Historical What If: Confederate States

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff

I just don't think that it's fair to disdainfully call it the "Harry Turtledove effect" when every alternate history scenario projecting more than a year or two past a P.O.D. has the same weaknesses.

-snip-

Yes, starting the war in 1914 was a bit cute, and Turtledove has a habit of doing that kind of stuff, but I still enjoy his stories.

HT has a second war in 1885 in which France and UK are tightly allied, just as they were in 1863. Historically Nappy3 stayed allied that tightly to the UK cause Nappy3, had no other real alliance possibilities in europe - he was anti-Austrian, and should have been a natural ally for Russia, but Russia opposed him on ideological-monarchical legimitimacy grounds. Its not clear why a post-1871 successor should be that closely tied as to follow UK lockstep into the Second War Between the States. IOTL France in 1885 was a RIVAL of the UK. One has to assume either that Nappy3 has survived, or that euro politics in the 1880s is far different from OTL. Yet despite that, WW1 breaks out with its OTL cast of characters, and precisely in August 1914. That made the first Great War book unreadable, despite enjoying "how few remain", and Ive never picked up HT again.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Central European liberalism? What Central European liberalism?

I recommend Carl Schorske, "Fin de Siecle Vienna" especially the discussion of the Ringstrasse era. Or any good history of mid 19th century Austria.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't think that the Venezuala-Guyana border dispute mattered.

It wasnt that the substance so much mattered, but that the US was asserting itself on the international scene, and UK had to decide to resist that assertion, or back down. They decided they didnt have the strength anymore to dominate every area, and backed down in a key grand strategic decision.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dr Strangelove The question of possible American involvement is difficult to answer. In the real timeline the US and Great Britain had established close cultural and trade links by 1914.[/q]

as had the US and Germany, not just the immigrants and stuff, but high culture ties, esp the influence of German universities and scientific institutes on new US research universities, notably Hopkins, Chicago, and Rockefeller Institute. The entire western world was growing increasinly tied in trade and culture.

Great Britain was making more money off of investments in the US than it was off of its own colonies. Cultural ties between the elite of the North and the British were closer than had been the ties between the old South and the British.

But in this TL Britain has been a friend of the CSA since 1861, Id wager, and that will cool northern attitudes somewhat.

It's likely that the US would have supplied arms to Britain while still neutral, after all, there was money to be made.

CSA will also be trading to UK, and if theyve industrialized may be selling arms. Both will be keeping a watchful eye on each other, however.

Allied propaganda would still have been carried in US papers, and German submarines would still have attacked American ships.

If theres a real possibility of using the lure of territorial gains vs the CSA to bring the USA into the war on their side, they may not have.

The US then would have enetered the war on the side of the allies.

Somehow the USA managed to stay at peace IOTL till 1917, despite those factors. If theres a UK-CSA relationship, Im not convinced that the USA acts as in OTL.

Remember, the key to US actions IOTL is that the US remained aloof from the alliance system. It could do that because a united US was so safe in North America. With a seperate CSA its not at all clear that the US or the CS remain so aloof.

Woodrow Wilson would not have been the President of the US since he was a Virginian, so perhaps there would have been no League of Nations or UN? Would this have increased the likelihood of WW3 in the 1950s or 1960s?

As ive made it clear, Im dubious WW1 starts on time in August 1914. Im even more dubious we can say much about the 1950's.

The French were losing Mexico, if the US hadn't demanded the withdrawal of French troops then france would have been even weaker in 1870 due to the decimation of its troops.

Would an independent CSA have helped them? How many troops were they losing, anyway?

Nappy3 would still have gone to war with Germany because of the "Ems dispatch", which implied that Prussia might allow a Hohenzollern prince to take the throne of Spain. The message was doctored by Bismark, what the Prussian King actually said is that he thought the French ambassador rude for diturbing his morning stroll.

Its certainly possible the Franco-Prussian war happens just as in OTL, after all its only 10 years after the POD, still there are a number of major changed ive outlined, and Im not sure its 100% certain.

I don't think it would have mattered so much in 1914 as afterwards when the US began taking a more active role in world affairs. You may ask whether losing the southern states would have weakened the US influence in the western hemisphere, but I think it would not. The US would still have been a major sea merchant and would have dominated the area for the lack of an alternative.

The obvious alternatives are Britain, which had considerable influence in Argentina and Brazil in OTL, and CSA which will certainly have influence in Mexico, Cuba, and elsewhere.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
HT has a second war in 1885 in which France and UK are tightly allied, just as they were in 1863. Historically Nappy3 stayed allied that tightly to the UK cause Nappy3, had no other real alliance possibilities in europe - he was anti-Austrian, and should have been a natural ally for Russia, but Russia opposed him on ideological-monarchical legimitimacy grounds. Its not clear why a post-1871 successor should be that closely tied as to follow UK lockstep into the Second War Between the States. IOTL France in 1885 was a RIVAL of the UK. One has to assume either that Nappy3 has survived, or that euro politics in the 1880s is far different from OTL. Yet despite that, WW1 breaks out with its OTL cast of characters, and precisely in August 1914. That made the first Great War book unreadable, despite enjoying "how few remain", and Ive never picked up HT again.

I don't understand how you enjoyed "How Few Remain" then. As you said, IRL France and England were rivals in 1885. However, it is clear that they weren't rivals in HT's 1885. It's been about 10 years since I've read How Few Remain. I forget the specifics, but I do know that France and Britain both intervened in that book's 2nd Civil War. I don't know if Nappy 3 was around anymore, as the Franco-Prussian war still happened (but Emperor Maximillian was still around in Mexico, which was still a French client state IIRC)

Regardless, if you can accept that France and Britain were willing to jointly intervene in HT's 1885 war, then I don't see why the existance of the 1914 Franco-British alliance system is so unbelievable. There are a few possibilites. Maybe the Franco-British cooperation in ending the First American Civil War created a more genial atmosphere between the two nations from 1862 on. In other words, their 1862 cooperation marked the beginning of an 1862 Entente Cordiale. I don't think that that explanation is likely, though, as it doesn't explain why the British falied to intervene in the Franco-Prussian war on behalf of their French friends / allies.

More likely is that the geopolitics of HT's 1885, the same geopolitics that inspired France and the UK to jointly intervene once again in another North American war, were compelling enough to inspire an Entente Cordiale from 1885 onwards. Afterall, they shared interests both in countering the power of the new German empire and in supporting the CSA as a counterbalance to the USA. (This is somewhat shaky, IMO. I don't remember if HT ever explains why the Brits and the French were willing to once again join in and intervene in a war between the states. The revanchism of the U.S. population ensured that France and U.K. were generally despised for intervening in the original Civil War, and keeping a weakened U.S. would ensure that one potential rival would be hamstrung, but would that have been enough? What would their shared interests be? Regardless, you've seemed to accept this without having it totally ruin your enoyment of the book, so it's irrelevant to this conversation)

Finally, even if there was no 1885 entente cordiale, maybe the same sorts of issues that pushed France and Britain together in 1904 in real life (the mutual fear of the growth of Germany's military and economic might combined with a blustery Kaiser Bill, Germany's expansionist colonial policy, and a realization that a protracted Franco-British colonial war would weaken both and thereby tip Europe's B.o.P. strongly in favor of Germany) would have pushed the nations together in HT's world. After all, those same issues would still have existed, as Germany, France, and Britain seem to be just as imperialist as they were IRL.

I find the hardest thing to explain in any of these scenarios is the existance of a Franco-Prussian war and a subsequent Prussian unified Germany, especially if Nappy 3 was still in power in 1885. Just as in real life, I can't see Nappy 3's regime surviving the Franco-Prussian war.

If you can buy that that all of this happen (and accept that Britain and France shared enough in common to jointly intervene in the U.S. in 1885 and that, somehow, Prussia unified Germany without deposing Nappy 3) and yet still enjoy HFR, then I don't understand exactly why you can't accept an early twentieth century entente between France and Britain, especially after they've shown themselves willing to jointly intervene militarily to enhance mutual interests (something that they didn't show in real life prior to WW1). Like I said, the fact that war broke out in August 1914 is a bit too cute, but I fail to see why the alliance itself generally existing at about that time is so unrealistic as to spoil the premise for you. It seems to me that you've already accepted the more difficult assumptions.

(I do agree with you on one main point, though. The thing I hate most about Turtledove is his tendency to introduce real life American historical figures, even though the splitting of the country almost certainly would have changed things so much that they would never have been born. This is especially bad in his WW2 series.)

[Kuciwalker]

Um, his WW2 series isn't in the same timeline as HFW...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Um, his WW2 series isn't in the same timeline as HFW...

Yes it is. He has a series titled "Settling Accounts," based in the same timeline as "How Few Remain," that tells the story of a second world war.

You're thinking of his Worldwar series, in which aliens invade during our WW2. I've never read that series, but I know that it has nothing to do with How Few Remain.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, I didn't realize he'd already extended the HFW series up through WWII. Mea culpa.

[Shrapnel12]

My guess that WWI would still happen is based on the idea that before WWI, the US had little effect on what happened in Europe. My guess that Germany would win WWI in this thread's scenario is based on the idea that the US in our current timeline was the deciding factor in who won WWI and in the alternate timeline, we'd be too weak to have an affect on WWI. There's a lot I'm not considering, but there's much more that we just don't know. I don't think there is a wrong answer nor a wrong way of coming about that answer. We can only get better then a guess no matter how much logical reasoning we use. Remember without a Civil War, a lot of people who died would live longer then they did and who knows what kind of affect that would have on World History?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't understand how you enjoyed "How Few Remain" then. As you said, IRL France and England were rivals in 1885.

A. The fact that England and France are allied isnt all that important in HFR. The decisions made by Longstreet, etc which defer to european opinion would still make sense if the UK were CSA's only ally. The parts of the euro intervention that are portrayed, the raid on SF, the Lake Ontario bombardment, the battles in Montana, all involve the UK only. One can ignore France if one wishes.

B. While a franco-Uk alliance in 1885 is different from OTL, and its probably unlikely, its not implausible in HTs TL. Its quite possile that Nappy3 DOES survive somehow in this TL, or that Euro politics is in some other way radically different. Im not againt AH being different from OTL - that is the whole point of AH. I just dont like it when its implausible. A UK-French alliance in 1885 is plausible. A UK-French alliance in 1885, in TL that still has WW1 breaking out on schedule in August 1914, with the exact same cast (USA and CSA aside) breaks the willing suspension of disbelief for me.


C. I just liked HFR better on literary grounds, and so could swallow a bit of diplomatic implausibility. It was worth it for Clemens, Lincoln, Jackson, and Douglass. And I was well into the book before the UK-France alliance was important. The first Great War book was tedious, and didnt have enough that offset the unrealism, and the outbreak of the war is important from the beginning. I never even finished it.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wycoff

More likely is that the geopolitics of HT's 1885, the same geopolitics that inspired France and the UK to jointly intervene once again in another North American war, were compelling enough to inspire an Entente Cordiale from 1885 onwards. Afterall, they shared interests both in countering the power of the new German empire

But they didnt. UK didnt see Germany as that threatening in the 1880s IOTL, didnt move toward an entente with France till after Wilhelm had shaken up German policy and launched the naval race, and even then UK didnt establish a formal alliance with France, and even in OTL 1914 many Liberals were reluctant to go to war. In a world where Nappy has survived, and UK has maintained the alliance, Id think Russia would be even more anti-UK than in OTL. Germany, even under Kaiser Wilhelm, would be more reluctant to lose the Russian alliance (in the Dreikaiserbund) than IOTL, given the fact of a Franco-British alliance.

So im not seeing the power alignment happening the same way. And for sure, if Russia is on the side of the central powers, or even close to it (perhaps neutral?) than WW1, though it may start, wont start with a crisis over the South Slavs.

and in supporting the CSA as a counterbalance to the USA. (This is somewhat shaky, IMO. I don't remember if HT ever explains why the Brits and the French were willing to once again join in and intervene in a war between the states. The revanchism of the U.S. population ensured that France and U.K. were generally despised for intervening in the original Civil War, and keeping a weakened U.S. would ensure that one potential rival would be hamstrung, but would that have been enough? What would their shared interests be?

what you said above, plus trade.

[Saras]

Finished Settling Accounts:In at the Death. A small spoiler - more nukes than in OTL

[Wycoff]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Wycoff

More likely is that the geopolitics of HT's 1885, the same geopolitics that inspired France and the UK to jointly intervene once again in another North American war, were compelling enough to inspire an Entente Cordiale from 1885 onwards. Afterall, they shared interests both in countering the power of the new German empire

But they didnt. UK didnt see Germany as that threatening in the 1880s IOTL, didnt move toward an entente with France till after Wilhelm had shaken up German policy and launched the naval race, and even then UK didnt establish a formal alliance with France, and even in OTL 1914 many Liberals were reluctant to go to war.

However, a Britain that was allied with France in 1885 would most likely see Germany as an enemy in 1885. France certainly would have still been fearful of Germany, especially if Bismarck was still trying to do his best to isolate France, so I'd assume that a British ally would also be suspicious of Germany. (although who knows what Bismarck would have done had the Brits and French been significantly closer in the 1880s. It's possible that he would have had to change his strategy- maybe bringing the Spanish into the Dreikaiserbund in order to encircle the French? Maybe try to appease the British?). Besides, Britain would still have the economic rivalry with Germany, the fear that Germany could dominate the Low Countries, and the general British goal of balancing the rising power. Germany would be a British rival IMO, regardless of its naval policy, because Britain would not want to see Germany dominate the continent.

In a world where Nappy has survived, and UK has maintained the alliance, Id think Russia would be even more anti-UK than in OTL. Germany, even under Kaiser Wilhelm, would be more reluctant to lose the Russian alliance (in the Dreikaiserbund) than IOTL, given the fact of a Franco-British alliance.

I don't know what would happen here. IRL, Russia broke the DKB after the 1878 Berlin Congress, and then, when Russia requested renewing the Reinsurance treaty in 1891, was turned away by Kaiser Bill. I don't know what would happen in an alternate timeline, especially one in which the British and the French were close, but I think that there would still be Austrian-Russian tension in SE Europe (unless the French and Brits, closer in this timeline, would have directly intervened in the Russo-Turkish war, creating a sort of sequal to the Crimean War, and completely changing the situation on the ground in SE Europe, maybe making Bulgaria (and/or Serbia) a British protectorate or something). However, if there was an Austrian-Russian flashpoint on the continent, then I think that that would eventually blow apart any Russo-German partnership. The Germans would side with Austria, just as they did IRL.

So im not seeing the power alignment happening the same way. And for sure, if Russia is on the side of the central powers, or even close to it (perhaps neutral?) than WW1, though it may start, wont start with a crisis over the South Slavs.

Basically, I think that the real criticism of HT's timeline lies in what happened between 1862-1885. There's a lot of stuff that could have changed, especially in Europe, that would have completely altered the path of history. We touched on a few of them, but I think the foremost change would be the Franco-British partnership. Regardless, HT treats his timelime as if that partnership didn't really change anything. Apparently the Russo-Turkish war goes as IRL, the Congress of Berlin still happens, there's still a rupture in the DKB, etc.

Basically, Eastern Europe is left unchanged by the events in North America. If you can buy that HT's 1885 Europe is practically the same as our timeline, then buying that WW1 still has the same participants isn't that hard. The pressures in both the east (Russia's rivalry with Austria) and the west (political rivaly between France and Germany, economic rivalry between Britain and Germany, all amplified by Franco-British alliance) are still there. For me, the tough part to swallow is that Europe has been left practically unchanged. Once I've accepted that, the WW1 set up doesn't really bother me. I wish that I had my copy of "How Few Remain" with me (its at my childhood home 200+ miles away), as I'd like to see again how he dealt with the situation in Europe. I might buy it again this weekend.

(BTW, If you thought "American Front" was repetative, then you did yourself a favor in skipping the rest of the series. That's HT's biggest style problem- he doesn't seem to have an editor. He repeats some details (like the relative quality of Confederate tobacco and US army rations) ad naseum. I generally enjoy his books, as I think that he explores some interesting areas (like violent Mormon separatism, fascism, and genocide in North America), but he is a flawed writer. You can basically skim some sections of his books without missing anything. He did improve in his latest book, however. After "How Few Remain", "Settling Accounts: In at the Death" was probably the best book in the entire series.)

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wycoff

I don't know what would happen here. IRL, Russia broke the DKB after the 1878 Berlin Congress, and then, when Russia requested renewing the Reinsurance treaty in 1891, was turned away by Kaiser Bill. I don't know what would happen in an alternate timeline, especially one in which the British and the French were close, but I think that there would still be Austrian-Russian tension in SE Europe (unless the French and Brits, closer in this timeline, would have directly intervened in the Russo-Turkish war, creating a sort of sequal to the Crimean War, and completely changing the situation on the ground in SE Europe, maybe making Bulgaria (and/or Serbia) a British protectorate or something). However, if there was an Austrian-Russian flashpoint on the continent, then I think that that would eventually blow apart any Russo-German partnership. The Germans would side with Austria, just as they did IRL.

In the OTL 1880s, Russia, Germany and France came close to a continental block against Britain, and during the Boer war French and Russian opinion was, IIUC, largely sympathetic to the Boers. Looking back from the vantage point of the last hundred years, its hard to understand that mindset, but at the time, UK, despite its relative decline from the 1860s, was still the strongest power in the world, was still expanding, and was still reasonably scary to other great powers.

It took further UK decline, and a really reckless German policy, to form the "Triple Entente"

In a TL where France is UK's lapdog, and where UK faces a lesser challenge in the North Atlantic/North America, with a weaker USA, and a CSA that is a a UK ally, UK will be that much more threatening. Germany is more likely to overlook Russian mucking about in the Balkans, whatever Vienna thinks. IOTL Bismarck said that the Balkans werent worth the bones of a single Pomeranian Grenadier. But Kaiser Bill didnt maintain that policy. In this TL the pressure from German society to maintain the Russian alliance, even at the potential cost of weakening the relationship with AH, are going to be stronger. And Russia just may be frightened enough by Britain (esp since a French alliance isnt as easily in the offing ) to be more cautious in the balkans, to keep the German relationship.

I can easily see a German-Russian alliance against UK-France developing, with AH taking an intermediate position, somewhat like Italy IOTL.

Basically, Eastern Europe is left unchanged by the events in North America. If you can buy that HT's 1885 Europe is practically the same as our timeline, then buying that WW1 still has the same participants isn't that hard.

I dont know if it is in HFR, cause it doesnt come up. I can assume it does change, but not enough to change the events that actually occur on stage in HFR. Its only in the Great War that my face is rubbed in the notion that the alt Civil War changed NOTHING in Europe.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC didn't HT put the CSA with Britain and the USA with Germany in his alternate WW1 and WW2 scenarios? Didn't he basically equate the Yankees with the Nazis largely because of his twisted southern devotion to the idea of the Confederacy as champion of "State's Rights"?

Why in any timeline would Germany's desire to maintain an alliance with Russia be stronger than it's desire to maintain an alliance with Austro-Hungary? I can't see that the state of the American union would have the slightest effect on Central European politics. Russia's ties with Prussian Germany were never very strong, particularily once the German Army became the only real rival to the Tsar's army. Russia's ties to Austro-Hungary were traditionally much stronger, but once the Hapsburgs began expanding into the slavic balkans Russia's affection for the Hapsburgs dramatically cooled. You fail to consider how extraordinarily chauvinistic this era was. This era, the very apogee of Nationalism ethnic ties became much more important to the European powers than ever before. That's why Germany and Austro-Hungary bonded and that's why Russia was willing to go to war on behalf of Serbian revolutionaries who represented the very anti-thesis to everything the Tsar believed. It's also why there is no question that the US would have picked Great Britain over Germany in almost any situation imagineable.