TL 191: Which country should the U.S. attack first?

[BiteNibbleChomp]

We're just going in circles here. And I'm tired of arguing that America, Britain and France are all busy carrying the idiot ball in a fictional war when the diplomacy doesn't actually hold up to closer inspection.

A) Britain would never be allied with a slave holding state. They'd probably be on friendly terms with the USA
B) America would never be audacious enough to declare war on a CSA aligned with two major powers
C) Britain would make a harsher peace on the USA than the book

We're arguing C, which is kind of pointless because A and B are even more preposterous.

A) HFR says that Britain quite clearly will only support the CSA if they "free" the slaves. The CSA is also the defender, and isn't conducting any offensive action, and supporting a defender was in line with British foreign policy at that time (OTL or 191).
B) Blaine doesn't think he is getting into a war with Britain or France, because he knows they won't support a slaveholding state (as you said above). One of the founding principles of the CSA was slavery, so he has good reason to think they won't just scrap it for foreign support. A CS/US-only war is an easy US victory, which is what Blaine is reasonably expecting.

- BNC

 

[CT23]

Wasn't the US in HFR having a hard time in Kentucky against the CSA?

 

[m0585]

Wasn't the US in HFR having a hard time in Kentucky against the CSA?

It absolutely was. Though that was mostly because of poor leadership, and trying to take the city in urban fighting.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

That said there is arguments for attacking Canada as well, if nothing else to push them out of artillery range of Detroit and Buffalo,

They could still do that while focusing primarily on the CSA by launching a limited offensive to defensive lines beyond Artillery rand of those two cities.

 

[History Learner]

In GW1 of TL 191, the U.S. attacked both the CSA and Canada. The U.S. would eventually win the war in 1917 by wearing both countries down, and being able to attack their centers of power. But the two fronts caused a massive slog for the U.S. that resulted in needless casualties. My question to you is: would it have been better for the U.S. to go on the defensive on one front and the offensive on the other front, and if so, which country should have been attacked first.

Going on the defense against the CSA would be the best option, as it would let the US wear them down gradually while they (the US) gets to focus on Canada. This would allow them to take Winnipeg in the fall of 1914, and then finish off the remainder early on in 1915. By 1916, the US would be free to launch massive offensives against the worn-down Confederates.

 

[Dave Howery]

IIRC, the US kinda was on the defensive against the CSA at first... the Confederates drove forward and captured DC, and it took a while before they could get the initiative back and drive the CSA out of it's own territory and invade theirs...

 

[The Gunslinger]

Going on the defense against the CSA would be the best option, as it would let the US wear them down gradually while they (the US) gets to focus on Canada. This would allow them to take Winnipeg in the fall of 1914, and then finish off the remainder early on in 1915. By 1916, the US would be free to launch massive offensives against the worn-down Confederates.

The Union doesn't need Winnipeg. All they need is Montreal, Kingston and Vancouver. If America gets all three of those the Canadian ability to prosecute a major war is pretty much gone.

 

[History Learner]

The Union doesn't need Winnipeg. All they need is Montreal, Kingston and Vancouver. If America gets all three of those the Canadian ability to prosecute a major war is pretty much gone.

Taking Winnipeg cuts the country in half, and deprives the Eastern portion of the resources of the West (In particular, food). Taking those three cities would indeed force a Canadian surrender all the same, but taking Winnipeg and waiting for no more than a year achieves the same result with less American losses while allowing sufficient forces to contain any hostile actions on both fronts while the U.S. forces its enemies to bleed on its defenses. Also, given that Canada's population should still be roughly around 11-12 Million in TL-191, the absolute maximum they could muster would be somewhere between 800,000 and 1 Million (They did 620,000 IOTL, or ~6% of their population). All the U.S. would need to do is force two to three major battles of WWI style intensity and the Canadians should collapse from lack of an army to fight.

 

[bguy]

Taking Winnipeg cuts the country in half, and deprives the Eastern portion of the resources of the West (In particular, food).

Also coal. OTL's War Plan Red concluded that if the U.S. could take Winnipeg that would effectively shut down Canadian munitions production, since it would starve the Canadian factories of coal supplies.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Also coal. OTL's War Plan Red concluded that if the U.S. could take Winnipeg that would effectively shut down Canadian munitions production, since it would starve the Canadian factories of coal supplies.

Hell OTL Canada was importing coal from the US anyways during this period, they'd have a hard time not freezing even without losing any mines if they wanted to boost production at all