the Hillboys, but how are they operating? Partisans need support from a local population to operated, so how are they getting that, and who are their enemies (because not everyone, no matter how patriotic, are going yo support a partisan movement. Especially if the US is starting to carry out reprisals)

And even moving beyond the Hillboys - How's the economy effexting your every day Confederate citizen and thsts their relationship to the state and national government. What's the popular culture like? The war and the occupation are certainly going to leave Marks on that!

And how are the freedmen doing? We know many have taken up arms, but whata day to day life like in their communities?

The short answer is: Depends on the area.

The long answer is I see Texas and the rump Confederacy becoming a breeding ground for all sorts of vices, from smuggling and manufacturing tobacco, weapons, drugs and liquor to human trafficking. Also regular industries like logging, mining may be done under hillboy guns . There will be 'Wide Open towns' where gambling, liquor and prositution are openly conducted and the town officials are either bought off or are part of the illegal businesses. Some of this money will reach the hillboys either as 'protection' money or 'taxes'. Some hillboys will portray themselves as 'defenders of Christian civilization' against the Yankee or outsider hordes while others will burn your house down with you in it if you go against them. There may be popular civilian support for 'our boys' if they spread the wealth around, provide for the poor and orphans and provide some services, better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't. Organized crime groups composed of ethnic gangs or military veterans from the Union may attempt to move into the Confederacy to take over those markets but may face 'hillbilly mafias' or even negro groups who are ready to defend themselves.

The state and national government in the Confederacy may show up once every few months or once or twice a year depending on how far it is to the major cities and capital. Savvy Confederate and local politicians and hillboy leaders may know when to hide the guns when the military show ups and when a display of force is needed. They also could guarantee votes and monetary support for favored candidates who think their way. The Confederates people of all classes will be taking all sorts of drugs and alcohol to deal with war wounds, PTSD, health problems and life in general. Methamphetamine's will be issued like candy from 'friendly' doctors. Many Confederates will be focusing on feeding their families, getting the crop in or enough money for the next drink. Expect all sorts of confidence men, travelling preachers and 'mystics' to be around selling cures for health to bad luck. The older generation may cling harder to their local Churches and faiths since they provide aid and the comfort of ritual. The war generation, the veterans and young people will throw themselves into drugs, music and experimental ideas of culture and living. 'Eat, Drink and Be Merry for tomorrow we may die.'

To the Freeman communities they may barely trust the American government or an American citizen but anyone else is 'foreign' or part of the enslavers. Some Americans may try to convince the Freeman to move to the US or somewhere else but they will not leave the land that their ancestors and they paid for with their lives. In majority Negro areas they will build up local industries, newspapers, civil government and have their own gangs and militias similar to the white Confederates.
 
Fundamentally the GAW has shattered both the legitimacy and the functionality of central government in the CSA and it will take a very long time for that to be pieced back together especially when American troops are busy inflicting their own form of punitive justice for one of the continent's founding sins.

Warlord era China combined with the racial attitudes of the Antebellum South and god only knows how many hundreds of thousands guns floating around. Talk about a pressure-cooker.
 
Just been thinking about the CSA:

IOTL, the reconstruction amendments were called by some historians today as the "Second Founding" and greatly expanded the power of the federal government

Besides the The "Gunbarrel Amendments", Is there a posibility that other aspects of the Confederate Constitution that might be changed. Say removing the ability of states to impeach federal officials in their territory to empower the National Government.

I can imagine a Bourbon Adminstration in the 1920s needing more powers to stablize the country.

Considering the conservative culture of Dixie, It's highly unlikely. Probably will happen in the Long Years
 
Pinsk Protocol
"...medieval castle town at the confluence of the Pripyat and the Pina. Jagow commented in his memoirs on his aversion for Pinsk; even in late February, the air around the famed Pripyat Marshes was clammy, the people "had the mad look of a hard, hungry winter in their eyes," and he noted that "something simply feels different when one has crossed over from Germany into Russia, especially once one has left Congress Poland behind". Jagow was of Prussian nobility but he was a man of the Altmark, rather than east of the Oder; this was very much not his type of country. It was not the first time Jagow had journeyed to Russia, of course, but he had typically made his way to St. Petersburg by boat or train, avoiding places like Pinsk on the periphery of the heavily Jewish, agrarian and impoverished Pale of Settlement. But this was no typical trip to Russia - this one was done by secret.

Gottlieb von Jagow was a competent but unspectacular foreign minister who got on well with the Kaiser and not quite as well with Fürstenburg, but yet his name is on the two most important policies of Germany in the prewar period - not just the Jagow-Malcolm Concordat firmed at Hamburg in February 1916 which divided Portuguese Austral-Africa between them and settled all Anglo-German colonial disputes, but also the Pinsk Protocol, also known for some time as the Jagow-Sazonov Treaty for the two men chiefly instrumental in signing it. Sergei Sazonov, the canny and experienced Russian foreign secretary, met Jagow in Pinsk and entertained him with grouse hunting, traditional Byelorussian dance, and excellent brandy; he also negotiated both public and secret protocols for a deal between Germany and Russia that would fundamentally shape geopolitics in Europe for the next decade.

While Jagow's trip to Pinsk was a secret, the terms of the final March 3rd [1] agreement between Berlin and St. Petersburg on the Polish border were not. In publicly released terms, the two governments signed a treaty re-stipulating their support for the current Polish border between Germany, Russia and Austria (Austria may not have been a party to this but was widely known to agree), and created for the first time a firm regulation of Polish and Jewish immigration and emigration across this frontier that would create a formal structure for German gastarbeiter on Junker farms for the farming and harvest season. It thereafter also minorly adjusted bilateral tariffs on raw and finished goods going in both directions to try to alleviate the economic damage wrought by trade wars such as in 1903, 1909 or 1911, and opened Russia to more German goods than previously, increasing trade between the two states even as protectionists on both sides of the border angrily grumbled.

On its face, then, the agreement forged at Pinsk in February 1918 and signed on March 3rd by Fürstenburg in the Kaiser's presence was wholly unremarkable, the kind of standard maintenance diplomacy conducted constantly in prewar Europe. But as he put his pen down, the Eisenprinz was well aware that he was signing something else, something much more profound, without the knowledge of anyone else but a small circle of men..."

- Fürstenburg: The Quarter Century Rule of Germany's Iron Prince

"...public clauses 1-8. However, there were additional, secret clauses numbering 9-27 - these were the meat of the treaty, and dramatically reshaped German strategic planning.

Germany had since 1868 been generally aware that French revanchism was strong and that Austria was thoroughly frustrated by the Hohenzollerns pipping them to dominance in the German-speaking lands, and the secret Iron Triangle agreement - which had no known expiration date to German diplomats or general staff planners - had made this a formal sandwiching of Germany in between these two powers. German hopes for a formal treaty with Russia had been extinguished with the Bear's humiliation by Turkey in the Bulgarian mountains in 1877, and they had instead settled for a sequence of renewed "reinsurance treaties" over the following forty years that diplomats reissued bilaterally every two to three years, almost like clockwork. In the meantime, Germany had forged strong enough relations with Vienna to make the Habsburgs - whom Heinrich in particular held in high esteem for historical reasons - reluctant to fully support French saber-rattling, and for brief windows in the 1890s after the Bangkok Crisis and the early 1900s, France and Germany had indeed enjoyed a "Grand Detente" in which they cooperated, formed closer cultural and economic bonds, and greatly lowered the temperature on European tensions.

Part of Germany's calculus, of course, was that they did not entirely trust Russia, even though relations had always been warm and they could (and did) cooperate on the question of suppressing Polish nationalism. The greatest fear of German policymakers, especially those who were not East Elian Junkers who admired Russia's autocracy, was of a general war with France and Austria in which Russia then jumped in to acquired more territory - say, Posen and the Memelland, perhaps - and take advantage of Berlin's weaknesses. This fear had been particularly acute circa 1908, when Germany and Russia found themselves on opposing sides of the Chinese conflict, and though Reinsurance was renewed, it never quite alleviated Berlin's worries.

The Pinsk Protocol was important to Jagow for this very reason - the need to remove the chance of Russian intervention in a war in Central Europe, which though seeming highly remote in early 1918 was nonetheless a real risk what with Austria's destabilization and tensions rising between Vienna and Rome over the Milan Magyars, as well as French rearmament on land and sea and their increasingly bellicose posture in the Far East. Something was coming, perhaps not soon, but it was best to be prepared. As such, the secret clauses of the treaty did more than just renew the old Reinsurance but rather enhance it - the renewal would be for ten years, through 1928, for starters, giving both Germany and Russia a decade of breathing room on their borders.

Russia had her own priorities, though, and the Treaty did much to resolve them. Having split most of southern Africa with London since the last Reinsurance Treaty was renewed in early 1915, and with Britain's attentions in India and Ireland now much quieted, Russia quite understandably was concerned about how close, exactly, Berlin now was to her age-old rival in the Great Game over Asia. Germany's concessions in the Pinsk Protocol did much to alleviate her worries; Jagow pointed out that Russia had no interests in Africa directly and that with the exception of China, there were no overlapping Russo-German disputes in East Asia. With this in mind, Germany proceeded with three key planks: it pledged not to intervene in the event of a new war in China unless Qing forces, then cabined to Manchuria, arrived within a hundred kilometers of the Yangtze or Shanghai at its mouth; it put in writing that Germany would support Russia against Japan or France in the event of tensions of Korea and that it regarded Korea as being in the Russian sphere of influence; and it agreed to support Russian "peripheral interests" in the "space between the Black Sea and Tibet," meaning that any Russian actions in, say, Persia or Afghanistan would enjoy German neutrality in any and all cases, regardless of what Germany may have agreed to with Britain. Lastly, Jagow inserted a final clause guaranteeing German support for the independence of Orthodox Ethiopia, which Russia was increasingly concerned lay exposed to Italian ambitions in the Horn of Africa.

This treaty was a massive boon for Russia, cementing the post-1908 status quo in Asia and allowing both parties to enjoy bilateral relations with Japan with the independence of Korea fully secured; Sazonov correctly predicted that in the event of war, they had just driven France out of the Orient "without firing a bullet." But Germany had a price, too, though one that would at the time appear much less favorable - Russia agreed not to intervene in any conflict "within Europe" against Germany, regardless of how many powers were involved, and signaled approval of "minor" border adjustments in Germany's favor following a successful war but which maintained that "no major revisions of the balance of power can be pursued by either party without the consensus of the other Great Powers." This was partially aimed at Asia as well, to stop Russia or Britain from carving up China, but was intended by Russia to stop Germany from radically shifting the Austrian map and by Germany to prevent Russia from marching in and seizing Galicia and thus seizing the initiative in the whole of the Balkans. Reading between the lines, it essentially told Germany that while Russia clearly considered a postwar Austria to be a sphere of interest of Germany, more imperialist ambitions would have to be aimed westwards - at France and Belgium.

Sazonov returned to his peers in St. Petersburg a champion of diplomacy - Russia had gained massively in Asia, critically at a time when France’s star seemed to be fading and tensions with Persia were rising, and had given up very little in Europe for it, acquiescing to seeing Austria hobbled without completely destabilizing the Balkans. Any ambitions in Europe could now wait with Russia satisfied that her interests were at least somewhat protected in the long term. Pinsk remained one of Sazonov’s great prides to his deathbed.

Reactions in Germany were more mixed amongst the small circle with whom the secret terms were shared. Conservatives reared on romantic stories of the Teutonic Knights and who dreamed of a grand Eastern colonial empire all the way to the Volga - and who believed, as Russia began to industrialize, that an apocalyptic showdown between the German and Slavic civilizations would be inevitable - were aghast, especially as it seemed to foreclose upon maximalist territorial possibilities in Austria. Heinrich was more favorable and in this sense protected his Foreign Secretary. He saw the territorial agreements as simply formalizing what he already understood to be true - the other Great Powers would vehemently oppose aggressive German expansionism and invite diplomatic and even military intervention to oppose it - and instead noted that German hands were essentially free in Africa and Southeast Asia, forever, thanks to this deal. It was also critical to note that Jagow had done something few could have imagined - with his two treaties, he had essentially foreclosed on the likelihood of British or Russian entry into a future war and done both in a way favorable to Germany rather than France. The two powers that served the greatest threat to Germany were not just sidelined - they were sidelined thanks to German initiative and collaboration.

Ironically, the Pinsk Protocol when combined with Malcolm-Jagow made war more likely than less so, by removing guardrails from German diplomatic options. Germany had bought itself ten years of peace with Russia and an indefinite similar understanding with Britain - roadblocks to a more belligerent stance in the face of French provocation was now gone, and many of the circle of hawks around the Emperor and Chancellor wanted to take full advantage, and indeed they did within months of Pinsk’s signing. The clock to the eruption of war was now definitively ticking…”

- The Central European War

[1] This date in 1918 and the use of Pinsk which is close to a certain other town in Belarus are done with maximum irony in mind
 
"...medieval castle town at the confluence of the Pripyat and the Pina. Jagow commented in his memoirs on his aversion for Pinsk; even in late February, the air around the famed Pripyat Marshes was clammy, the people "had the mad look of a hard, hungry winter in their eyes," and he noted that "something simply feels different when one has crossed over from Germany into Russia, especially once one has left Congress Poland behind". Jagow was of Prussian nobility but he was a man of the Altmark, rather than east of the Oder; this was very much not his type of country. It was not the first time Jagow had journeyed to Russia, of course, but he had typically made his way to St. Petersburg by boat or train, avoiding places like Pinsk on the periphery of the heavily Jewish, agrarian and impoverished Pale of Settlement. But this was no typical trip to Russia - this one was done by secret.

Gottlieb von Jagow was a competent but unspectacular foreign minister who got on well with the Kaiser and not quite as well with Fürstenburg, but yet his name is on the two most important policies of Germany in the prewar period - not just the Jagow-Malcolm Concordat firmed at Hamburg in February 1916 which divided Portuguese Austral-Africa between them and settled all Anglo-German colonial disputes, but also the Pinsk Protocol, also known for some time as the Jagow-Sazonov Treaty for the two men chiefly instrumental in signing it. Sergei Sazonov, the canny and experienced Russian foreign secretary, met Jagow in Pinsk and entertained him with grouse hunting, traditional Byelorussian dance, and excellent brandy; he also negotiated both public and secret protocols for a deal between Germany and Russia that would fundamentally shape geopolitics in Europe for the next decade.

While Jagow's trip to Pinsk was a secret, the terms of the final March 3rd [1] agreement between Berlin and St. Petersburg on the Polish border were not. In publicly released terms, the two governments signed a treaty re-stipulating their support for the current Polish border between Germany, Russia and Austria (Austria may not have been a party to this but was widely known to agree), and created for the first time a firm regulation of Polish and Jewish immigration and emigration across this frontier that would create a formal structure for German gastarbeiter on Junker farms for the farming and harvest season. It thereafter also minorly adjusted bilateral tariffs on raw and finished goods going in both directions to try to alleviate the economic damage wrought by trade wars such as in 1903, 1909 or 1911, and opened Russia to more German goods than previously, increasing trade between the two states even as protectionists on both sides of the border angrily grumbled.

On its face, then, the agreement forged at Pinsk in February 1918 and signed on March 3rd by Fürstenburg in the Kaiser's presence was wholly unremarkable, the kind of standard maintenance diplomacy conducted constantly in prewar Europe. But as he put his pen down, the Eisenprinz was well aware that he was signing something else, something much more profound, without the knowledge of anyone else but a small circle of men..."

- Fürstenburg: The Quarter Century Rule of Germany's Iron Prince

"...public clauses 1-8. However, there were additional, secret clauses numbering 9-27 - these were the meat of the treaty, and dramatically reshaped German strategic planning.

Germany had since 1868 been generally aware that French revanchism was strong and that Austria was thoroughly frustrated by the Hohenzollerns pipping them to dominance in the German-speaking lands, and the secret Iron Triangle agreement - which had no known expiration date to German diplomats or general staff planners - had made this a formal sandwiching of Germany in between these two powers. German hopes for a formal treaty with Russia had been extinguished with the Bear's humiliation by Turkey in the Bulgarian mountains in 1877, and they had instead settled for a sequence of renewed "reinsurance treaties" over the following forty years that diplomats reissued bilaterally every two to three years, almost like clockwork. In the meantime, Germany had forged strong enough relations with Vienna to make the Habsburgs - whom Heinrich in particular held in high esteem for historical reasons - reluctant to fully support French saber-rattling, and for brief windows in the 1890s after the Bangkok Crisis and the early 1900s, France and Germany had indeed enjoyed a "Grand Detente" in which they cooperated, formed closer cultural and economic bonds, and greatly lowered the temperature on European tensions.

Part of Germany's calculus, of course, was that they did not entirely trust Russia, even though relations had always been warm and they could (and did) cooperate on the question of suppressing Polish nationalism. The greatest fear of German policymakers, especially those who were not East Elian Junkers who admired Russia's autocracy, was of a general war with France and Austria in which Russia then jumped in to acquired more territory - say, Posen and the Memelland, perhaps - and take advantage of Berlin's weaknesses. This fear had been particularly acute circa 1908, when Germany and Russia found themselves on opposing sides of the Chinese conflict, and though Reinsurance was renewed, it never quite alleviated Berlin's worries.

The Pinsk Protocol was important to Jagow for this very reason - the need to remove the chance of Russian intervention in a war in Central Europe, which though seeming highly remote in early 1918 was nonetheless a real risk what with Austria's destabilization and tensions rising between Vienna and Rome over the Milan Magyars, as well as French rearmament on land and sea and their increasingly bellicose posture in the Far East. Something was coming, perhaps not soon, but it was best to be prepared. As such, the secret clauses of the treaty did more than just renew the old Reinsurance but rather enhance it - the renewal would be for ten years, through 1928, for starters, giving both Germany and Russia a decade of breathing room on their borders.

Russia had her own priorities, though, and the Treaty did much to resolve them. Having split most of southern Africa with London since the last Reinsurance Treaty was renewed in early 1915, and with Britain's attentions in India and Ireland now much quieted, Russia quite understandably was concerned about how close, exactly, Berlin now was to her age-old rival in the Great Game over Asia. Germany's concessions in the Pinsk Protocol did much to alleviate her worries; Jagow pointed out that Russia had no interests in Africa directly and that with the exception of China, there were no overlapping Russo-German disputes in East Asia. With this in mind, Germany proceeded with three key planks: it pledged not to intervene in the event of a new war in China unless Qing forces, then cabined to Manchuria, arrived within a hundred kilometers of the Yangtze or Shanghai at its mouth; it put in writing that Germany would support Russia against Japan or France in the event of tensions of Korea and that it regarded Korea as being in the Russian sphere of influence; and it agreed to support Russian "peripheral interests" in the "space between the Black Sea and Tibet," meaning that any Russian actions in, say, Persia or Afghanistan would enjoy German neutrality in any and all cases, regardless of what Germany may have agreed to with Britain. Lastly, Jagow inserted a final clause guaranteeing German support for the independence of Orthodox Ethiopia, which Russia was increasingly concerned lay exposed to Italian ambitions in the Horn of Africa.

This treaty was a massive boon for Russia, cementing the post-1908 status quo in Asia and allowing both parties to enjoy bilateral relations with Japan with the independence of Korea fully secured; Sazonov correctly predicted that in the event of war, they had just driven France out of the Orient "without firing a bullet." But Germany had a price, too, though one that would at the time appear much less favorable - Russia agreed not to intervene in any conflict "within Europe" against Germany, regardless of how many powers were involved, and signaled approval of "minor" border adjustments in Germany's favor following a successful war but which maintained that "no major revisions of the balance of power can be pursued by either party without the consensus of the other Great Powers." This was partially aimed at Asia as well, to stop Russia or Britain from carving up China, but was intended by Russia to stop Germany from radically shifting the Austrian map and by Germany to prevent Russia from marching in and seizing Galicia and thus seizing the initiative in the whole of the Balkans. Reading between the lines, it essentially told Germany that while Russia clearly considered a postwar Austria to be a sphere of interest of Germany, more imperialist ambitions would have to be aimed westwards - at France and Belgium.

Sazonov returned to his peers in St. Petersburg a champion of diplomacy - Russia had gained massively in Asia, critically at a time when France’s star seemed to be fading and tensions with Persia were rising, and had given up very little in Europe for it, acquiescing to seeing Austria hobbled without completely destabilizing the Balkans. Any ambitions in Europe could now wait with Russia satisfied that her interests were at least somewhat protected in the long term. Pinsk remained one of Sazonov’s great prides to his deathbed.

Reactions in Germany were more mixed amongst the small circle with whom the secret terms were shared. Conservatives reared on romantic stories of the Teutonic Knights and who dreamed of a grand Eastern colonial empire all the way to the Volga - and who believed, as Russia began to industrialize, that an apocalyptic showdown between the German and Slavic civilizations would be inevitable - were aghast, especially as it seemed to foreclose upon maximalist territorial possibilities in Austria. Heinrich was more favorable and in this sense protected his Foreign Secretary. He saw the territorial agreements as simply formalizing what he already understood to be true - the other Great Powers would vehemently oppose aggressive German expansionism and invite diplomatic and even military intervention to oppose it - and instead noted that German hands were essentially free in Africa and Southeast Asia, forever, thanks to this deal. It was also critical to note that Jagow had done something few could have imagined - with his two treaties, he had essentially foreclosed on the likelihood of British or Russian entry into a future war and done both in a way favorable to Germany rather than France. The two powers that served the greatest threat to Germany were not just sidelined - they were sidelined thanks to German initiative and collaboration.

Ironically, the Pinsk Protocol when combined with Malcolm-Jagow made war more likely than less so, by removing guardrails from German diplomatic options. Germany had bought itself ten years of peace with Russia and an indefinite similar understanding with Britain - roadblocks to a more belligerent stance in the face of French provocation was now gone, and many of the circle of hawks around the Emperor and Chancellor wanted to take full advantage, and indeed they did within months of Pinsk’s signing. The clock to the eruption of war was now definitively ticking…”

- The Central European War

[1] This date in 1918 and the use of Pinsk which is close to a certain other town in Belarus are done with maximum irony in mind
Talk about an updated version of the Reinsurance Treaty.
 
One thing that comes to mind - and you've already hinted at this - what this is going to do is lead to a diversification of the brewing and distilling industry and resembles (if I'm remembering correctly) Canadian laws where if a company wishes to sell beer in the province, then it needs to be producing it there. What we are ging to see if that if a business wants to compete on the national level, its going to have to have a distillery or brewery in each state that its selling in. That's probably not economically feasible, and so we're instead going to see a lot more regional companies thriving, even if their market is smaller.

One question, actually: are there any big whiskey distilleries in the US and what are the biggest ones? Many of the bigger ones from OTL are focused more on Appalachia and the South, and so they are going to be banned in any case.
I dont know enough about whiskey to comment; between Dixie and Ireland whiskey being banned, you’ve probably severely curtailed US exposure to the stuff, and smuggling from Kentucky/Tennessee or Canada will be huge.

And yeah, the craft beer scene will be very different IOTL, and this probably also kneecaps the wine industry on the West Coast long term, too.
An update on Prohibition just before St. Patrick’s Day, oh the irony! And banning Irish whiskey to boot!
Haha good point!
The short answer is: Depends on the area.

The long answer is I see Texas and the rump Confederacy becoming a breeding ground for all sorts of vices, from smuggling and manufacturing tobacco, weapons, drugs and liquor to human trafficking. Also regular industries like logging, mining may be done under hillboy guns . There will be 'Wide Open towns' where gambling, liquor and prositution are openly conducted and the town officials are either bought off or are part of the illegal businesses. Some of this money will reach the hillboys either as 'protection' money or 'taxes'. Some hillboys will portray themselves as 'defenders of Christian civilization' against the Yankee or outsider hordes while others will burn your house down with you in it if you go against them. There may be popular civilian support for 'our boys' if they spread the wealth around, provide for the poor and orphans and provide some services, better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't. Organized crime groups composed of ethnic gangs or military veterans from the Union may attempt to move into the Confederacy to take over those markets but may face 'hillbilly mafias' or even negro groups who are ready to defend themselves.

The state and national government in the Confederacy may show up once every few months or once or twice a year depending on how far it is to the major cities and capital. Savvy Confederate and local politicians and hillboy leaders may know when to hide the guns when the military show ups and when a display of force is needed. They also could guarantee votes and monetary support for favored candidates who think their way. The Confederates people of all classes will be taking all sorts of drugs and alcohol to deal with war wounds, PTSD, health problems and life in general. Methamphetamine's will be issued like candy from 'friendly' doctors. Many Confederates will be focusing on feeding their families, getting the crop in or enough money for the next drink. Expect all sorts of confidence men, travelling preachers and 'mystics' to be around selling cures for health to bad luck. The older generation may cling harder to their local Churches and faiths since they provide aid and the comfort of ritual. The war generation, the veterans and young people will throw themselves into drugs, music and experimental ideas of culture and living. 'Eat, Drink and Be Merry for tomorrow we may die.'

To the Freeman communities they may barely trust the American government or an American citizen but anyone else is 'foreign' or part of the enslavers. Some Americans may try to convince the Freeman to move to the US or somewhere else but they will not leave the land that their ancestors and they paid for with their lives. In majority Negro areas they will build up local industries, newspapers, civil government and have their own gangs and militias similar to the white Confederates.
Agreed wholly. Sounds a lot like OTL Mexico tbh
Fundamentally the GAW has shattered both the legitimacy and the functionality of central government in the CSA and it will take a very long time for that to be pieced back together especially when American troops are busy inflicting their own form of punitive justice for one of the continent's founding sins.

Warlord era China combined with the racial attitudes of the Antebellum South and god only knows how many hundreds of thousands guns floating around. Talk about a pressure-cooker.
Yeah, nothing good will come of it… for years, at least.
Just been thinking about the CSA:

IOTL, the reconstruction amendments were called by some historians today as the "Second Founding" and greatly expanded the power of the federal government

Besides the The "Gunbarrel Amendments", Is there a posibility that other aspects of the Confederate Constitution that might be changed. Say removing the ability of states to impeach federal officials in their territory to empower the National Government.

I can imagine a Bourbon Adminstration in the 1920s needing more powers to stablize the country.

Considering the conservative culture of Dixie, It's highly unlikely. Probably will happen in the Long Years
Hadn’t thought of that, actually. The Bourbons might want to do so but find it difficult
Talk about an updated version of the Reinsurance Treaty.
Lol right?

It’s definitely slanted towards Russia, but in that sense it’s basically Germany bribing Russia geopolitically to give them free hands to crush the Triangle as they see fit (though Russia ironically will have thoughts on that when it comes to Denmark)
 
But Germany had a price, too, though one that would at the time appear much less favorable - Russia agreed not to intervene in any conflict "within Europe" against Germany, regardless of how many powers were involved, and signaled approval of "minor" border adjustments in Germany's favor following a successful war but which maintained that "no major revisions of the balance of power can be pursued by either party without the consensus of the other Great Powers." This was partially aimed at Asia as well, to stop Russia or Britain from carving up China, but was intended by Russia to stop Germany from radically shifting the Austrian map and by Germany to prevent Russia from marching in and seizing Galicia and thus seizing the initiative in the whole of the Balkans. Reading between the lines, it essentially told Germany that while Russia clearly considered a postwar Austria to be a sphere of interest of Germany, more imperialist ambitions would have to be aimed westwards - at France and Belgium.
I don’t quite agree with the reasoning behind this. The current happenings in Hungary would make it clear to everyone who’s looking closely that the Austrian Empire might collapse, war or not, but especially if there’s a war. Russia and Germany seem to be burying their head in the sand before this.

Also disagree with Germany being so fearful of the Russians in Galicia, and more in particular Galicia giving them any advantage in the Balkans. The Carpathians separate Galicia from Hungary to the South, so there’s not much to be done there. Russia’s expansion route in the Balkans would remain the Black Sea. There’s also the fact that between Romania, Hungary and a better off Ottoman Empire, making inroads into the Balkans wouldn’t be trivial. Any concerns about Russian influence in the Balkans would swiftly be assuaged by someone pointing to the last time they tried that in 1877. Not to mention that Germany was never overtly concerned by the Balkans, that was more of an Austrian thing.

With this in mind, I think that Germans would be more than happy to allow the Russian’s to take Galicia if it means having a free hand on the rest of the Austrian Empire, perhaps with some rough agreement for a buffer Hungary. Having the Russians deal with the hotspot of Polish nationalism that was Galicia instead of the hands-off Austrians might also persuade some of the most resistant junkers.

As for China, does Germany really care enough about a potential Russian seizure of Manchuria to do something about it? This would likely bring the Japanese, British and Americans against the Russians, so it’s not like they could expand unopposed. It seems to be like Germany’s best bet here is to stay out and let a bunch of their rivals fight each other. If they can get concessions in Europe from Russian even better.
 
Germany's certainly stacked the deck, I doubt this would have been possible if secret treaties where not a thing given how this could shake everything.
e greatest fear of German policymakers, especially those who were not East Elian Junkers who admired Russia's autocracy, was of a general war with France and Austria in which Russia then jumped in to acquired more territory - say, Posen and the Memelland, perhaps - and take advantage of Berlin's weaknesses.

Find Germany's fear and anxieties very revealing, the worst case for their imagination is them losing some of Prussia and Russia gaining more initiative in the Balkans through Galicia which while serious given the formation of Germany can easily be manged meanwhile Russia's definitely got a lot more to lose worst case. Given Austria, France will be crushed as you'v implied the Russian empire will need a lot of great leadership to do well in post war Europe.

Also something I'v just thought of, if Germany continues it's current path of stable liberalisation might some conservative elites immigrate to Russia? Given it's own elite consists of largely Germans and they can really lord of the people there a lot more explicitly than they can in Germany proper.
 
Any updates regarding this?
This may be the reason wjy the current Shah's reign is considered short...
We’ll get there, though more in the 1919/20 range
I don’t quite agree with the reasoning behind this. The current happenings in Hungary would make it clear to everyone who’s looking closely that the Austrian Empire might collapse, war or not, but especially if there’s a war. Russia and Germany seem to be burying their head in the sand before this.

Also disagree with Germany being so fearful of the Russians in Galicia, and more in particular Galicia giving them any advantage in the Balkans. The Carpathians separate Galicia from Hungary to the South, so there’s not much to be done there. Russia’s expansion route in the Balkans would remain the Black Sea. There’s also the fact that between Romania, Hungary and a better off Ottoman Empire, making inroads into the Balkans wouldn’t be trivial. Any concerns about Russian influence in the Balkans would swiftly be assuaged by someone pointing to the last time they tried that in 1877. Not to mention that Germany was never overtly concerned by the Balkans, that was more of an Austrian thing.

With this in mind, I think that Germans would be more than happy to allow the Russian’s to take Galicia if it means having a free hand on the rest of the Austrian Empire, perhaps with some rough agreement for a buffer Hungary. Having the Russians deal with the hotspot of Polish nationalism that was Galicia instead of the hands-off Austrians might also persuade some of the most resistant junkers.

As for China, does Germany really care enough about a potential Russian seizure of Manchuria to do something about it? This would likely bring the Japanese, British and Americans against the Russians, so it’s not like they could expand unopposed. It seems to be like Germany’s best bet here is to stay out and let a bunch of their rivals fight each other. If they can get concessions in Europe from Russian even better.
At least vis a vis China, the German ties to Nanking are more what’s driving this than anything else. Russia has for all intents and purposes seized Manchuria (the Qing are their outright satraps and St. Petersburg neither wants nor needs another 30 million minorities inside their borders, especially those as culturally and racially alien to East Slavs as the Chinese - Poles are enough of a problem for them as it is). So this is more Germany getting a guarantee that Russia won’t encourage the Qing to drive on Nanking again, and washing its hands of Russian designs on limiting further French or Japanese interests in Korea (Russia and Japan already co-guarantee a neutral Korea together for this very reason).

For the Balkans I think this is an issue with how I haven’t paid much attention to Herman strategic thinking re: Europe long term, but basically the gist of it is that Heinrich’s reluctance to totally blow up Austria but rather suborn it is leading to a thought process where a more federalized AH under German economic sway that plays member states off one another immediately makes the Balkans a German issue, or at least makes Italian concerns in the Balkans a peripheral, potential German issue.

As I’ve said before I’m not entirely satisfied with this explanation, but it gets me close enough to a German strategy that thinks two steps ahead rather than whatever Kaiser Bill decided he wanted to do on a given day, lol. And to your point there’d almost certainly be a German minority that would want to make Galicia a Russian problem rather than inevitably their own down the line (that’s not an implication of German annexation of Galicia, rather just strategic alliance)
Germany's certainly stacked the deck, I doubt this would have been possible if secret treaties where not a thing given how this could shake everything.


Find Germany's fear and anxieties very revealing, the worst case for their imagination is them losing some of Prussia and Russia gaining more initiative in the Balkans through Galicia which while serious given the formation of Germany can easily be manged meanwhile Russia's definitely got a lot more to lose worst case. Given Austria, France will be crushed as you'v implied the Russian empire will need a lot of great leadership to do well in post war Europe.

Also something I'v just thought of, if Germany continues it's current path of stable liberalisation might some conservative elites immigrate to Russia? Given it's own elite consists of largely Germans and they can really lord of the people there a lot more explicitly than they can in Germany proper.
I think you’re overselling how liberal this Germany is, even if it’s more liberal than OTL’s Kaiserreich. Furstenburg was no democrat, and neither was Heinrich. The Junkers would probably not decamp their latifundias that nobody has seriously discussed touching for Russia
 
For the Balkans I think this is an issue with how I haven’t paid much attention to Herman strategic thinking re: Europe long term, but basically the gist of it is that Heinrich’s reluctance to totally blow up Austria but rather suborn it is leading to a thought process where a more federalized AH under German economic sway that plays member states off one another immediately makes the Balkans a German issue, or at least makes Italian concerns in the Balkans a peripheral, potential German issue.
I think your model of German thinking makes sense in the context of the detente with France in the early 1900s and a stronger Austrian Empire, since it's something that could plausibly be implemented without war. However, I don't think that quite stands in the face of the critical situation of Austria. Dissolution looks likely, German assistance or not. Yes, in the case of Germany occupying all the land they could theoretically enforce a continued state, but that doesn't really make sense, since it would be costly for Germany and yield less benefits than annexing the convenient areas and turning the rest into small states under their influence.

As for the Balkans, what you mention would at most make Germany indirectly concerned with it, and IMO not enough of a reason for them to consider in terms of high level foreign policy too much.
but it gets me close enough to a German strategy that thinks two steps ahead rather than whatever Kaiser Bill decided he wanted to do on a given day, lol
The bar is in hell, lmao.
 
One thing that comes to mind - and you've already hinted at this - what this is going to do is lead to a diversification of the brewing and distilling industry and resembles (if I'm remembering correctly) Canadian laws where if a company wishes to sell beer in the province, then it needs to be producing it there. What we are ging to see if that if a business wants to compete on the national level, its going to have to have a distillery or brewery in each state that its selling in. That's probably not economically feasible, and so we're instead going to see a lot more regional companies thriving, even if their market is smaller.

One question, actually: are there any big whiskey distilleries in the US and what are the biggest ones? Many of the bigger ones from OTL are focused more on Appalachia and the South, and so they are going to be banned in any case.
Now that I’m thinking about it, this different Prohibition will send Al Capone’s criminal enterprise in a completely different direction; the man was incredibly savvy with business and accounting (for real, he actually worked as one), so there’s no reason he wouldn’t be thriving somehow ITTL. Who knows, he might even go legitimate?
 
The Pinsk Protocol was important to Jagow for this very reason - the need to remove the chance of Russian intervention in a war in Central Europe, which though seeming highly remote in early 1918 was nonetheless a real risk what with Austria's destabilization and tensions rising between Vienna and Rome over the Milan Magyars, as well as French rearmament on land and sea and their increasingly bellicose posture in the Far East.
Germany doesn't know how lucky they are that Joseph "Elan is more important than artillery!" Joffre is in charge of the French army. Him recklessly attacking into the teeth of Hindenburg's prepared defenses around Luxembourg is going to be a complete bloodbath and will put France on the back foot for sure.
 
Top