The Union Forever: A TL
- Thread starter Mac Gregor
- Start date
Ouch, India's still quite the ulcer for the British I see. Here's hoping the conflict wraps up soon*.
Is Zhang supposed to be a Mao stand-in, or just another tinpot "strongman" as we usually see in failed republics?
Given Germany's ever-expanding influence (something to be wary of in the future, perhaps?), how would you say Bohemia's cultural and political leanings are? Are they like OTL's Czech Republic, or closer to Germany than OTL?
*Regarding the picture in use, it looks like the Brits are issued some fairly swag gear; does this mean they have Special Forces/Deep Recce units now, a la the SAS?
Zhang is not a Mao stand-in but he's a lttle more than simply a strongman.
Culturally and politically Bohemia is much closer to Germany than OTL's czech republic.
Good question on the British units. What do y'all think?
RGR that on the first two points.
How SF develops for the British depends on several factors. On one hand, the Great War didn't seem to allow much in the way of covert operations the way WWII did in North Africa, the Pacific and Europe. Sure there was way more mobility in fighting versus that of OTL's WWI, but most of it seemed to be based around massed troop movements and fluid but huge assaults and counter-attacks. On the other hand, enough time spent fighting insurgents in the Indian bush may well teach the necessary lessons for the British to pick up on commando/counter-guerrilla type operations the way Vietnam pretty much did for the US in OTL, even though the US Armed Forces were more or less oriented toward set-piece mechanized campaigns or nuclear assaults (BTW, where would their equivalent SF communities sit, as well as Germany's and Russia's?)
I would say that the Great Powers maintain fairly limited SF forces at this time during the TL due to the circumstances mentioned above. Anyone have any suggestions for what their (USA, Germany, UK, Russia) names might be?
Bearing in mind the scale of operations likely to be participated in by the Great Powers, here's how I think they'd evolve;
-For the USA, I'd expect something like OTL's Ranger Battalions might arise, given their status firstly as shock troops, with the CAPABILITY of undertaking commando operations (guerrilla warfare, personnel recovery, recon, etc.). Of course, either the Navy or USMC may have specialist units for scouting and raiding coastal emplacements, as well as maybe special air support units. Overall, at this point I'd expect the US to be oriented more towards a conventional wartime environment, just with specialized units operating in out-of-limelight engagements within said environment. So we'll go with Airborne Ranger Companies, Marine Raiders, Naval UDTs and AF Special Operations squadrons, I suppose.
-Germany's commandos would likely evolve as a mix of Stosstruppen (like the Rangers listed above) and Gebirgsjager. On top of that, why not have Fallschirmjager-type troops here as well? We've seen that paratroopers have been proven in battle, and I don't see why the Kaiserliche Luftstreitekräfte wouldn't try to develop their own version in-house (I doubt the Army would get them, the Germans IOTL kept their paras in the Air Force so why not here? Something to make them stand out, at least). Like the US, I'd see their SF as geared towards operating within the overall strategic picture of a full war, and not skulking around looking for insurgents or guerrillas.
-Russia's an interesting case; I'd expect their special forces to develop as a sort of half-Army half-Cheka organization, and actually fairly modern in intent (OTL's Spetznaz developed this way as well), being a mix of reconnaissance and sabotage/partisan units. However I don't think their SF would be practically experienced outside of doing snooping missions NOT so far behind enemy lines, and maybe diversionary raids.
-Now the UK won't have the SAS per se here, but probably something pretty close (and out of the Great Powers, likely the most advanced and capable SF units). The reason for this, as I mentioned before, is the fact that the British Armed Forces have been involved in irregular warfare in India for some time now, whereas the other Powers have more limited experience in same (I'd say the USA would be the runners-up in this field, after the South American War). This outfit, we'll call Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols or Lurps for that "deceptively innocent" sound British SF units seem to like. They'd be good at doing unconventional warfare, special recce, hearts-and-minds, ambushes, whacking or capturing folks like Yagav, all the usual activities. Like OTL, I don't see the RN or RAF getting a place at the Special Ops table, but maybe the Royal Marines can as a maritime equivalent of the above.
Hm... Lack of a protracted cold war w/ another super power like OTL may mean that countries take longer to come up with SFOD-Delta/Green Berets type units, owing to the lack of the proxy wars and the need to train foreign fighters. Like FleetMac said, they'll likely be more focused on conventional troops and specialized front-line units.
I am currently writing the next update. What should happen with the 1956 Presidential election? Who should run/win?
Last edited:
Maybe next president would be Democrat. It seeems quiet plausible. And perhaps someone from Conservative Party could try seek presidency. And on '56 could be first televized president election debate.
Well there have been televised debates before. Off the top of my head some possible canidates are
Republicans
Leroy Conner (GA), seeking a third term as President
Luther T. Vanderbilt Sr. (NY), Vice President favored by conservative Republicans
Bernard Kelly (PA), Secretary of War during the South American War
Democrats
Jonathan Broussard (LA), Representative, Catholic, VP nominee in '48
Wilber Gibbons (JF), Senator, Presidential nominee in '52
Paul Francis Delano (NY) Governor, VP nominee in '52
Wildcards
General Glen C. Henslee (LR), Coalition Commander during the South American War
I don't think the Democrats would back the three you chose for their side as they all lost before, although Broussard lost 8 years before the current election so you never know. Either way I think both parties might need some new candidates as the current administration is mired in scandel.
I agree with Lalli that Conner probably wouldn't seek a third term; the Chinese gun scandal is still in recent memory, and he's probably going to leave office under a cloud, so even if he does run, the convention will probably support someone from outside the administration. Perhaps one of the Tafts could run? I don't know whether they've become influential ITTL.
Might as well mention that I voted for this at the Turtledoves. I'm haven't read the latest updates, I stopped at the second part of 1954, involving the war between Japan and China, but I'll read 'em soon. Interesting developments so far in Asia must I say. From what I can see of 1954, China is totally screwed after the war, and India will become more of a Vietnam-eqse bloodbath.
One more thing, gotta feel sorry for Mister Toft. He losses his job, gets hit by a mediore, and has a terminology unceremoniously named after him as a result of his death.
Interesting developments so far in Asia must I say. From what I can see of 1954, China is totally screwed after the war, and India will become more of a Vietnam-eqse bloodbath. One more thing, gotta feel sorry for Mister Toft. He losses his job, gets hit by a mediore, and has a terminology unceremoniously named after him as a result of his death.
Perhaps Conner refuses to back down and runs again, splitting the party? Spoiler effect leads to a lack of a majority for any candidate, and a constitutional crisis is invoked?
Good points, though while Conner himself does suffer from the impeachment proceedings it is probably not that much worse than Bill Clinton, whose party in the next election nominated his Vice President.
1956 Presidential Election
The 1956 Presidential Elections
In the run up to the 1956 presidential elections, Leroy Conner announced his decision not to seek a third term as president. While his impeachment over the Chinese-Gun Scandal no doubt played a role in his decision, failing health and the fact that he vehemently criticized former President Kirkman for running for a third term were also factors. As Republicans scrambled to replace Conner, the Democrats experienced their own internal battles following their party’s profound transformation over the past few years.
The Republican primaries were especially contentious. Former Secretary of War Bernard Kelly made a strong showing in the early months of the campaign for the nomination but questions concerning his involvement in the Chinese-Gun Scandal forced him to drop out. Eventually the race narrowed to Vice President Luther T. Vanderbilt of New York and Senator Hal Schwendemann of California. At the convention in San Francisco Vice President Vanderbilt secured the nomination after several rounds of voting, and was paired with Congressman Malcom Kesling of Michigan. The Democrats also nominated a New Yorker for president, Senator Richard C. Anderson, the first time that two presidential candidates would be from the same state since Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1860.
Richard C. Anderson
Anderson in 1933
Richard Callaghan Anderson was born into a middle class Catholic family of Irish and Scottish background in New York City on January 12, 1890. After a happy but unremarkable childhood, Anderson graduated from the United States Naval Academy just in time to serve in the North Atlantic during the closing months of the Great War. Following the war Anderson returned home and pursued a lucrative career as a lawyer in Manhattan. Anderson first entered the world of politics in 1933 after being elected district attorney for New York County. In 1940 he was elected mayor after a failed previous attempt. Anderson proved to be a popular mayor and re-cemented the Democrats hold over the city to such an extent that one journalist dubbed his administration “New Tammany”. After serving an unprecedented eight years as mayor, Anderson easily won a senatorial seat in 1948. Considered to be a leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, Anderson would be one of the few Democrats who voted in favor of the declaration of war on Peru and Bolivia and the treaty creating the League of American States. Anderson also took a more progressive view on integration than most Democrats at the time and as such was handsomely reelected in 1954.
During the early days of the 1956 presidential campaign Anderson was viewed by most pundits as a long shot at best. Many viewed him as to liberal for the party establishment and his Catholic background did nothing to help persuade Southern voters. However, in the months preceding the Democratic convention Anderson rose steadily in the polls presenting himself as the standard bearer for “responsible and world conscious Democrats.” In Cincinnati, Anderson clinched the nomination on the third ballot becoming the first Catholic to the presidential nominee for a major American political party. To balance the ticket Bryon Howley, a young conservative from the State of Mahetane, was selected as his vice-presidential nominee.
The Campaign
While Republicans touted the past administration’s triumphs in Latin America and civil rights, Anderson focused on the economy. Although the nation had mostly bounced back from the recession of 1954, some ill effects still lingered and were exploited ruthlessly by the Democrats who accused the Conner-Vanderbilt administration of concentrating of foreign affairs to the detriment of the American economy. During the televised debates Anderson painted the wealthy Vanderbilt as out of touch with the needs of average Americans whom he claimed desired “peace abroad, prosperity at home, and integrity in dealing with both.”
Results
Richard C. Anderson
Democrat from New York
31st President of the United States
Election night proved to be the closest in decades. Anderson’s Catholicism helped the Democrats in the normally Republican strongholds of Cuba and Puerto Rico but alienated protestant voters in the west. In the end, New York proved to be decisive after it was called for Anderson in the wee hours of the morning making him the 31st President of the United States.
Last edited:
Now that's an even election. Tell me, assuming Keynes isn't born ITTL, is there any equivalent economic theory in existence? Has a welfare state been developed in any country?
Also, I think it should say "the first time that two candidates were from the same state", rather than "the two candidates", as there were four of them in 1860.
I don't think naming Anderson's mayoral administration "New Tammany" would be a boon to his reputation, as that machine was known far more for corruption and greed than it was for cementing the Democratic hold on the city.
Also, I think it should say "the first time that two candidates were from the same state", rather than "the two candidates", as there were four of them in 1860.
I don't think naming Anderson's mayoral administration "New Tammany" would be a boon to his reputation, as that machine was known far more for corruption and greed than it was for cementing the Democratic hold on the city.
Last edited: