Skeletal Southern Victory Timeline-Help Please!

Okay, I've done my best to compile all the advice I've been given into this revised version of the timeline. Hopefully, it's better than the first. The earliest complaint I got was with Deseret in 1880-82, so I started there. The Hispano-Confederate War and the Anglo-American War have been dropped. Hawaii goes to Britain. Better stance with the Mormons. I swapped Missouri and Allegheny. France gives over French Guiana after the Anglo-French War. Korea ends up breaking the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (I did find something to do with it!). Cuba breaks away from Spain in 1912 and the C.S.A. goes after it then. America does get Western Canada in negotiations, but much, much less.

Better?


1880-1882- This marks the Race for Deseret. The Mormon Church eventually develops into two factions after the war-one pro-union and the other pro-Confederate, led by a man named Thomas Green. Green’s faction, while smaller, gained a great amount of attention on the continent, and Green eventually set out a series of demands for the new state of Deseret, known as Deseret’s Terms for Annexation. These Terms consisted of greater autonomy, along with a state constitution reflecting Mormon ideals, including polygamy. Whatever nation would accept their demands would have the right to annex the state. President Cleveland was unwilling to give the state any special privileges, under the Constitution religion was never supposed to mix with government. Confederate President Howard decided not to risk war unless Deseret openly declared its desire to join the Confederacy. When Deseret leans toward joining the Confederacy, U.S. President Cleveland authorizes the annexation of Deseret by the U.S. military (ignoring Deseret’s Terms for Annexation). Green then declares Deseret a Confederate state. The result sparks the Mormon War. Both France and Britain, though allied with the C.S.A., do not enter the war, wary of the other extending its influence. Britain also fears the liberation of Quebec. The U.S. navy destroys the C.S. navy, but the land battles drag on. Eventually, Green is killed in the fighting and his faction is broken. While the Mormons drop out of the war, the Confederacy hoped that Deseret would still side with them if they were victorious, and the war developed into a US-CS conflict alone. However, the Mormon War ends in a U.S. victory. The treaty results in:
1. The recognition of Deseret and Pacifica (Baja California) as U.S. states. The U.S. also retains the Colorado territory.
2. The C.S.A. cedes Missouri.
3. The freedom (nominal manumission) of all slaves. However, the C.S. follows the British example of pass laws in South Africa, limiting freedom.

While sporadically pro-Confederate Mormon movements did occur later, the Mormon population ended up with nearly all secessionists killed in the war (and most Mormons were already pro-Union). No serious secession movement gained real momentum again. The U.S. military, however, continued to have a strong presence in the region regardless.

1881-Alexander II of Russia is not assassinated, as he is not in the same location. After his public release of the Duma, Russia begins a long progression towards a constitutional monarchy.

The capital of the C.S.A. is also moved to more easily defended Montgomery, Alabama.

1883-Britain annexes the Kingdom of Hawai’i.

1885-French Indochina is established. The Empire of Mexico collapses, and Maximilian I is executed. Porfirio Díaz is elected President of the new Republic of Mexico. Alfonso XII of Spain dies. He is succeeded by Alfonso XIII.

1886-1895-The dominant Republican Party in the U.S. is split-resulting in Progressive Republicans (more liberal) and Traditionalist Republicans (more conservative). The idea of state’s rights leads to more regionalized parties in the C.S. Texas and the other western Confederate states are now slowly starting to become more irritated with the government’s continual focus on the Eastern states.

1888- Thailand is split between British Burma and French Indochina, rather than remaining an independent buffer state.

1890- Portugal ends the Anglo-Portuguese alliance with the Treaty of Windsor and refuses to leave its Pink Map. The Pink Map Standoff begins. Alexander II of Russia dies and is succeeded by Alexander III.

1893-The Japanese defeat the Spanish in the Hispano-Japanese War and gain the Philippines. Franco-Russian alliance is signed.

1894-Alexander III of Russia dies. He is succeeded by Nicholas II. Nicholas’s reign continues his grandfather’s legacy of a constitutional monarchy. This is reinforced after a visit to the House of Commons in Britain.

1896-The War of the Five Powers occurs, Prussia and Italy vs. France/Russia/Austria. France, Austria-Hungary and Russia win. France, in exchange for some land in northeastern Italy (Piedmont), does agree to leave Rome, resulting in near-complete Italian Unification. Russia and Austria take large portions of territory from Prussia. Prussia then forms the North German Confederation (including Liechtenstein).

1896-1906-This marks the beginning of the Confederate attempts to control the Caribbean to counter American influence on the continent. Most notably are the filibustering efforts in the Republic of Yucatan, Panama, Raizal, and the Greater Republic of Central America. The Greater Republic of Central America was invaded this year, and put under Confederate control. Among those killed in the fighting was Tomás Regalado.

1897-Seeing that a war with Russia is likely, Japan and Britain sign the Anglo-Japanese alliance to counter the Franco-Russian alliance. The Confederate Intervention in Yucatan also creates the Republic of Yucatan, and the Confederates begin a campaign of genocide against the rebelling Maya.

*Alaska will join the Union as Aleutia



1899-1908-The Fashoda Incident erupts, in combination with border disputes with the French over Indochina and Burma, subtle indications of attempting to make Korea a French Protectorate, and the Pink Map Standoff with Portugal, due to France supporting Portugal. The result is the Anglo-French War. Like the Napoleonic Wars of a century ago, this war spans multiple continents and has a great effect on the world.

The Anglo-French War was fought between:

France/Orange Free State/Austria-Hungary/Russia
and Britain/North German Confederation/Japan

The Japanese defeat the Russians in Asia and gain Korea, Karafuto (Sakhalin) and much of Manchuria. Japan ignores French interests in Korea, damaging relations. While the loss greatly damages Russian prestige, the blow is softened by blaming both the Duma and Nicholas II. Nothing occurs to lead to the 1905 Russian Revolution.

Japan quickly captures the Siberian coast, and harasses French Indochina. It sues for peace, being unable to progress further into Russia. Russia also exhausted from a two front war, are eager to end the conflict. American Theodore Roosevelt presides over the peace talks. After the war is over, both Russia and Japan claim victory. Britain finds that fighting the Boers and French in Africa proves to be too much, unable to make any progress. The North German Confederation on the other hand defeats Austria-Hungary swiftly (Hungary, already desiring independence and angered by quick Prussian victories make Austria-Hungary collapse both internally and externally) and captures Alsace-Lorraine from France. However, the war quickly drags out. Britain sells the Bahamas to the C.S.A. for money, where they become part of Florida. Nicholas II dies in 1902 in a train crash; he is succeeded by Mikhail II. In 1906, the U.S., led by now-President Theodore Roosevelt is about to declare war on Britain over the borders of Alaska. The British quickly head to the bargaining table “to prevent Sam from joining Marianne”. The U.S. is given Western Canada (which eventually becomes the states of Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Yukon) and returned the Upper Half of Maine. Eventually, the European Powers agree to a Convention. The results are incredibly mixed:

Britain recognizes the Orange Free State as an independent nation and the French claim to Fashoda, as well as Portugal’s Pink Map.

French Guiana is ceded to Britain.

France cedes Alsace-Lorraine to the North German Confederation. Russia cedes a great deal of Eastern Europe to the Confederation as well. Austria-Hungary gives up many of its possessions, including Silesia. France also must cede its Italian gains (Piedmont) from the War of the Five Powers to Italy, resulting in complete Italian Unification.

Other Results: Japan gains much of the Siberian coast. Japan’s control over much of Manchuria is also recognized.

After the war, France ceded Korea to Britain-however, Korea was already under Japanese control. The resulting conflict breaks the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Korea remains with Japan.

The North German Confederation becomes the nation of Germany. Alsace-Lorraine greatly protests its German owner.

On the other hand, the defeat of Austria-Hungary leads to Hungary becoming independent after the war and the end of the union.

Russia also creates various buffer states (most notably Poland-Lithuania) after the war to shield itself from Prussian/German attacks. The reaction from the Russian populace is somewhat mixed. Russia prides itself on “defeating” Japan, but the new buffer states are contradictory to the pan-Slavic ideals of Russia. However, the nation’s government remains stable. Ultimately, Russia becomes a complete constitutional monarchy after Mikhail II takes the throne.

Another important reaction throughout Europe is a (brief) anti-imperial attitude. France, Britain, and Russia all fought in an incredibly costly war for two remote regions in Africa and, in Russia’s case, Siberia. Nationalism, however, remains high-only it now focuses more inward (for a time).

Japan now controls Formosa, Karafuto, Korea, much of Manchuria, the Philippines, and the Ryukyu Islands.

Financially, Japan and Russia are both very strained after the war.

Like the Napoleonic Wars a century before them, the map of Europe has been redrawn.


1905-1907-The Confederate-American War
Obviously, another Confederate-American War was bound to happen. The Confederate control of Panama and therefore the (still incomplete) Panama Canal proved to be the flashpoint. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt leads the U.S. into a very successful war that succeeds in humiliating the C.S.A. Confederate President Woodrow Wilson resigns from the Presidency after signing the treaty that ends the war. Traditionalist Republican President Roosevelt also passes four amendments: income tax, direct election of senators, limits on child labor, and female suffrage (in order-16th, 17th, 18th, 19th).

The end results:

1. The state of Allegheny will be formed from Western Virginia and ceded to the United States.
2. The state of Sequoyah becomes an independent nation. The increasing amount of white settlers and an uncompromising white-supremacist government anger the Native Americans of the state. Before the war’s end, the state switched sides and aided the U.S. in exchange for independence after the war. The C.S.A. bitterly acknowledges its independence.
3. The Republic of Yucatan is given the option of returning to Mexico or remain independent-the Republic votes to remain independent, while against joining Mexico, the Republic is still fearful of any Confederate/United States influence. Raizal is also given the option, and chooses to return to Columbia.
4. The Greater Republic of Central America was also freed from Confederate control, and renames itself the United States of Central America.
5. Panama becomes an American protectorate.

1906-Manuel Estrada, without the support of the United Fruit Company, is overthrown in Guatemala.

1907-In order to please the western Confederate states, Texas is broken up into three states-Rio, Texas, and Alamo in order to give the Western States more senators. The Eastern-Western division in the Confederacy becomes more serious. Blacks also begin to protest their status, but are harshly put down.

1908-Guatemala joins the United States of Central America.

1910-Costa Rica joins the United States of Central America.

1911- France and Britain, in order to prevent further German expansion, sign the Entente Cordiale. This shocks and angers Germany greatly. British-German relations had begun to spiral downward immediately after the Anglo-French War, given their newfound dominance of the continent.

1912-Cuba successfully gains independence from Spain.

1914- With Finland’s relation souring with Russia, Mikhail allows the nation to become independent. (The increased democracy in Russia prevented Russia from becoming as authoritarian, which allowed the nation to form. Even though Russia was more democratic, attempts to Russify Finland as well as Russian losses in the Anglo-French War alienated its populace enough to call for independence. International pressure also added to the situation.)

1915-1918-The Russo-Japanese War begins in Manchuria. Russia still had some areas of Manchuria under its control, and now desired to take back its losses. In the end, however, Japan quickly and decisively defeats Russia, with Manchu soldiers fighting alongside the Japanese. Manchuria, while still seeing Japan as an occupying power, develops warmer relations with Japan, having assisted it in defeating a European power. Manchuria is recognized by Russia as a Japanese sphere of influence. However, Russia does gain some victory, taking back the Siberian coast-however; this is in exchange for recognition of Japanese control over Karafuto (Sakhalin). Japan is still financially strained.

1917-The Panama Canal is completed. The C.S.A. invades Cuba after a naval incident. The Cuban-Confederate War is very short and Cuba becomes a Confederate protectorate.

1918-The Åland Islands peacefully become an independent nation from Finland, mainly due to Finland itself becoming bloodlessly independent four years earlier.
 

Zioneer

Banned
Better on the Mormon War. Much better. It's much more plausible, and I like it. Thanks. :)

Otherwise, good timeline! I admittedly don't know much about the time period (except for the Mormon stuff, of course), but it seems somewhat plausible now.

I do like that you didn't make Deseret a sort-of hivemind, with everyone having the same opinions. I wonder where the traditional LDS church government went during Green's rebellion, but I suppose they could go into hiding until he was crushed. I bet they're going to abandon polygamy much quicker now then in OTL. :D
 
Better on the Mormon War. Much better. It's much more plausible, and I like it. Thanks. :)

Otherwise, good timeline! I admittedly don't know much about the time period (except for the Mormon stuff, of course), but it seems somewhat plausible now.

I do like that you didn't make Deseret a sort-of hivemind, with everyone having the same opinions. I wonder where the traditional LDS church government went during Green's rebellion, but I suppose they could go into hiding until he was crushed. I bet they're going to abandon polygamy much quicker now then in OTL. :D

I knew I should have put more on the other side. Most Mormons, being against the war/pro-Union, chose to remain neutral-but some even fought with the Union. The traditional church was against Green, but extremists always get more attention.

However, the war still left a rather bad image of Mormons to the general populace, something they would have to overcome over time. I think it would be comparable to Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many fought with the US but were still discriminated against. However, I don't think Mormon discrimination was that harsh in my TL.

I'm also seeing polygamy disappear pretty quickly after this.
 

Zioneer

Banned
I knew I should have put more on the other side. Most Mormons, being against the war/pro-Union, chose to remain neutral-but some even fought with the Union. The traditional church was against Green, but extremists always get more attention.

However, the war still left a rather bad image of Mormons to the general populace, something they would have to overcome over time. I think it would be comparable to Japanese-Americans during WWII. Many fought with the US but were still discriminated against. However, I don't think Mormon discrimination was that harsh in my TL.

I'm also seeing polygamy disappear pretty quickly after this.

Your(fictional) discrimination isn't that bad. I've read a similar TL where the Mormons were all deported to Australia.
 
I would drop the British sell the Bahamas to the CSA. I think thats fairly unrealistic and the British economy is very robust.

In the Orient your TL needs work:

"The Japanese defeat the Russians in Asia and gain Korea, Karafuto (Sakhalin) and much of Manchuria. Japan ignores French interests in Korea, damaging relations."

"Other Results: Japan gains much of the Siberian coast. Japan’s control over much of Manchuria is also recognized.

"After the war, France ceded Korea to Britain-however, Korea was already under Japanese control. The resulting conflict breaks the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Korea remains with Japan."

Japan now controls Formosa, Karafuto, Korea, much of Manchuria, the Philippines, and the Ryukyu Islands."

If the British give Korea to the Japanese, since they occupy it, why wouldn't the Anglo-Japanese Alliance continue? The British certainly aren't going to force to the Japanese to give Korea over to them.
 
I would drop the British sell the Bahamas to the CSA. I think thats fairly unrealistic and the British economy is very robust.

In the Orient your TL needs work:

"The Japanese defeat the Russians in Asia and gain Korea, Karafuto (Sakhalin) and much of Manchuria. Japan ignores French interests in Korea, damaging relations."

"Other Results: Japan gains much of the Siberian coast. Japan’s control over much of Manchuria is also recognized.

"After the war, France ceded Korea to Britain-however, Korea was already under Japanese control. The resulting conflict breaks the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Korea remains with Japan."

Japan now controls Formosa, Karafuto, Korea, much of Manchuria, the Philippines, and the Ryukyu Islands."

If the British give Korea to the Japanese, since they occupy it, why wouldn't the Anglo-Japanese Alliance continue? The British certainly aren't going to force to the Japanese to give Korea over to them.

Yeah, I thought someone would call the Bahamas moving to the C.S.A. ridiculous. I'm fine with changing it.

Korea is becoming a pain. I thought that the dispute over it would give me a reason for the increased French prescence, but you're right. I think I might revise the whole theatre, starting with the French intervening in the Boshin War. I'm surprised no one has complained about Japan waging three successful wars against Europe in a relatively short time period-I was sure someone would say that was too financially straining. For now, I guess I'll cut the break in relations.

Also, I made a small error in the TL. Teddy brings the British to the bargaining table in 1904, not 1906.

I think I'll have France cede Madagascar to Britain after the Anglo-French War also, seeing as French Guiana alone really wasn't worth much.

P.S. Any ideas on how I could give the Ryukyu Islands to a European country? Or how about having someone else take over the Phillipines (I don't want to let Spain keep it, but I'm not sure about letting Japan get it, either)? Does Formosa have a chance of going to a European nation?

P.S.S. Advice on East Europe/Ottoman Empire and possibly South America would be very helpful and much appreciated by the way...
 
I would like to apologize in advance for the length of this post. I haven’t been on in a while, and there is so much I want to respond to.

Grimm Reaper said:
General Greene, CSA revenues have been examined and would have been drastically lower than Spain's, insufficient to pay for a fleet capable of facing Spain's even if all of the CSA's tariff revenues, the only source, went for that purpose.

As my knowledge of Spain’s economic power is not as strong as other areas I’ll gladly drop this point, but I do wonder how useful these examination of CSA revenues were as the CSA was at war for essentially its entire existence and ceased to exist just over a generation before the proposed war. I also wonder if you could point me to these examinations of revenue as I would love to get a better understanding of Spain’s position.

Grimm Reaper said:
Nor was Spain's position on the island so precarious. It would have taken alarmingly little for the US invasion of 1898 to have ended in disaster and a much weaker CSA would only have been at greater risk, lacking the fleet to invade and the necessary merchant marine to move a substantial army.
The Spanish Caribbean squadron was not exactly the finest task force ever assembled, and Spain’s main fleet never went anywhere near Cuba. While analysis of Spanish forces on the Island are formidable, nothing is ever assured in warfare, and the CSA definitely would have a merchant marine, the states would immediately see the importance of making sure that exports and as a result profits, are safe from being solely reliant on another nation’s merchant fleet. Spain’s fleet also was plagued by deficiencies in machinery, armament, ammunition and crew training.

Grimm Reaper said:
And any filibustering attempt by, say, 5000 volunteers, which would have been larger than any such effort OTL, would have been massacred by the vastly superior Spanish army in Cuba and met absolutely no support from the Cubans who would know exactly why the CSA was looking at the island.
You bring up an important point: namely that Cubans probably wouldn’t be very happy with CSA intervention and would be unlikely to give support, and recent reading on my part has revealed that the rebels played a important role in the American land assault OTL, the Cubans are probably not going to stop their attacks on the Spanish, and with the Spanish use of concentration camps, there is a small chance that at least some units of the rebels might assist the Confederates, every war has its share of collaborators after all. Furthermore, this is not a filibustering attempt, this is a war, waged by the government, not some private adventuring force, and so the number of Confederate troops will be much much larger than five thousand volunteers.
I agree that war is risky, and victory probably unlikely for the CSA, but viewing the position Spain was in, not impossible. Another thing to consider is submarine warfare. After thrity years, and especially considering the naval disadvantages you have so rightly pointed out, the CSA is going to look for something to even the playing field, and has enough time between independence and this war to improve on designs of theirs from the Civil War and bring them up to at least moderate levels of capability. With its significant disadvantage toward the US navy submarine development is going to see a lot more experimentation, and development should be quicker then OTL as a result. (Although a stretch, could I interest anyone in early unrestricted sub warfare? After all they’re fighting ‘dirty lazy Spaniards’).

Grimm Reaper said:
As for your comments on the US vis a vis Canada and Great Britain...

1) Without the CSA this remnant USA will not even equal the population of Great Britain until the 20th Century. Population will not favor the US in any such confrontation.
Ah sir, but the American population is very much closer to the action then Britain’s, and easier to mobilize and deploy to Canada as a result. Furthermore you are just plain wrong about TTL America having a smaller population. IOTL the US population was just under 63 million in 1890, and even if you subtract the populations of all the states that are ITTL part of the CSA, including West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma, your loss of 21.3 million people still leaves you with a US population of 40.7 million. Great Britain’s population didn’t reach 37.1 million until 1901!

Grimm Reaper said:
2) The British standing army was both much larger and better equipped, not to mention more professional than that of the US at any point from the end of the ACW until the action taken by Teddy Roosevelt and Leonard Wood in 1904.

3) While the US army in this TL is certain to be larger, equipment and state of professionalism undetermined, it also has commitments internally (see Deseret and the Native Americans) and on the CSA and Mexican borders.
While the British Army is certainly a more professional force at this time, and equipment was of high quality, the claim that the British army is larger must be analyzed more in depth. Was the Army bigger on paper? Certainly, the British army at peace time before WWI consisted of about 247,400 regulars deployed all over the world, with a respectful portion stationed in Britain. When all reserve units are factored in, the army on paper had a fully mobilized strength of 700,000. The army had about the same amount of manpower in the 1890’s. Only 150,000 of these men were able to be formed into the BEF that was sent just across the Channel during WWI. Furthermore at the time of this hypothetical war the British were having clear problems coming to grips with modern warfare, the Boer War shows how a smaller, not-as-professional force of somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 in a distant area near an important WASP colony could give the Empire a serious opposition. While in OTL the USA’s peace time army was 26,000, with the potential threat of ITTL’s CSA we can be sure it was much larger, and OTL the United States was able to increase its army’s manpower by 10 TIMES to 300,000 soldiers, in about 3 months after the declaration of war on Spain. Seeing that the Boer war saw a record deployment of 180,000 British soldiers overseas, and it took about three months to get all of it to South Africa, this provides a lot of grey area to move in.

While none of this advocates an American steam roller, and does not rule out a British victory regardless, it does show that things aren’t as overwhelmingly in favor of the British, especially since the only way this war will happen is if America is the aggressor, and the aggressor usually prepares for manpower and weapons procurement. The Union army would have the benefits of an industrialized war machine able to mass produce tons of rifles and equipment as the US retains its industrial capacity due to the South’s economy being primarily composed of rural agriculture, and the textile industry until well into the 20thy century. While the British Lee-Enfield is certainly a better rifle then the American M1896, the Boer war revealed that it was hampered by accuracy problems, meaning that while the British have the edge in service rifle, it doesn’t give them an overwhelming advantage, after all the Spanish army that you say was so close to bringing the American expedition in Cuba to disaster was armed with a superior rifle to the Americans, the same exact family of rifle that the Boers used to cause so much grief to the British assaults on Boer positions, the Mauser, and the Americans were able to defeat them.

Also with multiple major conflicts with the CSA the regular US Army is going to be much more professional then OTL, and why can’t you accept the fact that THERE IS NO USA-MEXICAN BORDER. That land is now in the hands of the Confederacy. There is just an extended USA-CSA border, With the CSA a buffer between the USA and Mexico, with the rampant chaos affecting Mexico, it is not going to have the diplomatic, political, or military power to secure passage of Mexican troops through the CSA, and there is no way the Mexican government is going to even want to do so now that their northern neighbor is the racist CSA that already owns some of its land and who is probably looking for a pacific port; making it more important than it was for the Mexican army to stay and put down the domestic unrest engulfing the nation. The idea of a Mexican amphibious assault is so ridiculous that it shouldn’t even be thought of except in ridicule. Mexico poses absolutely no danger in any shape or form the USA.

The Mormon’s at this point aren’t likely to rise up in revolt, and the Indians by this point had mostly been broken and confined in reservations. OTL’s Wounded Knee Massacre happened in 1890, the last dangerous remnants of the Sioux (the tribe that was the only major threat by this point) were forced to surrender in 1891, and only small sporadic skirmishes happened after that, while there would be some unrest, none of it would be a serious threat beyond small annoying guerrilla raids by a few escaped reservation Indians who somehow armed themselves, or maybe some Canadian Indians helping the British. The CSA while a threat, has several problems, the USA is much more industrialized, has a much larger population, and doesn’t have to rebuild its equipment stockpiles from a resounding defeat 15 years before while guarding a long border without the benefits of extensive railway systems. The long USA-CSA works against the USA just as much as the CSA, but the Northern railways and other infrastructure make it easier for the North to respond to attacks, and move troops to attack from multiple different directions. Britain could supply weapons to the CSA with its likely control of the seas, but the 300,000 soldiers raised for the Spanish-American war would be even easier to organize due to an larger peace time US Army, and a populace motivated to defend themselves from their Southern neighbors.

Grimm Reaper said:
4) Based on population Canada could easily maintain a professional standing army of 50,000 or more in time of peace and two or three times that many in reserves and militia.
But not based on supplies, logistics, or reality. At the dawn of WWI Canada only had an army of 3,100, and it took two months to mobilize an army of 32,000. While Canada’s army and the British military presence ITTL, will probably be larger, it won’t be by much. As Douglas said the British would be hurt by a war with such an important trading partner and so wouldn’t want a war with the USA and would expect the USA to behave the same way towards them. Also unlike Canada’s WWI mobilization, the foe is charging right into their neighborhoods: Canada does not have the Atlantic Ocean shielding it from this enemy as it mobilizes.

Grimm Reaper said:
5) Effectively no one did move to New Mexico and Arizona for quite some time so there is no population to be diverted elsewhere. OTL neither had the minimal population of 60,000 to become states until 1912.
Actually New Mexico OTL had a population of just over 153,500 and Arizona was just short of the threshold with a population of about 59,600 in the year 1890. In 1860, the territory known as New Mexico included both states, and had a population of about 95,500. This increase of over 100,000 people is a more then 100% increase in a generation, a figure impossible to credit to natural population growth due to birth for even a significant portion of it. Effectively a lot of people did move to these states, and for an area with as low of a population density as central Canada and the Northern-Mid Western United States, a diversion of just 50,000 to the entire area can make a difference. Your statement of there being no population to divert is entirely incorrect.

Grimm Reaper said:
6) India was not a military burden on Great Britain but a benefit. The native troops and locally recruited regiments commanded by British officers means that the British can field and ship an army of 50,000 or more against the west coast of the United States given nothing more than word that a war has started and sufficient shipping gathered.
While India did prove a military benefit during the Boxer rebellion, WWI, and WWII, and its manpower was at 155,000 before WWI, the British would not be able to field and ship an army of 50,000 and certainly not more to the USA’s west coast, and would need significantly more than word of war. It is precisely the gathering of shipping that presents the problem. Amateurs study strategy, Professionals study logistics. Britain provided 12,000 troops of which a large part were Indian soldiers to crush the boxer rebellion, a conflict in an area with much closer supply lines to India, a far cry from this Indian army juggernaut you are presenting. As I previously pointed out it took Britain 3 months to deploy 180,000 troops to South Africa, shipping is simply not going to be there to transport an additional force of 50,000 to the Pacific Coast and then support them logistically.

Furthermore even if Britain had the capability, it is incredibly doubtful that Britain would send this force. Britain refused to use any non-white units from the colonies for frontline duty in the Boer war, with the exception of some local native South Africans, and India’s only contribution to the theater was the Indian Ambulance Corps which was composed of Indians living in South Africa (one of those who served in this unit was Mahatma Gandhi). The British are not going to send Native troops to fight fellow civilized WASPs in an area that is far away from British supply lines, has a low density of people, and has lots of land to just disappear into, and certainly aren’t going to make them the overwhelming majority of the force, because if you send that many Indian’s to the west coast you aren’t sending anywhere close that many British units to the same place. Furthermore the idea of Native troops composing the vast majority of a defense force for the WASP colony of British Columbia is ridiculous, White soldiers to defend white settlers will be the sentiment of the government and the demand of the settlers. If Indian troops were sent at all, they would be a small contingent of a much bigger force of British Army soldiers, and to be a significant presence Britain would have to be desperate. If Britian didn’t send Indians to South Africa they aren’t going to be sending them to British Columbia.

As to India not being a military burden, that is why the Indian army was raised: to prevent any unrest in the colony. The Indian mutiny was a disturbing time for the empire and so Britain is going to be cautious about large deployments of Indian troops overseas. The North-West Frontier was a constant source of violent unrest, and the Great Game with Russia was always on the mind of those tasked with India’s defense as a result. A large portion of the Indian army was just used as local security forces. On top of it all before WWI the Indian government had decided that they could only afford to provide 2 divisions of Infantry and a brigade of Cavalry if a war broke out in Europe. Despite many more being sent in WWI, an unwanted war Britain is not going to be as determined to fight as WWI is not going to see the same deployment of Indian troops as WWI. An army of 50,000 Indians is simply not going to be deployed overseas to British Columbia.

None of this is to say that the British are going to be crushed, or even defeated, as a Anglophile American I am well aware that Britain was certainly an extremely powerful nation at the time, as shown by the ability to move, deploy, and support a force of 180,000 directly into a distant combat zone. I think that I stated early that I am doubtful of how successful an American assault into Eastern Canada would be, and I am defiantly certain that any campaigns waged there would extract a horrible price in blood for American soldiers, Canadian soldiers and civilians, and the British army (which I do consider to be the best fighting force of the period) alike.

The campaign in the west is different. Your claims that
Grimm Reaper said:
Further the northwestern US territories are sparsely populated and not credible bases for military action. In 1900 the combined population of Washington, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota was less than half a million, most of them very recent arrivals.
are slightly off as their combined populations are by 1890 is closer to a million than half a million, and with the inclusion of the nearby western state of Oregon is over a million. The main problem however is you make this statement and somehow don’t think the situation is same north of the border. If these areas can’t support a large defensive contingent of American soldiers, or serve as a base for an assault into Canada for the same, the opposite is certainly true for Western Canada. The entire population of Western Canada is the population under half a million, the railway that crosses the nation OTL was put close to the border to serve as a boundary marker, and has a already prepared professional mounted force which significantly outnumbers the North West Mounted Police across the border ready to engage in raiding. OTL British Columbia had to be promised a trans-continental railroad to join Canada, and when the railway fell several years behind the promised date of completion there was unrest, with even some talk of joining the USA. While the talk was probably not a serious threat at the time, the cutting of the rail line by the US Army would lead to significant unrest and dishearten the citizenry. While a lot of the western war will be raiding, a small force of US cavalry probably will head north to seize railway hubs and other outposts, and the tracks would be a tempting target for raiders anyway.

The British could still pull out a victory, but they are suffering the exact same problems in this front as the Americans are. This is the entire problem: you burden the USA with all these problems and ignore any issues with the British expedition. As you pointed out the cities, rivers, and other natural defensive lines in Eastern Canada compensate wonderfully for the British draw backs, and I believe that the USA’s success in that theater is doubtful at best, but the very real problems for defense and offense in Western Canada apply to both sides, and the USA’s transcontinental railroad, protected from the front make it much more likely to deploy the force of 50,000 to the west, then Britain to send the same number of Indian troops.

You also ignore Britain own commitments, war scares around this time constantly shook the nation, it had problems in South Africa around this time as I have pointed out and they were there before war was declared. Ireland always had the potential of unrest, and outposts all over the world demanded the Empires attention 24/7. This war is no crushing victory for the ‘god ol’ boys’ of the USA, but is an extremely hard fought dangerous war for the British, and they don’t get to ignore their other commitments.

7) The likelihood of the Mormons being exterminated or broken as a religion by the US are nil. Conquered and hostile, certainly. Unwilling to act against the US barring a clear hope for victory with a strong (British) ally, also certainly. Wiped out? No.
Agreed. What I was trying to say was the parameters of the TL have preempted this threat by destroying them as a political force, regardless of how realistic it is. I like Papermario’s new method of hurting their political power is much better though then that old one, as it does seem more realistic and does allow some natural hostility to exist that should be expected.

Grimm Reaper said:
8) The CSA does not have the ability or funds to build a fleet(let alone twice as presented in TTL) but they certainly can gather tens of thousands of men for action on land, especially if the British provide armaments and funding, as the British would likely see in their own interest.
Again the CSA’s fleet, while probably unable to be rebuilt twice, could match the Spanish with minimal build up, and its pioneering work in submarines levels the table. The tens of thousands while certainly within the ability of the CSA to raise are going to need a lot of support, and Britain will be strained supplying its own war machine, moving troops around, and supplying armaments to the CSA. The CSA’s lack of infrastructure means that while its army will be a formidable defense force with the infrastructure it does have, and its large number of soldiers means it will be hard for it to be a significant threat offensively. Especially since the USA’s infrastructure, and the same factors making war so hard in eastern Canada, rivers (Ohio and Potomac), and defensible cities do play a part here. The United States will have an easier time moving troops to trouble spots, and will be in a better position to organize and supply troops to launch assaults into Confederate territory.

Despite the closing of the frontier OTL in 1890, the CSA’s best offensive shot is probably out west, but once again the comparison of infrastructure show that the USA is more likely to be able to send large attachments of troops west. Although the British-Confederate alliance was able to win the CSA’s independence it is not going to have the same abilities at this point, and will not be as successful. While the USA can’t do it all, it will most likely be just happy digging in across the border and defend against any possible Confederate assault until they either defeat the British or fight the war north to a complete standstill. The USA will also be able to move reinforcements into position to push the invaders across the border (or back into the sea), if the Confederate army is able to breach American defenses. British amphibious assault on major cities like New York and Philadelphia are going to be unsuccessful at this point in time, and at the worst would end in disaster, even if supported by confederate troops such as an assault on Baltimore could be (a second Star Spangled Banner anyone?).

Any Anglo-American war would be an extremely hard fought close affair. As Douglas pointed out, the war would severely hurt both nations no matter the outcome. The economic interdependence of the two nations means severe hurt to trade, and leaves both nations in a sticky situation with outside powers. The USA is not assured of victory but neither are the British. War is a chaotic activity where many things can go wrong, and is susceptible to a massive array of factors, some almost trivially small. Wars can be shaped by one battle that confers the advantage to one side, and so I merely point out that there are many factors that prevent a British walkover. I skip over most of the factors to their advantage, but all the items lining up in the USA’s column simply close the gap in the conflict, they do not give the USA the ability to crush the British Empire any more then the Empire has the ability to crush them. As an Anglophile the idea of a war between Britain and my birth nation upsets me, especially given the problems it will cause in the United States, and so I like Papermario’s new method of just having America apply pressure on Britain when the Empire is involved in the Anglo-French war, given that Britain will be aware of the problems of committing troops to Western Canada, and the likely hood of a fair portion of Canadian troops fighting overseas.

Finally, on an unrelated note, I think at the end of the Anglo-French war St. Pierre and Miquelon should fall under British control.

P.S. I don't think I'll ever post a piece that long again as a comment. Too much work.
 
General Greene, you have so many factual errrors, starting with practically every point you made about Canada, India, Spain and Great Britain, plus the actual and potential military capabilities of all four that I hardly know where to begin.

Between that and other errors, particularly this fantasy of Great Britain giving away a huge tract of Canada for no good reason...



papermario, the British naval superiority means France is not going to hold its own in Africa and if France is being beaten and invaded by Prussia then Paris could not care less about colonial borders.

The likelihood of the Orange Free State, or even both Boer states, surviving is nil. For these two nations 50,000 dead soldiers isn't a catastrophe, it's an impossibility as they do not have that many during the 1899-1902 war in the first place even after mobilization.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
As my knowledge of Spain’s economic power is not as strong as other areas I’ll gladly drop this point, but I do wonder how useful these examination of CSA revenues were as the CSA was at war for essentially its entire existence and ceased to exist just over a generation before the proposed war. I also wonder if you could point me to these examinations of revenue as I would love to get a better understanding of Spain’s position.

The CSA will be very, very rich. OTL the industrialisation of the US was petering out in the late 1880's/ early 1890's. The next big boom was Texan Oil. The CSA is riding this wave, they have a near monopoly on Petroleum and can afford all the war fighting kit they want.

The Spanish Caribbean squadron was not exactly the finest task force ever assembled, and Spain’s main fleet never went anywhere near Cuba. While analysis of Spanish forces on the Island are formidable, nothing is ever assured in warfare, and the CSA definitely would have a merchant marine, the states would immediately see the importance of making sure that exports and as a result profits, are safe from being solely reliant on another nation’s merchant fleet. Spain’s fleet also was plagued by deficiencies in machinery, armament, ammunition and crew training.

As was the US fleet. The problem was that the Spanish were so demoralised they never actually fought.

You bring up an important point: namely that Cubans probably wouldn’t be very happy with CSA intervention and would be unlikely to give support, and recent reading on my part has revealed that the rebels played a important role in the American land assault OTL, the Cubans are probably not going to stop their attacks on the Spanish, and with the Spanish use of concentration camps, there is a small chance that at least some units of the rebels might assist the Confederates, every war has its share of collaborators after all. Furthermore, this is not a filibustering attempt, this is a war, waged by the government, not some private adventuring force, and so the number of Confederate troops will be much much larger than five thousand volunteers.
I agree that war is risky, and victory probably unlikely for the CSA, but viewing the position Spain was in, not impossible. Another thing to consider is submarine warfare. After thrity years, and especially considering the naval disadvantages you have so rightly pointed out, the CSA is going to look for something to even the playing field, and has enough time between independence and this war to improve on designs of theirs from the Civil War and bring them up to at least moderate levels of capability. With its significant disadvantage toward the US navy submarine development is going to see a lot more experimentation, and development should be quicker then OTL as a result. (Although a stretch, could I interest anyone in early unrestricted sub warfare? After all they’re fighting ‘dirty lazy Spaniards’).

Submarine Torpedo Boats? I would point out that it was the Spanish Navy that pioneered Submarine Torpedo Boats in the late 1880's/ early 1890's. If Holland is butterflied away (which he might be) then the diesel-electric system might not yet have been developed. As it was the submarine isn't good for much in 1900.

Ah sir, but the American population is very much closer to the action then Britain’s, and easier to mobilize and deploy to Canada as a result. Furthermore you are just plain wrong about TTL America having a smaller population. IOTL the US population was just under 63 million in 1890, and even if you subtract the populations of all the states that are ITTL part of the CSA, including West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma, your loss of 21.3 million people still leaves you with a US population of 40.7 million. Great Britain’s population didn’t reach 37.1 million until 1901!

However, the US is now a much less attractive proposition to immigrants. There was considerable hostility to emigration, and a wounded US is likely to be more hostile (and has no safe places to expand in the west and absorb the emigrants). With the exclusion of "undesirables" (Jews, Germans, Irish and Italians, Chinese exclusion was already enacted OTL) then the US is likely closer to 30m.

While the British Army is certainly a more professional force at this time, and equipment was of high quality, the claim that the British army is larger must be analyzed more in depth. Was the Army bigger on paper? Certainly, the British army at peace time before WWI consisted of about 247,400 regulars deployed all over the world, with a respectful portion stationed in Britain.

After the biting cuts of the 1906-7 defence reviews.

When all reserve units are factored in, the army on paper had a fully mobilized strength of 700,000. The army had about the same amount of manpower in the 1890’s. Only 150,000 of these men were able to be formed into the BEF that was sent just across the Channel during WWI.

On M-day a slightly truncated BEF of 164,000 (missing 1/7th of its combat formations) embarked. Within 3 months (accounting for casualties) about half a million men had been deployed to France and Belgium, and several hundred thousand troops were active in other theatres.

Furthermore at the time of this hypothetical war the British were having clear problems coming to grips with modern warfare, the Boer War shows how a smaller, not-as-professional force of somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 in a distant area near an important WASP colony could give the Empire a serious opposition.

The Boers were destroyed as a organised force within six months of the decision to "get serious" and the Boer states occupied.

While in OTL the USA’s peace time army was 26,000, with the potential threat of ITTL’s CSA we can be sure it was much larger, and OTL the United States was able to increase its army’s manpower by 10 TIMES to 300,000 soldiers, in about 3 months after the declaration of war on Spain.

I shall quote myself: As for ground war, the US doesn't have much of an army, the regulars are about 25,000 strong. The militia/ national guard are 100,000 on paper, but 40% of these have never even shouldered a rifle, let alone have any real military training. There are only 10 batteries of field artillery, equipped with an antique that was obsolete when ordered.

What they can throw at Canada is prettymuch what they could assemble immediately for field service in OTL 1898 22 Infantry Regiments, 6 Cavalry Regiments and most of their field artillery constituted their disposable regular force, and this is what they can assemble on the Canadian border, about 16,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry and ca. 50 guns.

This isn't a host to overrun Canada, to be sure.

Canada is in a worse state with respect to a regular force ("active militia") much smaller than this. However, their militia system is in much better shape. They have about 90,000 volunteers to call on trained to a much better standard than the US militia, with modern weapons and artillery (the US militia have modernised ACW arms and no artillery worth speaking of).

The British have the lift and available troops to deploy 10 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions to Canada, a force of over 100,000 regulars and about 300 modern guns (and about 100 maxim guns at the scale of issue then).

The US don't have the forces available to make it quick, and if they wait until the militia are mobilised, trained and equipped they've lost months and the British are already there.

- https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2667010

I should also note that the National Guard in 1898 was found to not be worth a damn. Volunteers were formed instead, 200,000 of whom essentially none were worth a damn. They were equipped with Trapdoor Springfields and lacked any machineguns (even Gatlings) or artillery. They largely found use in manning the coastal defences, which required 100,000 men for that portion that, ITTL is the USA.

Seeing that the Boer war saw a record deployment of 180,000 British soldiers overseas, and it took about three months to get all of it to South Africa, this provides a lot of grey area to move in.

458,610 officers and men served in South Africa. The British regular force deployed in the opening warfighting phase was 10,000 existing garrison, 10,000 reinforcements from other colonial stations then the 47,000 men of 1st Infantry Corps and the Cavalry Corps from the UK, followed by another 6 infantry divisions (70,000 men) and then reservists etc.

It is impressive that 47,000 men simply moved from barracks to ship, and arrived within the month.

While none of this advocates an American steam roller, and does not rule out a British victory regardless, it does show that things aren’t as overwhelmingly in favor of the British, especially since the only way this war will happen is if America is the aggressor, and the aggressor usually prepares for manpower and weapons procurement. The Union army would have the benefits of an industrialized war machine able to mass produce tons of rifles and equipment as the US retains its industrial capacity due to the South’s economy being primarily composed of rural agriculture,

No, the CSA was a reasonably industrialised nation OTL. Obviously not to the extent of the US, but impressive on the world stage. With a US-CS split they will industrialise and process their own resources, rather than sending it north (who will similarly industrialise less due to fewer resources). The factories of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky were very significant, and likely to get more so.

ITTL have the US converted to smokeless powder? Because OTL they still had black powder weapons (both rifles and artillery).

While the British Lee-Enfield is certainly a better rifle then the American M1896, the Boer war revealed that it was hampered by accuracy problems, meaning that while the British have the edge in service rifle, it doesn’t give them an overwhelming advantage, after all the Spanish army that you say was so close to bringing the American expedition in Cuba to disaster was armed with a superior rifle to the Americans, the same exact family of rifle that the Boers used to cause so much grief to the British assaults on Boer positions, the Mauser, and the Americans were able to defeat them.

The MLE is fine, and the British outshot the Boers whenever they encountered them in the open.

For real war it is the Maxim gun (which "we have and they do not") and artillery that is important. The US have a few dozen old black powder guns OTL vs modern 15 pdr BL's with HE.

But not based on supplies, logistics, or reality. At the dawn of WWI Canada only had an army of 3,100, and it took two months to mobilize an army of 32,000. While Canada’s army and the British military presence ITTL, will probably be larger, it won’t be by much. As Douglas said the British would be hurt by a war with such an important trading partner and so wouldn’t want a war with the USA and would expect the USA to behave the same way towards them. Also unlike Canada’s WWI mobilization, the foe is charging right into their neighborhoods: Canada does not have the Atlantic Ocean shielding it from this enemy as it mobilizes.

This is odd. You're following the plan Red assumption, that Canada will not countermobilise until the US crosses the border. Either the US scrapes together a weak division and drives on Montreal against the volunteers, or waits while they mobilise an invasion force, which will be countered by a Canadian mobilisation and a British deployment.

(and, BTW, WP Red still assumed that the British would have superior numbers in theatre by M+60).


While India did prove a military benefit during the Boxer rebellion, WWI, and WWII, and its manpower was at 155,000 before WWI, the British would not be able to field and ship an army of 50,000 and certainly not more to the USA’s west coast, and would need significantly more than word of war. It is precisely the gathering of shipping that presents the problem. Amateurs study strategy, Professionals study logistics. Britain provided 12,000 troops of which a large part were Indian soldiers to crush the boxer rebellion, a conflict in an area with much closer supply lines to India, a far cry from this Indian army juggernaut you are presenting. As I previously pointed out it took Britain 3 months to deploy 180,000 troops to South Africa, shipping is simply not going to be there to transport an additional force of 50,000 to the Pacific Coast and then support them logistically.

Yes, they could and historically did much better than that. Within days of the declaration of war 1/3rd of the standing Indian Army was embarking for abroad.

Furthermore even if Britain had the capability, it is incredibly doubtful that Britain would send this force. Britain refused to use any non-white units from the colonies for frontline duty in the Boer war, with the exception of some local native South Africans, and India’s only contribution to the theater was the Indian Ambulance Corps which was composed of Indians living in South Africa (one of those who served in this unit was Mahatma Gandhi). The British are not going to send Native troops to fight fellow civilized WASPs in an area that is far away from British supply lines, has a low density of people, and has lots of land to just disappear into, and certainly aren’t going to make them the overwhelming majority of the force, because if you send that many Indian’s to the west coast you aren’t sending anywhere close that many British units to the same place. Furthermore the idea of Native troops composing the vast majority of a defense force for the WASP colony of British Columbia is ridiculous, White soldiers to defend white settlers will be the sentiment of the government and the demand of the settlers. If Indian troops were sent at all, they would be a small contingent of a much bigger force of British Army soldiers, and to be a significant presence Britain would have to be desperate. If Britian didn’t send Indians to South Africa they aren’t going to be sending them to British Columbia.

and the Germans aren't WASPs?

As to India not being a military burden, that is why the Indian army was raised: to prevent any unrest in the colony. The Indian mutiny was a disturbing time for the empire and so Britain is going to be cautious about large deployments of Indian troops overseas. The North-West Frontier was a constant source of violent unrest, and the Great Game with Russia was always on the mind of those tasked with India’s defense as a result. A large portion of the Indian army was just used as local security forces. On top of it all before WWI the Indian government had decided that they could only afford to provide 2 divisions of Infantry and a brigade of Cavalry if a war broke out in Europe. Despite many more being sent in WWI, an unwanted war Britain is not going to be as determined to fight as WWI is not going to see the same deployment of Indian troops as WWI. An army of 50,000 Indians is simply not going to be deployed overseas to British Columbia.

No, it will be deployed offensively against the US.

The campaign in the west is different. Your claims that are slightly off as their combined populations are by 1890 is closer to a million than half a million, and with the inclusion of the nearby western state of Oregon is over a million. The main problem however is you make this statement and somehow don’t think the situation is same north of the border. If these areas can’t support a large defensive contingent of American soldiers, or serve as a base for an assault into Canada for the same, the opposite is certainly true for Western Canada. The entire population of Western Canada is the population under half a million, the railway that crosses the nation OTL was put close to the border to serve as a boundary marker, and has a already prepared professional mounted force which significantly outnumbers the North West Mounted Police across the border ready to engage in raiding. OTL British Columbia had to be promised a trans-continental railroad to join Canada, and when the railway fell several years behind the promised date of completion there was unrest, with even some talk of joining the USA. While the talk was probably not a serious threat at the time, the cutting of the rail line by the US Army would lead to significant unrest and dishearten the citizenry. While a lot of the western war will be raiding, a small force of US cavalry probably will head north to seize railway hubs and other outposts, and the tracks would be a tempting target for raiders anyway.

Yet there is a large ocean flanking them.....

The British could still pull out a victory, but they are suffering the exact same problems in this front as the Americans are. This is the entire problem: you burden the USA with all these problems and ignore any issues with the British expedition. As you pointed out the cities, rivers, and other natural defensive lines in Eastern Canada compensate wonderfully for the British draw backs, and I believe that the USA’s success in that theater is doubtful at best, but the very real problems for defense and offense in Western Canada apply to both sides, and the USA’s transcontinental railroad, protected from the front make it much more likely to deploy the force of 50,000 to the west, then Britain to send the same number of Indian troops.

You also ignore Britain own commitments, war scares around this time constantly shook the nation, it had problems in South Africa around this time as I have pointed out and they were there before war was declared. Ireland always had the potential of unrest, and outposts all over the world demanded the Empires attention 24/7. This war is no crushing victory for the ‘god ol’ boys’ of the USA, but is an extremely hard fought dangerous war for the British, and they don’t get to ignore their other commitments.

No ignoring, but they're not onerous commitments. 10,000 troops in South Africa, Ireland is not a problem, the imperial garrisons abroad require another few thousand, in infantry battalions in 1902 the dispositions are:

Halifax, NS: 1
Bermuda: 3 (central reserve for operations in the Americas)
Barbados: 1
Jamaica: 1
Gibraltar: 3
Malta: 6
Crete: 1
Egypt: 6 (and 1 cav regt, a formed infantry division for operations in the area)
Somaliland: 1
Central Africa: 2
East Africa: 1
Uganda: 2
Sierra Leone: 2
Mauritius: 1
Singapore: 1
Hong Kong: 1
= ca. 8% of the Army deployed elsewhere apart from the UK, SA or India

South Africa in 1902 has an authorised garrison of a cavalry brigade (3 regts) and 15 inf bns (ca. 7% of the army)

India (inc dependencies) had been reduced to 9 cav and 49 inf bns.

These strengths assume the 1898 expansion (i.e. doubling) of the army was never enacted as per OTL.

Again the CSA’s fleet, while probably unable to be rebuilt twice, could match the Spanish with minimal build up, and its pioneering work in submarines levels the table. The tens of thousands while certainly within the ability of the CSA to raise are going to need a lot of support, and Britain will be strained supplying its own war machine, moving troops around, and supplying armaments to the CSA. The CSA’s lack of infrastructure means that while its army will be a formidable defense force with the infrastructure it does have, and its large number of soldiers means it will be hard for it to be a significant threat offensively. Especially since the USA’s infrastructure, and the same factors making war so hard in eastern Canada, rivers (Ohio and Potomac), and defensible cities do play a part here. The United States will have an easier time moving troops to trouble spots, and will be in a better position to organize and supply troops to launch assaults into Confederate territory.

The CSA will build and buy a major modern battlefleet. End of.

Despite the closing of the frontier OTL in 1890, the CSA’s best offensive shot is probably out west, but once again the comparison of infrastructure show that the USA is more likely to be able to send large attachments of troops west. Although the British-Confederate alliance was able to win the CSA’s independence it is not going to have the same abilities at this point, and will not be as successful. While the USA can’t do it all, it will most likely be just happy digging in across the border and defend against any possible Confederate assault until they either defeat the British or fight the war north to a complete standstill. The USA will also be able to move reinforcements into position to push the invaders across the border (or back into the sea), if the Confederate army is able to breach American defenses. British amphibious assault on major cities like New York and Philadelphia are going to be unsuccessful at this point in time, and at the worst would end in disaster, even if supported by confederate troops such as an assault on Baltimore could be (a second Star Spangled Banner anyone?).

I doubt any of the US fortifications would last long against an RN squadron.

Any Anglo-American war would be an extremely hard fought close affair. As Douglas pointed out, the war would severely hurt both nations no matter the outcome. The economic interdependence of the two nations means severe hurt to trade, and leaves both nations in a sticky situation with outside powers. The USA is not assured of victory but neither are the British. War is a chaotic activity where many things can go wrong, and is susceptible to a massive array of factors, some almost trivially small. Wars can be shaped by one battle that confers the advantage to one side, and so I merely point out that there are many factors that prevent a British walkover. I skip over most of the factors to their advantage, but all the items lining up in the USA’s column simply close the gap in the conflict, they do not give the USA the ability to crush the British Empire any more then the Empire has the ability to crush them. As an Anglophile the idea of a war between Britain and my birth nation upsets me, especially given the problems it will cause in the United States, and so I like Papermario’s new method of just having America apply pressure on Britain when the Empire is involved in the Anglo-French war, given that Britain will be aware of the problems of committing troops to Western Canada, and the likely hood of a fair portion of Canadian troops fighting overseas.

Finally, on an unrelated note, I think at the end of the Anglo-French war St. Pierre and Miquelon should fall under British control.

P.S. I don't think I'll ever post a piece that long again as a comment. Too much work.[/SIZE]

No, the British can hurt the US severely. The US can do no more than threaten a minor centre well away from the metropole. This is a one sided deal under which the US lose.
 
General Greene, you have so many factual errors, starting with practically every point you made about Canada, India, Spain and Great Britain, plus the actual and potential military capabilities of all four that I hardly know where to begin.

Between that and other errors, particularly this fantasy of Great Britain giving away a huge tract of Canada for no good reason...

So that entitles you not to respond at all? I started to respond to this comment, but I realized my response was too detailed and you would probably just ignore it again, and why should I merit a detailed response to someone who chooses to ignore ACCURATE FACTS AND FIGURES, from sources such as the UK's National Archives, Veterans Affairs Canada, and other historical records. Your ridiculous Britwank of the USA being quickly swept away and drowning under the weight of Indian Hoards in rural Canada, Canadian armies that spontaneously sprout out of the Douglas Firs, and British Regulars that warp into Quebec and Ontario, all summoned by a mere snap of Queen Vicky's fingers (which apparently entitles the empire to ignore logistical difficulties of coordinating all these operations simultaneously), completely and unreservedly ignores what the empire actually did militarily OTL.

I think that I made it clear that I am doubtful of a US victory. While I believe there would be some initial military success in Western Canada, that does not mean the USA will come away with anything from the peace settlement, except maybe if they’re lucky that small corner of Maine. An Anglo-American war hurts both sides, and accomplishes very little, but it does not under any circumstances allow the British to start singing God Save the Queen as they skip over dead Yankee bodies on the way to Philadelphia, and if Gallipoli is any indication, a direct amphibious landing into hostile territory controlled by a moderately industrialized power (especially if the British try to land in the USA near an industrial urban center like NYC), would meet stiff opposition, if not disaster for any troops trying to push out of the beach head. THERE IS NO BRITISH STEAM ROLLER ITTL!!!! A hard fought victory? Certainly plausible. America's assaults into eastern Canada going nowhere? I think the war of 1812 gives us the verdict (nowhere at all). I was enjoying my discussion with you as you seemed to have some good insights into areas like Spain's finances, and seemed fairly knowledgeable about the era, but that last post was completely uncalled for. Your blatant arrogance towards my researched reply, refusal to actually engage in discussion on any of my points, and your decision to completely ignore facts and figures from reputable sources, leads me to completely disregard any further comment by you on the subject of an Anglo-American war ITTL.

@ 67th Tigers

I had no idea Spain was doing any sub research before WWI at all, I think it would be very interesting to see CSA and Spanish prototype subs face off in a race to cause the most damage. The American fleet, while no match for the Royal Navy, was far superior to Spain's (that is one piece of Spanish history I do know:D). I fail to understand your comments about American immigration however: could you explain your justification of decreased immigration as a result of the USA losing its most racist areas, losing a decent portion of its population, but not losing any of its industrial capability and labor needs in the areas that attracted immigration in the first place? Your idea of Germans being undesirables after the 1850s and before WWI seems unlikely, northern Europeans were welcome to immigrate to the USA from its very birth. The Founding Fathers even offered land on the frontier to Hessian mercenaries who deserted during the ARW. The Irish by this point have mostly integrated in to society, while some prejudice undoubtedly remains, at the end of the 19th century they were secure in American society. The ACW OTL, (and TTL’s Mormon war provides the same opportunity), enabled them to prove their loyalty as soldiers, and anyway by the 1860’s the hatred directed at them in the 1840’s when the potato famine caused a large immigration influx of Irish had diminished, as they had helped build railways, filled needed factory jobs, and assimilated into a culturally similar society. As an American who’s heritage mostly derives from Italy, I am well aware of the problems Italian immigrants faced OTL, and the largest group of Italian immigrants came between 1880 and 1914, so stricter laws on immigration is going to affect those numbers. Unfortunately I don’t really see anything to exacerbate the feelings of OTL towards immigration, the only plausible stricter stance on immigration I can see is a slightly earlier date for the passage of the Emergency Quota act. Immigrants are not going to come at an increased or decreased pace ITTL, because there are no additional incentives over OTL, but an equal number of reasons to do so as in OTL. Most of these immigrants wound up in the north or west anyway. The Jews are going to have an equally hard time as they did OTL, but not any harder IMO. The west is still open, and the factories still need cheap labor, if anything a Big-Business-Friendly Republican Party running the USA is going to help limit any populist desires against immigration, as it no longer has to deal with the primary support base of the democrats who were so against immigration, and with heavy industry dominating many states in this smaller USA, even more anti-immigration representatives and senators are going to be moderated by the businesses in their state (the only state that is going to be radically and staunchly anti-immigration is Indiana, which OTL had the largest number of KKK members in the USA). The checks and balances keeps anti-immigration sentiment on the same track as OTL and makes it about as successful. By the time staunch barriers are in place tons of people have already slipped through.

In response to my assumptions being similar to War Plan Red: I do not think Canada will not mobilize as the USA comes pouring in, I think they will have difficulties mobilizing, making them less successful then OTL’s WWI mobilization. ITTL the USA’s peace time army is going to be bigger than the pitiful force it was pre-Spanish American war as it needs to guard the long border with the CSA. OTL during this era America’s only major peace time commitment was the Indian wars, you’re going to need a lot more than 25,000 regulars ITTL to protect the border with the new hostile nation to the South. Your justly placed doubt in American mobilization is facing a different USA: One that fought a war against the CSA only half a generation ago, and so has plenty of men still in the army with real war experience, and a population with many people still within fighting age who know how to use a gun, and more importantly, use it while being part of an organized force. OTL, by the time the Spanish-American war broke out even the boys who joined at the age of 17 in 1865 were near 50 years old. ITTL, 17 year olds in 1882 are now only 34, still within the age to serve in the militias, and with many large industrially important cities not that far from the CSA (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia, even Chicago). It all adds up to a USA who will be better at mobilizing the 300,000 men it did mobilize OTL, as ITTL they will have done it not too long ago, seen the problems they had and partially fixed some of them, and they will have a population with more able bodied war veterans in it as a result of the mobilization 15 years ago. The Mormon war would have forced some improvement in artillery, and would have seen at least some use of the Gatling gun and an appreciation for its rate of fire would lead to the USA showing an interest in a more practical alternative. After all the maxim gun would be invented by an american emirgre born in Central Maine, only two years later IOTL, and an American can always hope that the British intervention in the ACW butterflies that movement away.;) It should be pointed out that major wars undoubtedly have a way of forcing major states to improve their equipment and fix military mistakes. Lastly, the USA gets a slight edge in mobilization vs. Britain time wise, as it is most likely going to start mobilizing as part of the final stages of its threats of war, and will declare war before it loses the advantage to British troops deploying in mass to Canada.

The CSA is going to be an incentive for a stronger US military, you are right in that the CSA did have a decent industrial capability, but nowhere close to that of the USA, and the CSA with its absurd amount of local autonomy over the national government, and OTL’s historic opposition to business interests in many states, is going to face problems developing industrial infrastructure in the more rural Deep South states, apart from the textile industry. We could see the northern confederate states assuming the role of industry supporters, while the Deep South would still keep its Democrat obstructionism it had towards industrial business interests OTL. This will cause problems because it leaves what little heavy industry the CSA does have close to the battle zone against the USA, portions of that infrastructure likely took hard hits from US armies during the Mormon war, and is going to have problems rebuilding as government incentives are going to be retarded by the limits on protective tariffs, and the problems convincing states to support infrastructure rebuilding in those areas that have seen it destroyed, the border states will be cash strapped, and will be hard pressed to rebuild for a while, and will lead to a reliance on foreign imports for industrial goods. While not making the CSA defenseless, it hurts its ability to wage offensive war against the organized, industrialized nation across their border. ITTL the CSA of 1897 is strong enough to defend its border and pose a potential threat to the USA, but has little ability to wage serious large scale warfare against an even moderately prepared USA.

With all the problems a war with Britain would undoubtedly cause the USA I once again throw my support to the much better solution of having Uncle Sam apply pressure to the Brits during the Anglo-French war, as Britain could not adequately fight France in Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as defeat the Boers in South Africa, and defend the entire territory of Canada (especially Western Canada), all simultaneously. Britain would see the difficulties of fighting the USA without a war already raging (not in the least the lost trade with the USA), and would give up at least some of rural Western Canada as it would not be able to apply an adequate force to defend that area while fighting the French. Eastern Canada would still be out of reach for the USA, but brinkmanship could get them at least a bite out of Western Canada and the small tip of Maine. The USA is facing formidable opposition, but it is not going to get poned in an Anglo-American conflict.
 
General Greene, you have so many factual errrors, starting with practically every point you made about Canada, India, Spain and Great Britain, plus the actual and potential military capabilities of all four that I hardly know where to begin.

Between that and other errors, particularly this fantasy of Great Britain giving away a huge tract of Canada for no good reason...

The idea that the UK would hand over any part of Canada is, to me, ludicrous as well, but the rest of your post is beneath you. He's made a number of errors, especially with respect to the relative capabilities of Spain and the Confederacy, but he has very valid points which aren't often brought up in the dismissive "UK wins" scenarios.

However, the US is now a much less attractive proposition to immigrants. There was considerable hostility to emigration, and a wounded US is likely to be more hostile (and has no safe places to expand in the west and absorb the emigrants). With the exclusion of "undesirables" (Jews, Germans, Irish and Italians, Chinese exclusion was already enacted OTL) then the US is likely closer to 30m.

What's the reasoning behind a wounded US' hostility to foreign immigrants?

US, Canada comparison

Not terribly relevant, because a United States that has perceived threats to the north and south (questionable at best, but that IS the scenario) is going to have a military sized to the European continent, with reserves in the millions, especially a "wounded" and "hostile" one like you've described.

You have more interesting RL data, but it isn't tremendously helpful when the real-world paradigm of the United States' military since 1865 ("There will never be a huge enemy army on American soil") is entirely gone.

No, it will be deployed offensively against the US.

Good luck supplying more than a handful of divisions across two oceans to Esquimalt.

Yet there is a large ocean flanking them.....

Number of successful amphibious operations within +/- 40 years of the Boer War conducted against similarly armed and numerous opposition in the corps size?
The CSA will build and buy a major modern battlefleet. End of.

It will not, and cannot. End of. It will have an economy and maritime interests roughly similar to those of Brazil or Argentina, neither of which ever had something that could be called a "battlefleet" with a straight face.

I doubt any of the US fortifications would last long against an RN squadron.

True, but Admiral de Robeck found out that blowing up fortifications doesn't really accomplish any strategic aims. Also suffers from the concept that you're setting up a strawman US that is "wounded" and "hostile" when it needs to be weakened, yet simultaneously ignores any kind of defense rather than rapidly adopting a post-Sedan German model of strong army-coast defense navy.

No, the British can hurt the US severely. The US can do no more than threaten a minor centre well away from the metropole. This is a one sided deal under which the US lose.

Realistically, the British and American economics will crash into depression, and the parties responsible for the breakdown in relations are electorally strung-up ASAP. Nobody wins this war.
 
Last edited:
If you would please by so kind as to point out my errors, especially in regard to CSA vs. Spain? The CSA is not going to be able to construct a fleet to match any major power, and is going to have serious problems defending its coastline from the USA and British navies for the same reasons that make it hard to equip a large field force for offensive warfare: Just not enough industry to produce a large competent surface fleet. However, I would like to become more knowledgeable about Spain's advantages, as all my reading on the Spanish American war shows a weak fleet that held ships back for home coastal defense when faced with a superior naval opponent, and got ghetto stomped by small American fleets whenever and wherever naval action actually occurred.

Spain's small arms and use of smokeless powder did give its soldiers a good edge against ground American troops on the ground, and so I don't see it that improbable that the CSA's landing meets grief on Cuban shores, seeing the Spanish army in Cuba was well over 250,000 men in Cuba, but I still doubt Spain's capability. Facts to show why I'm wrong are welcome. Papermario's new solution of the CSA intervening in a young independent Cuba 19 years after OTL Spanish American war seems more likely if their are that many problems force-comparison-wise between the CSA and Spain.
 
If you would please by so kind as to point out my errors, especially in regard to CSA vs. Spain? The CSA is not going to be able to construct a fleet to match any major power, and is going to have serious problems defending its coastline from the USA and British navies for the same reasons that make it hard to equip a large field force for offensive warfare: Just not enough industry to produce a large competent surface fleet. However, I would like to become more knowledgeable about Spain's advantages, as all my reading on the Spanish American war shows a weak fleet that held ships back for home coastal defense when faced with a superior naval opponent, and got ghetto stomped by small American fleets whenever and wherever naval action actually occurred.

Spain's small arms and use of smokeless powder did give its soldiers a good edge against ground American troops on the ground, and so I don't see it that improbable that the CSA's landing meets grief on Cuban shores, seeing the Spanish army in Cuba was well over 250,000 men in Cuba, but I still doubt Spain's capability. Facts to show why I'm wrong are welcome. Papermario's new solution of the CSA intervening in a young independent Cuba 19 years after OTL Spanish American war seems more likely if their are that many problems force-comparison-wise between the CSA and Spain.
I would avoid the Confederate-spanish war as its kind of cliche but Keep in mind the CSA is way closer to cuba than spain is so if Rhe confeds can launch some sort of suprise a ttack or cut spain of they can definately win.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
What's the reasoning behind a wounded US' hostility to foreign immigrants?

Because it has heading that way OTL.


Number of successful amphibious operations within +/- 40 years of the Boer War conducted against similarly armed and numerous opposition in the corps size?

Irrelevant. However, Corps (+) landings occurred several times, Egypt being the most prominant.

It will not, and cannot. End of. It will have an economy and maritime interests roughly similar to those of Brazil or Argentina, neither of which ever had something that could be called a "battlefleet" with a straight face.

Lets be clear. On separation the CSA is the fourth richest nation in the world, and it will get richer. By the early 1860's the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia were starting to industrialise in spite of opposition from northern states (since the Labour was cheaper, they used slaves, and drove down northern profits), and later you have the huge boon of Texan Oil.

An existing Confederacy is potentially richer than the US, depending on the breaks.

Realistically, the British and American economics will crash into depression, and the parties responsible for the breakdown in relations are electorally strung-up ASAP. Nobody wins this war.

The British have a line of credit. They'll boom from the war spending (and recess afterwards). The US maybe not....
 

67th Tigers

Banned
@ 67th Tigers

I had no idea Spain was doing any sub research before WWI at all, I think it would be very interesting to see CSA and Spanish prototype subs face off in a race to cause the most damage. The American fleet, while no match for the Royal Navy, was far superior to Spain's (that is one piece of Spanish history I do know:D).

This is questionable. What is true is that the Spaniards were already demoralised and didn't actually turn and fight.

I fail to understand your comments about American immigration however: could you explain your justification of decreased immigration as a result of the USA losing its most racist areas,

Different kinds of racism. The northern states were, if anything, far more racist than the south. If a black man got on a train in Virginia he'd be asked for his ticket. If he got on a train in New York he'd be arrested.

losing a decent portion of its population, but not losing any of its industrial capability and labor needs in the areas that attracted immigration in the first place? Your idea of Germans being undesirables after the 1850s and before WWI seems unlikely, northern Europeans were welcome to immigrate to the USA from its very birth. The Founding Fathers even offered land on the frontier to Hessian mercenaries who deserted during the ARW. The Irish by this point have mostly integrated in to society, while some prejudice undoubtedly remains, at the end of the 19th century they were secure in American society.

Did the entire nativist movement disappear?

In all probability the nativist Republican Party have their scapegoat, those bloody (Democrat voting) Catholics. This is the country that put the army on the streets and into the polling stations in 1864 to disinfrancise the (Democrat voting) non-natives.

The ACW OTL, (and TTL’s Mormon war provides the same opportunity), enabled them to prove their loyalty as soldiers, and anyway by the 1860’s the hatred directed at them in the 1840’s when the potato famine caused a large immigration influx of Irish had diminished, as they had helped build railways, filled needed factory jobs, and assimilated into a culturally similar society.

A pseudo-Puritan protestant empire?

In response to my assumptions being similar to War Plan Red: I do not think Canada will not mobilize as the USA comes pouring in, I think they will have difficulties mobilizing, making them less successful then OTL’s WWI mobilization.
Action prompts reaction. Bigger US army = more Canadian soldiers, British units remaining in Canada, fortifications kept rather than abandoned etc.

ITTL the USA’s peace time army is going to be bigger than the pitiful force it was pre-Spanish American war as it needs to guard the long border with the CSA. OTL during this era America’s only major peace time commitment was the Indian wars, you’re going to need a lot more than 25,000 regulars ITTL to protect the border with the new hostile nation to the South. Your justly placed doubt in American mobilization is facing a different USA: One that fought a war against the CSA only half a generation ago, and so has plenty of men still in the army with real war experience, and a population with many people still within fighting age who know how to use a gun, and more importantly, use it while being part of an organized force. OTL, by the time the Spanish-American war broke out even the boys who joined at the age of 17 in 1865 were near 50 years old. ITTL, 17 year olds in 1882 are now only 34, still within the age to serve in the militias, and with many large industrially important cities not that far from the CSA (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Philadelphia, even Chicago). It all adds up to a USA who will be better at mobilizing the 300,000 men it did mobilize OTL, as ITTL they will have done it not too long ago, seen the problems they had and partially fixed some of them, and they will have a population with more able bodied war veterans in it as a result of the mobilization 15 years ago.

The civil war veterans aren't good for much. A few might appear as Generals and the like, but they're generally too old to do ought.

Of course, you can keep a larger army, but that means higher estimates, higher taxes, higher wages etc. = lower economic growth.

It's doubtful a "Gilded Age" will happen (and remember, ITTL the equivalent of the worlds richest company, Standard Oil, is Confederate).

The Mormon war would have forced some improvement in artillery, and would have seen at least some use of the Gatling gun and an appreciation for its rate of fire would lead to the USA showing an interest in a more practical alternative. After all the maxim gun would be invented by an american emirgre born in Central Maine, only two years later IOTL, and an American can always hope that the British intervention in the ACW butterflies that movement away.;) It should be pointed out that major wars undoubtedly have a way of forcing major states to improve their equipment and fix military mistakes.

You fight how you train. You train with what you have.

Lastly, the USA gets a slight edge in mobilization vs. Britain time wise, as it is most likely going to start mobilizing as part of the final stages of its threats of war, and will declare war before it loses the advantage to British troops deploying in mass to Canada.

Bear in mind that in the time it takes a US division to entrain from New Jersey to New Hampshire with it's equipment the British Army can be prettymuch over en masse. Ships are much better at military movements than rail.

The CSA is going to be an incentive for a stronger US military, you are right in that the CSA did have a decent industrial capability, but nowhere close to that of the USA, and the CSA with its absurd amount of local autonomy over the national government, and OTL’s historic opposition to business interests in many states, is going to face problems developing industrial infrastructure in the more rural Deep South states, apart from the textile industry. We could see the northern confederate states assuming the role of industry supporters, while the Deep South would still keep its Democrat obstructionism it had towards industrial business interests OTL. This will cause problems because it leaves what little heavy industry the CSA does have close to the battle zone against the USA, portions of that infrastructure likely took hard hits from US armies during the Mormon war, and is going to have problems rebuilding as government incentives are going to be retarded by the limits on protective tariffs, and the problems convincing states to support infrastructure rebuilding in those areas that have seen it destroyed, the border states will be cash strapped, and will be hard pressed to rebuild for a while, and will lead to a reliance on foreign imports for industrial goods. While not making the CSA defenseless, it hurts its ability to wage offensive war against the organized, industrialized nation across their border. ITTL the CSA of 1897 is strong enough to defend its border and pose a potential threat to the USA, but has little ability to wage serious large scale warfare against an even moderately prepared USA.

The Confederacy had a surprising amount of heavy industry. The putative Confederacy has roughly 1/3rd of US heavy industry in 1860.

It's light industry the Confederacy lacks, shoemakers, carriage makers, lantern makers etc.
 
Wow. I've been gone for a while.

I dropped both the Hispano-Confederate War and the Anglo-American War, so I'm not going to get into them because I have no right to-I've little knowledge of the capabilities of any nation's warmaking abilities.

Thanks for pointing out that the C.S.A. controls the oil. I didn't think about that.

I'll give some French isles in the Caribbean to the British as well.

On the note of changing France back to a Republic, I've come up with a scandal that if nothing else is amusing enough that hopefully suspension of disbelief will allow the change.

I was hoping to capitalize off of war scares and Britain's other commitments to send the British to the bargaining table-I'm not giving the Americans much. I'm not destroying the British, but I think it should be allowed to have the British overplay their hand ONCE-the French do in pretty much every other timeline I've seen.

Now that I'm in a class over East Asia, I have a good text to rely on to manage the theatre-next time I post my revised timeline Japan will be headed in a very different direction.

I was hoping that with French and Portuguese backing, the Orange Free State could survive-is it really that impossible?

I know the British would crush the French on the African coast, but I thought that would be balanced out by the French army actually in Africa. The British control the coast, but they can't make any progress beyond that.

I know that Fashoda is a stupid little town, but I think the idea that the opposing nation was blocking their axis of control was a big enough deal to fight over. Even so, I can make Korea the real reason behind the scenes.

I've haven't moved my timeline into the 1920's yet because I wasn't sure what the local and global economic scene would be at this point. I didn't think there would be a gilded age, but I was wondering if I could still create the Roaring Twenties and, rather than a Great Depression, have two smaller but still major depressions. I was thinking that it would be interesting to see how things would play out if the C.S.A. had Prohibition but the U.S. didn't and bootlegged into the country.

Tips on Eastern Europe and South America are still appreciated, by the way.

Thanks for all your help everyone!
 
Top