Crimean peninsula

Page 1 of 51234>Last »
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
Quote: Pacomartin
Some of my relatives are Syrian.
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
Quote: Fleastiff
There is not the slightest doubt that the attack on USS Liberty was a premeditated act.


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
Quote: AZDuffman
Just another "what if" from AZD. One day maybe I will post my idea of what would have happened had the South won in 1865. I have given some hints already, the more I think of that one the more I think they would today be speaking German in Paris.


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
Quote: AZDuffman
For some reason I have given this lots of thought the last year. I attribute it to reading STRATFOR reports for 15 years or more plus lots of time in boring jobs. But here is my take, anyone else who likes please tell me I have it right or I am full of it.

First, "how they win" is indeed important. The CSA would not have been able to pound the North to defeat. A win would be keeping it as bloody as possible. The goal would be to get the populations of the Northern cities to say, "why are we spilling all this Irish Blood over a bunch of darkies? Let them have their way." Along the way the Brits, who were NOT strong allies of the USA at this point to come in on it. The Brits, still sore over losing the colonies, the War of 1812, and letting the USA walk off with half of Oregon Country, might very well have been happy to help.


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.

Quote:
The South had a good army but a poor navy. British help might have been to eject the Yankee Blockade from New Orleans and a few other ports. Like when you invite your our of work brother-in-law for Christmas, the Brits would have stayed. They would have had right of first refusal on all that southern cotton. Slavery would have died out in the next 10-20 years and the Brits might have helped that along. I feel what would have come about would be a gentler form of separate but equal, still having sharecropping and blacks maybe with some autonomy like the South African "homelands" but less formalized.


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.

Quote:
The USA would still purchase Alaska and probably take Hawaii as the need for coaling stations was universal among the western nations. But the Spanish-American war would not have happened because the USA would not need to eject the Spanish from Cuba to protect New Orleans. Spain would not have rotted from within so much and their civil war might not have happened. This would have deprived Hitler of a testing ground for his troops and equipment.


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.

Quote:
WWI would have still happened, but I doubt the "trenches along M-D. The USA would have their head in a vise between the CSA and their British allies in the south and those pesky Canadians, still Brits at this time, in the north. WWI started in Europe with nearly no USA involvement. The USA might have supported the Germans more just to bleed the Brits. If the USA got involved at all it would be on the German side, but logistically that would be impossible. The war would last longer, but the Brits would prevail what with their colonial system having far more resources. Without Woodrow Wilson to push for a more gentle peace the Brits would impose at lest as harsh of peace terms as actually happened.


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.

Quote:
So a big assumption here is Hitler still rises to power. Since the USA never got the Philippine Islands, Guam, or Midway the Japanese are not nearly as threatened. In fact, the CSA would keep exporting oil to them as long as they kept paying. With neither side threatening the other a "you keep to your hemisphere and we will keep to ours" attitude emerges. With the Brits and the USA never having developed the "special relationship" post Civil War, Lend-Lease never happens. The USA sucks the British gold supply dry, possible forcing them to cede Canada to the USA (meaning no curling and no Jennifer Jones but that is another lesson.)

Hitler would starve the Brits to surrender, but as he respected them their empire would remain as long as he had carte banche in the USSR. He would accommodate the Japanese in the Eastern USSR for a generation anyways. If not ceded directly, Canada would become effectively a vassal of the USA without their British sponsors. The postwar-trade system would never happen because the Pound, Dollar, and Mark would compete for dominance.

Of course that is quite a bit to project, but that is most of my guess. Any other takes on it?


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
Quote: TheCesspit
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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.


Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


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
Quote: AZDuffman
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.


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.

Quote:
There is every reason to believe the CSA develops as a republic based on the US Constitution, but with a weaker central government.


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.


Quote:
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?


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
Page 1 of 51234>Last »