The Twin Eagles and the Lion

[General Zod]

We could have the Germans take the French Congo and Gabon in WW1 to create Mittelafrika. In other worlds, we'll leave it the way it is. As for Italy and China. Perhaps they can get a concession after the Boxer rebellion near Fuzhou or something?

The former seems a very nice idea. About the latter, would not an Italian concession in Fujian encroach on Japanese interests in the same area ? Japan was projecting influence in the province from nearby Taiwan since 1895. This would at least require that the JP vacate the area as a result of the Russo-Japanese War (i.e. the Russians pick the issue at the peace table for their allies).

About the Thailand idea, why would Rome pick a sphere of influence here, between the ones of hostile France and not so friendly Britain, instead of China, with much more free space ?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

The former seems a very nice idea. About the latter, would not an Italian concession in Fujian encroach on Japanese interests in the same area ? Japan was projecting influence in the province from nearby Taiwan since 1895. This would at least require that the JP vacate the area as a result of the Russo-Japanese War (i.e. the Russians pick the issue at the peace table for their allies).

About the Thailand idea, why would Rome pick a sphere of influence here, between the ones of hostile France and not so friendly Britain, instead of China, with much more free space ?

Because there was a nice big block of white land I fancied colouring in Plus the idea intrigued me. I've updated the map, is it ok now?

 

[Don Draper]

Well, France will likely lose all their colonies in the peace settlement, so Germany would almost certainly get to create Mittelafrika. Plus they get even more in the North. Morocco, either French West or Equatorial Africa(thoughts?), and Western Algeria(the east goes to Italy).

 

[simonbp]

What is it with this forum and megalomaniac french bakers?

Nice TL, though...

Simon

 

[CaptainAmerica]

to get American opinion shift away from G.B could be

1) G.B. publicly sends the USA an ultimatum not to fight for Cuban independence and sends naval vessels into the Gulf of Mexico and Canada fears USA aggression and begins to fortify their border

or

2) America industrializes faster than in OTL and begins to seek colonies under whoever replaces McKinley in OTL and this leads to a diplomatic break between Washington and London

Both options also mean that Robert Lincoln wont be ambassador to G.B which butterflies away his son Abe Lincoln II's death in London and ABE II was the so called reincarnate of his grandfather making for interesting things if he survives : )

and if you need any help with this TL just PM me because this is the time period im studying in AP Euro

 

[General Zod]

to get American opinion shift away from G.B could be

1) G.B. publicly sends the USA an ultimatum not to fight for Cuban independence and sends naval vessels into the Gulf of Mexico and Canada fears USA aggression and begins to fortify their border.

This is an interesting idea, but why should UK ever intervene in the SAW this way ? I can't think of a good reason.

2) America industrializes faster than in OTL and begins to seek colonies under whoever replaces McKinley in OTL and this leads to a diplomatic break between Washington and London

This seems IMO less realistic. ITTL there is a number of great powers that industrialize faster than IOTL (Russia, Germany, Italy, A-H, Spain) and this might surely improve America's own industrialization. But making them a full-fledged colonial power more than OTL ? They would surely grab French colonies in the Americas and Asia (maybe even Indochina if they get really greedy) after the war, but how this would lead them on a collision course with UK ?

Both options also mean that Robert Lincoln wont be ambassador to G.B which butterflies away his son Abe Lincoln II's death in London and ABE II was the so called reincarnate of his grandfather making for interesting things if he survives : )

I'm at present oblivious of the guy and hence of what kind of butterflies his survival might cause.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

I really do wonder who will win this war. I saw General Zod"s thead on this topic(link), and they actually seemed to say that the USA would still win. That is suprising. Can't wait to see this countinued; seems we have had alota talk about alternate WW1 alliances lately; good to finally see a TL.

 

[General Zod]

But Germany had less to care about.

Britain has Canada, Carribean colonies, South American colonies, and LOTS and LOTS of business interest in the United States itself.

Because of this, not only is the pro-Britain lobby incredibly strong in the states, the pro-American lobby (moved by both security and business) is also incredibly strong in Britain.

Britain has spent essentialy almost all of its history with America post 1812 supporting her.

The Monroe doctrine; Britain made sure it happened.

The Alaska dispute; Britain settled it in America's favour INSTEAD of her dominions.

The only flirtation that Britain ever really had with pissing of the states was the civil war, and the british public wouldn't have it.

Really, in all honesty, if there was even a strong whiff that America WOULD come down on the other side, I don't think you'd see Britain declare war, let alone Canada's parliament.

Really, if you want American intervention against Britain, or Britain and Canada to consider war with the states, you'd need Britain to intervene in the civil war.

Anything else just won't jump the hurdle of shared heritage, good feelings, shared business interest that had been growing for the last hundred years.

You'd need British political stupidity nearing ASB levels for Britain to be at war with the States.

I am not lying when I state that Britain, and most certainly canada "damn the mother country" would pull out if America intervened. They'd throw their reactionary allies to the dogs.

I can see some merit in your argument, but I think that you are still seriously overestimating UK-US goodwill in the Edwardian age, especially as it concerns pro-UK goodwill in the USA. Surely it existed, but that had not stopped both countries from seriously contemplating war about the Venezuela-Guyana boundary dispute in 1896. Surely, it would have taken a serious string of diplomatic blunders and escalation to make them come to blows aboput that flimsly casus belli, but it was not an impossibility by any means. Heck, in the 1920s American military planners treated a possible war with the UK as the second most plausible eventuality after the one with Japan.

I gladly concede that a "local" war with the USA would be a much different issue for the British Empire than fighting America as part of an terribly powerful compact with Germany and Russia, and they would avoid such a war. This is why I contemplated the US shifting from pro-Alliance friendly neutral to Alliance belligerant as something that would happen during the war, as the result of a string of UK diplomatic and strategic blunders, not something they knowingly contemplated.

As it concerns shared business interest, I state that ITTL we can expect the German-led Alliance economic bloc to come and rival Britain as a US business partner, so that concern would be lessened. And the Entente-American war shall create pro-Alliance goodwill to balance pro-British one.

As it concerns British political stupidity nearing ASB levels, I am just going for it equalling Zimmerman telegram levels. We may certainly argue that it was "ASB transcended into life", but it happened, and I can't see why Britain couldn't do something just as stupid.

As for pulling out of the war if the USA declare war, after the USA have whipped themselves into a self-righteous jingoist war frenzy, sure, it can happen... if Canada is willing to meekily embrace its rightful destiny in the US, and London gives its blessing. I can totally see the USA calming down and throwing the Alliance to the wolves in this situation. Who knows, maybe Ontario and Western Canada might suffice.

Again, this is not to say that US intervention would be the most likely outcome, it does not by any means, but only to remark that a UK-US war in 1890-1918 was not so ASB as you make it seem.

 

[GSS]

It could be interesting to see the Quintuple Entente get beat down by the Quadruple Alliance but there is a couple of things standing in the way of Britain making a Zimmermann style fowl-up. Mainly their control of the major Atlantic telegraph cables and their ability to cut the Atlantic cables of anyone they were at war with at will. They more or less controlled contact between Germany and the USA IOTL WWI and routinely read the diplomatic transmissions of the neutral countries with embassies still in Germany.

GSS
Peace, Love and Wombats.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

As for pulling out of the war if the USA declare war, after the USA have whipped themselves into a self-righteous jingoist war frenzy, sure, it can happen... if Canada is willing to meekily embrace its rightful destiny in the US, and London gives its blessing. I can totally see the USA calming down and throwing the Alliance to the wolves in this situation. Who knows, maybe Ontario and Western Canada might suffice.

Again, this is not to say that US intervention would be the most likely outcome, it does not by any means, but only to remark that a UK-US war in 1890-1918 was not so ASB as you make it seem.

Ah, but said jingoist fury would be against Britain, not Canada.

And despite what others feelings may be, Canada woudn't go to war with the States but wouldn't want to join them either.

There is no Defence_Scheme_No.1 as it hasn't been created yet, and all of Canada's troops are in Europe.

Unlike Britain sometimes isn't, Canada's hand is always on America's pulse watching the way things go. As things go worse and worse between Britain and the States, Ottawa is going to be horrified.

With its troops in Europe, Ottawa really has no option. She will sue for peace and if nescessary, offer key economic terms to America.

The most likely would be an imposition of the Reciprocity (free trade) treaty that failed to be signed in 1911.

Since a common view in the states was that this would lead to annexation eventualy, and far more jovialy, they would like this better.

Canada would also probably have to sever ties with Britain as well and turn itself into a Republic.

This is really the only choice Canada has, other than annihilation. They'll do it.

Really, from an American perspective, this is the best.

It'd be a mostly Ottawa initiative to stave off annexation, and some reasonable propaganda could shift all the blame to Britain for forcing Canada into the situation.

There is no more British Empire in North America, instead a fellow republic that has now entered into a Free Trade agreement.

The states would also avoid any unwanted occupation, and it would be unfreindly due to the increase of pro-Britishness if America does invade, so they save lives in both invasion and occupation.

So in conclusion, America would:
-save lives from not having to fight
-give Britain a serious blow in resources and man power
-gain all the economic benefits from free trade
-install a fellow republic and remove all major British influence from North America


Oddly enough, this might make Canada more stable in ONE specific way, and that is Quebec.

If Canada was turned into a Republic, then she'd probably have to rewrite her Constitution due to entire British dominion deal. Quebec at the time was incredibly PRO-Canada, and desired all things to be Canadian, not British. They wanted a Canadian navy, a Canadian army, and all that jazz. They would of course have to sign due to the Federal nature of Canada, and this would of course kill any sense of legitamacy Quebec has to its seperatist dreams down the line. They would since this is almost a dream come true for most quebecois at the time, and Quebec would probably become in Canada the most pro-Republic of the lot.

This kind of solution I find most realistic and the most plausible. If this leads to American annexation later in some kind of referendum, maybe but I doubt it (not impossible, just my opinion). Canadian nationalism was already everywhere, so the cat's out the bag on that one. But really, America would reap all the benefits and none of the negatives.

 

[DuQuense]

[German accent/] Very Interesting [/German accent]

Re the Map
I would have given Italy a Port on Hianan Island, POing the French.

1898 -- Norway is still part of Sweden, thro the Independence movement is growing. ?So Would your POD have Northern Butterflies?
Sweden is Anti Russian, and pro German OTL, while Norway was Pro British, Given the German-Russian alliance ITTL Sweden is likely to swing into the Pro British camp.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Well General ZOD i expect you to be oblivious to ABE Lincoln II and in fact im completely oblivious to what butterflies he would create because he dies at age 16 but i find it interesting to imagine a Lincoln in politics that is supposed to be like his grandfather

 

[General Zod]

1898 -- Norway is still part of Sweden, thro the Independence movement is growing. ?So Would your POD have Northern Butterflies?
Sweden is Anti Russian, and pro German OTL, while Norway was Pro British, Given the German-Russian alliance ITTL Sweden is likely to swing into the Pro British camp.

This is certainly an interesting butterfly I would favor, the Norway-Sweden personal union enduring (in my not so humble anti-Balkanization opinion, separate Scandinavian states are an OTL aberration, history turned wrong, like separate Austria, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal). If Sweden goes pro-British (from anti-Russian feelings trumping pro-Germany ones; is it plausible ?), this might butterfly the division away. But I still deem that Sweden would stay neutral in WWI, albeit a pro-British one. I don't regard them as ever willing to go against Germany and Russia both, even with British help.

 

[LordKalvan]

Your map seems fine. Originally, I had envisaged the French keeping Middle Congo and Gabon as IOTL, and stated so in the TL, but looking at your map, I see that it might easily make sense even this way as you did in the map, with Middle Congo and Gabon German as well. I'm a little uncertain about the issue. Your opinion, OW ?

I would think that Italy ought to have its own concession/sphere of influence in China (IOTL, they got a tiny one, part of Tientsin in 1901, but ITTL Italy is economically and militarily significantly stronger, so they ought to have one earlier and rather bigger than OTL). I'm uncertain where to place it, although. Any suggestions ?

At the peace settlement after the Boxers revolt, Italy asked for a sphere of influence around Fujian (which was refused by China) and had to accept a tiny concession in Tien-tsin. ITTL, they are stronger and supported by Russia and Germany (which means that Italy can get what they ask for).

I'm more sceptical about gaining some sort of protectorate in southern Thailand.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I would also assume Canada would fold, unless there was some reasonable hope they could gain enough assistance to help them in some meaningful way.

I would think it would be a little like Australia's decision to withdraw its forces to the Pacific after the Japanese did rather well, despite Britain's opinions on the matter. Empire is all very well and all, but the moment the core cannot protect the periphery the latter will have to make other arrangements if the alternative is destruction

 

[DuQuense]

If Sweden goes pro-British (from anti-Russian feelings trumping pro-Germany ones; is it plausible ?),

Your POD is in the 1870's after the German-Danish unpleasantness of the 1840's and the 1860's, I think you have to look at Swedish and Norwegian Public opinion was during these. Then figure out how the German-Russian Alliance would be viewed, Both Initially and then after time for the ramifications to sink in.

And both sides would be Courting Sweden -- or Norway [?Covert aid to the Norwegians from the losing side?]

 

[General Zod]

At the peace settlement after the Boxers revolt, Italy asked for a sphere of influence around Fujian (which was refused by China) and had to accept a tiny concession in Tien-tsin. ITTL, they are stronger and supported by Russia and Germany (which means that Italy can get what they ask for).

Well, this is very nifty to know and is reason enough to pick Fujian as Italian sphere of influence in China as far as I'm concerned. I seem to remember it is already marked so in the map, anyway. There shall certainly be a degree of conflict between Italian and Japanese claims due to the proximity of Formosa but the peace treaty of the RJW shall take care of it (say a clausle by which Japan may keep Korea and Formosa but has to give claims on mainland China). First part of the TL didn't give too much coverage to sitation in China but we may give it soem coverage with the Boxer Rebellion and the RJW.

I'm more sceptical about gaining some sort of protectorate in southern Thailand.

Agreed. Doesn't make all that much sense, at the moment. After WWI and the dismantling of the French colonial empire and the nerfing of the British Empire, it may be different.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

I would also assume Canada would fold, unless there was some reasonable hope they could gain enough assistance to help them in some meaningful way.

I would think it would be a little like Australia's decision to withdraw its forces to the Pacific after the Japanese did rather well, despite Britain's opinions on the matter. Empire is all very well and all, but the moment the core cannot protect the periphery the latter will have to make other arrangements if the alternative is destruction

Agreed. As stated in my earlier post, in such a scenario, Canada would pull out and make a seperate peace with the United States to maintain ints independence.

 

[General Zod]

There is no more British Empire in North America, instead a fellow republic that has now entered into a Free Trade agreement.

The states would also avoid any unwanted occupation, and it would be unfreindly due to the increase of pro-Britishness if America does invade, so they save lives in both invasion and occupation.

So in conclusion, America would:
-save lives from not having to fight
-give Britain a serious blow in resources and man power
-gain all the economic benefits from free trade
-install a fellow republic and remove all major British influence from North America


Oddly enough, this might make Canada more stable in ONE specific way, and that is Quebec.

If Canada was turned into a Republic, then she'd probably have to rewrite her Constitution due to entire British dominion deal. Quebec at the time was incredibly PRO-Canada, and desired all things to be Canadian, not British. They wanted a Canadian navy, a Canadian army, and all that jazz. They would of course have to sign due to the Federal nature of Canada, and this would of course kill any sense of legitamacy Quebec has to its seperatist dreams down the line. They would since this is almost a dream come true for most quebecois at the time, and Quebec would probably become in Canada the most pro-Republic of the lot.

This kind of solution I find most realistic and the most plausible. If this leads to American annexation later in some kind of referendum, maybe but I doubt it (not impossible, just my opinion). Canadian nationalism was already everywhere, so the cat's out the bag on that one. But really, America would reap all the benefits and none of the negatives.

Having given due thought to this idea, I've come to the conclusion that in the end the US would still quickly pressure English Canada into annexation, but it may allow Quebec to become an independent allied Republic, or maybe better an associated state in a confederal relation. I don't think that a jingoistic war-ready USA would miss the unique chance of North American unification and take the risk of Canadian nationalism taking further root. It would sweeten the deal by offering immediate statehood to English Canadian states in a peaceful annexation, whereas invasion would put Canadian states through a relatively prolonged period as US territories. Kinda "shotgun marriage".

Further expanding the idea, when the USA declare war, Canada may recognize the military hopelessness of its defense, and beg for a separate peace. The USA would ask for the dismantling of the British Dominion, giving Canadian states the choice of becoming either US states or "associated free states", self-governing unincorporated territories (same status as OTL Puerto Rico), likely by referendum. Quebec would choose to become and stay an associated state, whileas English Canadian states would choose (either immediately, or in few years, when the British Empire loses the war and most of its prestige, being largely dismantled) statehood. Being given the choice between this and invasion and prolonged military occupation, Canada would reluctantly accept.

As it concerns the rest of the British Empire, I suppose that they too would seek an immediate peace with the USA, rather than facing the German-Russian-American-Italian compact. However, the price for such a peace would be harsh: in addition to recognizing the US annexation of Canada, they would have to cede the British West Indies (no way the USA are allowing the UK to keep a foothold in North America and the Caribbean after declaring war), which would become vanilla US territories, and remove the naval blockade of the Triple Alliance. Would proud Britain accept such an harsh peace or fight to the bitter end ? Also, being faced with such an harsh separate peace with the USA, would they pull out of the war, and leave its reactionary allies to fight to the bitter end (they would, peace spells the utter end of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires, and France-Spain is reserved the Versailles treatment) ? The price of a separate peace with the Triple Alliance would be harsh, too: loss of most or all African and Middle East possessions, although they would keep India, Anzus, and maybe Malesia.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Having given due thought to this idea, I've come to the conclusion that it may or may not work as a relatively brief stopgap measure, but in the end the US would still pressure English Canada into annexation, but it would allow Quebec to become an independent allied Republic, or maybe an associated state in a confederative relation. It would sweeten the deal by offering immediate statehood to English Canadian states in a peaceful annexation, whereas invasion would put Canadian states through a relatively prolonged period as US territories. Kinda "shotgun marriage".

But there is no desire for annexation. And the Canadians are giving up without an invasion.

There was no amazing desire in America at that point to annex Canada anymore.

War Plan Red called for the annexation of areas seized during warfare, and nothing else.

No goal to take over all of Canada, whatsoever.

What you have the Canadians doing is "sweetening" the deal for the Americans. They remove the British, they install a republic, and attain free trade. They get all the essential benefits of annexation (economic and security) without absorbing a potentialy hostile native population.

Canadians aren't "Americans in denial" just waiting to shed their skins and show their 'true' colours.

Canada has already become a nation, and to most Americans, Canada "throwing off the yoke" and becoming an ally of America is more than enough.

If your POD was in a civil war intervention timeline, I could imagine annexation. That way, you have decades of Canada preparing for a rematch and planning to fight to the last drop; ditto for America.

But in your timeline, Canada has made itself off of 'good' relations with its neighbour to the south, and America (despite the odd, and it was 'the odd' believer in manifest destiny by this point in time) has lost all animosity to their Canadian cousins.

I can't say this poingnantly enough. Occupation of Canada would not be peaceful. There would not be celebrating in the streets. No "Hurray for the states." Everyone at the time knew it.

Creating a Canadian republic jumps over that nasty business of occupying a rather large nation while keeping the benefits.

Ditto for Quebec. Quebec at the time was astonishingly patrioticly CANADIAN. Quebec nationalism was confined to a few drunkards in bars, and only when they were drunk.

I'm sorry, but it seems your projecting some kind of desire to bring Canada into the fold onto the American populace from your own ideas of what nations should look like.

The POD is simply too late for Canadian annexation to be considered feasible. Canada is not mounting any kind of real threat (ala Turtledove's 191) so there is no need to remove it or kind of revenge motive.

Canada would resist all forms of shotgun marriage. What you could have is post repupblic, Canada spends the next century growing closer to the States, with some kind of stronger NORAD/NATO, making Canada essentialy in some kind of Confederational deal with the states, with a chance for referendum.

It should also be noted that Canadian Provinces would be losing rights as states, not gaining them. Canadian Provinces, more then than even now, had more 'state' rights then American states did.