underused after 1900 pods

[lordroel]

Dec 19, 2019 2:19:01 GMT Zyobot said:

'Republican California Into 21st Century'.

How powerful is this Republican California.

[stevep]

   Guys

   From Lordroel's US Naval History from yesterday.

1902 - During the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903, Adm. George Dewey receives orders from President Theodore Roosevelt to sail with the North and South Atlantic Squadron to Trinidad then Venezuela to ensure Great Britain and Germany's dispute with Venezuela is settled by peaceful arbitration, not force. A settlement is reached February 1903.

  What if by some means this had resulted in war between the US, Britain and Germany?  Going to greatly complicate developments both in Europe and in N America among other areas.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Dec 19, 2019 3:49:02 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 19, 2019 2:19:01 GMT Zyobot said:

'Republican California Into 21st Century'.

How powerful is this Republican California.

I don't know. That's why I brought it up, to speculate on how the Golden State would fair if it remained Republican into 2019+.

[lordroel]

Dec 19, 2019 11:11:41 GMT stevep said:

   Guys

   From Lordroel's US Naval History from yesterday.

1902 - During the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903, Adm. George Dewey receives orders from President Theodore Roosevelt to sail with the North and South Atlantic Squadron to Trinidad then Venezuela to ensure Great Britain and Germany's dispute with Venezuela is settled by peaceful arbitration, not force. A settlement is reached February 1903.

  What if by some means this had resulted in war between the US, Britain and Germany?  Going to greatly complicate developments both in Europe and in N America among other areas.

  Steve

Check this out stevep, do not know if it is 100 % accurate, but if so, the German, British and Italian blockade fleets are screwed. 

Venezuelan Crisis of 1902

[stevep]

Dec 19, 2019 17:35:41 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 19, 2019 11:11:41 GMT stevep said:

   Guys

   From Lordroel's US Naval History from yesterday.

  What if by some means this had resulted in war between the US, Britain and Germany?  Going to greatly complicate developments both in Europe and in N America among other areas.

  Steve

Check this out stevep , do not know if it is 100 % accurate, but if so, the German, British and Italian blockade fleets are screwed. 

Venezuelan Crisis of 1902

  It would all depend on the circumstances.  Yes if the USN attacked the blockading fleet they have a massive numerical advantage but it would assumable mean war with all three nations.  [Wasn't aware of the Italian naval involvement in the affair.]  As such they should expect retaliation and in this case that would depend heavily on how closely Britain and Germany collaborated as a result and the reactions of other players.

  Basically Britain has the fleet to crush the US navy if it comes to a major battle between the USN and a powerful RN fleet sent to the region and Britain has a number of bases in the region, including Trinidad [as mentioned] but also Jamaica and a bit further north Bermuda as well as other colonies.  Also with the large force of cruisers at this point there is a good opportunity for a powerful blockade of US ports.  Also if Germany and Britain are able to work together then you have a British army with recent experience from the Boer War and at least some elements of the very powerful German army.  The US may in the wider term be too large to be conquered but it starts with a very small army and you could see a lot of damage done to it, especially its coastal regions if its opponents peruse the war aggressively.  Which is a possibility if the attack on the blockading forces is seen as a sneak attack or if the US attacks Canada.  [Canada is likely to declare its neutrality in such a conflict but whether the US accepts that would be an issue].  Without those cases Britain might be a lot more willing to seek a peace settlement although its likely to be angry at any attack on its ships.

  In terms of other powers getting involved then the big questions would be the dual alliance of France and Russia and the rising power of Japan:

a)  In the former case it might seek to attack Germany while that power is distracted but this would be a hell of a risk as Germany is easily the strongest power in the world at the time and also this would establish a British-German-Austrian-Italian alliance.  Even with the US as a possible ally this is very likely fatal for the two powers as not only would there be much capacity - even if the will was there - for US support in the near term and everybody was expecting a short war but also since such a move would immediately threaten the homelands of Britain and Germany it would make France especially the priority target for the alliance.  As such while such a move would be good for the US it would be a bloody disaster for the French and probably not good for Russia.  The two might move against Germany if the US was seen as being successful some time into a longer war and had drawn away a sizeable proportion of British and German strength but I can't really see then joining the conflict in the early stages.  Also if the US action was seen as unjustified their likely to be influenced by that.

b)  Japan, while it doesn't have the best relations with Germany, which organised the ad-hoc alliance with France and Russia to limit Japan's gains from its victory over China in 1895 is allied with Britain and while not formally committed under that alliance to join the war - unless another nation joins the war against Britain - it may find it convenient to.  There is tension with the US over racial discrimination against Japanese migrants both to the US itself and the recently established US control over Hawaii, which also has a significant Japanese minority.  Furthermore the US has recently put down, with a fair degree of brutality, the move for independence in the Philippines - which IIRC occupied a good proportion of the US regular forces.  Japan hasn't yet achieved the level of prestige it OTL received by its victory over Russia but is seen by a fair number of people both in Japan itself and elsewhere in Asia as the leading Asian power and an opponent of control of Asia by external powers.  Also the Philippines both lie across important Japanese trade lines and are also vulnerable to Japanese attacks, with the US occupied by a major war with 3 European powers and the Japanese control of Taiwan means they have the potential to threaten US control of the islands from the south as well as the north.  Hence I could see a significant probability that Japan would seek to 'liberate' the islands and possibly even try and reach towards Hawaii - as I think we discussed in another thread a few months back if the US was heavily occupied by fighting with the other powers.

  Also there is the issue of nitrate supplies.  Those come largely from Chile and neighbouring areas and are important as the basis for both fertilizers and modern 'smokeless' explosives used in the more modern weapons.  Britain has strong economic and political influences in the region and also in an alliance that would control the seas its likely that the US would quickly find itself cut off from such supplies just as it would want to massive expand production of munitions.  They can revert to older gunpowder based weaponry but those are significantly less efficient and again would need to sort out production lines, for saltpeter especially.  Its possible that the US might somehow produce a Fritz Haber who develops such a process to manufacture nitrites from atmospheric nitrogen but doing that and converting an idea into a large scale industrial process in the middle of a major war that could see large areas of your industrial heartlands fought over would be a hell of a task.  Especially since at this point Germany is definitely the primary power when it comes to the chemical industry.

[Zyobot]

'No Southern Switch', as in that region of the country remains a Democratic stronghold. I would've said something like 'No Southern Strategy', but then I doubt that the political U-turn was quite that simple and one-dimensional (even though race still would've played a role, no doubt).

[stevep]

Dec 20, 2019 21:22:50 GMT Zyobot said:

'No Southern Switch', as in that region of the country remains a Democratic stronghold. I would've said something like 'No Southern Strategy', but then I doubt that the political U-turn was quite that simple and one-dimensional (even though race still would've played a role, no doubt).

  Well it would depend on the circumstances but the Democrats have a lot more votes and representatives in the south.  However how much might it cost them elsewhere?  Likely that regions which are more liberal could be less supportive if the Democrats still have a significant Dixecrat support they depend on.  In this case the Republics might still be the more liberal party and the Democrats the more reactionary.

  Also unless the Civil Rights movement has got nowhere and Jim Crow is largely in place a Democratic Party depending largely on white conservative southerns are likely to have little support among the blacks and possibly some other racial groups. 

  As such the position is likely to be less favourable to the Democrats than them simply having a markedly stronger support in the south and all they have elsewhere nowadays.

[Zyobot]

Dec 21, 2019 11:30:14 GMT stevep said:

Dec 20, 2019 21:22:50 GMT Zyobot said:

'No Southern Switch', as in that region of the country remains a Democratic stronghold. I would've said something like 'No Southern Strategy', but then I doubt that the political U-turn was quite that simple and one-dimensional (even though race still would've played a role, no doubt).

  Well it would depend on the circumstances but the Democrats have a lot more votes and representatives in the south.  However how much might it cost them elsewhere?  Likely that regions which are more liberal could be less supportive if the Democrats still have a significant Dixecrat support they depend on.  In this case the Republics might still be the more liberal party and the Democrats the more reactionary.

  Also unless the Civil Rights movement has got nowhere and Jim Crow is largely in place a Democratic Party depending largely on white conservative southerns are likely to have little support among the blacks and possibly some other racial groups. 

  As such the position is likely to be less favourable to the Democrats than them simply having a markedly stronger support in the south and all they have elsewhere nowadays.

Mm'kay. When you say that the Democrats would trend conservative while the GOP is more accepting of liberalism, I assume that's referring to social and cultural stances as opposed to economic beliefs? In that case, the former would become the party of socially traditionalist fiscal liberals, and the latter the party of progressive fiscal conservatives.

I'm also guessing that, unlike IOTL, minority communities would tend to vote Republican due to the racist and regressive tendencies of the Jim-Crow wing of the Democratic Party. Though, which geographic regions of the country would vote for which party is probably up for debate otherwise.

[stevep]

Dec 22, 2019 19:10:46 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 21, 2019 11:30:14 GMT stevep said:

  Well it would depend on the circumstances but the Democrats have a lot more votes and representatives in the south.  However how much might it cost them elsewhere?  Likely that regions which are more liberal could be less supportive if the Democrats still have a significant Dixecrat support they depend on.  In this case the Republics might still be the more liberal party and the Democrats the more reactionary.

  Also unless the Civil Rights movement has got nowhere and Jim Crow is largely in place a Democratic Party depending largely on white conservative southerns are likely to have little support among the blacks and possibly some other racial groups. 

  As such the position is likely to be less favourable to the Democrats than them simply having a markedly stronger support in the south and all they have elsewhere nowadays.

Mm'kay. When you say that the Democrats would trend conservative while the GOP is more accepting of liberalism, I assume that's referring to social and cultural stances as opposed to economic beliefs? In that case, the former would become the party of socially traditionalist fiscal liberals, and the latter the party of progressive fiscal conservatives.

I'm also guessing that, unlike IOTL, minority communities would tend to vote Republican due to the racist and regressive tendencies of the Jim-Crow wing of the Democratic Party. Though, which geographic regions of the country would vote for which party is probably up for debate otherwise.

  Basically yes.  I'm a social liberal and while I value a good economic base I don't assume minimal government is automatically a good thing. 

[Zyobot]

Dec 23, 2019 10:29:58 GMT stevep said:

Dec 22, 2019 19:10:46 GMT Zyobot said:

Mm'kay. When you say that the Democrats would trend conservative while the GOP is more accepting of liberalism, I assume that's referring to social and cultural stances as opposed to economic beliefs? In that case, the former would become the party of socially traditionalist fiscal liberals, and the latter the party of progressive fiscal conservatives.

I'm also guessing that, unlike IOTL, minority communities would tend to vote Republican due to the racist and regressive tendencies of the Jim-Crow wing of the Democratic Party. Though, which geographic regions of the country would vote for which party is probably up for debate otherwise.

  Basically yes.  I'm a social liberal and while I value a good economic base I don't assume minimal government is automatically a good thing. 

Alright, then. I also wonder where their stances on other issues like drugs or foreign policy will end up compared to OTL. Somehow, I expect more mixed positions, outside of economics and the social-cultural fabric.

Further, while there’s no guarantee that they’ll necessarily occupy office, or even be born depending on how far back to PoD occurs, having certain OTL Republicans who become Democrats ITTL, like George W. Bush, could be interesting. Maybe they’d trend in socially conservative direction, though I’m unsure whether they’d be more in line with OTL Blue-Dog or New-Dealer Democrats when it comes to fiscal concerns.

[stevep]

Dec 23, 2019 18:04:14 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 23, 2019 10:29:58 GMT stevep said:

  Basically yes.  I'm a social liberal and while I value a good economic base I don't assume minimal government is automatically a good thing. 

Alright, then. I also wonder where their stances on other issues like drugs or foreign policy will end up compared to OTL. Somehow, I expect more mixed positions, outside of economics and the social-cultural fabric.

Further, while there’s no guarantee that they’ll necessarily occupy office, or even be born depending on how far back to PoD occurs, having certain OTL Republicans who become Democrats ITTL, like George W. Bush, could be interesting. Maybe they’d trend in socially conservative direction, though I’m unsure whether they’d be more in line with OTL Blue-Dog or New-Dealer Democrats when it comes to fiscal concerns.

  Well a lots definitely going to be different in comparison to OTL.  Also is the religious right going to be a major influence on the Democrats here rather than the Republicans.  In what way and how that might differ I don't know.  Possibly with the history of connections with organised labour and involvement in government activities, which is generally opposed by the religious groups I understand the Democrats would be more deeply divided than the republicans were OTL?

[Zyobot]

Dec 24, 2019 13:32:43 GMT stevep said:

Dec 23, 2019 18:04:14 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. I also wonder where their stances on other issues like drugs or foreign policy will end up compared to OTL. Somehow, I expect more mixed positions, outside of economics and the social-cultural fabric.

Further, while there’s no guarantee that they’ll necessarily occupy office, or even be born depending on how far back to PoD occurs, having certain OTL Republicans who become Democrats ITTL, like George W. Bush, could be interesting. Maybe they’d trend in socially conservative direction, though I’m unsure whether they’d be more in line with OTL Blue-Dog or New-Dealer Democrats when it comes to fiscal concerns.

  Well a lots definitely going to be different in comparison to OTL.  Also is the religious right going to be a major influence on the Democrats here rather than the Republicans.  In what way and how that might differ I don't know.  Possibly with the history of connections with organised labour and involvement in government activities, which is generally opposed by the religious groups I understand the Democrats would be more deeply divided than the republicans were OTL?

Potentially, I think? Maybe the more pronounced divisions within the Democratic Party would give the Republicans an edge overall.

Actually, I wonder if the more socially conservative, God-and-country elements of the country—those that align with the Democrats, anyway—would constitute more of a “religious left” when it comes to economic issues?

The GOP, meanwhile, might become a socially progressive, capitalistic “yuppie” party that appeals to a coalition of business-minded professionals, young people and minorities who think of the Democrats as a needlessly restrictive and regulatory group of “old white folks” or something to that effect.

In that case, maybe TTL’s elderly would fall more in line with the Democrats, who’d play up the fond memories of FDR and his New-Dealer brand of “organized capitalism”. Plus, they’d probably cling to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security as government programs that benefit their demographic, and see the GOP as threatening to take those away from them (or at least reduce what they get).

[Zyobot]

‘What Republicans Could Beat Barack Obama In ATL 2012?’.

[Zyobot]

‘Earlier Star Wars Prequels’.

[EwellHolmes]

Dec 28, 2019 22:16:14 GMT Zyobot said:

‘What Republicans Could Beat Barack Obama In ATL 2012?’.

If you discard the theory his first debate performance wasn't a stunt, Romney could've if he kept his momentum going for the second one.