Wasn't Carter Glass also Confederate Secretary of the Treasury prior to the Great War?
Last edited:
TL-191: Filling the Gaps
- Thread starter Craigo
- Start date
I want to thank President Mahan and bguy for helping me with the 1885 election article. 
Without all that info, the article wouldn't have come out nearly as good. It's not finished with it yet though, and I hope to have it up this weekend.
I also want to welcome J.J.Jameson88 to the board and this thread. The more contributors the better. I do like your list of Confederate Secretaries of State as well, despite some errors. Heres an improved list based on what others such as Craigo and President Mahan have already stated in this thread. I also replaced Clyde Barrow, who would have been only 24 in 1934, with Sam Rayburn.
Lastly, who's William Fearn? I looked him up on Google and got nothing. Is he fictional or was his actual name misspelled?
List of Secretaries of State of the Confederate States of America
Robert Toombs (Democratic) (1861-1861)
Robert M.T. Hunter (Democratic) (1861-1862)
Judah P. Benjamin (Whig) (1862-1868)
John C. Breckenridge (Whig) (1868-1874)
Ambrose Dudley Mann (Whig) (1874-1880)
James D. Porter (Whig) (1880-1886)
Richard Snowden Andrews (Whig) (1886-1892)
John Tyler Morgan (Whig) (1892-1898)
Walker Fearn (Whig) (1898-1904)
Braxton Bragg II (Whig) (1904-1910) [1]
Thomas Watt Gregory (Whig) (1910-1916)
Henry D. Flood (Whig) (1916-1921) †
Claude A. Swanson (Whig) (1921-1922)
Alben W. Barkley (Whig) (1922-1928)
Daniel C. Roper (Whig) (1928-1934)
Sam Rayburn (Whig) (1934-1937)
George Herbet Walker (Freedom) (1937-1944) [2]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Fictional
[2] Position abolished
Without all that info, the article wouldn't have come out nearly as good. It's not finished with it yet though, and I hope to have it up this weekend.I also want to welcome J.J.Jameson88 to the board and this thread. The more contributors the better. I do like your list of Confederate Secretaries of State as well, despite some errors. Heres an improved list based on what others such as Craigo and President Mahan have already stated in this thread. I also replaced Clyde Barrow, who would have been only 24 in 1934, with Sam Rayburn.
Lastly, who's William Fearn? I looked him up on Google and got nothing. Is he fictional or was his actual name misspelled?
List of Secretaries of State of the Confederate States of America
Robert Toombs (Democratic) (1861-1861)
Robert M.T. Hunter (Democratic) (1861-1862)
Judah P. Benjamin (Whig) (1862-1868)
John C. Breckenridge (Whig) (1868-1874)
Ambrose Dudley Mann (Whig) (1874-1880)
James D. Porter (Whig) (1880-1886)
Richard Snowden Andrews (Whig) (1886-1892)
John Tyler Morgan (Whig) (1892-1898)
Walker Fearn (Whig) (1898-1904)
Braxton Bragg II (Whig) (1904-1910) [1]
Thomas Watt Gregory (Whig) (1910-1916)
Henry D. Flood (Whig) (1916-1921) †
Claude A. Swanson (Whig) (1921-1922)
Alben W. Barkley (Whig) (1922-1928)
Daniel C. Roper (Whig) (1928-1934)
Sam Rayburn (Whig) (1934-1937)
George Herbet Walker (Freedom) (1937-1944) [2]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Fictional
[2] Position abolished
Last edited:
That's my bad. His name was Walker Fearn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Fearn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Fearn
I want to thank President Mahan and bguy for helping me with the 1885 election article.
I also want to welcome J.J.Jameson88 to the board and this thread. The more contributors the better. I do like your list of Confederate Secretaries of State as well, despite some errors. Heres an improved list based on what others such as Craigo and President Mahan have already stated in this thread. I also replaced Clyde Barrow, who would have been only 24 in 1934, with Sam Rayburn.
Lastly, who's William Fearn? I looked him up on Google and got nothing. Is he fictional or was his actual name misspelled?
List of Secretaries of State of the Confederate States of America
Robert Toombs (Democratic) (1861-1861)
Robert M.T. Hunter (Democratic) (1861-1862)
Judah P. Benjamin (Whig) (1862-1868)
John C. Breckenridge (Whig) (1868-1874)
Ambrose Dudley Mann (Whig) (1874-1880)
James D. Porter (Whig) (1880-1886)
Richard Snowden Andrews (Whig) (1886-1892)
John Tyler Morgan (Whig) (1892-1898)
Walker Fearn (Whig) (1898-1904)
Braxton Bragg II (Whig) (1904-1910) [1]
Thomas Watt Gregory (Whig) (1910-1916)
Henry D. Flood (Whig) (1916-1921) †
Claude A. Swanson (Whig) (1921-1922)
Alben W. Barkley (Whig) (1922-1928)
Daniel C. Roper (Whig) (1928-1934)
Sam Rayburn (Whig) (1934-1937)
George Herbet Walker (Freedom) (1937-1944) [2]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Fictional
[2] Position abolished
someone needs to explain the Whig Sam Rayburn as Secretary of State from 1934-1937.Was featherston trying to reassure the US by making a relatively whig dove Secretary of State? Maybe thats why Featherston sent Anne Colleton as the unofficial (official) ambassador to france in victorious opposition. To create plausible deniability, she is only there as a concerened citizen?
Gaius Julius Magnus
Gone Fishin'
Well Rayburn was from Texas, maybe he was a Redemptionist and Willy Knight ally and got the job to keep the Redemptionists happy. Then when Featherston felt more secure in his position began removing Redemptionists from office, being another reason why Knight felt a reason to launch a coup.
Last edited:
bguy
Donor
Or it could be the exact opposite. Since the Freedom Party is weak in Texas compared to the Redemption League, Featherston might be trying to coopt the Texas Whigs so as to have a faction there that will be loyal to him rather than Knight.
Giving a Whig a major Cabinet post would also probably go a long way towards reassuring the Whigs that they could work with Featherston and thus greatly reduce the chances of the Whig dominated military launching a coup against Featherston.
Gaius Julius Magnus
Gone Fishin'
Actually that seems like a good idea. Featherston would want to build a power-base in Texas independent of Knight.
Confederate Texas needs a post. It has to occupy a interesting position in the CSA. If any of the southern states ever threatened Secession from the CSA it would have been Texas. After the treaty ending the Great War and the chaos in the CSA, there had to have been Texans that wanted to leave the CSA. I can imagine that Texas' declaration of independence in 1944 was more than just rats jumping off a sinking ship.
Last edited:
All this stuff makes sense and is great. In reading Return Engagement it appeared to me that the french invasion occurred before the combined British and French assaults in the north, but I may be wrong. Either way I would love to see what else you have. I will not be able to finish my Final Dutch post until After March 1st.
I am interested in what everyone thinks the French Airforce might look like? Would they have built four engine bombers and attacking German cities or do they leave that to the British. With most of Europe effectively neutral its has to look considerably different then OTL WW2.
France probably has more of a tactical air force like Germany of OTL. Britain has the same aircraft as OTL. Japan's aircraft are probably more British inspired due to their alliance lasting longer in TTL.
Thanks Mahan I'm working on stuff just been swamped by this cursed creature we refer to RL... from what I've been dealing with I would swear that ASB came from OTL.
I would imagine France is focusing on a tactical air force as they have only have the real focus of reclaiming Alsace and Lorraine and Britain being an island would be much more easily able to focus on bombers freeing up French industry to focus purely on an air force that would enable them to quickly best the German Army, which may be why in later years when the fighting as ground down Britain was becoming the more senior partner, they are now able to do more against Germany then France is.
The real sticking point then anything else is the name of French and British Commanders. Obviously big personalities like Montgomery and DuGalle will be present but I also imagine British commanders who liked the idea of mobile warfare and use of tanks/barrels would be more prominent like Hobart and Hart while on the German side officers like Guderian and Manstein are less prominent until the German General Staff see just how potent dedicated armored forces and thrusts are.
Recall since the war ended in 1917 before the Germans Spring Offensives and the mass use of sturmtruppen tactics the German military are probably still infantry obsessed since it's mentioned they barely used armor and they might believe they don't need to since they won the last war despite massive use of armor by the Entente.
I'm working on stuff just been swamped by this cursed creature we refer to RL... from what I've been dealing with I would swear that ASB came from OTL.I would imagine France is focusing on a tactical air force as they have only have the real focus of reclaiming Alsace and Lorraine and Britain being an island would be much more easily able to focus on bombers freeing up French industry to focus purely on an air force that would enable them to quickly best the German Army, which may be why in later years when the fighting as ground down Britain was becoming the more senior partner, they are now able to do more against Germany then France is.
The real sticking point then anything else is the name of French and British Commanders. Obviously big personalities like Montgomery and DuGalle will be present but I also imagine British commanders who liked the idea of mobile warfare and use of tanks/barrels would be more prominent like Hobart and Hart while on the German side officers like Guderian and Manstein are less prominent until the German General Staff see just how potent dedicated armored forces and thrusts are.
Recall since the war ended in 1917 before the Germans Spring Offensives and the mass use of sturmtruppen tactics the German military are probably still infantry obsessed since it's mentioned they barely used armor and they might believe they don't need to since they won the last war despite massive use of armor by the Entente.
Last edited:
Thanks Mahan
I would imagine France is focusing on a tactical air force as they have only have the real focus of reclaiming Alsace and Lorraine and Britain being an island would be much more easily able to focus on bombers freeing up French industry to focus purely on an air force that would enable them to quickly best the German Army, which may be why in later years when the fighting as ground down Britain was becoming the more senior partner, they are now able to do more against Germany then France is.
Agreed on the French Airforce. France was by far the largest producer of Aircraft engines during OTL Great War, but I agree they will be focusing on tactical airpower.
I read a really interesting book this summer called the Psychology of Military Failure. It was written by a former British Army Engineering Captian who went on to be a clynical psychologist. In it he goes through the Big British Army Disiasters of the Last two hundred years, Like the Boer War, Somme, Cambrai (most people forget Cambrai was a huge disaster for the british), Market Garden and Siege of Singapore. He then focused on the leadership failures and personalities of the commanders to see if there were a common thread. A big sticking point was yhe problem of British promoting based obviously on family history and obedience to orders. Good Subordinates were always marketed for success as a posed to innovative thinkers or intellectuals. He points to the failures of the British Army in 1940 were the result of the Army after the war forced out anyone who was not in the army before the war and any of the innovative battlefield commanders, especially men like F.C. Fuller and Liddell Hart. Fuller planned the initial armored thrust of Cambrai and was planning a massive armored attack in 1919. He and Liddell were planning all mechanized corps in the early 1920s.In OTL the army still clung to weapons that were prestigious for class reason, thats why horse cavalry was getting more funding then Armored units until the late 1930s. To have been that successfull in 1941, the british army would have to be extremely different, than OTL. Lots of dead wood would have to go, This is a round about way of saying, i think Fuller and Liddell Hart are still in the Army and pretty high up.
The sturmtruppen tactics were in use in the battle of Verdun. Ludendorff was one of there biggest proponents, by 1917 he was using them throughout the eastern front. If he stays Chief of Staff after the war it would become the standard. In OTL the German Army organized Sturmtruppen Battalions because they did not have enough men left between 18-30. The storm troop battalions were there to train the other units in there Brigades to their standard. The Germans really wanted the entire Amry to be to their standard, but again they lacked the young men.
Thats why the German Army was so successful in 1940, because they were a whole army trained to that standard. I also read a really interesting quote about Ludendorff. As early as 1916 he was saying "the only way for the tank to be affective is to mass them, but it does not matter because we win without them." Ludendorff got how to employ tanks, he just knew Germany lacked the resource to build them. Even in OTL WW2 the Germans never built as many tanks as their enemies and still won alot of battles with less tanks then their enemies. In WW1 the German Army was way quicker to embrace innovation then the allies, one of the reasons is because they gave young junior officers important responsibilities. Ludendorff was a LTC at the outbreak of th war and was incharge of planning the destruction of the Forts in Belgium. I bet the German army ahs more older officers then it would in OTL, but its not in the same shape as the French and British Officer Corp was in 1940. That is probably why they were able to finally turn back the Entente, instead of collapsing.
Anyway this is some of the stuff I was thinking about last night when I couldnt sleep.
Market Garden successful? Dar God, Montgomery in thei TL191 must be a well-regarded genius.
Monty won't be in command of this version of Market Garden nor are the British and French facing off against the Germans.
If we are going on the assumption that Churchill and Mosley purged the British Army if its dead wood and "old gentlemen's club" during the 1930s like Action Francaise did to the French Army, then we can safely assume that Hobart Percy, Liddel Hart and F.C. Fuller are high ranking during this initial thrust.
Once work stops kicking my ass I'll post the bulk of my ideas for the Anglo-Franco thrust through Belgium and then through the Netherlands.
My thinking for why the Germans were forced to retreat but didn't outright collapse was the fact they weren't expecting, like in WWI, the Russians to be as mobilized as they did as fast as they did, so Germany was forced to rush forces to stop them. They also weren't expecting the mutiny of the Ukrainian Army that apparently happened. The British and French still achieved a huge tactical surprise, but the training and professionalism of the German Army is going to be apparent with the fact they are able to, for the most part, able to retreat in order. Once they "somewhat" were able to stabilize the line in the east, they were able to turn around and push the British back to at least the Rhine River... I can't recall whether it was in 1942 or 1943 that the Germans finally succeeded in pushing Britain out of Germany and the Netherlands entirely... I'll have to look into it. I THINK the, at this point, primarily British thrust towards Hamburg was still a going concern to the Germans in 1942, but again, I can't recall yet.
nor are the British and French facing off against the Germans.If we are going on the assumption that Churchill and Mosley purged the British Army if its dead wood and "old gentlemen's club" during the 1930s like Action Francaise did to the French Army, then we can safely assume that Hobart Percy, Liddel Hart and F.C. Fuller are high ranking during this initial thrust.
Once work stops kicking my ass I'll post the bulk of my ideas for the Anglo-Franco thrust through Belgium and then through the Netherlands.
My thinking for why the Germans were forced to retreat but didn't outright collapse was the fact they weren't expecting, like in WWI, the Russians to be as mobilized as they did as fast as they did, so Germany was forced to rush forces to stop them. They also weren't expecting the mutiny of the Ukrainian Army that apparently happened. The British and French still achieved a huge tactical surprise, but the training and professionalism of the German Army is going to be apparent with the fact they are able to, for the most part, able to retreat in order. Once they "somewhat" were able to stabilize the line in the east, they were able to turn around and push the British back to at least the Rhine River... I can't recall whether it was in 1942 or 1943 that the Germans finally succeeded in pushing Britain out of Germany and the Netherlands entirely... I'll have to look into it. I THINK the, at this point, primarily British thrust towards Hamburg was still a going concern to the Germans in 1942, but again, I can't recall yet.
Monty won't be in command of this version of Market Garden
If we are going on the assumption that Churchill and Mosley purged the British Army if its dead wood and "old gentlemen's club" during the 1930s like Action Francaise did to the French Army, then we can safely assume that Hobart Percy, Liddel Hart and F.C. Fuller are high ranking during this initial thrust.
Once work stops kicking my ass I'll post the bulk of my ideas for the Anglo-Franco thrust through Belgium and then through the Netherlands.
My thinking for why the Germans were forced to retreat but didn't outright collapse was the fact they weren't expecting, like in WWI, the Russians to be as mobilized as they did as fast as they did, so Germany was forced to rush forces to stop them. They also weren't expecting the mutiny of the Ukrainian Army that apparently happened. The British and French still achieved a huge tactical surprise, but the training and professionalism of the German Army is going to be apparent with the fact they are able to, for the most part, able to retreat in order. Once they "somewhat" were able to stabilize the line in the east, they were able to turn around and push the British back to at least the Rhine River... I can't recall whether it was in 1942 or 1943 that the Germans finally succeeded in pushing Britain out of Germany and the Netherlands entirely... I'll have to look into it. I THINK the, at this point, primarily British thrust towards Hamburg was still a going concern to the Germans in 1942, but again, I can't recall yet.
All I was getting at with my last post was I don't expect the German Army to deteriate the same way the British and French Army did in 1940. (well in the french case it was pretty much as bad as it was in the last war).
At the Turtledove Wiki they have this to say about 1943: "By 1943, the German Army had driven Anglo/French forces out of their territory and over the Dutch border. Subsequent operations were undertaken to free the Netherlands and "liberate" Belgium from Franco-British forces. In the east, German armored units dealt a decisive blow to Russian forces outside of Kiev, tightening German control in the area. Another thrust was aimed at the capital of Petrograd, which the Russians tried unsuccessfully to turn back. Russia was no longer able to mount offensive operations, now trying to defend their Motherland with a battered and wounded army. Austria-Hungary was wracked by terrorist attacks but continued reprisals against the Serbians. The United States began running guns to Irish rebels in their fight against the British occupiers."
I remember the talk about the drive towards Warsaw and the Germans being able to drive the Russians back. Craigos Lettow Vorbeck Article has a good deal on the eastern front fighting. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=3142192&postcount=78
I am not quite sure who would be the soldiers to rebuild the French Army. De Gaulle was ahead of his time. Petain was the most competent French General of the Great War, but he was an infantry proponent and in the is time was smeared by the defeat at Verdun.
Here is a French early tank proponent. J.E. Estienne bY 1922 he was calling for the creation of a 100,000 man forces equipped with 4,000 tanks and 8,000 transports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Eugène_Estienne
In Victorious Opposition Anne Colletons POV says Action Francais was the quickest in implementing political and military reforms. Though they found it hard to re-arm because of Frances limited size. I assume the loss of coal fields and industrial areas around Lorraine also was an issue.
Looks good.
I've also had the thought the reasons the Russians still rely on swarming infantry tactics with supporting tanks is the Monarchist victory during the Civil War. They would have killed many prominent Soviet strategists and theorists that made the Red Army so effective in the later years, so not Zhukov, Chuikov, Konev or any other of the favorites.
After Tsar Mikhail's victory in the Civil War the military would have been one of the most powerful organizations within Russia, having been the ones who won the war and kept Mikhail on the throne. However following the Stock Market Collapse in 29, Mikhail was able to use it as an excuse to purge the military and his government of any of his rivals.
Although it ensured Mikhail was sure of himself, and had a mostly rebuilt military and government by the time 41 came around, it was now filled with yes men who ultimately flopped the war... completely. And the Germans gladly made them pay for it.
Oh yeah most of the competent officers went over to the Bolshevicks. Brusilov had been collecting most of the tallented officers and took them with him. Also Red Army infantry tactics in WW2 were not that different from the WWI tactics. They just had more tanks, trucks and artillery, they will probably have less of those in OTL.
One of the over looked aspect of The Soviet war effert was how much they relied on equipment from the US and even Britain. 40% of the tanks the russians used through the war were american made. Stalin just killed anyone who photographed russian troops using this equipment. Most of the trucks they used were american built. I lent the book I have on the ubject to my dad. It would make sense that a russian army would run out of equipment after two years. Russian industry would be smaller but it would be more efficient.
On the other side of the lines the German Industries would definitely be better off without Hitler's cronies setting up little fiefdoms and interfering with procurement. Craigo in the Vorbeck article lists Todt as one of the giants of GW2. Would he be the Armaments minister I can't see him being a General.
One of the over looked aspect of The Soviet war effert was how much they relied on equipment from the US and even Britain. 40% of the tanks the russians used through the war were american made. Stalin just killed anyone who photographed russian troops using this equipment. Most of the trucks they used were american built. I lent the book I have on the ubject to my dad. It would make sense that a russian army would run out of equipment after two years. Russian industry would be smaller but it would be more efficient.
On the other side of the lines the German Industries would definitely be better off without Hitler's cronies setting up little fiefdoms and interfering with procurement. Craigo in the Vorbeck article lists Todt as one of the giants of GW2. Would he be the Armaments minister I can't see him being a General.
