New Reality Seeds

[AlexanderHowl]

A valid point about Africa, my timeline is too advanced, and I think that you are correct about the Bavarian Empire desiring the French Asian territories more than Senegal (especially if it acquired the Dutch East Indies in 1876 and the Philippines in 1886). It could even portray itself as a liberator to the locals, offering protection from other European powers in exchange for diplomatic, economic, and military concessions (a form of soft colonization). If it formed an early alliance with Japan in 1886 to counter Russian and American influence in East Asia, it would even have a base of operations when it launched an invasion of Alaska to 'liberate' the Native Alaskans from the genocidal oppression of the Americans (while making sure to gain important concessions relating to gold mining from the Native Alaskans).

The US Navy in 1896 was rather minimal (http://www.fleetorganization.com/1896stations.html), consisting of only of thirteen ships in the Atlantic (divided between three fleets) and fifteen ships in the Pacific (divided between two very spread out fleets). With the Spanish possessions taken in 1886, the Bavaria Empire would have places for coaling stations in the Caribbean and the Pacific, allowing them to blockade New Orleans and liberate Hawaii without difficulty. With Bavarian ships raiding American merchant fleets, it would not have taken long for America to sue for peace. As long as Bavaria did not want any territory that belonged to a state, I am sure that the USA would be willing to give it up, though it would intend to eventually reclaim it.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

With Bavarian ships raiding American merchant fleets, it would not have taken long for America to sue for peace. As long as Bavaria did not want any territory that belonged to a state, I am sure that the USA would be willing to give it up, though it would intend to eventually reclaim it.

This sounds like somebody's idiotic plan to win a war in a few months. It'll be fine, the enemy is sure to surrender before they can crush us. It's a moderately common delusion, but it rarely works. After watching the US Civil War, European planners were for mostly aware that they didn't want to provoke the Americans into a long war.

Also, while the US fleet in 1896 is pretty small historically, in this timeline an expansionist European power grabbed stuff nearby a decade ago. There is likely to have been a response. It's also fairly strange Britain has let Bavaria get away with beating everybody like this without there having been a World War already. Given that their national strategy has been preventing anybody from dominating Europe for a couple centuries, you'd think they'd have come in on somebody's side in one of that string of expansion wars.

[adm]

Originally Posted by malloyd

This sounds like somebody's idiotic plan to win a war in a few months. It'll be fine, the enemy is sure to surrender before they can crush us.

In fairness, between the Napoleonic Wars and WW I, most wars were sharp and quick, the U.S. Civil War being the biggest exception. I see little reason for that to differ in this timeline. The Bavarian experiences here could cost them dearly.

Originally Posted by malloyd

It's a moderately common delusion, but it rarely works. After watching the US Civil War, European planners were for mostly aware that they didn't want to provoke the Americans into a long war.

Which is the biggest counter argument to the above.

Originally Posted by malloyd

Also, while the US fleet in 1896 is pretty small historically, in this timeline an expansionist European power grabbed stuff nearby a decade ago. There is likely to have been a response. It's also fairly strange Britain has let Bavaria get away with beating everybody like this without there having been a World War already. Given that their national strategy has been preventing anybody from dominating Europe for a couple centuries, you'd think they'd have come in on somebody's side in one of that string of expansion wars.

I could easily see the U.S. not significantly building up their fleet, we never really put much effort to this sort of planing ahead until the Cold War. This is why I could see the U.S. never gaining the spoils of the Spanish-American War. Hawaii may also be missed in this scenario. However Alaska has been U.S. territory since 1867, this will not be a fight Bavaria will likely win, particularly given how far away it is from even Hawaii, as compared to Washington State. Let alone Bavaria's manufacturing base as compared to New England.

As to blockading New Orleans, so? this will largely hurt Europe and their need for U.S. Agricultural products. The U.S. can use rail to move critical supplies. Europe, and by extension Bavaria, will starve and lose things like cotton. U.S. New England ports will be largely unfettered, and producing warships.

Britain, and her Navy, is of course the most interesting omission.

[adm]

I would add that a protracted attempt for Alaska will likely cost Bavaria her Caribbean holdings, if the U.S. is provoked into an ongoing war, Bavaria may win in Europe and maybe the mid to far Pacific, put she will not win north of Venezuela, and possible not even in South America.

[AlexanderHowl]

The Panic of 1896 was have caused the US to fold pretty quickly. With the ability to project power from its newly one Caribbean colonies, the Bavarian Empire could have shut down American trade in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean while allowing European merchants to buy American goods low and sell European goods high. Coal powered warships possessed a range of 5,000 miles in the 1890s, meaning that a Bavarian fleet could sit off NYC or Boston and pick off American ships with only a monthly rotation from Cuba.

The key factor in an America blockade would be to keep American ships at home. As long as Bavaria did not interfere with European (or Japanese) ships, I think that the Great Powers would have just laughed at American misfortune and raked in the money. With the Panic of 1896 magnifying the economic pain, it would have likely only taken a few months for Congress to pass any peace treaty that allowed American merchant ships the ability to leave the East Coast, as least as long as Bavaria did not ask for any territory from the contiguous USA.

[adm]

We disagree then.

Maintaining station off of New England will not be easy. Reciprocating engined steam ships had a significant break down rate. The U.S. will also be mass producing torpedo boats to send out at night. Bavaria will lose ships.

As to funding this war, America has had rather amazing luck at ignoring the short term financial costs of war, and, so far, even the long term ones.

[adm]

Originally Posted by TGLS

...The UK seems unlikely. The rapidly expanding Bavarian fleet would likely threaten them the same way the rapidly expanding German fleet threatened them in our timeline.

Originally Posted by malloyd

... It's also fairly strange Britain has let Bavaria get away with beating everybody like this without there having been a World War already. Given that their national strategy has been preventing anybody from dominating Europe for a couple centuries, you'd think they'd have come in on somebody's side in one of that string of expansion wars.

Originally Posted by adm

...Britain, and her Navy, is of course the most interesting omission.

There also remains the question of why Britain allowed the creation of such a powerful Continental Navy.

[adm]

Adding to the British naval response questions.

Somehow Bavaria has managed to build a navy big enough to blockade 3,500 miles/5,600 kms of the Eastern U.S. shoreline, (Brownsville Texas, to the St Lawrence* Seaway), including ships on station, going to and from station, in port being repaired/resupplied, as well as blockading the Port of San Francisco while supporting an invasion of Alaska.

In my opinion, only the Navy the British built during the Napoleonic Wars, and the Navy built by the U.S. for WW II were big enough to even try this.

So where is Britain while this threat to her very existence was being built?

*This would include significant ports such as, Huston TX, New Orleans LA, Mobile AL, Savannah GA, Charleston SC, Wilmington NC, Norfolk VA, Baltimore MD, Wilmington DE, Philadelphia PA, New York, NY, and Boston MA. Note that this list skips a number of ports that could be building torpedo boats, and sending out merchant raiders.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by adm

So where is Britain while this threat to her very existence was being built?

The easy way to solve this is to have the British solidly allied to the Bavarians. The obvious way to do it would by a union of the crowns, but the Electors and later Kings of Bavaria were Roman Catholic, which makes that rather unlikely. Any better ideas?

[adm]

Originally Posted by johndallman

The easy way to solve this is to have the British solidly allied to the Bavarians. The obvious way to do it would by a union of the crowns, but the Electors and later Kings of Bavaria were Roman Catholic, which makes that rather unlikely. Any better ideas?

Not really for a Union, if the Saxe-Coburg British Royal Family can't come to an accommodation with the Protestant Prussians led by Queen Victoria's Grandson, who could they come to one with?

Perhaps, without the Prussians in charge of Germany, there are some sort of knock on effects that cause the potato famine to lead to open rebellion? A Britain with a long running revolt in Ireland, perhaps combined with the English underclass also rising up could allow the Bavarians a chance to build a large navy.

I will note that the German Diet, under Bismarck started social security type programs, maybe the eventual English projects for the poor start later, and are less robust.