TL-191: Plausibile/Possible Complete Confederate Occupation after First Great War.

Discussion in 'Alternate History Books and Media' started by Darth_Kiryan, Sep 6, 2019.

  1. Darth_Kiryan The NĂºmenorean Sith

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Location:
    AUS
    In How Few Remain, and the aftermath of the Second Mexican War, Theodore Roosevelt states that if elected President he "would never lose a war against the Confederate States". So suppose we dial this up to eleven with all the Revanchism and say that not only did Theodore Roosevelt and the United States defeat the Confederacy, but it also completely occupied it and reabsorbed it similar to how OTl after the Civil War and also how it was done in the final book of the series "In at the Death".

    A minor/major stipulation I am looking at here is that Canada is not occupied at all, merely defeated. So instead all the focus is on reuniting the US/CS. Ergo: The complete and utter dissolution of the Confederate States of America is achieve in World War 1.

    I would assume that there would be consistent terrorist attacks and continuous unrest, or even mass exodus - and perhaps if there is a Second Great War later on, there may even be some major "Snake Featherson Uprising".

    I am more or less interested in seeing if it can be plausibly done in Universe at this stage and what the after effects would be.
     
  2. Nathan Bernacki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2016
    The US was in a revenge-seeking mood in the First Great War. Britain had stopped them from beating the Confederacy not once, but twice. Occupying Canada was revenge for them helping the Confederacy in the Second Mexican War, so unless Eugene Debs wins in the 1916 election, I don't see the US letting Canada go scot-free after the First Great War. Then again, if Debs was President, then there would be no occupation of the Confederacy, so there's that.
     
  3. Thoresby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    It never really made sense to me that the Germans won the European section of the Great War, I get that Britain had to split it's resources but that wasn't going to weaken the North Sea blockade and Germany should have still starved into surrender as it did in OTL. Also while France had some problems in the aftermath of the Nivelle offensive it was nowhere near collapse. So you could have a Peace with a Germany forced by hunger and resource starvation to seek terms and a Confederacy collapsing under the weight of Union Armies but with Canada still holding out. The US has to trade away an potential gains in Canada to protect Germany from French revanchism but no one is willing to stand up for the Confederacy meaning it gets annexed.
     
  4. Pelranius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    The Entente in OTL relied on a lot of American supplies and finance. As in TL191, not only do they not have American support, Britain at least has to peel off ships and men to fight the United States in the Atlantic and Canada (not to mention a bunch of American raiders and submarines playing havoc with British trade).
     
  5. RamscoopRaider Some Sort of Were-Orca, probably an Akhlut Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Location:
    Newtown, CT
    The North sea Blockade did not become impenetrable until the US joined in OTL, the US stopped a lot of running at the source, it would be weaker than OTL. Germany did not starve into surrender, they ran out of reserves during the Hundred Days Offensive (with concurrent offensives elsewhere) and surrendered before their lines completely broke

    In 191 Italy decides to stay neutral, so A-H had a lot more resources to throw at Russia, and thus Germany somewhat more to throw at France. As such one would think quite logically France had to take more losses in '15 and '16 and thus has less manpower. With the British more limited in how many troops they could send, plus no 620,000 Canadians, the French still have to cover as much or more the OTL Western Front and likely take more casualties again. It's quite possible for the French to run out of manpower and the British be unable to cover, OTL they were planning on disbanding divisions in 1919 if the war continued and so were the British. If the French and British take more casualties than OTL that arrives faster, and the French running out of manpower in 1917 does not look implausible

    This does not even count what happens to the Race for the Sea if there are fewer British troops are available, there are not chances for the Germans to really outright win, but a 5 mile bulge at the right place, Bethune falls, French Coal Production, thus war production craters

    Canada is screwed long term, they, the CSA and Mexico have 2/3rds the US population while less than half the industry, and fundamentally everything west of Lake Nipigon is indefensible. Fundamentally defending the core of Canada (Peninsular Ontario and Quebec North of the St. Lawrence) requires a 500 mile perimeter, plus denying the US use of the Great Lakes, while the Geography is better for the defense that is still longer than the Western Front with a lower troop ratio
     
    Historyman 14 and Sokol-1 like this.
  6. bguy Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    IOTL wasn't Petain telling the troops "just hold on, the Americans are coming" a big factor in how he was able to ultimately suppress the 1917 mutinies? In TL-191, the French don't have any prospect of massive reinforcements coming, so once the mutinies get going they would be a lot harder to suppress.
     
    Historyman 14 likes this.