Crimean peninsula
March 2nd, 2014 at 9:15:05 PM permalink | |
s2dbaker Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 13 Posts: 241 | I work with a person from Kiev. I haven't spoken with him since all this trouble started but he did tell me a story about when he was young working at the SCUD missile factory and the park that he lived next to where all the concentration camp bodies were buried. Personally, I can't get all worked up about Ukraine since just two weeks ago it was firmly in the Russian sphere. It's not a big prize, they have Chernobyl. If it was a State in the US, the most comparable would be West Virginia. I do find it ironic that John Kerry is lecturing the Russians on invading a country on trumped up charges when he voted to authorize the Iraq war when he was a Senator. That's the stupidest thing I heard from the Obama administration to date. |
March 3rd, 2014 at 1:09:55 AM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | There is not the slightest doubt that the attack on USS Liberty was a premeditated act. Panay Incident... of course it was deliberate. The point is that the USA didn't go to war over those losses, but an attack of the magnitude of Pearl Harbor was clearly war and that is what FDR wanted. |
March 3rd, 2014 at 1:15:26 AM permalink | |
Fleastiff Member since: Oct 27, 2012 Threads: 62 Posts: 7831 | Get them to tell you about the battle for the Golan Heights. Interesting statistics on the tonnage of gunpowder used in comparison to the US Civil War. |
March 3rd, 2014 at 4:57:08 AM permalink | |
Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
My grandfathers family came from Wādī an-Naṣārá ( وادي النصارى , which means "Valley of Christians") |
March 3rd, 2014 at 3:51:28 PM permalink | |
TheCesspit Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 1929 |
Depends on the 'how' they win, but I think Harry Turtledove has written extensively with that as his prime inflection point. He suggest WW1 would have been fought in trenches along the the Mason Dixon line, I think. It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life |
March 5th, 2014 at 12:43:14 PM permalink | |
TheCesspit Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 1929 |
I'm not sure the British would make the CSA a client state. They would first have to recognize the CSA, and I can't see how they do that early on. I do agree that the CSA wins by exhausting the North's will to fight, which was close at times. But I do agree if the British or even French get involved to help the south (or hinder the North), it does become a longer war... which before Gettysburg is what the CSA needs. Post Gettysburg/Vicksburg, it's all over for the South in reality, and just a case of how many more people die.
I agree that slavery would phase out, I don't agree with the 10-20 years. I think it was a generation away. The establishment of Jim Crow laws post reconstruction show that the south was a long way from letting the black man be free and equal. But in your timeline, the British would absolutely help that along. The British were the world's policeman and policed the slave trade from Africa extensively.
If the war takes too long, the Alaska purchase doesn't happen. The CSA/Mexican empires might have had an uneasy peace, but the CSA is not the strong US force in the Carribbean, so I can the Spanish staying as a power in the region for a lot longer.
I agree, Turtledove's timeline has a limited WW1 and more extensive WW2 in North America. Which direction politically and economically CSA and the USA goes are key to where the atagonism goes. By WW1, with a independent CSA (or client state of the British Empire), some of the rifts may have started to heal.
It depends on the politics that ends up in the CSA and USA. Are they free, democratic states? Has their been a rise of communism or fascism? Has the CSA developed to match the USA's industry? These factors start to set up the sides and temptations for both countries to get involved at one level or another. Canada can't be ceded by 1939... it had most of independence at that point to the extent they declared war on Germany independently of the UK. Yes, there's still a lot of looking to the motherland, but it would be more a case (if needed) of Canada coming to the USA for protection and the USA defining terms. Yes, I can see those terms being admittance to the Union. I can see the CSA and USA having various border skirmishes and fights over territory too. The results of those will have a long term affect on this timeline. Which effectively revolves around : the control of the Atlantic, and the amount that North American nations are willing to support the British. And possibly Spain. Spain is much more of a factor in your timeline if they don't have their civil war and the rise of Franco's fascists. (Note: yes, I find this stuff fascinating) It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life |
March 5th, 2014 at 2:32:29 PM permalink | |
Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 | Do NOT EVER go to war agasint an enemy with nuclear weapons and ICBMs. It's beyond stupid to do so. Or as Larry Niven said "Do not throw [manure] at an armed man. Do not stand next to someone throwing [manure] at an armed man." Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
March 5th, 2014 at 3:57:53 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
Suppose Gen. Longstreet was better able to convince Martin Sheen not to have Picket make the charge? Suppose Grant never came along. The Brits might very well have at the least sent some naval support.
The USA policed the slave trade as well. But by 1860 there really were no more sanctioned "imports." Brazil was the last in the western hemisphere to eliminate slavery in about 1885. As the free population increased they would keep realizing slavery made non-slaveowners poorer. I'm not saying they would be "equal" but would evolve to something between serfdom and sharecropping. As I always say, slaves need to be housed, clothed, fed, and most importantly watched. Mechanization was coming. As the generations moved on plantations got smaller as they were divided among the heirs. It takes a big operation to make slavery work, and many owners (eg: Jefferson) never were comfortable with the whole thing. What is the best way to keep someone a slave? Let them think they are free.
There is every reason to believe the CSA develops as a republic based on the US Constitution, but with a weaker central government. I find little reason to believe it would "catch" the north though after the Civil War it started to industrialize so it still should have just faster to meet internal needs. If not directly ceded I could see admittance via pressure.
I could see the skirmishes over New Mexico and Arizona. But here is some more to consider, tell me your thoughts: Since the USA never becomes a Pacific power there is never an Open-Door Policy in China. She is hacked up into spheres of influence for the Brits, Japanese, French, and even Germans to keep some peace. The Brits still have Hong Kong, but more territory as well. With the CSA and China in their pockets or effectively so they never bother making nice with the French, so Germany more easily takes WWI? (Note: yes, I find this stuff fascinating) The President is a fink. |
March 5th, 2014 at 5:11:22 PM permalink | |
TheCesspit Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 23 Posts: 1929 |
You've got to make a turning point before Antietam for the British to get involved, not at Gettysburg (though I am convinced Lee made a huge error taking to the offence at Gettysburg... it was completely the wrong fight for his army to try and win. The aim was to get the Union army to break it's back on the Confederates defence, by forcing a fight. Gettysburg was lost when it became a rebel attack on well defendable ground for the Union. I know there was no plan to attack and it was a series of unplanned events that led to those three days, but Lee should have called it off after day 2. But it's hard, because it looked like they had the Union just inches away from crumbling. 20/20 hindsight and all.
I think initially, yes. State's rights was a huge part of the reasons for the war. I am not sure if the states in the CSA would have hung together for ever though.
I have little comment here right now, let me ponder :D It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life |
March 6th, 2014 at 1:45:33 PM permalink | |
Wizard Administrator Member since: Oct 23, 2012 Threads: 239 Posts: 6095 | I've seen a lot of maps of Crimea on the news lately and a little piece on the west coast is always discolored. The major city in this part of Crimea is Sevastopol. Does this little part of Crimea belong to Ukraine, Russia, somebody else, under dispute, or is it an independent state? Somebody alert Paco. Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber |