One minor butterfly - chiropractic either wouldn't exist, or it'd be very obscure. The founder of chiropractic was a Canadian, who moved to the US after the Civil War. Since UK-US relations would be much worse in TL191 than OTL, he might remain in Canada, and given how much smaller Canada's population is than America's, he'd likely find only a small audience. And after America conquered Canada during GW1, I doubt many Americans would be interested in some weird Canadian alternative medicine.
TL-191: Filling the Gaps
- Thread starter Craigo
- Start date
Agreed. It always struck me as odd that there's zero mention of this in Settling Accounts, I mean it's right there but hey I suppose we need to know Virginia tobacco is best right
Not directly related to TL-191, but most, if not all, of the events in Europe that happened in Kaiserreich would be very similar in TL-191 Europe.
Crossposting to here for the first question; may be better answered here.
As the US barely had enough troops to occupy Canada as a whole I doubt the indigenous Canadians even entered into their calculations unless their reserves were located close to a major population centre or rail line. If they were close, they were treated no different then any Canadian and were occupied likely.
If they weren't, the Americans are going to bother dealing with them at first.
Without federal government funding/support from lack of a federal government in Ottawa the residential schools are probably shut down unless the Catholic School wants to pay for them themselves... which is extremely unlikely.
It's possible that if anything Ottawa tried to have a better relationship with their indigenous people if for no other reason Canada couldn't afford to sacrifice any viable populations of Canadians at all, and probably got reports from Richmond about how successful their relationship with the Five Civilized Tribes were.
If they weren't, the Americans are going to bother dealing with them at first.
Without federal government funding/support from lack of a federal government in Ottawa the residential schools are probably shut down unless the Catholic School wants to pay for them themselves... which is extremely unlikely.
It's possible that if anything Ottawa tried to have a better relationship with their indigenous people if for no other reason Canada couldn't afford to sacrifice any viable populations of Canadians at all, and probably got reports from Richmond about how successful their relationship with the Five Civilized Tribes were.
The United Kingdom in the Southern Victory HOI4 mod
"New Party" is the official name of Mosley's party
Which mod is this for? There's a few mods for TL-191.
guys question after the first great war how far off the railload lines would the union forces in canada be my head canon says the further north into canada the garrision forces may only be gaurding the settlements on the lines because of how remote anything else in the northrn most sections of the country.
That's almost certainly correct. The US Army would have it's greatest presence in the more populated areas. I the north of Canada, beyond the main east-west rail lines, they could likely have only battalion and company size units stationed in larger towns or villages. In fact, that could likely be the impetus for the development of airborne or air transportable units, to enable them to rapidly move reinforcements around.
There's only one these days. Its just called Southern Victory, here's our discord; https://discord.gg/dxB5mdX
If I was to guess the US held garrisons in almost every town along rail lines and then major hubs where HQs would be.
General Custer complained that he didn't have a lot of troops in Canada, with his exact comment being he had less troops under his command then he would have lost in an average medium sized battle of the Great War. I don't doubt that after the rebellion the US Army was allowed to beef up its detachments but still overall isn't huge.
Going along with my guess the US Occupation of Canada mildly looked like this
Occupation HQ: Winnipeg
(While likely done for literary reasons Winnipeg was now more central to Canada with the Maritimes and Canada on the other side of the Republic of Quebec (also notable that Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces were the only areas not explicitly mentioned to have rebelled during the rebellion of the 1920s or 40s)
1st Occupation Brigade - Covers Ontario
HQ: London
Major Garrisons: Berlin, Toronto, Ottawa, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Niagara
2nd Occupation Brigare - Covers the Praries
HQ: Winnipeg
Major Garrisons: Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary
3rd Occupation Brigade - Covers mainland BC
HQ: Kamloops
Major Garrisons: Banff, Vancouver, Surrey
Minor Garrison forces would likely be on Vancouver Island but don't he surprised by the Navy is doing that and are only really occupying Victoria because of the Naval Base.
In addition there would be major Naval and Marine Garrisons in St. John's and Halifax while the Republic of Quebec probably assisted with the Occupation of Northern New Brunswick (while not on the map wouldn't be surprised of the Acadian north of the province and Labrador was given to Quebec after the war. To annex)
Adding onto my prior point to address something else;
It's unlikely that it would have hurried air transportation yet until the Battle of Chattanooga; airplanes at the time could hold 30 people if you were lucky so you could transport in a lightly equipped Platoon if you're lucky if it's an area that is in open rebellion. It would still be more economical (which mattered in the 20s and 30s) to simply use a train and move a full Regiment to put down a Regiment, then waste what few air assets the US Army has for air transport to move a Platoon that may get shortly there after over run
It's unlikely that it would have hurried air transportation yet until the Battle of Chattanooga; airplanes at the time could hold 30 people if you were lucky so you could transport in a lightly equipped Platoon if you're lucky if it's an area that is in open rebellion. It would still be more economical (which mattered in the 20s and 30s) to simply use a train and move a full Regiment to put down a Regiment, then waste what few air assets the US Army has for air transport to move a Platoon that may get shortly there after over run
I think you underestimate things. First of all, while a plane can carry a platoon, that doesn't necessarily mean lightly equipped. Platoons will have machineguns, and likely a light mortar. Planes can also fit equipment like light infantry guns of 3in or smaller caliber, depending on the sort (something like the WWII German and Soviet and Japanese weapons of that sort). The Germans proved at Crete that you can transport enough equipment in a plane for a division to fight and win against more heavily equipped enemies (and ones much better trained than your average partisan). The Rhodesian Army used units as small as individual fire teams without much difficulty against much greater numbers (albeit they did have more advanced communications equipment and better capability for air support)
Second, a platoon isn't necessarily going to be overrun. What i was referring to was use of aircraft to ferry troops around the country to reinforce areas. And in the sort of areas where you would use a single platoon, the rebels you are fighting aren't likely to be able to muster the troops to overrun a dug in garrison of even platoon size.
Thirdly....Chattanooga was the end result of American experimentation with air mobility, not the catalyst. In order to land several divisions worth of paratroopers in an area like Lookout Mountain would necessarily require at least a few years of experimentation with parachutists and air transported light infantry, and the practical experience that comes with it. The Germans didn't just capture Eben Enmael, Crete, and overrun the Netherlands after just picking a few thousand men and giving them a few training jumps. We got paratroops and air tranportation down reasonably quickly, but had a lot of proof of concept work already done by our enemies and allies.
Definitely some similarities and similar strategies; focus on the population centre's and rail lines.
The critical difference is that Canada has a population significantly less then the US; anywhere Japanese garrison wasn't in Japanese occupied China was a relatively large Chinese population. The biggest problem with occupying Canada is that the nation (even with Quebec cut out of it) is absurdly stupidly big. While a giant chunk is empty or sparsely populated even anything it let's Canadian rebels hide weapons, supplies and men with ease. The US is probably keeping the equal of a Division MAYBE two to occupy the entire Nation... thats 30ish thousand combat effective to occupy the second largest country in the world.
I am imagining after the Second Great War, the US Government is going to be accelerating plans to formally annex or admit Canadian provinces as States to ease the sheer amount of troops they need to keep up north to focus on occupying the far more populated, and militantly resistant former Confederacy.
The US probably heavily encouraged US settlers to move into these sparely populated regions to build a base of loyalists in case of rebellion broke out.
So, how does the Ottoman Empire fair in the interwar period and into the Second Great War. They are said to have allied with Germany again, and so join the war.
Do we foresee the Ottomans finally collapsing during the war? Or once again staving off death at least until the post war era?
My own guess is that the Ottomans can’t remain afloat for much longer. In the aftermath of the First Great War we get an idea of what’s going on through the reference of the Armenian genocide. I’ll wager that during the 1920s and 1930s the Ottomans are essentially looking inward, trying to stamp out rebellion and dissent while trying to reform the Empire, if it can.
Perhaps the Arab movements for independence aren’t strong enough on their own post First Great War, but I don’t foresee the Ottomans having an easy time.
During the Second Great War, things could get ugly here. British Egypt is west, Persia to the east, and Russia to the North. Most definitely another Arab uprising would take place, while the British attempt to retread ground they covered in the first war.
Do we foresee the Ottomans finally collapsing during the war? Or once again staving off death at least until the post war era?
My own guess is that the Ottomans can’t remain afloat for much longer. In the aftermath of the First Great War we get an idea of what’s going on through the reference of the Armenian genocide. I’ll wager that during the 1920s and 1930s the Ottomans are essentially looking inward, trying to stamp out rebellion and dissent while trying to reform the Empire, if it can.
Perhaps the Arab movements for independence aren’t strong enough on their own post First Great War, but I don’t foresee the Ottomans having an easy time.
During the Second Great War, things could get ugly here. British Egypt is west, Persia to the east, and Russia to the North. Most definitely another Arab uprising would take place, while the British attempt to retread ground they covered in the first war.
I honestly hadn't even seen that you had responded so sorry for the late delay on the response here!
I don't underestimate Airborne, I'd like to nip that in the bud, I meant more so how useful it would have been in Canada, or even on the scale of large scale transportation in the United States; Canada is stupidly big. The Aircraft that would be transported aren't fast as fast as they are today (obviously) and for the amount of troops they can transport/drop, those troops may end up being alone for days until serious reinforcements can be brought in via rail. This would work absolutely for smaller communities where a small platoon probably could overrun them, but if the garrison in say Edmonton gets the boot (like what happened during the Second Canadian Rebellion because as I recall they mentioned the Quebec occupation troops essentially got routed and kicked completely out of Winnipeg as an example) you aren't going to want to just send in a platoon of Paratroopers, they would be focusing on moving large scale troops via rail. But then, that's just my opinion, I don't doubt that Air Mobile troops weren't experimented with. Part of my head canon of the European Front of the Second Great War would have seen the British and Germans both using Paratroopers to some degree and that's what inspired General Morrell to use Paratroopers of his own.
Honestly I see the Ottomans much like the Austro-Hungarian Empire; they are Germany's allies and can rely on German support, but are barely functioning dealing with so much internal trouble. During the Interwar Period, I imagine the Ottomans are keeping just enough garrisons in their far flung provinces to keep the peace (Palestine is mentioned as being an extremely sleepy Ottoman province with just enough troops to collect taxes and keep the peace) while dealing with extremely internal revolts, much like Austia-Hungary. I honestly imagine that Austria-Hungary is even worse then the Ottomans.
The Ottomans don't sound like they were directly involved in the Second Great War, but stopped other nations from getting involved (it's mentioned that certain Balkan nations were wavering as German allies, but the threat of the Ottoman Empire basically kept them on side)
I'm betting whatever fighting was going in the Middle East in the SGW, was kept to local resistance movements. Britain was focusing, for the most part, at dealing with the US and German Navies in the Atlantic, and dealing directly with Germany on land in Western Europe.. they probably didn't have a lot of experienced troops to deal with the Ottomans and relied on Colonial troops that weren't being pressed into service for the European theatre. The Ottomans probably limp out of the interwar period and the SGW, but with the genie out of the bottle with Auto-Bombs and People Bombs... it's giving these nationalist groups all the weapons they need. I know its mentioned that people bombs were going off all over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and they were tettering as a nation, though I doubt Germany would let their closest European ally go anywhere.
I was not, of course, referring to the large cities. Those need large forces to overrun. I was referring solely to the useage of such air mobile troops for counter insurgency. Such tactics would be very effective in backwater areas where you are not going to be facing more than a hundred partisans total at one time. Canada is big, yes, but its also not in a position like some of the famously successful insurgencies, like the Viet Cong, where they had direct support from neighboring countries and were able to maintain thousands of troops in the back country using intricate supply routes. A battalion sized unit that can deploy detachments all over a large area could quickly stamp out resistance forces that have no defense against men descending from the skies, and can have their strongholds surrounded, or lines of retreat cut off.
Really, i think it ought to be the US that inspires others. In WWI, Billy Mitchell and Lewis Brereton conceived a plan to train troops for the first ever airborne operation, planned for February 1919. Now, I've heard others in thie thread suggesting Billy Mitchell as being more influential than he was otherwise, and iirc being a post war military governor or something along those lines, Further, its also been suggested that the Socialists might have turned to air power as a solution to maintain coverage while being able to reduce troop numbers. Combining these two factors, i think its very reasonable to suggest the United States Army being the first pioneer of airborne forces. And its not necessarily at odds with Europeans being involved in it. The US would be likely to use such troops more like the Germans and British did initially, as raiding forces intended for such counter insurgency work. Then the British could use them en masse in the Netherlands (a call back to the German usage of them in the same context) which then inspires the US Army to expand their cadre of a few battalions worth of paratroopers into a multi division force.
This has three advantages, I think. First...it sort of mirrors the real life back and forth where the combatants in WWII would trade improving on each others tactics back and forth. Second....it prevents Irving Morrell from being the genius that comes up with every important innovation in the US Army. And third.....being someone who has personally been to the Chattanooga area several times, I can say its extremely rugged in many places, and it would take some experienced paratroopers as pathfinders to set up drop zones in terrain like that.