Toleration is allowing them to operate on your own soil, ignoring them is just what it says: ignoring their actions. While you can base yourself out of somewhere, that’s far less valuable than being allowed to campaign for support there. Considering the Fenian were arrested OTL, I highly doubt the US simply let them do whatever they wanted.
And is that why they were able to build submarines for usage against Britain in the USA? Was that why Sikh Militant groups managed to gain funds from several American companies?
And I am going to quote Patrick Stewart's The Fenians: Irish Rebellion in the North Atlantic World, 1858–1876 from chapter 28 for this,
"In the 1870s, several members of the Fenian Brotherhood were arrested under the orders of President Grant, under the severe threat from the British government that war would break out if the Fenians were allowed to conduct their operations in the states without governmental oversight of them. The British government under Gladstone, were under pressure from the Canadian Confederation and the Tories to do something about the repeated raids into British North America, and Gladstone contacted the American government, bluntly telling Belknap and Fish that should several more raids be conducted into the interior of the British North American territories through American soil, then the government of London would not be able to stop a declaration of war passing through accompanied by a declaration of economic blockade. The sole threat of war with Britain and the British Empire stopped the wilful disregard and ignorance that Grant and his administration had shown to the Fenians and forced them to arrest several members of the brotherhood, most prominently being the arrest of John O'Neill."
So yes, the US government did wilfully ignore Irish rebel activity on their soil unless it meant war.
My point is just because the necessary factors aren’t available to make it practical at the current moment doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Even without water shortages, we can build desalination plants. Even if there is no active revolt as of yet, the US could still provide any such revolt .
Being defeated in war frankly is bound to have economic repercussions. And seeing as how CSA independence is more and more likely in the past chapters, in the timeline, frankly i am going to have ask where the USA get the money to fund rebellions? Everyone uses the term 'fund rebellions' like it is a charm or something but seem to forget that 99% of all funded rebellions in the 19th century failed to even get off the ground. The British funded Central Asian Revolt in Russia failed in 1853, the Russian funded rebellion in India in 1854 failed, the French planned rebellion in Argentina during the 1830s and 40s failed, the Austrian planned Catholic uprising in Prussia in 1866 failed, the American funded and planned revolt in Oaxaca during the Mexican-American War failed, the US funded small unionist uprisings in Texas and Louisiana in the CSA failed, the UK funded revolts in Ashanti succeeded but failed to get off the ground, the Ottoman funded revolt in Crimea failed in 1853 and the Russian funded rebels in Pontus failed in 1854. the Ottoman rebellion in Nis in 1841 funded by the Russians and Austrians failed, the Mexican funded slave rebellion in Texas failed during the American-Mexican War, the Austrian funded rebellion against joint Russo-Ottoman authority in Wallachia and Moldavia in 1841 failed, and according to the Long Nineteenth Century by Getz, that is around 85% of all planned rebellions during the 19th century that failed. And all of these were funded when these respective countries were economically stable. I very very very much doubt that an economically unstable country after losing a war will be able to successfully stabilize inflation in the short time, much less fund rebellion in other countries.
The Germans did shoot their economy in the foot in order to try and worm their way out of paying reparations. They not only knew that mass printing money would lead to hyperinflation, that was the entire damn point. People do stupid things, don’t expect them to act rationally.
Frankly you're making this up. Germany was going to pay the reparations, they had already paid the first hard check, and the the 1922 Payment date was also partially paid by the government. Germany was trying to worm itself out of reparations, however that didn't have anything to do with the hyperinflation of the 20s, other than amplify the diplomatic and political spectrum of economic nationalism in Germany at the time.
Frankly having done my economic thesis on the economic history of Europe, your statements are a fallacy. the crisis had already started in 1914, with inflation rising steadily. It then rapidly grew from 1919 due to the worthlessness of the reparations sent to the allies due to the depreciating amount of value that the Mark had after ww1. And the Germans didn't believe that the Mark was depreciating and continued to use it as a normal currency, which set off the hyperinflation crisis in 1922-23 when London had enough and sent the so-called London Ultimatum to meet the reparation's economic balance, which was being destroyed by the depreciating Mark. The attempts to stabilize the Mark, by
using the Mark itself led to hyperinflation because monetary resources being used were far outstripping what Germany actually had in economic hard terms creating an imbalance of proper demand and supply in Germany at the time.
I mean, if you ignore the democratic examples I put in, sure, there’s only authoritarian ones. I explicitly mentioned democratic examples because I knew only relying on authoritarians wouldn’t be a very good comparison. Just because you snip out the examples doesn’t mean I didn’t mention the French, 1920s Japan, or the Greeks (who most definitely were a popular movement).
The particular post i was replying to said this:-
You remember that time the Germans shot their economy in the face in the 1920s? How the Germans decided to attack their largest trading partner in 1941? How the Japanese doubled down on war despite it crippling their economy in the 1930s and 40s? How the Greeks fought on despite the economic ruination of their country in their war of independence? How Paraguay got two thirds of its men killed in the War of the Triple Alliance?
Humans aren’t always rational, expecting them to be is an exercise in frustration.
Where is France may i ask? So Germany was a democracy in 1941? Japan was a democracy in the 1930s and 40s? Paraguay was a democracy under Lopez's Dynasty? Greece in 1821 - 27 was not a democracy. Please spare me that spiel. The 2nd National Assembly, 3rd National Assembly were all un-elected oligarchs running the show, and they were not elected and the Greek people didn't have a say in whether they supported the actions of the assembly or not.
You’re the one who ignores what I already said upthread, don’t “what’s your point” me.
Last time i checked......
he USA ITTL will certainly not like the UK, but open revanchism is not likely or even economically worthwhile. It would more or less be the UK-Russian Relation of otl from 1860 - 1910. 'Ok We Hate you and you hate us, but we need to trade with you and you need to trade with us, so what say you and I don't openly become hostile with one another capiche?'.
To which you replied
And as I have stated before, I also see this as a possibility. But it doesn’t require open war to screw with another country. Last time I checked, neither nukes nor planes have flown against Russia for 2016.
To which i then replied:-
Indeed, which is what I am saying, your point? There is a very large difference between Revanchism and engaging in trade conflicts with other countries. Even with good relations the USA and UK did that routinely from 1870 - 1935 which were just as if not more crippling than the Russian sanctions.
I haven't ignored what you have stated, till now. Please show me an example. I specifically agreed with on this point, asking how your point differs from mine. Do i have to elaborate more?
So... two powers can be economically linked to each other and still end up going to war? Who would have known?
Pot met kettle. The one who says I have been ignoring his points seems to ignore the very fact that explicitly writes
France and Germany remained highly integrated with one another economically until 1913 when relations started to sour and France started to withdraw its economic investments in Germany and so did Germany vice versa. By the time war happened between France and Germany both countries had reduced 81% of their trade and investment with one another to the point that they weren't economically linked before.
And by the by, just because something isn’t a driving force in politics doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent. If Alsace-Lorraine was causing anti-German sentiment, as you admit, it was having an effect on relations.
Politics affect foreign policy. Today Nepal has huge anti-Indian sentiments, yet it is an Indian ally. Ireland had huge anti-British sentiments, but it is de-facto a British ally, the Central Asian states and Armenia don't particularly like the Russians and Armenia in particular even has a huge russophobia present in the country yet it is a Russian ally. Greece and Turkey both have massive phobias with one another, and yet they are allies with one another. the UK and Spain have massive disputes with one, which
has led to severe anti-British sentiments in Spain and anti-Spanish sentiments in the UK, yet they are allies. Mongolia has extremely high anti-Chinese sentiments, and yet it is a Chinese ally.
The issue of Alsace-Lorraine didn't even come up during the Zabern Affair where the Germans brutally clamped down upon Alsatian and Lorrainer protestors and shot them. France shrugged and told them to do whatever they wanted in their territory. The very same party that said that
won the 1914 elections in a landslide. Alsace-Lorriane had ceased to become an issue since 1902 and not even the far-right parties in the French Republic spoke about it. During the 1906, 1910, 1914 Legislative Elections, 1904, 1907, 1910, and the 1913 Canton and Departmental Elections, it didn't come up once, and 1904, 1908 and 1912 Municipal Elections it didn't create a single mention, and the candidate that
did in 1912 in the Amien Department got a total.....of 0.84% of the vote. I am going to quote
July 1914: Countdown to War by Sean McMeekin here
"In the event of the French decision-making process during the entire July crisis, the issue of Alsace-Lorriane did not come during political and diplomatic meetings even once. The military spoke of it, but only for military decisions regarding a probable offensive into the region to capture its vital metallurgical resources. It seems like an anomaly to us, who have been told that Alsace-Lorraine became an issue of revanchism and war among the French populace before the war, however, none of the decision-makers in France during the crisis ever spoke of it, not even the rightist opposition, who was the most bellicose and belligerent of all French political society. Throughout French society, war was not a prospect that many accepted, and socialists, who made up the majority of France's political spectrum in society at the time staged several protests. Even when war broke out, the newspaper Le Parisien noted that the atmosphere reeked of 'aiding our ally' rather than actual revanchism among French society, which seems to have been overly exaggerated in the past few decades after the war."
Pretty sure that has more to do with the nuclear umbrella instead of lack of will, considering how much effort they expended in Korea and in the Sino-Soviet Border War.
Sure, the nuclear umbrella makes any attempt with Russia and India a full stop and does play a part, but what's stopping them with Mongolia, Burma, Vietnam and Laos then? They don't have a nuclear umbrella and as far as the Russians and Americans are concerned, they would make some noisy remarks, economic sanctions and then do nothing if China moved on them. Also, you fundamentally misunderstand the Century of Humiliation for the Chinese, having lived there. They smart against the economic exploitation and political exploitation of China and not the loss of land overall. It is a good portion of it yes, but Chinese irredentism on the Century of Humiliation comes from
economic, political and
territorial exploitation. All three, not simply territorial and being split off from their former territories.
You also seem to be working super hard to twist my argument from “The US will be nursing an anti-British grudge and will be able to do something nasty back to Britain if they recognize the CSA” into “The USA is going to kill those Brits, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!”, which is a sentiment I have not expressed anywhere.
And i have argued that there isn't much they can do other than some diplomatic cold shoulder and economic trade wars. If you would please kindly point me where i stated you were stating that you argued 'The USA is going to kill those Brits, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!' that would be very much appreciated, because the last time i read, i did not insinuate that. I
specifically wrote that from during this time the measures you wrote down were almost all OTL, and they didn't do anything to the UK other than some brief annoyances, and that was with an economically united America, a broken and torn off America is simply not going to have the economic or diplomatic authority behind them to even try and conduct the measures they did otl, to even think about trying ittl. Economically it makes no sense, and other than Russia, which is itself economically devastated by the Crimean War, and does not recuperate until 15 years away from the date we are in in this timeline, has no allies. Spain, France and Prussia all remained neutral leaning on pro-Confederate and Austria remained decisively neutral selling to both sides to the highest bidder and that it would not be economically or diplomatically or political pragmantic for
both USA
and UK to hold a grudge with one another.
Versailles set the Japanese onto the path of militarism by showing them the Europeans didn’t respect them. While it may not have given the same opportunities as the Great Depression, ignoring its effect on the Japanese national psyche is like saying the Enlightenment wasn’t important to the French Revolution because it was the American Revolution that bankrupted France.
Frankly no. This roundabout way of spouting all of the 1914-45 tropes and stereotypes gets extremely old. To quote from the book i sourced earlier,
Society and the State in Interwar Japan by Elise K. Tipkon (chapter 16)
"The issue of Versailles had been smoothened over with Japan in 1921 when the British signed a series of agreements with the Japanese in Ryuku and Tokyo, highlighting the diplomatic and economic importance, as well as the societal impact of the Japanese in the Great War. It was seen as a great victory for the Japanese that the British had gone behind the backs of the USA to acknowledge the Japanese which they had not been afforded in the Great War and the Conference of Versailles. With that agreement, the military who were clamouring with old doctrines such as honour and war were reined in by the governments under Viscount Kato and Viscount Takahashi. However, the death of Viscount Kato one week before the Great Kanto Earthquake and the non-renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty destroyed the stability of the government and left Japan diplomatically isolated and also allowed the military to reassert control and the nationalization measures after the Great Kanto Earthquake allowed the military to subsume more power in their hands. The ascension of Inukai as Prime Minister led to the military being stemmed in once again, however, the economic disparity after the Great Depression only allowed the Military to gain more influence in Japanese society and after the economic and political disasters of 1922-23, as well as the Economic downfall in 1929 and the assassination of Inukai in 1932, allowed the military to finally take over after a decade long on and off battle with the civilian government."
Versailles played a very minor role in Japanese militarism, considering said militarism pre-dated Versailles and the fact that the military was weak in 1921 and not able to use Versailles as a card of propaganda after the government's stability fell.
As I already said, just because you choose to ignore the democratic examples brought up doesn’t make them any less real. But since you seem to be so hung up on the supposed lack, here’s three more: Korea and Japan are still, almost some 80 years later, disputing the ownership of the nearly lifeless Liancourt Rocks, with both countries having temporarily withdrawn their ambassador from the other in the past two decades over the dispute, the last occasion being in 2012. Romania created a holiday for the unification of Romania and Bessarabia in 2017 and recent polls have shown a majority of the population supports unification with Moldova despite it being nearly 80 years since it was last part of the country and Moldavians not supporting unification. The Kingdom of Greece spent a decade between 1912 and 1922 fighting its neighbors for irredentist claims. Are those enough to convince you that democratic nations are just as capable of being irrational and holding onto old ideas as authoritarian ones?
The bolded part - are they going to war? Are they engaging in economic trade wars? Nope. They aren't. That is my basic point, despite the
want to do so, they don't engage in anything else other than some diplomatic and political off-playing with one another and don't pursue means of force to get what they want. And frankly let us be honest. SK and JP won't go to war with one another relations and economic relations are to high for that, and neither Russia nor America could give a care about if Romania invaded Moldova or not, considering the country has alienated both East and West.
Italic part - From Freris, A. F.,
The Greek Economy in the Twentieth Century, St. Martin's Press 1986, Greece's Major Trade Partners in 1910 in order of trade volume: (1) UK, (2) USA and France, (3) Russia, (4) Germany, (5) Austria, (6) Italy, (7) Spain, (8) Portugal, (9) Sweden, (10) Serbia, (11)
Ottoman Empire, (12) Sweden, (13)
Bulgaria
Greece chose its enemies well, they weren't economically integrated with Bulgaria and the Ottomans to the extent that they would lose a noticeable economic capital, and Greece entered ww1 after UK and France began subsidizing their economy to stave off the effects of losing Germany and Austria as partners.
However considering that the thread is already getting slightly heated and off topic, i will not be really replying after this. If you wish to continue this debate please PM me.
There's been some covered in
Chapter 43, but I confess that like the politics of the CSA, I've been a bit lax in British politics too. I know I've scattered some stuff in the various narrative posts, mostly about Poland, Greece and the Med, but in 1862-63 not too, too much has changed overall in terms of politics, Palmerston has too much of a firm hand to let things rattle too much, even in war time. Though I'm going to address some of the issues in the upcoming chapter dealing with British politics. He's got a problem in the War Cabinet.
The Empire as a whole though hasn't changed too much. India is still stable, the men withdrawn for the California expedition were largely taken from sectors quiet during the Mutiny. The battalion from New Zealand will not be missed...yet, but Britain
is less involved in the Taiping Civil War. I'll cover that in a bit more depth in the "1863: A Year in Review" chapter after I catch up on all the politics. One big change is that there's going to be no
Chinese Gordon TTL, but I did mention he has some fun somewhere in the Pacific.
British support was monetary and naval during the Taiping Rebellion mostly, so i would say a few batallions out of Taiping would not be missed by the Chinese as long as supervisors stay.
In Europe, I've laid the groundwork for a few major changes, and there's going to be some surprises for people, though the year 1863 is going to look broadly similar to OTL. Austria has still sent weapons to the Union - it was very much a, get them if you can but we're taking your money deal - while they are a little better armed. Russia though, has more diplomatic movement, and is crushing the Poles with relative impunity. It's making very sympathetic noises towards the Union, but the most their doing is exerting some soft power to try and dissuade any of the true neutrals, like Prussia and Austria, into taking up the cause of recognition.
Austria and Prussia will certainly be very interesting!
The politics of the Second Empire will become increasingly relevant I assure you! The particulars of why we shall explore, but Napoleon III is someone who will loom very large in 1864 in Washington, Richmond and London. There was some support for the Confederacy amongst the industrialists and more conservative aspects of the French political elite, the Bonapartists were partial to a Confederate victory, and as Napoleon dug himself deeper in Mexico he would be one of the most strident voices in pro-Confederate sentiment, and did help bring on the very real conversations about recognizing the CSA in 1862 and 1863.
The Duke of Morny is a gentleman who has played a very large role in the Mexican adventure, and he and the Empress share something of a determination on that front to keep that particular exercise going. I'm not sure what OTL influence he had on Nappy III on the CSA, but I can venture to guess that TTL he will play a role alongside de Lhuys in nudging the Emperor towards Richmond rather than Washington.
The Duke of Morny was also supportive of a soft pro-Confederate policy in France. If the CSA is recognized by Britain, then the CSA will be recognized by France, and if they win, i would wager that the 1863 or 1869 French elections could see an increased Bonapartist majority in the chamber of deputies. Ollivier would also be looking at the events closely. He was a moderate republican, ready to work with Napoleon III if the empire truly became 'liberalist empire' as he called it. Berryer and the Legitimists and Orleanists will be the most interesting in the elections as their base of affairs in the Mexican Adventure and the ACW wasn't really clear cut.
This is a very significant point indeed which bears repeating. In 1815, Britain had been on-again-off-again fighting France, first as a republic and then an empire, for over 20 years. The nation had bankrolled the war efforts of several other empires and both the leadership as well as the general populace was largely tired of war. Both sides had also been making peace overtures since pretty much the war's beginning. The British diplomatic A-team was still dealing with the treaty of Fontainebleau. I would say that the B-team was likely also there, to make sure that if any of the top diplomats fell ill or otherwise incapable, someone was present to serve British inerests in forging the treaty which had immediate global impact. Thus, I'd say that the treaty of Ghent likely got the C-team, although there was a timegap between Fontainebleau and Ghent, so some people likely were present for both treaties.
There's also the fact that when the British diplomats in Ghent opened up negotiations by bluntly demanding a native buffer state and Maine, Clay and the USA diplomatic team almost gave in, and only changed their minds due to the news of the victory at Baltimore and Plattsburgh. If C-Level Diplomats could almost incite the USA to lose so many territories then the A-team are certainly going to be much harder.