Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

quote:

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting...

Not that I know of. Due to the size and scope of that conflict the scenario would have to be a 'monster.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Or stay put. Losing Antwerp would be inconvenient -- not the kiss of death.

Well, we can't supply twenty plus divisions by air. Maybe five- given good weather. Clearly they'd have to break back into contact with the rest of France.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

[Quote]If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

quote:


So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started.

It's certainly a topic which is ripe with possibility as concerns alternate history. Consider the following possibility:

In the wake of a Confederate victory, there is no American "army of observation" on the Mexican border. No American volunteers in Juarez's army. American diplomatic pressure on France, if that even occurs, has no substance. France does not have to withdraw support from Maximilian and the Conservatives in Mexico. Juarez is eventually defeated, and close ties between the Confederacy and France lead to close ties between the Confederacy and Mexico into the 20th century. No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

The flip side of this is that if Juarez does eventually defeat the French/Conservatives anyway, and the Confederacy had been helping them, Mexico is going to be incredibly hostile to the Confederacy. Another question would be whether or not Mexico has a major revolution around the time it did historically(1910-1920), and what you think the US and Confederate role would be in that. You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.

Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?

For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat

All I would like to see now is a good wargame based upon the concept.

Right. Well I suggest you start by finding a map.... :)

As they say, if you want something done properly, do it yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Largely, you illustrate why I tend to shy away from these more ambitious hypotheticals. One can take a different decision a few months earlier and come up with a Sealion sceanrio for the summer of 1940. Only so much can vary, and only by so much. No airlifted Tiger II's.

Go with the seventy-year span between a Southern victory in 1863 and a 1933 USA-CSA hypothetical and you can have any damned thing you want. Hell, figure the increased military tension has led to American ingenuity being turned more to arms. Put in jet fighters if it suits you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
Grant could probably come up with an argument for how the south could have survived until 1930. I'll agree that it's unlikely. Certainly the South would have had to have changed a lot.

I'll admit that I don't see why this is unlikely if our starting point is a Confederate victory in the Civil War. The sooner this comes, the less economic damage has been done to the South. No March to the Sea, no Sheridan denuding the Shenandoah, etc. In addition to this, having let the Confederacy become established as a sovereign nation, it's going to be much harder to reconquer it later on. Then there's also the question of whether or not the North has the will to attempt to do so at all. It would have lost the war in the first place because of a failure of political will. Where does the political will come from to try and reconquer the South at a later time? Radical President from New England exploits an American Dolchstosslegende to radicalize the Yankee volk against hook-nosed Southerners?

As for the South changing, I think everyone makes the assumption that it wouldn't- without much basis. This is especially surprising given the current situation in the United States, which sees the South growing at the expense of the Northeast and the Rust Belt, and the South dominating the political life of the country.

The South had its own technocrats, industrialists, and pragmatic centralizers. I think something like the boll weevil infestations which devastated cotton crops in the 1870s would have led to them becoming ever more powerful. This is about what happened historically- look at the development of Birmingham, Alabama. I'm assuming that this process would have been more pronounced than it was historically without the South having been economically devastated in the Civil War and not being controlled by Northern interests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.

You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer.



< Message edited by ColinWright -- 11/6/2005 9:51:02 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Fidel_Helms)

quote:

You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer.

quote:


If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Largely, you illustrate why I tend to shy away from these more ambitious hypotheticals. One can take a different decision a few months earlier and come up with a Sealion sceanrio for the summer of 1940. Only so much can vary, and only by so much. No airlifted Tiger II's.

Go with the seventy-year span between a Southern victory in 1863 and a 1933 USA-CSA hypothetical and you can have any damned thing you want. Hell, figure the increased military tension has led to American ingenuity being turned more to arms. Put in jet fighters if it suits you.

Yeah. You just have to decide whether or not that appeals. The usefulness of such hypotheticals comes in creating a gaming situation which can be more or less custom designed to one's tastes, while not being science fiction or fantasy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

You've made this argument before. While it has some validity, it ignores the fact that Mexico borders on California, which presumably is still in the Union. Also, California itself -- particularly at this time -- was a pretty significant oil producer.

Actually, I think that Redcoat had California partitioned between the two, but let's assume that it's still in the Union. Mexico's oil fields are on the Gulf of Mexico. The only practical way for this oil to get into the Union is through the Confederacy or by sea. Obviously the Confederacy can shut down the land route; the sea route can be seriously affected by submarines in time of war, especially if we assume that the Caribbean is a Confederate lake.

quote:


If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

She can in wartime. In peacetime, instead of Union companies drilling wells, it'll be Confederate oil companies doing so and selling the oil at a nice profit to the Union, or extracting massive concessions from Union companies to permit them to drill. As I said before, the Union isn't deprived of oil, but it's in a much weaker position than historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Mexico did have railroads, you know.

quote:


The thing is that I'm sure the CSA can make oil expensive for the United States -- maybe even so expensive that the United States does what Germany did and starts synthesizing it from coal. I don't think, though, that the South really has a war-winning weapon here. The United States still has some domestic supplies. It can either synthesize or import whatever more is required.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Mexico did have railroads, you know.

Sure. However, obviously railing oil across the breadth and width of Mexico, up into California, and then back across North America is not exactly an ideal scenario, not even taking into account the capacity of the Mexican rail network.

quote:


The thing is that I'm sure the CSA can make oil expensive for the United States -- maybe even so expensive that the United States does what Germany did and starts synthesizing it from coal. I don't think, though, that the South really has a war-winning weapon here. The United States still has some domestic supplies. It can either synthesize or import whatever more is required.

I'm not saying that the lack of oil would have made the Union into a feudal state or something. But industry requires energy; the cheaper the better. I think it's fairly obvious that limiting the Union's access to cheap energy is going to retard its industrial development. Consider that historically, the United States produced over half of the world's oil supply during this time frame. I think it's pretty hard to argue that replacing "United States" with "Confederate States and Mexico" is not going to have a serious effect on the Union. For one thing, guess who bought most of Mexico's oil exports to the US? The US Navy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Where does the political will come from to try and reconquer the South at a later time? Radical President from New England exploits an American Dolchstosslegende to radicalize the Yankee volk against hook-nosed Southerners?

quote:

I think something like the boll weevil infestations which devastated cotton crops in the 1870s would have led to them becoming ever more powerful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah. To my mind, though, such hypotheticals have an aura of unreality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'd look at the fighting around Shanghai in 1937-1938. It went on for six months -- and my understanding is that the Chinese army proved considerably harder to beat than the Japanese had anticipated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah. To my mind, though, such hypotheticals have an aura of unreality.

To the extent that's true, I'm not bothered by it. I loved Fall Grau. I found something indescribably fun about trying to retake Birmingham, Alabama from 1st SS Panzer or whatever. So yeah, I'm up for having the Army of Northern Virginia march on Caracas or whatever. To me it's the same motivation that compels me to play Pelle's Petsamo. I could care less about the Eastern Front, but that is a very interesting gaming situation. Hypotheticals are often the most interesting from a gaming point of view, and have more color.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

She can in wartime. In peacetime, instead of Union companies drilling wells, it'll be Confederate oil companies doing so and selling the oil at a nice profit to the Union, or extracting massive concessions from Union companies to permit them to drill. As I said before, the Union isn't deprived of oil, but it's in a much weaker position than historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany.

quote:


Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909.

quote:


We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

To the extent that's true, I'm not bothered by it. I loved Fall Grau. I found something indescribably fun about trying to retake Birmingham, Alabama from 1st SS Panzer or whatever. So yeah, I'm up for having the Army of Northern Virginia march on Caracas or whatever. To me it's the same motivation that compels me to play Pelle's Petsamo. I could care less about the Eastern Front, but that is a very interesting gaming situation. Hypotheticals are often the most interesting from a gaming point of view, and have more color.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States.

quote:

Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Second, note that Holland does have ports. These can be occupied.

This calls for us to a) go on a new offensive after having been cut off b) beat the historical advance rate and c) repair those ports in double quick time.

I say we just smash the Germans behind us and probably retake Antwerp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

They can't extract "massive concessions". The Union companies will just go drill in some other country. The Confederacy will get just the same nonspectacular price for its oil that everyone else does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Well, first off, a mere lack of indigenous oil is not going to severely retard the North's development: witness Britain and Germany.

Both of whom had an industrial output far inferior to that of the United States. Again, I am not saying that the Union never fully industrializes or something- just that the United States of the 1930s and 1940s is not the 300 pound gorilla that it historically was.

quote:

quote:


Secondly, this sort of impoverishment assumes a CSA that is so hostile to the USA that even in peacetime it refuses to sell to its natural best customer. Thirdly, when does Southern oil come to dominate? As I recall, Spindletop was in 1909.

Mexican and Texan fields began to be exploited around the turn of the century. As for your first point, did you even bother to read my last post? I am not supposing that the Confederacy is not selling oil to the Union in peacetime.

quote:

quote:


We've got ample alternative sources overseas even if the South tries to put on the squeeze.

Where? Oil wasn't discovered in Venezuela until the early 1920s, and production didn't pick up until the 30s. At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars. That makes her much weaker than she was historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
The Dutch East Indies are a popular source. Helps that the convoys are going to be out of reach of the vast majority of Confederate raiders.

"At best, the US has these long maritime supply lines like Britain did during the World Wars"

Right. You can see how this is less desireable than getting that oil from Texas, correct? Not to mention that US companies couldn't drill in the Dutch East Indies for most of the 20s. I also don't see why Confederate raiders wouldn't be able to get to those convoys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As Ben notes, you're mistaken about US industry prior to 1930.

quote:

Okay, so it is selling oil to the US in peacetime. Then I fail to see the major impact on US ecomomic development. Indigenous oil is NOT necessary to economic development. Ask Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

That's like arguing that I can bend you to my will by forcing you to do your grocerry shopping at the Piggly-Wiggly on the other side of town.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

We should write the scenario with a blatantly pro-Southern briefing. Mad-dog Northern Amero-Nazis decide to crush Southern independence. Britain winds up being the 'arsenal of democracy.' Heroic Southern tankers equip themselves with Matilda II's -- latest product of British military technology.