Timeline 191 – Possible Postwar Intrigues, Scandals, and Conflicts?

Unless the war breaks out very early, think before 1950, both sides will have superbombs and won't be afraid to use them. If the war takes place in the 1960s, both sides will have enough ICBMs for this thing to go in a horrible direction. Think Japan getting blasted back to the Stone Age, but the West Coast of the US being obliterated.
It will be worse than that. Nukes? Try bio-weapons too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Ishii and his team will have many more years to perfect their trade as long as there exists few or no rivals for Japan in the Pacific. IOTL the USSR had plans to distribute weaponized smallpox, among other things, after a nuclear exchange. If Japan's working in a similar mentality then the after-effects of a Japanese-US nuclear war would be worsened considerably.

The popularization of air conditioning and cheap living costs will probably also result in Yankee migration south like in OTL. By 2020, I wouldn't be surprised if most of Dixie's population is composed of immigrants and transplanted Yankees and their descendants.
This makes me wonder if some of the more ideologically inclined but not insurgent minded Southerners would migrate to like South Africa or something. Maybe ITTL instead of "Argentina is Nazi land" we'd be getting "South Africa is Freedomite land".

Japan would also probably take in some scientists.
 
Canada and Utah won't take much effort to keep or assimilate. The Confederacy would take more, but keeping and assimilating it is doable.

In 1914 Canada had a population of 7,879,000. Subtracting Quebec's 1911 population (I couldn't find the 1914 number) yields 5,873,224. In Filling the Gaps, Craigo suggested that 15% of Canada's population was mobilized in the First Great War. In OTL, about 10% of Canada's mobilized soldiers were killed. Assuming that a similar percentage perished in GW1, then the total goes down to 5,785,125. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number killed were even higher. In the OTL 1920 US Census, NY state, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio all had populations bigger than 5.75 million. NYC alone had a population of 5.6 million. Using the standard rule of one soldier for every fifty inhabitants, Canada needs only about 115,000 soldiers to hold it after GW1. Starting after 1917, anyone who immigrates to Canada (from either south of the 49th parallel or elsewhere) is unlikely to be sympathetic to any Canadian Independence movement. Over time, the population composed of those in Canada before 1917, and their descendants will decrease. Eventually military rule in occupied Canada will end as the former provinces are admitted as states. Once the Canadians have statehood and citizenship, I would think that all but the most extreme Canadian rebels would put down their guns. There is also the fact that post GW2 no foreign power will support Canadian independence. I am not aware of any insurgency that succeeded without foreign support.

In TL 191 there are at most 250,000 Mormons by the end of GW2. They aren't going to be a problem in Hawaii (since they have no weapons and no foreign support). Also, I don't think many Americans would oppose the forced relocation of Mormons. In OTL, few opposed the internment of Japanese Americans. And while Mormons aren't the victims of racism, the US (both in OTL and in TL191) has a long history of anti-Mormon prejudice. Also, Mormon extremists did use suicide bombs against civilian targets. Mormons will have few advocates among Americans.

The Confederacy, being the most populous of the three, would certainly be the hardest to integrate. But after four destructive wars, few Yankees would be interested in allowing an independent Confederacy. So there would be an occupation of the South. How successful would a Confederate insurgency be? Probably not very. The rebels would have no foreign support an the only weapons would be those left over from the war and those they can steal from the Yankees. How much support would they have? I doubt much. In 1945-1946 the Allies treated Germans absolutely horribly - uprooting millions, economically exploiting the country, etc. The treatment of Germans was probably overall worse than any treatment the Southerners would get. There would be reprisal killings, sure, but would there be ethnic cleansing that would kill hundreds of thousands? If the Germans didn't rebel, why would the Confederates? At best I could see something like the OTL Forest Brothers, and like the Forest Brothers, they'd be defeated by the early 1950s at the latest.

Now, I suppose the Yankees could decide to go all Morgenthau on the South, or even worse. But that seems unlikely. Since there goal is to annex the South, destroying its economy and people would be beyond moronic. Government and military officials would surely realize, like in OTL, that a Carthaginian peace is good for no one. I think that any "de-Freedomization" campaign would be ended after a few years, like OTL's denazification. Instead, propaganda would emphasize that Yankees and Southerners are the same people, and that the Freedom Party was a minority, who misled the majority. I could see a "Clean Army" myth also develop.

After the population reduction, the South will have a massive labor shortage. The South will desperately need immigrants, and immigrants will surely come. Now, there will be a nativist backlash (as all immigration waves are accompanied by), but, given the economic situation, I doubt it would be very successful. The popularization of air conditioning and cheap living costs will probably also result in Yankee migration south like in OTL. By 2020, I wouldn't be surprised if most of Dixie's population is composed of immigrants and transplanted Yankees and their descendants.

While there were may differences between North and South, there were many more similarities. They speak the same language, follow the same religions, have the same history (until 1861), revere the same Founding Fathers, have the same political values, celebrate the same holidays, etc. After a while, the former Confederate States would be readmitted as states, and it would be difficult to tell that the USA was once two countries. I think even among the descendants of former Confederate whites there would be little interest in secession.

Annexing the Caribbean wouldn't be too big of an issue either, since the those islands have and had small populations. The two largest the US would annex, Cuba and Jamaica, had populations of 4,778,583 (OTL 1943) and 1,403,000 (1950). And, at least in the Bahamas, Bermuda and Cuba, the US would be very popular after the war, since Yankees liberated those islands from Confederate occupation.
Another question, would the former Confederacy and Caribbean even want to be part of the same country given what the former tried to do to the latter? I just think that eventually, the US is going to have its hands full with all this land and the people in them that they might reconsider their goal of annexing the South. Also, how many blacks were actually killed in the Population Reduction? Some of the higher estimates on here tend to be as many as 10 million but given that the blacks in the CSA were a third of the population vs Jews being less than 5% of Europe's ITOL (and that only 6M out of 10-11M European Jews died, only half in the death camps), the black population post-SGW may still be a significant minority. Granted, many would likely head North, but I don't think the majority of the South would be populated by transplanted Northerners and immigrants by 2020 ITTL. They don't have the same political values nor holidays, and after 80 years of independence (with written records likely surviving for much longer) I think it would easier to tell they were two sepearate entities than you might think.
 
Another question, would the former Confederacy and Caribbean even want to be part of the same country given what the former tried to do to the latter? I just think that eventually, the US is going to have its hands full with all this land and the people in them that they might reconsider their goal of annexing the South. Also, how many blacks were actually killed in the Population Reduction? Some of the higher estimates on here tend to be as many as 10 million but given that the blacks in the CSA were a third of the population vs Jews being less than 5% of Europe's ITOL (and that only 6M out of 10-11M European Jews died, only half in the death camps), the black population post-SGW may still be a significant minority. Granted, many would likely head North, but I don't think the majority of the South would be populated by transplanted Northerners and immigrants by 2020 ITTL. They don't have the same political values nor holidays, and after 80 years of independence (with written records likely surviving for much longer) I think it would easier to tell they were two sepearate entities than you might think.
That certainly isnt the case OTL. Other than Florida and North Carolina the South has had surprisingly little northern transplants or immigrants despite the great weather and abundant (low paying) jobs, Its hard to see why that would be different ittl especially considering the reputation Confederates would have in the US and elsewhere. Good point about the Caribbean not wanting to be part of the same country as the Confederacy. I would expect that some of the Confederacy there wouldnt want to be part of the CSA anymore either as in Cuba. I think it was the one state where a significant portion of the white citizens helped blacks during the Destruction-it wasnt just Fidel Castro. After the SGW I expect that Cuba at the very least would want to join the USA or perhaps become independent. Same for Haiti and Puerto Rico and most Caribbean nations but being part of the same country as the CSA would be a deal breaker. I think surviving blacks in the CSA would mostly go to the US or elsewhere but some would stay because despite everything its home. There would be a massive demographic imbalance however as most of the survivors would likely be men who were able to fight off the Freedomites. This would mean that interracial relationships would be much more common. This wouldnt sit well with many if not most of the white population and would give the US reason to crack down sometimes as well. Blacks would be a significant minority but there would be more Hispanics/Mexican immigrants.
Annexing the CSA would cause the USA far more problems than it would settle. If the goal is to keep them passive that can be done by a Morgenthau type plan very easily especially when you have a fairly large population of blacks and some Hispanics and whites who arent thrilled about being part of a country called CSA but maybe dont want to sign up for the USA either. 3 or 4 states could be broken off into independent countries with a rump CSA for the diehards who want to remain Confederates but no military and certainly no superbombs thank you very much...
 
Last edited:
The USA will never allow for the reestablishment of the CSA. There are several factors likely at work from 1944 onwards that need to be considered.

-During the Al Smith administration, the US was beyond accommodating to the Featherston regime, to the point of allowing for the return of Kentucky to CS rule. As one poster pointed out in another thread a while ago, that’s the equivalent of France in our world’s 1938 handing over Alsace-Lorraine to the Third Reich. The end result was Featherston using Kentucky as a springboard to launch a sneak attack on the USA, which resulted temporarily in the bifurcation of the US and utter devastation for the Midwest. This initial military disaster likely contributed to the Socialist Party’s landslide loss to Dewey in 1944. The “lesson” learned by the US public and political establishment is that any accommodation to the USA’s enemies will always backfire, and that an independent CSA will always pose an unacceptable danger.

-The Destruction. Not only did the CSA under Featherston launch a sneak attack on the USA, but it’s a regime that committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder in world history. The former CSA will never be allowed to live that down, and it ads an additional legitimate reason for the USA to permanently revoke CS sovereignty.

-The former CSA is in no position to resist US rule over the long term, to the point where the US government would decide to restore CS sovereignty. By 1944, the former CSA is both demographically and economically devastated. While the surviving population is largely hostile to the US in 1944, it’s not a society that’s in a position to launch a mass revolt. How many residents will take Clarence Potter’s perspective (a cold blooded acceptance of US power)? How many residents will take Jorge Rodriguez’s perspective (wanting to be left alone to the point of turning a former Freedom Party organizer to the US authorities)?

I suspect that many residents of the former CSA who will refuse to accept US rule will vote with their feet, with many going to Texas, which is why I think that the Republic of Texas will survive as an independent state in the long-term.

-Ultimately, the US grand strategy, such as it is, has been, at least since 1881, to break the encirclement of hostile foreign power in North America. By 1944, with the final defeat of both the CSA and the likely final large-scale Canadian rebellion, this has finally been achieved. No mainstream US politician will enjoy public support after the Second Great War, if said politician actually advocates for the restoration of sovereignty for either of the USA’s historic enemies.
 
The USA will never allow for the reestablishment of the CSA. There are several factors likely at work from 1944 onwards that need to be considered.

-During the Al Smith administration, the US was beyond accommodating to the Featherston regime, to the point of allowing for the return of Kentucky to CS rule. As one poster pointed out in another thread a while ago, that’s the equivalent of France in our world’s 1938 handing over Alsace-Lorraine to the Third Reich. The end result was Featherston using Kentucky as a springboard to launch a sneak attack on the USA, which resulted temporarily in the bifurcation of the US and utter devastation for the Midwest. This initial military disaster likely contributed to the Socialist Party’s landslide loss to Dewey in 1944. The “lesson” learned by the US public and political establishment is that any accommodation to the USA’s enemies will always backfire, and that an independent CSA will always pose an unacceptable danger.

-The Destruction. Not only did the CSA under Featherston launch a sneak attack on the USA, but it’s a regime that committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder in world history. The former CSA will never be allowed to live that down, and it ads an additional legitimate reason for the USA to permanently revoke CS sovereignty.

-The former CSA is in no position to resist US rule over the long term, to the point where the US government would decide to restore CS sovereignty. By 1944, the former CSA is both demographically and economically devastated. While the surviving population is largely hostile to the US in 1944, it’s not a society that’s in a position to launch a mass revolt. How many residents will take Clarence Potter’s perspective (a cold blooded acceptance of US power)? How many residents will take Jorge Rodriguez’s perspective (wanting to be left alone to the point of turning a former Freedom Party organizer to the US authorities)?

I suspect that many residents of the former CSA who will refuse to accept US rule will vote with their feet, with many going to Texas, which is why I think that the Republic of Texas will survive as an independent state in the long-term.

-Ultimately, the US grand strategy, such as it is, has been, at least since 1881, to break the encirclement of hostile foreign power in North America. By 1944, with the final defeat of both the CSA and the likely final large-scale Canadian rebellion, this has finally been achieved. No mainstream US politician will enjoy public support after the Second Great War, if said politician actually advocates for the restoration of sovereignty for either of the USA’s historic enemies.
Probably the CSA. Canada is more likely since the USA puppeted Quebec which is a major province of the former nation.
 
-The Destruction. Not only did the CSA under Featherston launch a sneak attack on the USA, but it’s a regime that committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder in world history. The former CSA will never be allowed to live that down, and it ads an additional legitimate reason for the USA to permanently revoke CS sovereignty.
Well it seems to me the CSA would come a long way to living it down if the USA annexed it and they were all made Americans again .Especially say 50 years later -outside of North America who would make the distinction ? Would they say oh those former Confederates who live in the Southern part of the USA or would they say and think oh yeah those Americans tried to kill all their black people ? Not letting the CSA be sovereign again is one thing but annexing it into the US as is being argued by some here and frankly is what is hinted at in the last book that the Democrats are planning to do is very different. It would be hard to not let your own citizens not live something down wouldnt it ? I think there would be lots of resistance to annexing the CSA because of the expense and bloodshed it would cause and what it would say about the USA to bring these same Destruction supporting Confederates into the USA as fellow Americans...
 
Last edited:
This is more or less what I had in mind when I originally posted this thread. In our timeline Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein helped to break the Watergate scandal which eventually caused Richard Nixon to resign. But, how would such an event play out in the 191 universe? I was imagining that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (or the 191 analogue of them) go to their executive editor and tell him that they've just discovered that the president cheated in the 72 election. However, in this case, the editor in chief tells them to sit on the story for a few days, and then when they are out of his office, he makes a few phone calls to the National Bureau of Investigation, and Woodward and Bernstein end up being buried in a slab of concrete underneath a new stadium in New Jersey, while Nixon happily finishes out his two terms.

Would such an occurrence be commonplace in the postwar 191 version of the USA? What other types of scandals would be likely to occur in such an environment?
 
But what is the point in being an idependent nation, if you're not allowed to have your own superbombs?
Well there are plenty of things you can do as an independent nation without having superbombs or an independent military look at OTL Post WW2 Japan for example.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of independent countries with nukes I would what Germany would do about Britain,France and Russia post SGW ? Britain was devastated by Germany but far from taken over and fully occupied. It of course has its own superbombs even if its lacks much of a government and Royal Family with the nuking of London. Did the book say what happened to the Royals? Churchill and Moseley turned over to the Germans to account for the superbombing of Hamburg right ? England would be in a much better position than either France or Germany both of which would likely have chunks taken out of them by the Germans.They would certainly try and stop them from getting superbombs.
 
The USA will never allow for the reestablishment of the CSA. There are several factors likely at work from 1944 onwards that need to be considered.

-During the Al Smith administration, the US was beyond accommodating to the Featherston regime, to the point of allowing for the return of Kentucky to CS rule. As one poster pointed out in another thread a while ago, that’s the equivalent of France in our world’s 1938 handing over Alsace-Lorraine to the Third Reich. The end result was Featherston using Kentucky as a springboard to launch a sneak attack on the USA, which resulted temporarily in the bifurcation of the US and utter devastation for the Midwest. This initial military disaster likely contributed to the Socialist Party’s landslide loss to Dewey in 1944. The “lesson” learned by the US public and political establishment is that any accommodation to the USA’s enemies will always backfire, and that an independent CSA will always pose an unacceptable danger.

-The Destruction. Not only did the CSA under Featherston launch a sneak attack on the USA, but it’s a regime that committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder in world history. The former CSA will never be allowed to live that down, and it ads an additional legitimate reason for the USA to permanently revoke CS sovereignty.

-The former CSA is in no position to resist US rule over the long term, to the point where the US government would decide to restore CS sovereignty. By 1944, the former CSA is both demographically and economically devastated. While the surviving population is largely hostile to the US in 1944, it’s not a society that’s in a position to launch a mass revolt. How many residents will take Clarence Potter’s perspective (a cold blooded acceptance of US power)? How many residents will take Jorge Rodriguez’s perspective (wanting to be left alone to the point of turning a former Freedom Party organizer to the US authorities)?

I suspect that many residents of the former CSA who will refuse to accept US rule will vote with their feet, with many going to Texas, which is why I think that the Republic of Texas will survive as an independent state in the long-term.

-Ultimately, the US grand strategy, such as it is, has been, at least since 1881, to break the encirclement of hostile foreign power in North America. By 1944, with the final defeat of both the CSA and the likely final large-scale Canadian rebellion, this has finally been achieved. No mainstream US politician will enjoy public support after the Second Great War, if said politician actually advocates for the restoration of sovereignty for either of the USA’s historic enemies.
^^^This
I've always been of the opinion that the Socialists are going to have a very strong transformation in terms of Foreign Policy after GWII, to the point where by maybe the '70s they're even more hawkish than the Democrats (perhaps under a prospective President Joshua Blackford, who would certainly be motivated to take such a position after his father's humiliation in the pacific and his wartime experience.).
 
^^^This

I've always been of the opinion that the Socialists are going to have a very strong transformation in terms of Foreign Policy after GWII, to the point where by maybe the '70s they're even more hawkish than the Democrats (perhaps under a prospective President Joshua Blackford, who would certainly be motivated to take such a position after his father's humiliation in the pacific and his wartime experience.).
Hopefully when it comes to the CSA the Socialists will be more hawkish than the Democrats because the Democrats plan to annex the CSA into the USA is probably the least hawkish option other than leaving the CSA alone completely. Its really the equivalent of what we know of OTLs Lincolns Reconstruction plan for the South-forgive and forget. You naughty Confederates just behave yourselves like good Americans and everything will go back to normal -hell even better than normal because we will be one country again !!!The plan that lets the CSA off easy also happens to be the one that would cost the USA the most in terms of money,lives and moral standing. Please Socialists do something !
 
Hopefully when it comes to the CSA the Socialists will be more hawkish than the Democrats because the Democrats plan to annex the CSA into the USA is probably the least hawkish option other than leaving the CSA alone completely. Its really the equivalent of what we know of OTLs Lincolns Reconstruction plan for the South-forgive and forget. You naughty Confederates just behave yourselves like good Americans and everything will go back to normal -hell even better than normal because we will be one country again !!!The plan that lets the CSA off easy also happens to be the one that would cost the USA the most in terms of money,lives and moral standing. Please Socialists do something !
Perhaps, I was more thinking in therms of foreign affairs though, with these "Neosocs" being pro-intervention and such.
 
If the Socialists manage to regain control of the presidency, sometime following the conclusion of In at the Death, then I wonder if they'd try to institue a purge against all other US political parties, and would they even go so far as to attempt to suspend the Bill of Rights? What would a postwar 191 US ruled by a fanatical hardline Marxist regime look like? Would those opposed to Marxist rule be forced to align themselves with remnants of the Freedom Party in order to overthrow the new Marxist government?
 
If the Socialists manage to regain control of the presidency, sometime following the conclusion of In at the Death, then I wonder if they'd try to institue a purge against all other US political parties, and would they even go so far as to attempt to suspend the Bill of Rights? What would a postwar 191 US ruled by a fanatical hardline Marxist regime look like? Would those opposed to Marxist rule be forced to align themselves with remnants of the Freedom Party in order to overthrow the new Marxist government?
Why would they though? They've found success a basically a social democratic party, I can't see the party suddenly taking such a drastic swing out of left field. If anything, it more likely the extremist wings would break off and form their own party, accusing the mainstream Socialists as selling out the ideals of Marx and Lincoln
 
Why would they though? They've found success a basically a social democratic party, I can't see the party suddenly taking such a drastic swing out of left field. If anything, it more likely the extremist wings would break off and form their own party, accusing the mainstream Socialists as selling out the ideals of Marx and Lincoln
I doubt there would be a split without a hardline Socialist state backing the hardliners. A hard left takeover sometime in the far future (the '80s perhaps?) isn't out of the question but it would probably resemble Browder's line of "Apple Pie Socialism", supporting (at least in theory) stuff like the bill of rights and "Americanised" Socialism. A hardline Socialist US in TL-191 would probably try to drag the opposition as far left as possible rather than try to destroy it.
 
One possible flashpoint I can see is if the black population of the former Confederacy moves to Haiti and it becomes something like Israel. Here, the logical analogue to Palestine is the Dominican Republic.
 
Perhaps, I was more thinking in therms of foreign affairs though, with these "Neosocs" being pro-intervention and such.
Well thats what we are talking about here. Not allowing the CSA to be absorbed into the USA but at the same time controlling what it can and cant do in regards to foreign policy and most domestic policy. You cant get more interventionist than that...
 
If the Socialists manage to regain control of the presidency, sometime following the conclusion of In at the Death, then I wonder if they'd try to institue a purge against all other US political parties, and would they even go so far as to attempt to suspend the Bill of Rights? What would a postwar 191 US ruled by a fanatical hardline Marxist regime look like? Would those opposed to Marxist rule be forced to align themselves with remnants of the Freedom Party in order to overthrow the new Marxist government?
The Socialist Party would do no such thing. Even in the early 20th Century in TTL, the Socialists were already engaging with the existing US political system. The first Socialist president (Upton Sinclair) did nothing to radically change the existing US political structure. What did happen was that the USA regained a real two party system for the first time since 1880.

There’s no way that any US president after 1944 in TTL (Socialist, Democrat, or Republican) would attempt measures such as banning opposition political parties, curtailing (much less ending) the Bill of Rights, or having journalists murdered. While the USA develops a very different political culture in TTL, especially with the open militarization of society and a powerful mainstream social democratic party, the USA is still a constitutional democracy with a system of checks and balances.

Not to mention that the USA will also have the example of Featherston’s CSA as to what happens when a president abuses power and bans any opposition. If anything, post-Second Great War US presidents will likely receive more critical scrutiny from Congress, from the courts, and from journalists and the public than in our world on issues relating to executive power.
 
The USA will never allow for the reestablishment of the CSA. There are several factors likely at work from 1944 onwards that need to be considered.

-During the Al Smith administration, the US was beyond accommodating to the Featherston regime, to the point of allowing for the return of Kentucky to CS rule. As one poster pointed out in another thread a while ago, that’s the equivalent of France in our world’s 1938 handing over Alsace-Lorraine to the Third Reich. The end result was Featherston using Kentucky as a springboard to launch a sneak attack on the USA, which resulted temporarily in the bifurcation of the US and utter devastation for the Midwest. This initial military disaster likely contributed to the Socialist Party’s landslide loss to Dewey in 1944. The “lesson” learned by the US public and political establishment is that any accommodation to the USA’s enemies will always backfire, and that an independent CSA will always pose an unacceptable danger.

-The Destruction. Not only did the CSA under Featherston launch a sneak attack on the USA, but it’s a regime that committed one of the greatest acts of mass murder in world history. The former CSA will never be allowed to live that down, and it ads an additional legitimate reason for the USA to permanently revoke CS sovereignty.

-The former CSA is in no position to resist US rule over the long term, to the point where the US government would decide to restore CS sovereignty. By 1944, the former CSA is both demographically and economically devastated. While the surviving population is largely hostile to the US in 1944, it’s not a society that’s in a position to launch a mass revolt. How many residents will take Clarence Potter’s perspective (a cold blooded acceptance of US power)? How many residents will take Jorge Rodriguez’s perspective (wanting to be left alone to the point of turning a former Freedom Party organizer to the US authorities)?

I suspect that many residents of the former CSA who will refuse to accept US rule will vote with their feet, with many going to Texas, which is why I think that the Republic of Texas will survive as an independent state in the long-term.

-Ultimately, the US grand strategy, such as it is, has been, at least since 1881, to break the encirclement of hostile foreign power in North America. By 1944, with the final defeat of both the CSA and the likely final large-scale Canadian rebellion, this has finally been achieved. No mainstream US politician will enjoy public support after the Second Great War, if said politician actually advocates for the restoration of sovereignty for either of the USA’s historic enemies.
Almost everything you wrote, I concur, too.

I tend to view Texas getting (forcibly) reunited into the United States. (Basically, the USA gives Texas an ultimatum: "Return to the Union the easy way or the hard way. The choice is yours...")

Every now and then, Dr. Turtledove gives some extra detail to the story:

 
Last edited:
Top