WI Confederacy and Entente win WW1?

Obviously in Harry Turtledove's TL-191 or Southern Victory Series the US allied with the Central Powers is able to defeat the Entente and Confederacy in the First World War (referred to as the First Great War in universe). However what if it was the other way round. What if the Confederacy allied with Britain, France and Russia had emerged victorious from the Conflict. What would the peace treaties look like?
 

bguy

Donor
An Entente victory in Europe probably requires more decisive battlefield victories for the Entente in 1914 in France which convinces the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria to stay out of the war, and eventually leads to Italy and Romania joining in support of the Entente. (I think if the Entente is going to win in Europe it pretty much has to do so before the Russians collapse, so the war is likely over by 1916.) With those assumptions in mind I think the terms in Europe would probably be something like:

-Germany and Austria-Hungary (if it survives the war) both get limitations on the size of their army and navy and have to pay reparations;
-Germany loses Alsace-Lorraine to France and the German parts of Poland (and maybe also East Prussia) to Russia.
-Austria-Hungary loses Galicia to the Russians, Transylvania to the Romanians, Bosnia to the Serbians, and Trentino and Trieste to Italy.
-Britain, South Africa, and France divide up the German colonial empire in Africa with Britain taking German East Africa, South Africa taking German Southwest Africa, and
France taking Togo and maybe Cameroon. The British also likely get control of Liberia (a US ally in TL-191.)
-Australia and Japan likewise divide up the German colonial empire in the Pacific.

I don't see the Confederates ever being able to annex any US territory or force the US to pay reparations or accept military limitations. Even with Canada and Mexico helping the Confederates, the US just outweighs the Confederates by too much for the Confederates to have any hope of winning a big enough victory to enforce terms like that. The best the Confederates can realistically hope to do is try and stalemate the war long enough for their allies to win in Europe and then hope that causes the US to get disheartened enough to elect Debs in 1916 on a peace platform. In that scenario probably the best the Confederates could do is get the US to acquiesce to the Confederate occupation of Haiti and maybe also have the US agree to drop its opposition to the Confederates building a trans-oceanic canal in Central America.
 
An Entente victory in Europe probably requires more decisive battlefield victories for the Entente in 1914 in France which convinces the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria to stay out of the war, and eventually leads to Italy and Romania joining in support of the Entente. (I think if the Entente is going to win in Europe it pretty much has to do so before the Russians collapse, so the war is likely over by 1916.) With those assumptions in mind I think the terms in Europe would probably be something like:

-Germany and Austria-Hungary (if it survives the war) both get limitations on the size of their army and navy and have to pay reparations;
-Germany loses Alsace-Lorraine to France and the German parts of Poland (and maybe also East Prussia) to Russia.
-Austria-Hungary loses Galicia to the Russians, Transylvania to the Romanians, Bosnia to the Serbians, and Trentino and Trieste to Italy.
-Britain, South Africa, and France divide up the German colonial empire in Africa with Britain taking German East Africa, South Africa taking German Southwest Africa, and
France taking Togo and maybe Cameroon. The British also likely get control of Liberia (a US ally in TL-191.)
-Australia and Japan likewise divide up the German colonial empire in the Pacific.

I don't see the Confederates ever being able to annex any US territory or force the US to pay reparations or accept military limitations. Even with Canada and Mexico helping the Confederates, the US just outweighs the Confederates by too much for the Confederates to have any hope of winning a big enough victory to enforce terms like that. The best the Confederates can realistically hope to do is try and stalemate the war long enough for their allies to win in Europe and then hope that causes the US to get disheartened enough to elect Debs in 1916 on a peace platform. In that scenario probably the best the Confederates could do is get the US to acquiesce to the Confederate occupation of Haiti and maybe also have the US agree to drop its opposition to the Confederates building a trans-oceanic canal in Central America.
1) It is not so much France convincing the Ottomans to stay out as the British not "encouraging" them to join in, eg taking their battleship.
2) It would be in character for the British and the French to do nothing for the CSA. After all they stiffed the Arabs and the Greeks. There is nothing in it for the French and the British have two choices: a war weary nation continues on or do a deal to get any captured Canada back. Great powers have a record of using tiny allies then dumping them until the next war.
 

bguy

Donor
1) It is not so much France convincing the Ottomans to stay out as the British not "encouraging" them to join in, eg taking their battleship.

IOTL the British had an opportunity during the fighting in France in 1914 to cut off the entire German First Army but General French (commander of the BEF) failed to take advantage of it.


If that same opportunity occurs in TL-191 but the British commander is more aggressive then General French was IOTL then that could lead to a catastrophic defeat for the Germans. (Not only do they lose the First Army but they have to withdraw the rest of their armies from France or risk having six armies cut off which would basically mean the war is lost.

If the Germans suffer such a massive defeat in France (far worse than getting checked at the Marne like they were IOTL), I suspect that would be enough to keep the Ottomans out of the war even if the British grab their battleships. No one wants to jump into a war on what appears to be the losing side.

2) It would be in character for the British and the French to do nothing for the CSA. After all they stiffed the Arabs and the Greeks. There is nothing in it for the French and the British have two choices: a war weary nation continues on or do a deal to get any captured Canada back. Great powers have a record of using tiny allies then dumping them until the next war.

Definitely. While the British might hope for reparations, trade concessions and naval limitations from the US, I doubt they would be willing to keep the war going and suffer hundreds of thousands of additional casualties to achieve those goals, so if they can broker a peace with President Debs where the US withdraws from Canada and returns Bermuda and the Sandwich Islands, I imagine the British would take that deal in a minute regardless of what the Confederate fire eaters might say.

(And President Semmes is likewise probably smart enough to realize the Confederates can't fight the US alone, so once the British make it clear they are going to peace out regardless of what the Confederates want, Semmes probably makes peace as well.)
 
So would we see the rise of a Featherston like figure in the USA?
You could. Then again you might not. Italy won and got a fascist. Germany lose and got a (extreme) fascist. Spain was not in the war and got a fascist. France won and did not get a fascist.

Given though the power of some US companies I would say that you are more likely to get another Teddy Roosevelt who goes for a naval expansion programme a la OTL Wilson
to take on the Royal Navy as well as strangle the CSA in a blockade in the next war. Teddy mark two would have to get it through a hostile US Congress, which was isolational on OTL.

On OTL the USA has about 80% more manaufacturing capacity that the British Empire. Given most of that is in "USA states" as opposed to "CSA States" the USA could still win a naval arms race on this time line.

This fleet needs to be big enough to keep the Royal Navy off the USA's back whilst it strangles the CSA's economy. The Japanese in the Pacific are a problem for later. Unlike the arms race with Germany the British have little to gain in a race Taking on the Germans was part of British standing strategy of not letting any power dominate Europe. The sole purpose of supporting the CSA is to weaken the USA. Nice, but not an existential threat.
 

bguy

Donor
So would we see the rise of a Featherston like figure in the USA?

I actually think the US is more likely to go the other way. They already tried hyper-militarization with the Remembrance movement, so if all Remembrance ended up achieving after 30 years of preparation and sacrifice was a million men lost for nothing then I could easily see the US population turning very pacifistic.
 
I actually think the US is more likely to go the other way. They already tried hyper-militarization with the Remembrance movement, so if all Remembrance ended up achieving after 30 years of preparation and sacrifice was a million men lost for nothing then I could easily see the US population turning very pacifistic.
1661226512454.jpeg
Honestly they alright lose Two war against the Rebs and Canuck with highly that Young Americans died in the hundreds of thousands between the Wars. The Remembrance movement was essentially Proto-Fascism with their Hatred on the Mormon being Persecuted and Great Plains tribe being killed in the hundreds or even the Thousands of died Indian before FGW.
1661226494201.jpeg

But you to mention that USA is still a democracy and is likely still be that even know it have a militaristic and Nationalistic society.
So you could see an False Democracy happen that’s allowed the American actionist party to win Every election until SGW and still as a Militarized Nationalistic society who want to turned Rebs, Canuck, Mormons, Indian and now Jews to Ash
1661226270626.jpeg

There will Highly be the Actionist movement will Blend in to Rememberance Ideologically that will highly be more Popular to the defeatist US public and a large part of demilitarized military
 
The problem is that, the Confederate cannot militarily win the North American Front. They would only "win" as the Entente defeat the CPs in Europe - and in this case, the Confederate would gain nothing - the US would have leverage on its occupied Confederate and Canadian territories to extract a favourable peace settlement.
 
a large part of demilitarized military
Wait, nobody can force the US to demilitarize. The Entente can't blockade the US, they can't beat the US militarily - they have no boots on the ground whatsover. At worse, a white peace, and best, the US would walk away with Confederate lands in return for giving back occupied Canadian lands - to many, it could be considered a win.
 
And note that, by 1914, the Union without the South would be a country with actual free and fair elections for over 50 years. Even if the Nationalist Party keeps winning, it cannot be called a False Democracy if elections are free and fair.
 

bguy

Donor
The problem is that, the Confederate cannot militarily win the North American Front. They would only "win" as the Entente defeat the CPs in Europe - and in this case, the Confederate would gain nothing - the US would have leverage on its occupied Confederate and Canadian territories to extract a favourable peace settlement.

That's true unless the Socialists win the 1916 election. Debs was campaigning on a status quo ante bellum peace, so if he wins the 1916 election (which is very likely if the Entente wins in Europe before the election), he won't hold out for a favorable peace settlement.

Wait, nobody can force the US to demilitarize. The Entente can't blockade the US, they can't beat the US militarily - they have no boots on the ground whatsover. At worse, a white peace, and best, the US would walk away with Confederate lands in return for giving back occupied Canadian lands - to many, it could be considered a win.

But even absent Entente coercion, President Debs will certainly choose to greatly reduce the size of the US military in order to pay for the welfare state he wants to build. The Entente won't need to force the US to demilitarize if it does so voluntarily.

Gordon McSweeney is the main guy who TL191 fan chose most to be Featherstone figure to the USA but there also some other person who will be the Fuherer of the Actionist Militarized USA

I've never understood why fans thought that Gordon McSweeney could ever be a Featherston figure. McSweeney was scrupulously honest (remember this is a man that would put himself on report for uniform violations) and had no understanding of anyone that didn't think exactly like himself. It's hard to imagine a character less suited to serve as a politician. He has no ability to manipulate anyone and would neither be willing or able to make the kind of deals and moral compromises that are so often necessary to be successful in politics.
 
The problem is that, the Confederate cannot militarily win the North American Front. They would only "win" as the Entente defeat the CPs in Europe - and in this case, the Confederate would gain nothing - the US would have leverage on its occupied Confederate and Canadian territories to extract a favourable peace settlement.
They couldn’t win the Second Mexican War or force the Us to cede Kentucky either. And yet it happened.
 
I've never understood why fans thought that Gordon McSweeney could ever be a Featherston figure. McSweeney was scrupulously honest (remember this is a man that would put himself on report for uniform violations) and had no understanding of anyone that didn't think exactly like himself. It's hard to imagine a character less suited to serve as a politician. He has no ability to manipulate anyone and would neither be willing or able to make the kind of deals and moral compromises that are so often necessary to be successful in politics.
Honestly yeah man, McSweeney I view as more of a Crazy Motherfucking American War-hero like Audie Murphy, Alvin York and John Paul Jones who brutality fought against the Traitorous Mormons and Ville Rebs in the Trenches and Urban fighting.
I don’t really see how McSweeney will be Hitler figure to a Defeat US? He too crazy and War hungry to fight it but I could see him being an Cult leader like earlier Jim jones In through the 1920s with Religious Presbyterian cult lead my War-hero McSweeney.

I mentioned that there is some person who will be more candidates to be Featherstone figure of Fascist Militarized US as you mentioned with an other threads with TL191 fanfic before
Almost any of the other viewpoint US characters make much more plausible potential dictators than McSweeney. In particular Morrell, Chester Martin and Sam Carsten all seem like much more likely potential dictators as they are all much smarter, more flexible, and have much better people skills than McSweeney does.
Chester Martin as “President” of the Fascist US would be interesting to see happen, Hell I even got an nickname for him as “Labour Slayer”
 
I once thought of using John Clem as the U. S. version of Paul von Hindenburg for an "Entente wins" TL-191 variant. Let's say he is narrowly elected in 1928, the Hitler equivalent becomes his running mate in 1932, and Clem dies in ~1934.
 
They couldn’t win the Second Mexican War or force the Us to cede Kentucky either. And yet it happened.
They won the Second Mexican War
Honestly yeah man, McSweeney I view as more of a Crazy Motherfucking American War-hero like Audie Murphy, Alvin York and John Paul Jones who brutality fought against the Traitorous Mormons and Ville Rebs in the Trenches and Urban fighting.
I don’t really see how McSweeney will be Hitler figure to a Defeat US? He too crazy and War hungry to fight it but I could see him being an Cult leader like earlier Jim jones In through the 1920s with Religious Presbyterian cult lead my War-hero McSweeney.

I mentioned that there is some person who will be more candidates to be Featherstone figure of Fascist Militarized US as you mentioned with an other threads with TL191 fanfic before

Chester Martin as “President” of the Fascist US would be interesting to see happen, Hell I even got an nickname for him as “Labour Slayer”
I don't see Chester Martin as a fascist. After all he was a union organiser so more like to be a Trotsyite or Maoist. In fact I cannot see any of them mutable into a fascist. Whether Turtledove intended Featherston to be fascism I guess only he knows. However, he could have used Kimball, the submersible commander and war criminal insteadm as the facist leader.

The white US characters tended to lean left whilst the white CSA characters right.
 
I once thought of using John Clem as the U. S. version of Paul von Hindenburg for an "Entente wins" TL-191 variant. Let's say he is narrowly elected in 1928, the Hitler equivalent becomes his running mate in 1932, and Clem dies in ~1934.
John Clem must had Strange life in TL191 man, he as a kid survived the First war with the South, likely fought against the Rebs again in the 1880s war and Definitely is a Old High ranked Officer who want the Rebs and Canuck on their knees.

He was elected as acting President in US before it falls into Fasicist state before Ironically want to save the Republic from anarchy. So he apportioned American Hitler as Vice President before he dies
 
Top