Timeline 191 changes

[The Gunslinger]

I think the Union would have a harder time in Canada in the Great War. I mean, both Britain and Canada know that there is an angry big neighbour to the south of them. I would think that Canada would be a tad more prepared for the inevitable invasion than they were in this timeline. And I would think that there would be less Qubec seccesionism in this TL for two reasons.
1) Britain actively aided Canada in the Second Mexican War, and even won us some territory
2) The American hordes are coming to annex us!
I'm not saying it wouldn't be there, but it would lessened I'm thinking.

The other thing, Alaska. Someone should end up with it. I don't think it would have been the United States, they just lost a war, bad for business. But it might be Britain. America purchased it April 9, 1867. Mightn't it be a good gift for the new Dominion of Canada (established 1867)? Or maybe Japan takes it instead of an indemnity in the Russo-Japanese war. Or America buys it in the 1890's. It's a tough call. Who knows? But I really doubt that Russia would end up keeping it.

 

[Readman]

One major flaw I think is that Quebec seeemed to have welcomed the U.S with open arms in TL 191. the Quebecois disliked the U.S waaay more than Britain.

 

[gnostical_turpitude]

The canal would also necessitate minimally a naval base in the Greater Antilles. Without untrammeled passage through this island chain a Central American canal isn't nearly as useful to the US. And if we suppose that the CS conquers Cuba and Puerto Rico (for I can't really see Spain parting with Cuba peacefully) this would mean the Dominican Republic must be under US control.
Which gives us another potential flashpoint.

I didn't think about that. The US wouldn't have the Southern states for ports so this would be an even bigger deal. My guess is they could buy the OTL U.S. Virgin Islands. Prussia had knocked Denmark around in the 1860s and they probably could have twisted the Danes' arm to sell as a favor to us. I think the Danes had wanted to sell them anyway. Maybe some of the possesions of the Netherlands? I don't think the US would have gotten squat for Britain in the 1860s or 1870s. They might have been able to wrestle an island or two from France. Maybe buy/lease a few ports from the Spanish (I don't think the US would want to piss them off and have another front, even if the Spanish were on the wane).

Maybe the US helps Spain fight off the CSA and is rewarded with leases for a few bases? Of course that would be a hard sell in the US, fighting on the behalf of a European colonial empire.

I agree. But after 10 books I don't think he'll pay attention.

That's frustrating. He's sort of claimed a CSA victory AH as his own. It's set in stone. Sigh.

 

[Andromedos]

I think the Union would have a harder time in Canada in the Great War. I mean, both Britain and Canada know that there is an angry big neighbour to the south of them. I would think that Canada would be a tad more prepared for the inevitable invasion than they were in this timeline.

A harder time? Are we talking about the same book? Canada gave the US a harder time than the CSA did. It held out longer than Russia, the CSA, and even France! The Niagara peninsula was heavyly fortified, the great lakes mined. The canadians even drove back the Yankees several times, using tanks.
Canada was very well prepared for war, and gave hell of a fight, but the USA simply outfought them in the long run. The US has more men and material. Even as a Canadian, this has to be accepted. Just as British readers should accept that a Britian that lost the great war might follow an authoritarian path to get their revenge.

 

[gnostical_turpitude]

I think the Union would have a harder time in Canada in the Great War. I mean, both Britain and Canada know that there is an angry big neighbour to the south of them. I would think that Canada would be a tad more prepared for the inevitable invasion than they were in this timeline. And I would think that there would be less Qubec seccesionism in this TL for two reasons.
1) Britain actively aided Canada in the Second Mexican War, and even won us some territory
2) The American hordes are coming to annex us!
I'm not saying it wouldn't be there, but it would lessened I'm thinking.

But the US never invaded Canada during the Second-Mexican war, rather Britain dragged Canada into a war to invade their neighbor and trading partner. Maybe that would have inspired nationalism in the Anglos (I doubt it), but I think the Quebecois would have been really bitter (they're ticked about Afganistan right now, right?). Why would they want to help one group of Anglos fight another group of Anglos? I think that would INCREASE resentment.

I think point 2) would make Canadians reluctant to go to war, sure they may win, right? But that will be bad for the long term. That would make the US more of a long term threat. As an example, Canada told the UK in the 1920s that if the UK's ally Japan went to war with the US, Canada would not support the UK. That pushed the UK to not renew their alliance with Japan.

The other thing, Alaska. Someone should end up with it. I don't think it would have been the United States, they just a war, bad for business. But it might be Britain. America purchased it April 9, 1867. Mightn't it be a good gift for the new Dominion of Canada (established 1867)? Or maybe Japan takes it instead of an indemnity in the Russo-Japanese war. Or America buys it in the 1890's. It's a tough call. Who knows? But I really doubt that Russia would end up keeping it.

Russia really didn't want Britain to have it, I think that would have extended to Canadians too. I spent a few hours researching this. Russia figured they were going to lose it one way or another, they needed the money, and it wasn't a profitable venture anyway. So they would want to unload it, but not to someone they had fought in the Crimean War in the 1850s (i.e., Britain and France). Japan's rise would come too late to buy/sieze it from the Russians. I think Britain would have siezed it by the 1890s if Russia doesn't manage to sell it. I really think that makes the US the best candidate. I think the US would want it for denial purposes in regards to the UK. Not sure what you mean by "bad for business". Another thing, the US wouldn't have fought a very expensive war in this TL (i.e., a 4 year civil war), that means they probably would have been able to pay for it with out too much trouble.

 

[JHPier]

I didn't think about that. The US wouldn't have the Southern states for ports so this would be an even bigger deal. My guess is they could buy the OTL U.S. Virgin Islands. Prussia had knocked Denmark around in the 1860s and they probably could have twisted the Danes' arm to sell as a favor to us. I think the Danes had wanted to sell them anyway. Maybe some of the possesions of the Netherlands? I don't think the US would have gotten squat for Britain in the 1860s or 1870s. They might have been able to wrestle an island or two from France. Maybe buy/lease a few ports from the Spanish (I don't think the US would want to piss them off and have another front, even if the Spanish were on the wane).

Maybe the US helps Spain fight off the CSA and is rewarded with leases for a few bases? Of course that would be a hard sell in the US, fighting on the behalf of a European colonial empire.

Assuming it takes a war for the CSA to acquire Cuba (that island was just too valuable to Spain) and the CSA seizes Puerto Rico as well I think the Danish Virgin Islands are too close to Porto Rico and vulnerable.

The Netherlands Antilles won't wash, the ABC-islands are near Venezuela, well inside the island arc, The SSS-islands are separated from the Atlantic by British and French islands.

 

[gnostical_turpitude]

Assuming it takes a war for the CSA to acquire Cuba (that island was just too valuable to Spain) and the CSA seizes Puerto Rico as well I think the Danish Virgin Islands are too close to Porto Rico and vulnerable.

The Netherlands Antilles won't wash, the ABC-islands are near Venezuela, well inside the island arc, The SSS-islands are separated from the Atlantic by British and French islands.

You're right about Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands being close and thus not making a secure coaling station to support a Panama Canal. But I wonder if the CSA by itself could wrestle Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain. Would they have much of a navy? And even if they did, could they have defeated Spain? Cuba would have somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 million people to the CSA's 9-14 million depending on when the CSA would try to take it. Could the CSA maintain control and put down an insurgency? I think this might have have gone badly for the CSA.

As for possible US colonies to act as coaling stations, that still leaves the Dominican Republic. They attempted to get the US to annex it around 1870 in OTL and they would certainly would want to be part of the USA instead of the slave holding CSA.

 

[gnostical_turpitude]

So the question would the CSA really get as much as they did as portrayed in "How Few Remain" (HRE) has been bothering me for a while.

So I found this map snooping around. It shows roughly what parts of the CSA the USA controlled as the Civil War progressed (here's a link, I don't want to post it b/c of copyright worries).
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/civil_war_1861-1865.jpg
It shows the USA controlling pretty much all of Kentucky, Western Tennessee, a good chunk of Arkansas, New Orleans, and the toe of Loiusiana. In HRE, Turtledove has Bragg take all of Kentucky which I don't really buy and they end up getting all the parts of the CSA that the USA was occupying. Reading about Bragg, he wasn't that good of a general and I don't see why the CSA would gain so much. It's too CSA-wank.

So what I think is more plausible for a TL 191 is that the CSA wins in Antiem, takes all of Maryland, tears up a little bit of Pennsylvannia, captures Washington, and gets recognition from Britain and France. The USA reluctantly accepts arbitration. They cut some deals.
Of the areas claimed by the CSA, the US gets:
Kentucky, all of Tennesee, West Virginia, the Western panhandle of modern day Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico and Maryland and DC.

The CSA trades Maryland, DC, and rebelious Eastern Tennessee to get New Orleans and parts of Arkansas back. The CSA ends up keeping Oklahoma a.k.a. Sequoyah a.k.a. Indian Territory.

Seems much more likely to me. Any thoughts? Anyone remember what logic there was for Bragg being so victorious?

 

[Anders]

One must also remember that in Timeline-191, Kentucky still was a decently neutral state, not joining in on the rest of the nation's hatred of the USA. It was only after it went to war against the US that it joined mainstream CSA feelings.

Actually, Kentucky was more pro-Union in the years after the War of Secession and kinda stopped being pro-Union when the boys in blue trashed Louisville in the Second Mexican War.

 

[Dave Howery]

I didn't think the first book copied WW2 all that closely... the CSA drove north and cut the USA in 2... nothing like that happened on the Eastern front... the second book, yeah, Stalingrad all the way... third book, yeah, kinda like the Russians drive west, but no Kursk... it looks like the fourth book will be more like OTL's ACW; marching through Georgia to burn Atlanta...

 

[Anders]

They're going to Atlanta to, essentially, hit the Confederates with a killing blow rather than the knock-out uppercut they gave back in the Great War. All the Confederate oil comes through Atlanta; oil fuels Asskickers and Hound Dogs and barrels. The Confederates are screwed if the U.S. get there, and yeah they will get there. As was said in the book itself, the U.S. plans to occupy the entire CSA and return it to the USA.

 

[MFOM]

TR's Cavalry regiment is equipped with Winchesters,which Turtledove mentions lacks the power and range of the Springfield carbine of the Regular US forces,this was true of the Model 1873 winchester. However Winchester after failing to meet the requirements of the US army come out with the 1876 model,which fired the same round as the Springfield,later models had even greater range and stopping power than the Springfield.
So i would make that change,also Union sentiment was strong in other areas of the south as well,Eastern Tennesse,North Carolina,Kentucky. In fact i couldn't see the CSA holding Kentucky,Union supporters outnumbered Confederates by a margin.

 

[marl_d]

i started writing an alt-alt TL where instead of going directly to war with the CSA, Blaine tried to buy the land from Mexico, with that not working, they buy Baja from them instead which leads to war between the US and CS...just don't remember how it happened, can't find the notebook it was in

 

[Trotsky]

I didn't think the first book copied WW2 all that closely... the CSA drove north and cut the USA in 2... nothing like that happened on the Eastern front... the second book, yeah, Stalingrad all the way... third book, yeah, kinda like the Russians drive west, but no Kursk... it looks like the fourth book will be more like OTL's ACW; marching through Georgia to burn Atlanta...

Most of the books don't follow the OTL script too closely, but they're generally inspired by real events. Operation Blackbeard and the drive to Lake Erie wasn't a replay of anything from the Eastern Front; it was an analog to the Sieg em Westem in the summer of 1940. Featherston launches a massive thrust in an unexpected area, splits his enemy in half when he reaches the beach, sues for peace on the expectation that his spineless enemy will surrender, and is astonished when the foe stands up to him in defiance of all expectations.

Drive to the East was centered mostly on Operation Blue and the subsquequent battle for Stalingrad, but MacArthur's two battles of Fredericksburg obviously was inspired more by the Civil War than anything from WWII.

The Grapple of course borrows heavily from the late 1863-mid 1864 campaign in the Western Theater, at least for the second half of the book: long siege at Chattanooga, followed by engagements in northwestern Georgia all the way down to Atlanta. Morrell's crossing of the Ohio, with the massive preparations and efforts at disguising the true focus of the crossing struck me as close to a parallel to Operation Overlord as we'll get.

In fact i couldn't see the CSA holding Kentucky,Union supporters outnumbered Confederates by a margin.

Braxton Bragg and K. Smith conquered the Bluegrass State -- probably D.C. Buell's command -- because Union forces were pulled out around the beginning of October to shore up the wrecked Army of the Potomac in the east, causing the Battle of Perryville to not being fought. I recall a scene in Walk in Hell when U.S. forces driving to the south encountered Bragg's statue around Cornith or somewhere like that and blew it up.

The text said that for the generation between the War of Secession and the Second Mexican War, many Kentuckians looked north, but after the Battle of Louisville only then did Kentucky become reconciled to flying the Stars and Bars.

 

[Alexander North]

Thats another beef I have, perhaps they could have conquered southern Kentucky, but the Bluegrass region, the area around Louisville, Lexington and Frankfort would remain in the Union, while the rest of the state would be occupied by the CSA, perhaps Pikesville or Bowling Green could serve as Confederate Kentucky's capital, the same goes for Missouri, a south Missouri serving the Confederacy with its capital in Carthage, Joplin, or Poplar Bluff, and a northern Missouri that retains the important city of St Louis.

This thread's been dead for a decade, but I'm saying this anyway because I'm stubborn.

Northern Missouri was, paradoxically, the area with the most support for the CSA, due to the economy and culture of the area, while the southern half of Missouri was the one more loyal to the Union. Such an arrangement would have angered both sides and possibly caused revolts. Judging by this, Missouri would have been better off being all one or all the other, unless you're going to figure out a way to cede northern Missouri to the CSA with the southern half staying in the USA.