Because blockading Germany is much easier than blockading the US, and Germany has a lot less bandwidth than even a South-less USA. War with the UK is much dicier for Germany than for the US, so it's a risk the latter can take that the former cannot. Berlin certainly has more leeway to operate than OTL, given the relative lack of UK presence in the Mediterranean, but they can't ignore them (I'd imagine that ITTL Britain would likely accept being bribed in order to let Germany and/or Italy take Suez, rather than the OTL's "absolutely not").
A Germany that had won the CEW is a Germany that basically control Europe (with the help of his allies) and in such scenario the UK can say anything she want, the problem is that Germany can simply say no.

Britain would probably be fine with a Suez that they have unfettered access to by way of treaty under Italian “control” but that they can interdict at leisure from Malta, to be fair
Malta is not very good for that, unless Italy is ok with the entire operation, by the end of the CEW aviation is advanced enough that bombers from Italian base can reach easily the island and the general lack of further British presence in the med mean that she is scarily alone an italian-german control of Suez mean that in case of hostilty she is lost
 
as Italians went to the polls in the fall of 1917 under expanded suffrage
Quick question, but what does expanded suffrage mean here? It is the 1912 franchise expansion Giolitti promulgated or has there been further enfranchisement in Italy since we last checked in with them?
 
A Germany that had won the CEW is a Germany that basically control Europe (with the help of his allies) and in such scenario the UK can say anything she want, the problem is that Germany can simply say no.


Malta is not very good for that, unless Italy is ok with the entire operation, by the end of the CEW aviation is advanced enough that bombers from Italian base can reach easily the island and the general lack of further British presence in the med mean that she is scarily alone an italian-german control of Suez mean that in case of hostilty she is lost
The UK may indeed come to regret not giving Nappy 5 and his courtiers more support...
Quick question, but what does expanded suffrage mean here? It is the 1912 franchise expansion Giolitti promulgated or has there been further enfranchisement in Italy since we last checked in with them?
Basically the same as the OTL 1912 expansion, based on what I recall writing.
There's a few political families that IOTL controlled Panamanian politics before the 1968 coup. Several of them could work, I think.

Or it can be Torrijos and his family, if you want to ironic.
My use of Torrijos in BCM would probably preclude making a big figure out of him in CdM but, we'll see.
 
Well OTL has been that bad that anything slightly better is basically a wank

Regarding Italy, well knowing the general up and down of the relationship between us and our latin cousin, the massive increase of their defence budget will be seen as a very aggressive move and fear of possible invasion will run amok among many circles, so the italian own rise of the military budget will be a lot less controversial in any circles (socialist and popular included) except the dedicated pacifist.
If we add the crisis in Austria that in the mind of the nationalist and a lot of government figure is both good (as it can mean opportunities to increase italian influence in the balkans) and extremely bad (can bring not only a further oppression of the italian minority but also convince the A-H government that a short victorious war to prop up the regime is the right solution and everyone here know who will be the main target of such enterprise)...so i doubt that many people in the Belpaese sleep very well in this period
 
Perhaps, though London would surely have quite a bit to say about that

How so?
It feels like after the war, that Austria and Hungary will end up as separate countries and that Hungary is likely to gain as much or even more of what they "lost" in the Treaty of Trianon, keeping everything in the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Crown_of_Saint_Stephen)
With the war being Germany/Italy vs. France/AH/Belgium, once AH is defeated, Italy and Germany's gains are likely to come from *only* the Austrian half of the former Empire. It isn't like Romania will be able to demand Transylvania at the peace table or that anyone will particularly support an independent Croatia or Czechoslovakia.
 
It feels like after the war, that Austria and Hungary will end up as separate countries and that Hungary is likely to gain as much or even more of what they "lost" in the Treaty of Trianon, keeping everything in the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Crown_of_Saint_Stephen)
With the war being Germany/Italy vs. France/AH/Belgium, once AH is defeated, Italy and Germany's gains are likely to come from *only* the Austrian half of the former Empire. It isn't like Romania will be able to demand Transylvania at the peace table or that anyone will particularly support an independent Croatia or Czechoslovakia.
Perhaps.
 
Well OTL has been that bad that anything slightly better is basically a wank

Regarding Italy, well knowing the general up and down of the relationship between us and our latin cousin, the massive increase of their defence budget will be seen as a very aggressive move and fear of possible invasion will run amok among many circles, so the italian own rise of the military budget will be a lot less controversial in any circles (socialist and popular included) except the dedicated pacifist.
If we add the crisis in Austria that in the mind of the nationalist and a lot of government figure is both good (as it can mean opportunities to increase italian influence in the balkans) and extremely bad (can bring not only a further oppression of the italian minority but also convince the A-H government that a short victorious war to prop up the regime is the right solution and everyone here know who will be the main target of such enterprise)...so i doubt that many people in the Belpaese sleep very well in this period
And this line of thinking is exactly how the slow March towards war begins
 
It feels like after the war, that Austria and Hungary will end up as separate countries and that Hungary is likely to gain as much or even more of what they "lost" in the Treaty of Trianon, keeping everything in the (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Crown_of_Saint_Stephen)
With the war being Germany/Italy vs. France/AH/Belgium, once AH is defeated, Italy and Germany's gains are likely to come from *only* the Austrian half of the former Empire. It isn't like Romania will be able to demand Transylvania at the peace table or that anyone will particularly support an independent Croatia or Czechoslovakia.

Difficult to see Hungary keeping all that territory, expecially with her usual politics of magyarization and the nationalistic sentiment in Bhoemia and Croatia will be too developed to be dismissed.
Italy will support an independent Croatia as it's better to have some kind of buffer and it's easier to control, the same can be say for Germany with the Czech...basically nobody (except maybe the russian) want megahungary
 
We've been told in the EU thread that at some point independent nations of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and Croatia all exist. Not how and when they become independent or anything about their political system.

FWIW, I've been tempted to assume the Germans will want Bohemia as a client, perhaps along similar lines to their plans for east Europe after more OTL-style CP victories. That is, find a spare German prince somewhere and make him king of a nominally independent kingdom of Bohemia that's in the German economic sphere.

I could see Italy wanting to do the same for Croatia, at least as their end goal. Remember Serbia is *not* joining in the coming war and IIRC still has the Obrenovics as monarchs, plus is currently smaller than OTL. So Yugoslavia as OTL knew it won't be a thing.

Romania on the other hand is somewhat friendly to the Germans and, though not at first, they can always jump in when it becomes clear to everyone the Habsburgs are going down.

Of course this will bring up the big question here: How likely is Germany to support a maximalist claim for Hungarian borders after the war? Which ultimately depends on what exactly the leadership of post-Habsburg Hungary ends up looking like, a subject on which we've been told exactly nothing.
 
Difficult to see Hungary keeping all that territory, expecially with her usual politics of magyarization and the nationalistic sentiment in Bhoemia and Croatia will be too developed to be dismissed.
Italy will support an independent Croatia as it's better to have some kind of buffer and it's easier to control, the same can be say for Germany with the Czech...basically nobody (except maybe the russian) want megahungary
We've been told in the EU thread that at some point independent nations of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and Croatia all exist. Not how and when they become independent or anything about their political system.

FWIW, I've been tempted to assume the Germans will want Bohemia as a client, perhaps along similar lines to their plans for east Europe after more OTL-style CP victories. That is, find a spare German prince somewhere and make him king of a nominally independent kingdom of Bohemia that's in the German economic sphere.

I could see Italy wanting to do the same for Croatia, at least as their end goal. Remember Serbia is *not* joining in the coming war and IIRC still has the Obrenovics as monarchs, plus is currently smaller than OTL. So Yugoslavia as OTL knew it won't be a thing.

Romania on the other hand is somewhat friendly to the Germans and, though not at first, they can always jump in when it becomes clear to everyone the Habsburgs are going down.

Of course this will bring up the big question here: How likely is Germany to support a maximalist claim for Hungarian borders after the war? Which ultimately depends on what exactly the leadership of post-Habsburg Hungary ends up looking like, a subject on which we've been told exactly nothing.
A slight quibble that the Montenegrins got the Serbian throne - which, of course, redounds to Italy's benefit, considering the close ties between Rome and Podgorica.

Otherwise, this is solid analysis from both of you, and I'll just leave it at that.
 
Mount Vernon Congress (Part I)
"...invited to the Mount Vernon Congress, along with Herman Hall, as personal guests of Bliss and March by virtue of their status as the two theater-level commanders on the day of the war's conclusion. Liggett and Farnsworth, for their own considerable contributions in the early phase of the war, were also asked to attend; Pershing took more than a little personal satisfaction that Treat was not extended the same courtesy.

The military contingent to the Mount Vernon Congress were invited to stay at the relatively-intact plantation house once owned by Robert E. Lee not far from Mount Vernon, which overlooked the remains of Washington and the massive military camp there, and every day starting on January 11 they were escorted to George Washington's property at five o' clock sharp by convoy, at which point their participation as mainstays of the event largely ended, except for Bliss, who advised Secretary of War Stimson on concerns around defense pertinent to a final treaty. Nonetheless, Pershing was given "a seat in the first row to the unfolding of history, the unmaking of the Crime of Havana one day, one memorandum, at a time," and his contemporaneous notes that he and Liggett cross-referenced as they edited each others' memoirs present one of the best first-hand accounts of Mount Vernon not dependent on the opinions of biases of the men who served as architects of the Treaty of Mount Vernon.

Pershing in the 1910s seldom if ever spoke of politics beyond those related to veteran's issues, but he was privately a moderate, perhaps even progressively-minded, Liberal despite his Nebraskan roots (or perhaps because of them) who had written in his diary his dismay at the news that Hughes would not "seek to win the peace as he has most assuredly won the war." This considerable admiration for Hughes did not extend to Root or Henry Cabot Lodge, the Massachusetts Senator who was already measuring the drapes to take over as Secretary of State, and Pershing's observations at Mount Vernon of both men at work were in many ways the beginning of that.

The British dispatched as a mediator the Lord Chelwood, the elder brother of the incumbent Prime Minister regarded as a talented, level-headed diplomat who would have, but for the identity of his sibling, made a capable Foreign Secretary (and likely a considerable improvement over Sir Ian Malcolm, who had nonetheless brokered the treaties that ended the wars with Brazil at Asuncion and Halifax). This had been done, curiously, at Philadelphia's insistence, with Root's thinking being that the presence of an ostensibly neutral third party would make the affair more palatable in the courts of old Europe, many of which had quietly sympathized with the elite autocratic instincts of the Bloc Sud. This was, in the end, window dressing - Chelwood was, unlike many of his High Tory tradition, fully in the camp of the United States and while he did privately shape some proposals to be less harsh than they could otherwise have been, saw Mount Vernon as a potential launch of his project of a grand international diplomatic order that would prevent war and hostilities out of "one of the most terrible slaughters Man has ever seen," and hoped to earn American support for such a cause..."

- Pershing

"...Treaty of Lima had placed substantive limits on Chile's future military size and its economic rights, and it was seen as a likely blueprint for what the United States would seek to accomplish at Mount Vernon. Like the Confederacy, Chile had exited the war as a fully conquered and supine party rather than getting out while there was a chance for leniency, as with Mexico and Brazil, and Chile's fractious civil conflict and economic near-collapse suggested what would come next, if not worse. Patton, Martin, Heflin and Secretary of State James McReynolds arrived at Mount Vernon expecting disaster; they were forced to swallow apocalypse.

With the deteriorating situation in the states, Patton was eager to cut a quick deal, ideally by the end of January, so that he could start enforcing some kind of state control over the country as starvation, riots and paramilitary violence spiraled across the Confederacy, and Martin, ever the survivor, had begrudgingly accepted political reality that the Confederacy needed to move quickly. With these needs in mind, the inclusion of McReynolds was a bad blunder for the Confederate delegation; the two more pragmatic Virginians were frequently humiliated by the rudeness, intemperate attitude, and stubbornness of their chief diplomat who particularly angered Lodge, a man with Root's ear whom the Confederates could not afford to alienate.

The United States entered the Congress with four chief concerns - the removal of the Confederacy's ability to pose a military threat to American territory, full freedom of navigation in Confederate waters such as the Mississippi or the Chesapeake, the economic vassalization of Richmond, and assigning the full and total "guilt" of the war to the Confederacy for all time. They also sought to avoid a repeat of the Havana Conference fifty-three years earlier, and as such only the British were permitted to represent European interests at the table, and even then only as window dressing despite a number of German and French interests in the Confederacy.

The first piece of defanging the Confederate war capabilities was one Patton had anticipated - territorial concessions, drawn almost entirely from Virginia and phrased in a way that sought to "recompense" the states of West Virginia and especially Maryland for the "atrocities" carried out against their populaces in the course of the war. Northampton and Accomack were obvious candidates to be added to Maryland, but Lodge pressed on, demanding that Marylander territory be extended all the way to the Rappahannock, carving off the counties of Loudoun, Prince William, Stafford and Fairfax as well as the swampy, fairly uninhabited Northern Neck. Massive territorial demands for West Virginia were dialed back, partially thanks to Patton's acquiescence to the Maryland claims; in the end, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Pendleton, Hampshire, Hardy, Morgan, Berkely, Jefferson, Frederick and Clarke were attached to the American state to create a broader buffer from West Virginia's coalfields, but vast swaths of the Shenandoah Valley and southwest of the state were retained within the Confederacy almost purely out of luck.

It would be the last time at the Mount Vernon Congress that any developments could be described as being lucky for the Confederacy..."

- The Bourbon Restoration: The Confederate States 1915-33
 
Wow, I didn't realize West Virginia's boundaries were so far to the west relative to OTL, going by the counties mentioned (and assuming the US didn't get Fauquier, and WV didn't get Mercer/Summers/Monroe at it's bottom), the border readjustments look something like this
1699246801058.png
 
🕺🕺
Wow, I didn't realize West Virginia's boundaries were so far to the west relative to OTL, going by the counties mentioned (and assuming the US didn't get Fauquier, and WV didn't get Mercer/Summers/Monroe at it's bottom), the border readjustments look something like this
View attachment 867423
Looks about right. I went back and forth on Fauquier but I like the aesthetic of that map quite a bit.
 
Compared to some of what has been discussed in the thread, Virginia got off pretty light. West Virginia being smaller than OTL to start does put a damper on any maximalist proposals though.

In my head this just means there are weirdos in TTL West Virginia who are mad into the 21st century that all of the Shenandoah valley wasn't liberated lol.
 
By "territorial concessions" I assume this means just the minutia of border disputes. The removal of several states from the Confederacy and the demilitarization of the Confederate coastline or certain states is still to come! These changes would probably give a pretty good boost to Maryland's population except for the fact the Potomac is a way less important artery now.
 
I'm expecting the the CSA will be banned from *ever* having warships on the Chesapeake, which in turn may lead to the Dismal Swamp Canal of TTL being a *military* project of the CSA.

And I expect either the C&D (or a new canal across Accomack county, the northern of the two counties gained on the Eastern Shore) to be upgraded to take warships of the 20th century)

And this isn't the *last* treaty of the war, that will either be Texas /CSA *or* someone* with whatever state is considered the legal successor to Centro.
 
So the CSA is gonna get fucked by the treaty even worse than Chile got fucked by theirs. For the CSA, as it should be. Still frustrating to read the US dictating terms to anyone, and they're pretty much guaranteed to never lose a war again so they get to be smug about it. Oh well, it is what it is. On a similar note, what do we already know about what's happening to each losing and winning nation?

Furthermore, who is so far confirmed to be participating in the CEW? I have Germany, Italy, and AH rebels - in other words Hungary - on one side (possibly supported unofficially by Russia) and France, AH loyalists, Belgium, and Denmark on the other. Anyone I've missed? Anyone we know confirmed neutral?

I like the idea of the World Wars having a different meaning, being the Great American War, the Centreal European War, and possibly a big one in Asia to round it off. I wonder if anything like that will happen? Not great for the people living there, I suppose, but that's life.
 
So the CSA is gonna get fucked by the treaty even worse than Chile got fucked by theirs. For the CSA, as it should be. Still frustrating to read the US dictating terms to anyone, and they're pretty much guaranteed to never lose a war again so they get to be smug about it. Oh well, it is what it is. On a similar note, what do we already know about what's happening to each losing and winning nation?

Furthermore, who is so far confirmed to be participating in the CEW? I have Germany, Italy, and AH rebels - in other words Hungary - on one side (possibly supported unofficially by Russia) and France, AH loyalists, Belgium, and Denmark on the other. Anyone I've missed? Anyone we know confirmed neutral?

I like the idea of the World Wars having a different meaning, being the Great American War, the Centreal European War, and possibly a big one in Asia to round it off. I wonder if anything like that will happen? Not great for the people living there, I suppose, but that's life.
I'm not honestly sure who will lose a larger percentage of their pre-war land area, Chile or the CSA. I was originally thinking it was worse for Chile, but I forgot about the Arizona Territory, and we'll have to see what the Author does in regards to Kentucky. And I don't think the author has said anything about the next 10 years being a civil war in the CSA the way that it seems to be in Chile.

To make the the parallels stronger between the two, we would have needed most of the area in the southern part of Chile (on both sides of the Andes) to end up as an independent Patagonia, but I don't think I've ever seen an independent Patagonia with a POD after 1800. (and of the ones before, most have been as a British Settler colony)

I'm pretty sure the UK, AH and Russia are neutrals, at least at the beginning.
 
Top