Faeelin
Banned
One assumes the British supported the deal, right? It's a French puppet selling territory to a British client.
TL-191: If you are Rosecrans, win the Second Mexican War!
- Thread starter BiteNibbleChomp
- Start date
One assumes the British supported the deal, right? It's a French puppet selling territory to a British client.
Faeelin
Banned
The British are mobilizing all out for a war with the USA over Sonora?
Man, I gotta say, the Yankees were totes right to join the Kaiser in feasting on the Empire.
bguy
Donor
How likely are the British to be willing to fully mobilize though? There's no vital British interest at stake in this conflict if the U.S. doesn't attack Canada and helping a slave power expand its territory is going to be deeply unpopular in Britain even before the war sends the cost of grain skyrocketing in Britain. (Which it inevitably will. OTL the British were seriously dependent on U.S. grain exports in the 1880s as 62.8% of their population was dependent on grain imports, and the British imported almost twice as much grain from the U.S. as they did from Russia, Germany, Canada, India, Australia, and Argentina combined). Nor is there any reason to believe the British are any less dependent on U.S. grain exports in TL-191 circa 1881. (Given how accommodating the U.S. was to the Confederates pre-Blaine, the British had no reason to develop alternative sources of supply prior to the Second Mexican War.)
http://www.economics.ku.dk/research/publications/wp/2004/0428.pdf pg. 8
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...VSwCm8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=1,753,000&f=false p. 18
For an already deeply unpopular war, adding an expensive mass mobilization and a commitment to a major land campaign in North America could easily bring down whatever government proposed it.
Also, realistically if the British blockade the U.S. coastline (and thus lose access to U.S. grain exports) then they are pretty much going to have to strip India bare to prevent massive food riots in the British Isles. Remember the British are losing out on 1,753,000 tons of U.S. grain which is keeping 40% of the population of the British Isles alive. There's only going to be so much surplus grain floating around the world market, so the British are almost certainly going to have to resort to mass expropriation of Indian food supplies to make up the difference and prevent mass starvation in Britain. And stealing Indian food supplies is going to mean massive unrest in India. So the British are going to have to keep a large amount of their army stationed in India unless they want to lose the crown jewel of their empire.
Also, would Canada even have the logistical infrastructure necessary to sustain a 400,000 man army in 1881? That's an awful lot of troops for a country that only has 4 million people in it.
I agree, but why commit to a major land campaign when you can effectively hobble the U.S. simply by utilizing your vast navy to blockade its coastline and let the Confederates do all the ground fighting.
Why would Clemens have a problem with the U.S. establishing a a pro-US regime in the Sierra Madre region? The U.S. strategic position is stronger with a friendly puppet government in control of that territory then with having the Confederates or the Imperial Mexicans controlling it.
May I please ask if there is any consensus on the strength of the US Regular Army at the start of the Second Mexican War?
This seems an important point to clarify, because if I remember correctly General Rosecrans made reliance upon Regulars over Volunteer regiments a key element of his War Plan: it has been some years since I last read HOW FEW REMAIN but I distinctly recall that Mr Roosevelt encountered difficulties getting his Unauthorised Regiment taken on strength because the US Army felt that it already had more than enough manpower to do the job - and while Peace Democrats ruled the roost between the War of Secession and the War of 1881, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that the Regular Army would have been somewhat larger in the face of a serious potential threat from The South.
Thus the precise strength of the Regular Army might seriously impact the US Army's planning at the onset of the Second Mexican War.
This seems an important point to clarify, because if I remember correctly General Rosecrans made reliance upon Regulars over Volunteer regiments a key element of his War Plan: it has been some years since I last read HOW FEW REMAIN but I distinctly recall that Mr Roosevelt encountered difficulties getting his Unauthorised Regiment taken on strength because the US Army felt that it already had more than enough manpower to do the job - and while Peace Democrats ruled the roost between the War of Secession and the War of 1881, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that the Regular Army would have been somewhat larger in the face of a serious potential threat from The South.
Thus the precise strength of the Regular Army might seriously impact the US Army's planning at the onset of the Second Mexican War.
Another question I would like to add into the mix - assuming that the Second Mexican War begins in late June of 1881 (Turtledove Wiki gives the dates 25 June 1881-April 22 1882, but I cannot recall if these dates are correct) just how long a campaigning season can both sides reasonably expect? (while the Campaigning Season wasn't quite so hard and fast in the 19th Century as had previously been the case, one imagines that the weather would have SOME impact on the scale & scope of operations).
Good possibility is the CSA fail to vote on freeing the slaves, London hangs the South out to dry, and the Union wins big. In this case...
No Remembrance Movement.
The Republicans stay the big power in the United States. Socialists stay in Third Place.
This could weaken Imperial Mexcio to the point of the Republicans making a come back, and kicking Maximilian.
South ends up as either a basketcase, or form ties with the German Empire. (Never really dealt with slavery in the past so...)
So ATL Great War is Allaince of the Union, France, Russia, and United Kingdom vs Germany, a much more militarist CSA, and the other CP.
No Remembrance Movement.
The Republicans stay the big power in the United States. Socialists stay in Third Place.
This could weaken Imperial Mexcio to the point of the Republicans making a come back, and kicking Maximilian.
South ends up as either a basketcase, or form ties with the German Empire. (Never really dealt with slavery in the past so...)
So ATL Great War is Allaince of the Union, France, Russia, and United Kingdom vs Germany, a much more militarist CSA, and the other CP.
These are right. Remembrance day is April 22, as is said on one of the last pages. 25 June comes an ultimatum early on, where Blaine says the CSA have ten days to leave, and that action is said to take place on June 14, therefore ten days would be June 24, and we assume it started the day after the ultimatum expired.
Until October/November, and then beginning in March or so?
That's not in the control of Rosecrans, and would happen after the war anyway. The point of this thread is to discuss how the US wins, not so much what happens afterwards.
- BNC.
Britain had the same problem in 1861 and there was a poor harvest in Russia that year. So, either she overcome it or Turtledove ignore it. Me thinks the latter
, but for the PoD to have worked she must have done so.South Africa had an extra poorer infrastructure for 347,000. Also we know that the British had done some planning; there are references to their own transcontinental railway.
Clemens had a problem with Blaine and anything that the President did.
In 1862, Lincoln gave up because of the threat of a war with England. The Empire never actually declared war.
And what is his word worth anyway? He's part of one newspaper, and it isn't even a national one.
- BNC
bguy
Donor
OTL Britain was much less dependent on U.S. grain in the 1860s than it was in the 1880s. (British domestic agriculture was stronger in the 1860s, and the German states hadn't really started to industrialize yet and thus were still exporting large amounts of food.)
Lets look at the numbers (relying on the same two sources I cited in post 23.)
In the 1860s, 34.8% of the British population was dependent on foreign wheat imports. And for the period of time from 1858 to 1862 the British obtained approximately 38.4% of their grain imports from the United States. Thus that would mean approximately 13.36% of the British population was dependent on U.S. grain imports. That's not a great situation for the British but just compare it to their situation in the 1880s.
By the 1880s, 62.8% of the British population is dependent on foreign wheat imports. And for the period of time from 1878 to 1882 the British obtained approximately 63% of their grain imports from the United States. Thus means that approximately 39.56% of the British population is now dependent on U.S. grain imports. Almost three times the percentage that was dependent on U.S. grain in the 1860s.
So while losing access to U.S. grain would have been painful to the British in the 1860s, it is catastrophic in the 1880s.
So, either she overcome it or Turtledove ignore it. Me thinks the latter
Agreed, but for all we know the British overcame the loss of U.S. grain by stripping India bare and thus necessarily have most of their army deployed in India. (Certainly we never see the British send a large army to North America in How Few Remain which is consistent with the idea that the bulk of the British Army was being used elsewhere.)