WI TL-191 - A Victorious USA, A Defeated Germany

Repost from here.

So question - WI Featherstone's pushed invasion of the USA ends in disaster.

In 1943. He is dead. The USA is still developing the bomb.

The USA has fully overrun the CSA from Virginia to Chihuahua.


But come 1944 and the Germans have lost. The British and French have beaten the European Central powers.

What would the situation be if the CSA lost their war a year earlier, but the Central powers lost their war in Europe?

Would an early victorious USA be able to spare any troops or ships to help their allies or is it more likely they're stuck holding onto the CSA/Canada?

* Note regarding the German atom bomb, they finished it but lost the war before they could use it.
 
Probably European Entente and USA are too exhausted to go war to other side of Atlantic. So there is probably uneasy peace and perhaps even Cold War between them. Britain might anyway still continue supplying Canadian guerillas. Not sure if France and Britain are very intrested to supply Confederates. Whilst surely racist regimes not sure how they would react to revelation of the Reduction. And USA probably is now supplying anti-colonialist guerillas in Africa and Asia. Not idea what Japan would do. It is pretty much wild card now.
 
What would the situation be if the CSA lost their war a year earlier, but the Central powers lost their war in Europe?
amount of tension, but likely entering into a cold war, like state between Europe and America in Africa and Middle East
Would an early victorious USA be able to spare any troops or ships to help their allies or is it more likely they're stuck holding onto the CSA/Canada?
They will probably just want to keep their newly established territory in CSA as well as Occupying Canada
 
If the CS is beaten by 1943, I think the US Navy would move to try and strangle Britain in support of Germany. I do think the US could, in conjunction with Germany, cut Britain and France off from the Atlantic effectively--and depending on the status of the Suez Canal and Egypt, that might effectively mean cutting both Britain and France off from the entirety of their overseas empires save Algeria.
 
One idea I had on why Germany could lose was a collapse of AH in the interwar period and Germany's forces stuck in a quagmire there and being too slow or unable to prepare for GW2.
 
If the CS is beaten by 1943, I think the US Navy would move to try and strangle Britain in support of Germany. I do think the US could, in conjunction with Germany, cut Britain and France off from the Atlantic effectively--and depending on the status of the Suez Canal and Egypt, that might effectively mean cutting both Britain and France off from the entirety of their overseas empires save Algeria.
The question would be how much treasure the USA would be prepared to spend on this. Also, there is the matter of garrisoning captured Canada and CSA and these are higher priority for the USA.

Still, if they did then they need forward naval bases. The British and the French only need a fraction of the Atlantic to be be able to run ships down the African coast. Assuming that it is prepared to stay in the war Brazil can offer ports, but the Entente would still be able to gain local naval superiority because of a home water advantage.

Ireland has possibilites, but is too challenging. Therefore if I was the USA I would knock off Iceland and the Azores. It is going to take time to build serious facilities there, but from the start they provide anchorages. Taking them from neutrals is going to be easier than the Entente counter invading because there will be large USA garrisons.

Yes, the Canaries are another tempting target. However Spain is larger and thus could add more to the Entente if it has had no civil war.
 
The question would be how much treasure the USA would be prepared to spend on this. Also, there is the matter of garrisoning captured Canada and CSA and these are higher priority for the USA.

Still, if they did then they need forward naval bases. The British and the French only need a fraction of the Atlantic to be be able to run ships down the African coast. Assuming that it is prepared to stay in the war Brazil can offer ports, but the Entente would still be able to gain local naval superiority because of a home water advantage.

Ireland has possibilites, but is too challenging. Therefore if I was the USA I would knock off Iceland and the Azores. It is going to take time to build serious facilities there, but from the start they provide anchorages. Taking them from neutrals is going to be easier than the Entente counter invading because there will be large USA garrisons.

Yes, the Canaries are another tempting target. However Spain is larger and thus could add more to the Entente if it has had no civil war.
I don't recall what happened to Ireland in the canon Great War, but it would shock me if the British didn't overrun it in 1941. So if the US really wants to prosecute war with Britain, invading Ireland will be a necessity, perhaps the end-game: liberate their ally and park superbomb-capable planes in Dublin.

US naval air power and submarines will be the real menace--if Admiral Nimitz exists ITTL, he'll be leading submarine wolfpacks against French and British convoys from Murmansk to Casablanca. But yes, the Azores and Iceland will be necessary to support that kind of campaign. And the major disruption to British and French supplies might not happen until after Germany is forced into submission.

The Superbomb and Ireland, however, are the political footballs that, I think, will keep the US in the war. The vast Irish-American population will riot if the US throws Ireland to the dogs (and 1944 is an election year where the Democrats will have pointed questions about how the Socialists were stupid enough to allow the Kentucky plebiscite in the first place)--at the very least, the US will want Britain to back out of Ireland in exchange for recognizing Britain's gains at Germany's expense.

Germany's advantage, relative to the Entente, is that Mitteleuropa needs to be occupied to cut Germany off from resources. Ukrainian and Polish produce, Czechoslovak and German manufacturing, Ottoman oil, etc. If the Entente can overrun Ukraine and push into Poland, and also seize Azerbaijan and cut the Berlin-Baghdad railroad (Romania, IIRC, was an Entente player too), then Germany can be starved of oil and food--and have to sue for peace. The question becomes, as you say, whether the US has the will to fight the Royal Navy hard enough to break the blockade and present an alternate source of food and fuel.

I am inclined to say this will will exist, for the aforementioned political reason and also because the resources necessary to wage a naval war are not the same as those required to wage a land war. The US's shipyards in New York and New England (not so much Philadelphia) are basically intact, and while the US isn't quite the naval power it was IOTL, ITTL it'll have a lot of ships it can devote to fighting the RN (which is smaller than OTL because Britain lost the Great War), and Japan and the US are basically ignoring each other after the Sandwich Islands are retaken.
 
What happens to the rest of the Central Powers in Europe? Was it just Germany that was affected by the loss of the war?
 

bguy

Donor
I don't recall what happened to Ireland in the canon Great War, but it would shock me if the British didn't overrun it in 1941.

You are correct. The British overran it in 1941 though there was an active rebellion thereafter (which the US was assisting.)

US naval air power and submarines will be the real menace--if Admiral Nimitz exists ITTL, he'll be leading submarine wolfpacks against French and British convoys from Murmansk to Casablanca.

Nimitz was born in Texas IOTL, so if he exists in TL-191 he is presumably a Confederate.

But yes, the Azores and Iceland will be necessary to support that kind of campaign. And the major disruption to British and French supplies might not happen until after Germany is forced into submission.

The Superbomb and Ireland, however, are the political footballs that, I think, will keep the US in the war. The vast Irish-American population will riot if the US throws Ireland to the dogs (and 1944 is an election year where the Democrats will have pointed questions about how the Socialists were stupid enough to allow the Kentucky plebiscite in the first place)--at the very least, the US will want Britain to back out of Ireland in exchange for recognizing Britain's gains at Germany's expense.

Agree with all of this. And especially since the Irish vote is likely to be key in New York, the biggest electoral prize of them all.

Germany's advantage, relative to the Entente, is that Mitteleuropa needs to be occupied to cut Germany off from resources. Ukrainian and Polish produce, Czechoslovak and German manufacturing, Ottoman oil, etc. If the Entente can overrun Ukraine and push into Poland, and also seize Azerbaijan and cut the Berlin-Baghdad railroad (Romania, IIRC, was an Entente player too), then Germany can be starved of oil and food--and have to sue for peace. The question becomes, as you say, whether the US has the will to fight the Royal Navy hard enough to break the blockade and present an alternate source of food and fuel.

I am inclined to say this will will exist, for the aforementioned political reason and also because the resources necessary to wage a naval war are not the same as those required to wage a land war. The US's shipyards in New York and New England (not so much Philadelphia) are basically intact, and while the US isn't quite the naval power it was IOTL, ITTL it'll have a lot of ships it can devote to fighting the RN (which is smaller than OTL because Britain lost the Great War), and Japan and the US are basically ignoring each other after the Sandwich Islands are retaken.

This I'm not so sure about. The US-German alliance seemed pretty frayed by 1941. Relations were tense between both countries in the 1920s, the Germans didn't come to the U.S.'s aid in the Pacific War, and the US didn't immediately declare war on any of the Entente nations when they declared war on Germany at the start of the Second Great War. (It seems likely the US would not have gotten involved in the European half of the war at all if the UK hadn't declared war on the US on its own accord.) And while you are correct that a naval war won't require the same resources as a land war, the US already has a ton on its plate with having to occupy the CSA, put down the rebellion in Canada, and rebuild all the damage from the Confederate invasion (plus just being exhausted after 3 years of war and millions of casualties.) Thus the US probably isn't all that interested in pulling Germany's chestnuts out of the fire by 1944 which means if the British are willing to offer peace terms where they withdraw from Ireland and recognize US supremacy in North America in exchange for a free hand against Germany and Austria-Hungary that offer might be very hard for the US to refuse.
 
This I'm not so sure about. The US-German alliance seemed pretty frayed by 1941. Relations were tense between both countries in the 1920s, the Germans didn't come to the U.S.'s aid in the Pacific War, and the US didn't immediately declare war on any of the Entente nations when they declared war on Germany at the start of the Second Great War. (It seems likely the US would not have gotten involved in the European half of the war at all if the UK hadn't declared war on the US on its own accord.) And while you are correct that a naval war won't require the same resources as a land war, the US already has a ton on its plate with having to occupy the CSA, put down the rebellion in Canada, and rebuild all the damage from the Confederate invasion (plus just being exhausted after 3 years of war and millions of casualties.) Thus the US probably isn't all that interested in pulling Germany's chestnuts out of the fire by 1944 which means if the British are willing to offer peace terms where they withdraw from Ireland and recognize US supremacy in North America in exchange for a free hand against Germany and Austria-Hungary that offer might be very hard for the US to refuse.
A fair point, and I think there's a third element worth considering: Japan. The US may well be concerned about the rise of Japan as a Pacific rival. With Anglo-Japanese relations also souring by this point in TL-191, the US might prefer to realign with Britain and split the world between them--Britain in India and Australia as a bulwark against Japan, while the US consolidates the Americas.

If the British are smart about it, they might exploit their American cousins' rivalry with Japan to create something more like the OTL Anglo-American rapproachment.

(poor Canadians ITTL, though, will be feeling incredibly betrayed)
 

bguy

Donor
A fair point, and I think there's a third element worth considering: Japan. The US may well be concerned about the rise of Japan as a Pacific rival. With Anglo-Japanese relations also souring by this point in TL-191, the US might prefer to realign with Britain and split the world between them--Britain in India and Australia as a bulwark against Japan, while the US consolidates the Americas.

A very good point though I do wonder if the Japanese would actually turn on the British in this version of TL-191. With the Entente seemingly doing much better in Europe, Japan might decide to stay true with its alliance with the British, since attacking the British is a much more risky prospect ITTL than it was in the canon storyline.
 
I don't recall what happened to Ireland in the canon Great War, but it would shock me if the British didn't overrun it in 1941. So if the US really wants to prosecute war with Britain, invading Ireland will be a necessity, perhaps the end-game: liberate their ally and park superbomb-capable planes in Dublin.
I did consider an invasion of Ireland by the USA, but rejected it because of the distance the fleet would have to sail (3000 miles) and the ease that the British would have sending troops to counter it. Think the Allied landings on Sicily/Italy or Sea Lion but all the air cover has to be on carriers.

Whilst Iceland and the Azores are of a similar distance there is less opportunity for the Entente to send troops to repel a landing.
 
A fair point, and I think there's a third element worth considering: Japan. The US may well be concerned about the rise of Japan as a Pacific rival. With Anglo-Japanese relations also souring by this point in TL-191, the US might prefer to realign with Britain and split the world between them--Britain in India and Australia as a bulwark against Japan, while the US consolidates the Americas.

If the British are smart about it, they might exploit their American cousins' rivalry with Japan to create something more like the OTL Anglo-American rapproachment.

(poor Canadians ITTL, though, will be feeling incredibly betrayed)

I wonder if Great Britain, in these circumstances, would be willing to trade Ireland in return for a treaty with the United States of America AND an independent Canada as a quid pro quo? (I suspect that America would want to maintain bases as a guarantee of keeping GB out, but freeing up troops garrisoning Canada in order to deploy them against the ex-CSA might be enough of a gain to sell the US government on such a deal).
 
I wonder if Great Britain, in these circumstances, would be willing to trade Ireland in return for a treaty with the United States of America AND an independent Canada as a quid pro quo? (I suspect that America would want to maintain bases as a guarantee of keeping GB out, but freeing up troops garrisoning Canada in order to deploy them against the ex-CSA might be enough of a gain to sell the US government on such a deal).
Possibly. With Quebec as an independent, US-aligned Republic, most of Canada is virtually inaccessible to the British anyway--they couldn't support any Canadian revanchism west of the Great Lakes even if they wanted to. You might see a Republic of Canada (legally demilitarized) and Dominion of the Maritimes & Newfoundland, which is also legally demilitarized (possibly with Halifax retained as a US Navy base, just to keep the RN away from New York). Labrador was claimed by Quebec IOTL--ITTL, it might just get absorbed into the Republic. Ireland, in turn, is also demilitarized and granted independence--essentially, Finlandization for Canada and Ireland. Maybe with a reparations package for Ireland depending on what Mosley's boys got up to during the occupation.

Maybe the US ends up deporting its Mormons to Canada--"your problem now, Canucks!"

As to the settlement, the US-Entente armistice allows the British and French to break Germany down. Dunno how the Tsarists will do--their war effort in canon was not doing well, so they might relapse into another civil war. Might look a lot like the OTL end of WWI--complete with a French expedition trying to patch Muscovy up. If Moscow does prevail...it's gonna be a bad time to be any of the Central Powers' client states. Poland, the Balts, and Ukraine are going to suffer badly under revanchist Tsarist rule. Austria-Hungary is likely broken up. Romania will make gains at Hungary's expense, and Serbia will be reconstituted (with probably massive reprisals against the Croats, Slovenes, and Bosniaks). Britain and France will take possession of the entirety of German Africa. The Ottomans would probably fall back into Britain's sphere of influence. If Moscow does have another civil war, then it's a slight Ukraine-wank, as they'd be able to pick up territory around the Don and even Volga rivers, and the Ottomans also will make gains.
 
Maybe the US ends up deporting its Mormons to Canada--"your problem now, Canucks!"

Going by Canada's record of welcoming ex-Americans* in Our Timeline, it's only a problem if the newcomers decide they hate Canadians more than they do the US (Going by Our Timeline this is very, very unlikely to happen).

*For example the United Empire Loyalists of the American Revolution and at least some elements of the Sioux nation fleeing the Indian Wars.
 

bguy

Donor
I wonder if Great Britain, in these circumstances, would be willing to trade Ireland in return for a treaty with the United States of America AND an independent Canada as a quid pro quo? (I suspect that America would want to maintain bases as a guarantee of keeping GB out, but freeing up troops garrisoning Canada in order to deploy them against the ex-CSA might be enough of a gain to sell the US government on such a deal).

I doubt the US government would be willing to cede any territory as part of a peace deal. It would look too much like Richmond Agreement 2.0 to be politically feasible.
 
Would that apply even to the creation of a satellite nation, as opposed to the restoration of territory to a near-peer nation?
 
The Ottomans would probably fall back into Britain's sphere of influence. If Moscow does have another civil war, then it's a slight Ukraine-wank, as they'd be able to pick up territory around the Don and even Volga rivers, and the Ottomans also will make gains.
Not a complete British sphere of influence. In the 19th century the French saw themselves as protectors of Catholic Christians in the Ottoman Empire just as the Russians saw themselves as protectors of Orthodox Christians.

What could have happen is as per 19th century China parts of the Empire could be spheres of influence of the British and French along with Russia if it has not been knocked out by Germany. The Greeks will also want spheres of of influence. As in the Chinese example, there will areas not part of a sphere of influence, eg Kurdistan and western Mesopotamia.
I doubt the US government would be willing to cede any territory as part of a peace deal. It would look too much like Richmond Agreement 2.0 to be politically feasible.
Maybe the US ends up deporting its Mormons to Canada--"your problem now, Canucks!"

Given that they were prepared to concede an independent Texas on the TL 191 TL and that was part of the original USA, they may very well cede some territory to dump the Mormons in. Currently the Mormons are on the principal railroad between the East and West Coasts. Deporting them to say the Winnipeg area completely eliminates a future rebellion cutting the line.

During the war the USA government moving thousands of soldiers by rail. No reason why they could not do the same with deportees.
 
Top