Timeline-191: Changes?

[Sean Mulligan]

There's the Saar. Granted, it's a weak example and I'm not really going to defend it.

What I never got about the Richmond Agreement was the constitutionality of it. Al Smith meets with the Snake, and then decides without discussing with members of the other branches of government if it was cool to hold plebiscites in U.S. states?

The Saar os a completely different situation. The Treaty of Versailles only gave France control of the area until 1935 at which time the area would have a plebiscite to determine the regions future status. The the Nazi Government had nothing to do with Germany getting back the Saar, the plebiscite would have occured no mather which government was in power in Germany.

 

[Trotsky]

The Saar os a completely different situation. The Treaty of Versailles only gave France control of the area until 1935 at which time the area would have a plebiscite to determine the regions future status. The the Nazi Government had nothing to do with Germany getting back the Saar, the plebiscite would have occured no mather which government was in power in Germany.

But, it was territory directly governed by one the Allies and it was given back to Germany via vote. That was much of your original point.

 

[CurlyGangster]

I wouldn't call losing Kentucky, Sequoyah, much of Texas and Virginia and pieces of several other states in addition to a disarmed and shrunken military that could barely police the newly-emboldened black population, incapacitating economic reparations intended to reduce the CSA to a third-rate power, and a crippling blow to prestige and stability with the very direct threat of further devastation should the CSA even fart out the wrong ass a "relative slap on the wrist."

The first had many US sympathizers and the US had conquered the majority of (plus the US had already readmitted Kentucky to the Union IIRC), Sequoyah wasn't worth that much (besides the oil there), West Texas was hardly populated and was somewhat inconsequential, and the piece taken off Virginia according to the books was pretty small (although the maps in the later books do tell a different story). While the rest of those were all forgotten not long after or the CSA quickly moved to circumvent. The debt thing is interesting though the amount listed in the books I remember as being rather small (compared to what Germany had to pay), so that means that the currencies in the US are ridicously deflated, the CSA is really weak economically, or the Reparations didn't do as much as they were claimed to be. The problem with the book is that the peace was more or less the USA and CSA taking the current frontline and calling it a day. This is from a war where countries demanded more from the peace table than they currently occupied.

An interesting is that North American Wars have tended to be more about taking or retaking large amounts of territory than European Wars. Not only that, all Wars in North America (1812 excluded), have resulted in huge shifts in ownership of land. The Seven Years War wiped France off of the map in North America, the ARW saw the US become Independent, the Mexican-American War saw the Southwest become part of the US, etc. So when it comes to North America, we are used to seeing large amounts of territory changing hands in North America, than we do in Europe. Which may why some people think that the US should have taken more from the CSA.

Well it was compared to what the US could do, but it was very poor wording on my part.