TL-191 FILLING IN THE FUTURE

[GeorgeUK]

The 1982 IF World Cup

This tournament, held in Britain, featured twenty four teams, allowing more nations to qualify. Russia, Honduras, Kamerun, El Salvador, Algeria and New Zealand all made debut appearances. Great things were expected of Britain, and spirits were high; controversial Irish singer Morrissey compared the mood to Richmond in the late 1930s, which drew criticism and ridicule from the British and Irish press. This saw the first big test for the new high speed Edinburgh to Paris line and the “Silver Bullet” trains which operated over it, and it passed with flying colours. Many German supporters, however, purposely took slower trains for the chance to travel by steam traction (which was still in mainstream use on slower routes). The 1998 comedy film Trainspotting is about a German and an Irishman who plan to travel around Britain by train (getting as much steam as possible), only to forget that there's a World Cup on.

With 24 teams, the format was revised. The top two teams from each of the six groups went into four groups of three teams, the winners of which progressed to the semi-finals.

Group 1

1st: Britain 5pts
2nd: Spain 4pts
3rd: Kamerun 3pts
4th: Peru 1pt

With high expectations, Britain eased through the group stage. Kamerun were undefeated, but unfortunately drew their three matches, allowing Spain to qualify ahead of them. Bryan Robson scored the fastest goal in World Cup history, in Britain's opening win over Spain.

Group 2

1st: Germany 4pts
2nd: Austria-Hungary 4pts
3rd: Algeria 4pts
4th: Chile 0pts

Many people were excited when Germany and Austria-Hungary were drawn together, with their epic match in 1978 still a vivid memory. However, this one was remembered for all the wrong reasons. With Algeria having finished with two wins and a loss (pulling off a massive shock in their opening game with a 2-1 win over Germany), and Austria-Hungary and Germany still to play at Hampden Park, Austria-Hungary had two wins and Germany had a win and a loss; Germany would be eliminated if they failed to win, and Austria-Hungary would be eliminated if Germany won by three goals or more. In what has gone down in history as the “Disgrace of Glasgow” Germany and Austria-Hungary played out a 1-0 win, with both sides passing around their own half to each other after Germany went 1-0 up after ten minutes. The Glasgow Herald printed the match report in its crime section, and the German TV commentator, in disgust, at one stage refused to commentate on the game.

Group 3

1st: Belgium 5pts
2nd: Argentina 4pts
3rd: Bulgaria 3pts
4th: El Salvador 0pts
It is in this group that Bulgaria notched up a 10-1 win over El Salvador, who finished bottom; it was all for naught, though, as a loss to Argentina and a draw with Belgium saw them miss out on qualification.

Group 4

1st: France 5pts
2nd: Poland 4pts
3rd: Lithuania 2pts
4th: Ottoman Empire 1pt

France had a strong side going into this group (they would win the European Championship two years later), and they qualified with ease, a draw with Lithuania being the only blemish.

Group 5

1st: Ireland 4pts
2nd: Italy 3pts
3rd: Serbia 3pts
4th: Honduras 2pts

In a very tight group, Ireland pulled off a massive shock with a 1-0 win over Italy, who also scraped through above Serbia on goals scored. Ireland's victory is all the more remarkable as they'd played the last half hour with ten men.

Group 6

1st: Brazil 6pts
2nd: Russia 3pts
3rd: Quebec 3pts
4th: New Zealand 0pts

Brazil cruised through the group with maximum points. Quebec needed a win to qualify ahead of Russia, but could only manage a 2-2 draw.

Second round

Group A

1st: Britain 3pts
2nd: Russia 3pts
3rd: Belgium 0pts

Britain, with a home crowd behind them, made the semi-finals for the first time in their history, by virtue of a bigger win over Belgium.

Group B

1st: Germany 3pts
2nd: Italy 2pts
3rd: France 1pt

A loss to Germany saw France's hopes dashed, while Italy lost their chance by failing to beat the French.

Group C

1st: Brazil 4pts
2nd: Argentina 2pts
3rd: Poland 0pts

Brazil exacted revenge on their arch-rivals for 1978 with a 3-1 win in which rising star Diego Maradona was sent off. Poland were dispatched 3-0, securing Brazil's spot in the last four.

Group D

1st: Austria-Hungary 4pts
2nd: Spain 1pt
3rd: Ireland 1pt

Austria-Hungary comfortably topped the group with wins over Spain and Ireland, who could only draw.

Semi Finals

Britain 3-3 Germany (Germany won 5-4 on penalties)
Brazil 2-0 Austria-Hungary

The first game is once again controversial. With the score at 1-1 and an hour gone, Ray Wilkins ran through on goal, only for Harald Schumacher, Germany's goalkeeper, to deliberately catch him with an elbow, for which no foul was given, although Wilkins spent much of the following season recovering and his absence arguably cost Chelsea their chance of taking the English League title back from Aston Villa the following season. With Britain 2-1 ahead in extra time, Karl-Heinze Rummenigge was brought on, and helped Germany pull back to 3-3 with goals either side of the interval in extra time, and Glenn Hoddle and Terry Butcher both missed, causing Germany to progress. In the other semi-final, Brazil swept past Austria-Hungary in the other semifinal.

Third-place play-off

Britain 3-2 Austria-Hungary

Two goals in five minutes and a third just after half time saw Britain take control after going behind on 14 minutes, ensuring Britain's best performance in a World Cup to date.

Final

Brazil 2-1 Germany

Germany were never in this game as Brazil controlled it from start to finish, despite Germany getting a glimmer of hope with seven minutes remaining. Brazil won their fourth title, and it speaks volumes that the back page headlines in Britain the following morning mainly comprised of the word “JUSTICE”. The 1986 tournament would be joint hosted by Mexico and, surprisingly, Texas.

 

[Nivek]

Tiro, don't do anything rash at least british got well and there is hope. well a shame what happened, so we got our 'Giron Shame' in Glagow(woa, both with G,xd) how will be called? the glasgow dual alliance or ausgleich?

So Mexico-Texas soon...nice wonder how will fare co locals here and if USA can step up again in the game soon.

 

[ZGradt]

Excellent work as always George. And Mexico and Texas joint hosting the next IF Cup will be interesting. Looking forward to your potential matches and controversies.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I'm mad that Britain didn't win against Germany, but I love the work you've done, George. The Texas-Mexico joint hosting will be interesting to see

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Crossposting my article from Filling the Gaps

Quit Canada, The Troubles, and The Rise of Canadian Neo-Resistance

Of all the names in the Canadian nationalist movement, there are two that stand above all others: Lester Pearson, the peace academic from Ontario; and Alec Pomeroy, the leader of the Canadian National Party.

The Quit Canada movement, born during the Second Great War, had a very simple belief: it desires the United States leave Canada and grant it independence. Led by Ontario academic Lester Pearson, the Quit Canada movement practiced nonviolent civil disobedience and was instrumented with brutal effectiveness.

Pearson, borrowing extensively from India's Mahatma Gandhi and America's Henry David Thoreau, became a stirring figure among Canadians. Under Pearson's direction, and in one of the biggest spectacles of the Quit Canada movement, called Honest Insistence [1], for a total nationwide protest in 1945: offices and factories in Canada closed, Canadians withdrew from American-sponsored schools, police services, military, and the civil service. Public transportation and American-manufactured goods were boycotted. In 1945, the entirety of Canada shut down.

The Troubles [2] remains the black mark on American-Canadian relations. The name "The Troubles" is translated from Irish as the conflict in Canada that spilled over at times into the United States, Quebec, and other parts of North America. The conflict started on 1 July 1967, when British Prime Minister Enoch Powell came to Toronto and gave his now infamous "Long live free Canada!" speech. The main groups in the Troubles were unionists (who identified as American) and nationalists (who identified as Canadians). In general, unionists want Canada to stay in the United States, while nationalists want a free and independent Canada.

However, as the burgeoning Canadian civil rights movement developed, it was met with brutal assaults by unionists and counter demonstrations across the United States. By 1969, the Canadian cities of Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Toronto erupted into major rioting, resulting in United States Army and state National Guard units called in to quell the uprisings.

The most terrifying group during the Troubles was an organization known the Canadian Independence Army, or CIA. The CIA has claimed responsibility for hundreds of terror attacks across Canada, Quebec, Texas, and the United States, as well as taking hundreds of lives. The CIA is also fanatical in its cause to use force to ensure the collapse of the occupation in Canada, and inflict enough casualties on American security forces so that the American government would be forced by public opinion to withdraw.

The maxim the CIA appropriated was first spoken by a Canadian prisoner of the American state apparatus, whose name is unfortunately lost to history. But the quote stated, "There can never be peace in Canada until the foreign, oppressive American presence is removed, leaving all the Canadian people as a unit to control their own affairs and determine their own destinies as a sovereign people, free in mind and body, separate and distinct physically, culturally and economically." [3]

The stated goal of the CIA is to recreate Canada as it existed with the 1914 borders, before the American occupation. There are some elements within the CIA that would accept English Canada (including the Maritime states) as an independent Canada.

Alec Pomeroy [4], meanwhile, is the polar opposite of Lester Pearson. In fact, his whole life revolves around the occupation. Both his parents and his grandfather were killed resisting the Americans, and Pomeroy developed an undying hatred of the Yankee behemoth. Born 1 July 1936 in Rosenfield, Alberta (18 years after Canada disappeared as a nation-state), Alec Pomeroy molded himself into the now quintessential Canadian revolutionary. While not particularly left-wing, Pomeroy made close contacts within leftist organizations in Latin America, Europe, Africa and Asia. His travels across Latin America actually bolstered Latin American opposition to the continued occupation of Canada. With Pomeroy's help, Latin American revolutionaries decried with one voice the "Yankee imperialism" in Canada.

The CIA has been involved in numerous bombings, kidnappings, and murders across the United States, Quebec, Texas, and Canada. The most notable, and the one event that put them in the crosshairs of the American government, was the kidnapping and murder of Texan Secretary of Labor and Commerce James Bullock* and the kidnapping of US Secretary of Commerce Alexander Trowbridge in 1971. A spree of bombings occurred in 1972 happened in the cities of Toronto, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Winnipeg, San Francisco, and New York City; fifteen people in total were killed.

Pomeroy became close to the CIA at the start of the Troubles, and became a rumoured leader of the organisation. The Canadian National Party, founded 11 October 1968 [5] won its first victory in 1976, winning the governorships of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia [6]. The election, which took the United States and her allies by surprise, thrilled the CNP leadership.

Pomeroy, alongside Ed Broadbent of Ontario and George Pearkes of Alberta, formulated The Three Points [7] for Canadian independence:

1) the election of a great number of candidates from CNP for the House of Representatives election in 1978;

2) the election of a CNP government in English Canada; and

3) the calling for and victory of a referendum on sovereignty for Canada

The CNP swept the Canadian states in the 1978 House elections, and won 40 seats in the House of Representatives; shocking the political establishment in Washington DC. The Republicans, who enjoyed a near-total dominance of the Canadian states, were outraged; as were the Democrats and Socialists, who felt that a CNP was a joke to the American republic. Alec Pomeroy, elected as a Representative in Saskatchewan's 5th District, had now become a viable political force. Many accused him of being a leader of the CIA in terror attacks, and it was heavily suspected by American security forces that ties existed between the CIA and CNP [8].

[1] Based off the satyagraha movement of Mahatma Gandhi
[2] I felt that the Troubles would pop up somewhere, and with the rise of a Canadian nationalist sentiment, it would be in Canada
[3] OTL Bobby Sands' quote, with minor changes (i.e.: replacing Ireland with Canada, and British with American)
[4] Alec Pomeroy is a mix of Gerry Adams, a capitalist Che Guevara, and a Canadian nationalist version of Paul Rose
[5] Also known as the same date that Parti Quebecois was founded
[6] Until we agree on a name, I'm sticking with British Columbia
[7] A Canadianised version of the Quebec sovereignty strategy
[8] The Canadian Independence Army is like a mix of the IRA, Umkhonto we Sizwe, and the OAS. The Canadian National Party is like the SNP, Sinn Fein, and PQ/BQ.
* Fictional

 

[Tiro]

Most excellent work one and all!

Tiro, don't do anything rash at least British got well and there is hope.

My good Nivek, I thank you for your condolences on behalf of heartbroken Britons everywhere - I would also like to reassure you that my weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth has been carefully planned in advance (also that my insurance will cover 'Sports-Related Injuries').

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Crossposting my article from Filling the Gaps

Quit Canada, The Troubles, and The Rise of Canadian Neo-Resistance

That was a great piece, really nice job. Liked the CIA bit.

 

[ZGradt]

Here's another finished weapons article. US grunts have their machine gun/SAW for the forseeable future, but what about their standard service rifles?

----

M1950 SKS Automatic Rifle

The M1950 SKS[1] was the primary service rifle for the United States Armed Forces until the 1990s, where it was replaced by Eugene Stoner's M4 Assault Rifle. The SKS also served as the primary service rifle for countries such as Quebec, Texas, Mexico, Haiti, Liberia, Algeria, and Egypt. The SKS is acronym for the rifle's developers: Hugo Schmeisser, Gherman A. Korobov, and Dieudonné Joseph Saive. In military nomenclature, the M1950 SKS is to distinguish from the SKS Russian semi-automatic carbine rifle and the later line of marksman rifles based on the carbine.

Following the end of the Second Great War, US riflemen of the US Army and US Marine Corps continued to scavenge Tredgar Automatic Rifles. While the M1903s were easily recoverable by recovery crews, it also led to Freedomite and ex-Confederate resistance fighters to gain plentiful weapons for a determined resistance. That soon led to confusion amongst the ranks as US soldiers with M1903s sometimes aimed their weapons at US riflemen with TARs because of the weapon's report (noise it makes when it fires) and the large distances between patrolling groups make it difficult to visually see each other. In addition, the US reverse-engineered and re-chambered M1945 Tredgar Automatic Rifle found that the .30-06 Springfield was way too powerful for the weapon itself; one weapons tester was injuered when the recoil of the weapon caused the rifle stock to hit him squarely in the nose. Another was critically injured when a bullet ricocheted off a test target and went through the tester's skull. It was clear to even the conservative General Staff that an assault rifle with an intermediate rifle cartridge was needed.

In 1946, Hugo Schmeisser was invited to the US to help develop a new assault rifle for the US. Schmeisser had already gained fame for his Sturmgewehr 44 that was used in the final stages of the Second Great War in Europe. The Germans realized from reports of the TAR's performance by American and German intelligence that an rifle capable of that much firepower was very advantageous; even if the Gewehr 41's 7.92x57 mm. Kurz was much more powerful, an assault rifle would pour more bullets into an enemy thus making the "one shot, one kill" doctrine for German riflemen moot, save for German snipers and marksmen. When the Sturmgewehr 44 was introduced to Imperial forces, the weapon was received with positive feedback. Its 7.92x33 mm round was much more controllable in full-automatic and 3 round burst fire. In addition, riflemen now could carry 20 rounds in detachable box clips and carry more of those clips than it was to carry spare bullets that are unprotected from the grimy conditions of European and African battlefields. US generals hoped that it could be replicated to US riflemen.

Schmeisser immediately got to work, using the Stg 44 and the TAR as base templates for the new weapon. He knew that a new intermediate round was needed for the weapon, but as long as US military officials insisted on using a full-powered rifle round he had little say in the matter. By early 1947, he had finished the XR47 (Experimental Rifle, 1947). By all accounts, it almost looked exactly like the Stg 44, with the main difference being the barrel length being identical to the TAR's (22 inches). Despite the longer barrel keeping the bullet from tumbling less making it more accurate, the overpowered round once again was a huge problem. The huge amount of recoil was not welcome and Schmeisser went back to the drawing board. This time however, he would have the help of former Belgian Dieudonné Joseph Saive and Russian Gherman A. Korobov.

Saive was a former gun designer for the Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal, the Belgian arms factory and manufacturer. Saive was only known by gun enthusiasts and manufacturers as the man who perfected Browning's designs, in particular his handguns which resulted in the Baby Browning and the Browning Hi-Power pistols. His reputation in the US plummeted however when Belgium was liberated by French and British forces, which allowed him access to British and French firearms of which he perfected giving the Entente access to the FN Springfield 1942[2], a semi-auto rifle based on the M1903 Springfield chambered in an intermediate .276 Herstal[3] cartridge. This allowed British and French riflemen to gain the edge over the German riflemen still using the bolt-action Gewehr 98s until mid-1943. Following the Entente's defeat and Belgium re-puppetized by Imperial Germany, Saive escaped to Quebec. There he met John Garand, a Quebecois gun manufacturer whose Garand Rifle failed to impress US military officials. Together, they perfected Garand's design which became the M1947 Garand-Saive Automatic Rifle[4], which was used by Quebecois and Haitian riflemen until 1955.

German (or Gherman) A. Korobov was a Russian gun designer working for the Tula Arms Plant, in which the city of Tula would give birth to the Tula Soviet during the Second Russian Civil War. Tula designed unorthodox weapons from the lever-delayed blowback action TKB-517 to the bullpup TKP-408 for Russian Red Army riflemen. His designs were impressive, but they were too technical and prone to break down especially in the rundown and gritty conditions of Russia's ruined landscape. Korobov was then superseded by Mikhail Kalashnikov who invested the simplistic, yet rugged Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947, worldwide known as the AK-47[5]. having lost his business, Korobov defected to the Germans instead of the Imperial Russians. While en route for processing by the German and Polish joint military base in Warsaw, the convoy was attacked and he escaped. Taking a plane from Bremen to London before finally landing in Philadelphia, Korobov was detained by US MPs before he was given a choice to either help develop a new assault rifle for the US or be extradited back to Germany. Korobov made his independent designs of an assault rifle, relying on the TKB-408 for inspiration. However, his unorthodox designs weren't in favor to the conservative military establishment. Korobov planned to escape should the US send him back, but instead he was put to work again with his partners, Schmeisser and Saive.

Three inventors argued over how the receiver would be designed, what firearm action they would use, and whether the .30-06 Springfield should be used or if another cartridge was necessary despite US insistence on the former. The one thing the inventors agreed upon was the creation of an intermediate cartridge as the overpowered round still had a tendency to careen off or ricochet off solid objects if used in the M1945 or the XR47. The three decided that a 7.22 mm round would suffice in meeting the US military's requirements for round penetration without the bullet's excessive momentum bouncing off and risking injury to the user or any nearby allies. It was then that arguments began to surface. Schmeisser insisted on a 33 mm cartridge similar to the Stg 44's 7.92x33 mm Kurz. Korobov insisted on a 39 mm cartridge or higher; Saive agreed with Korobov except that the cartridge had to be at leas 42 mm for the round to be effective in terms of ballistics. Eventually, Korobov relented and sided with Saive and had US manufacturers create the .27-48 Korobov-Saive (.27 Caliber, 1948) round for use in their future experimental rifles.

The arguments got more heated in what the receiver was going to use. Saive and Schmeisser insisted on a gas-operated action with a tilting bolt while Korobov argued for the delayed-lever blowback system. Korobov won that argument after his Korobov XR48's delayed lever blowback action gave the average US enlisted grunt more control over the rifle during and after the pressing of the trigger, as well as the reduced recoil giving the rifleman an edge in increased follow-up shot accuracy. When the final designs were being drawn, Schmeisser threatened to leave the team. When Saive and Korobov decided that they would leave his name off the weapon if he quit, he relented. By the time it was finished and competed with a record 35 semi-auto and full-automatic rifles in the yearly firing test competition, the XR49 won over all the others. The XR49 was dubbed the SKS after the last names of the inventors and by March 1950, the SKS began production under the official designation M1950. And with production of the .27-48 Korobov-Saive already two years ahead, there was plenty of ammunition to waste. When the rifle was given to select units such as the 101st Airborne and the 78th and 97th Infantry Divisions, feedback was overwhelmingly positive from the troopers of those commands. The weapon was light enough to carry, yet 'sturdy and heavy like a rifle should feel.' The weapon was fed initially with a 20-round box magazine, but was increased to 30 rounds when the creation of stronger, yet lighter clips from synthetic polymers[6] was made possible.

The M1950 became infamously known by former Confederate citizens as "America's Tool on Freedom," or ATF. A patrolling fireteam was capable of killing at least 50 hostages within a matter of seconds. Men of the 55th Infantry Division[7] were known as 'Phantoms' because of their ability to slip into a town full of suspected Confederate or Freedomite activity before wiping out the town's population to the last man, woman, and child before disappearing like phantoms. Composed of ex-Confederate African-Americans who served in the Red insurgencies during the First and Second Great Wars along with African-Americans from the Union and former Canada, they were both hated and feared amongst ex-Confederate whites.

M1950
Designed: development began in 1946, finalized designs in 1949
Produced: 1950-present
Numbers Built: 20,600,500
Variants: 5 military variants, 11 civilian variants, and 3 overseas licensed variants

In Service: 1950-2003 (Egypt was the last to phase out the M1950 as the standard service rifle; all M1950s are reserve weapons to be made available in case of national emergency)
Users: United States of America, Texas, Quebec, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador (Jose Ibarra government-in-exile), Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Morocco, Mozambique (alongside the AK-47), Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand; in use by paramilitary and other armed rebel groups
Wars Served In: 40+ [8]
Weight: 8 1/2 pounds unloaded
Length: 34 inches
Barrel Length: 18 inches

Ammuniton: .27-48 Korobov-Saive
Firing Rate: 600 rpm in full-auto, 15-30 rpm sustained fire, 60 rpm semi-automatic fire
Feeding System: 20-round detachable box magazine, later 30-round detachable box magazine starting with the M1950A3
Muzzle Velocity: 2,698 feet/second (822.35 meters/second)
Effective Range: 520 meters (1706 feet)

[1] This one was fun to make in my head: the upper receiver of the TKB-517 by Korobov, the rifle stock (butt) and handguard of the FN FAL, the iron sights and lower receiver (trigger, trigger guard, and magazine port) of the Stg 44, the magazine shape of the AK-47, and the barrel length of an M16.
[2] The Browning 22 semi-auto takedown rifle, with "takedown" referring to the ease of breaking the rifle down in order to be concealed by marksmen, insurgents, and saboteurs.
[3] OTL .276 Pedersen round (cartridge)
[4] OTL FN Model 1949 Semi-auto Rifle
[5] Yes, that gun. Although it should be mentioned that the AK-47's look was copied from Korobov's TKB-408, with the difference being a conventional magazine port as opposed to a bullpup port.
[6] Plastics still exist too, its not like TL-191 could kill off all the future scientists and researchers developing the products.
[7] OTL's 55th Infantry Division was a non-existent infantry unit designed to cover the departure of the US 5th Infantry Division heading for the beaches of Normandy. Here, they are very much real; I might actually do an article on them sometime.
[8] Lots and lots of wars. TTL USA's answer to TTL German's Stg and Russia's AK lines.

----

Phew, that took a lot of work. But I hoped you enjoyed the article, this was fun to work on even if it took 10 hours to finish.

 

[GeorgeUK]

Most excellent work one and all!



My good Nivek, I thank you for your condolences on behalf of heartbroken Britons everywhere - I would also like to reassure you that my weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth has been carefully planned in advance (also that my insurance will cover 'Sports-Related Injuries').

Bear in mind that Team GB have a European Championship under their belts from 1968, so they do have some success so far.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

That was a great piece, really nice job. Liked the CIA bit.

Thanks man. I thought the CIA bit would be a good bit of Turtledove level irony

 

[ZGradt]

Most excellent work one and all!

Thank you, Tiro.


As for everyone else, I do hope my weapons articles are giving you guys an idea of how weapons technology is progressing, particularly in firearms. There was a lot of stuff we would consider 'futuristic' like bullpup firearms, caseless ammunition, firearms shooting around corners without exposing the shooter, and so on; OTL WWII started the development for those concepts.

 

[CT23]

Do you think this CIA will be successful in gaining independence for Canada? Or will the US be able to keep the Canadian states (formerly provinces)?

 

[vesica]

Do you think this CIA will be successful in gaining independence for Canada? Or will the US be able to keep the Canadian states (formerly provinces)?

I think the CNP will be as capable as the SNP or PQ/Bloc are in OTL. i think they might earn SOME concessions from Philadelphia/D.C but not outright independence

 

[ZGradt]

I think the CNP will be as capable as the SNP or PQ/Bloc are in OTL. i think they might earn SOME concessions from Philadelphia/D.C but not outright independence

It'll definitely depend on lots of factors, for sure.

The (very simplistic) cons against Canadian independence:

Huge loss of territory, even if much of it is uninhabitable to humans;
The US demonstrated secession is really bad after 4 wars with the CSA and will not tolerate anymore secessions;
Loss of economic potential from natural resources and existing infrastructure;
Loss of land connection to Alaska;
Large minorities of Americans and Canadian Unionists fighting tooth and nail to stay in the Union, and;
French Canadians who did not become Quebecois citizens fear economic and cultural oppression should an independent Anglo Canada resurface.

The pros of Canadian independence:

Less military-industrial complex spending;
More funds now redirected to more pacified areas, and;
Better relations with the UK.

Even with just simplifying the issue of Canadian independence, there will be a lot of cons for allowing an independent Canada.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Do you think this CIA will be successful in gaining independence for Canada? Or will the US be able to keep the Canadian states (formerly provinces)?

The CIA is definitely fighting an uphill battle, because there are a lot more Americans than there are Canadians. Personally, I want them to be successful in freeing Canada. Some concessions are likely, but the Democrats are likely going to be opposed to any concessions.

It'll definitely depend on lots of factors, for sure.

The (very simplistic) cons against Canadian independence:

Huge loss of territory, even if much of it is uninhabitable to humans;
The US demonstrated secession is really bad after 4 wars with the CSA and will not tolerate anymore secessions;
Loss of economic potential from natural resources and existing infrastructure;
Loss of land connection to Alaska;
Large minorities of Americans and Canadian Unionists fighting tooth and nail to stay in the Union, and;
French Canadians who did not become Quebecois citizens fear economic and cultural oppression should an independent Anglo Canada resurface.

The pros of Canadian independence:

Less military-industrial complex spending;
More funds now redirected to more pacified areas, and;
Better relations with the UK.

Even with just simplifying the issue of Canadian independence, there will be a lot of cons for allowing an independent Canada.

That's true, and there is a substantial number of American settlers and Canadian unionists who want Canada to remain within the Union. You've hit the nail on the head with your pros and cons.

The issue is, and the thing that does help the CIA and CNP, is that Canada has a distinct national identity that isn't going to disappear anytime soon, even with a large minority of Americans there. By the time the US conquered it, Canada had a distinct national identity. For all the Americans who come to Canada and settle there, it's still Canada. It's different with the CSA because that was still largely culturally American.

The concerns of the French Canadians who don't have Quebecois citizenship is a problem, but not a grave one. They've experienced American occupation right alongside their English counterparts, and they've seen what Americans can do. And I figured the CIA learned that it was tensions between French and English Canadians that helped the Americans win and conquer them, so they'll do everything they can to assure French Canadians that there won't be economic or cultural oppression in an independent Canada.

The CIA is going to also have a lot of support from the First Nations tribes, because they've seen what the U.S. has done to their own Native Americans. And they're going to be scared out of their minds at the thought of the U.S. coming, and they'd probably go with the devil they know.

 

[Tiro]

I do think that - at least after the Second Great War - the CIA is more likely to receive support from the First Nations than the Quebecois, who have lived in an independent Republic and have not been too badly off even as a US client (especially compared to the rest of Canada).

I'd imagine that there may be a number of romantics who find the idea of a renewed Canada exciting, but I fear they may be something of a minority at this point in Timeline-191 (barring some Bungle on the part of the United States).

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

I do think that - at least after the Second Great War - the CIA is more likely to receive support from the First Nations than the Quebecois, who have lived in an independent Republic and have not been too badly off even as a US client (especially compared to the rest of Canada).

I'd imagine that there may be a number of romantics who find the idea of a renewed Canada exciting, but I fear they may be something of a minority at this point in Timeline-191 (barring some Bungle on the part of the United States).

That was the idea, yeah. I'd imagine that First Nation peoples and Métis would view the U.S. with suspicion and paranoia, especially over how the Americans have treated their indigenous population. I like to think that the older generation of Quebecois who lived in a united Canada, and remember it, would be more romantic to the idea but those numbers are dwindling with more and more Quebecois/se born in the Republic and who have known nothing but.

I have some ideas for how the U.S. may deal with Canada. The CIA is going to be brutal in their methods, but they're adamant of pushing the Yanks out.

 

[CT23]

Even the Socialists might be wary of letting Canada go. I doubt they'd want to be tarred with the brush of giving away (or surrendering as Democrats/Republicans will put it) US territory twice (especially after the Richmond Accords).

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Even the Socialists might be wary of letting Canada go. I doubt they'd want to be tarred with the brush of giving away (or surrendering as Democrats/Republicans will put it) US territory twice (especially after the Richmond Accords).

There's going to be political tensions, but yeah - the Socialists are going to be reluctant to be seen surrendering territory, unless there's a lot of safeguards in place (Canada is demilitarized, the RCMP is a glorified police force, Canada cannot obtain superbomb tech, etc). The Democrats, as the party of conquest, wouldn't really want to give up the territory, and the Republicans enjoyed their political domination. But when there's terror attacks nearly every week, the politicians are going to want solutions, and that means having a plan for a possible surrender of Canada.

 

[Rifleman134]

There's going to be political tensions, but yeah - the Socialists are going to be reluctant to be seen surrendering territory, unless there's a lot of safeguards in place (Canada is demilitarized, the RCMP is a glorified police force, Canada cannot obtain superbomb tech, etc). The Democrats, as the party of conquest, wouldn't really want to give up the territory, and the Republicans enjoyed their political domination. But when there's terror attacks nearly every week, the politicians are going to want solutions, and that means having a plan for a possible surrender of Canada.

Joshua, fascinating posts, but their are issues that i think are to unrealistic and wanted to ask you about them.

First i think you are heavily underestimating this timelines US, this is not the United States of the seventies where its first encounter with heavy prolonged guerrilla was in Vietnam, and it barley knew, or understood the tactics and abilities to fight effectively against it.

This is a United States that has fought and crushed over two to three major Canadian Rebellions, a Canadian and Mormon Rebellion at the same time as it fought against the Confederates who's intelligence core was wrecking havoc on the United States.

This is a United States who armed and trained similar guerrillas the confederacy in the form of the Marxism Guerrillas, its military is massive, and more importantly its intelligence is a sharpened blade so to speak, that knows where to strike and how to strike at any and all organized resistance/terrorism cells.

not to mention its tactics, where in the ending of the book US soldiers where virtually wiping out confederate towns and cities on mass as they drove through the confederate heartland, and mass executions for any US soldier shot or killed in a bombing attack with no evidence to suggest that such tactics will change or not grow larger in scale and scope against the Canadians.

The CIA no matter how brutal in its methods will not be able to come even close to the level of brutality that the US can and most likely will inflict in retaliation, in this TL where such tactics and reprisals are most still in use since no international forum has come in place to out law such things.

And i have to disagree with you in regards to the CIA effectiveness, (both military and politically) much can be said about this issue, but i will just say this that it is likely going to be like a bee stinging a bear, (given the massive size of annexed Canada)

Sure its painful and annoying to deal with but not a effective deterrent to the larger goal at hand, a couple of bombings in Canada or North East United States, Quebec or Texas or shootings no matter how frequent (or how successful) or going to change anything, and bear in mind you have to keep US public perception in mind, dead Americans on their own soil is not going to be meet hands down given this TL bloody history.

Apologies in advance for any spelling or sentence errors I'm writing this in a hurry before i have to leave