The Historical RP Group HQ 2

[Reatra]

"A discussion about the naming conventions of Sperm" - A play in three parts, as presented to you by the Histesticles.

FTFY

[The Jonathanian States]

"A discussion about the naming conventions of Sperm" - A play in three parts, as presented to you by the Histesticles.

FTFY

Testicles can't speak, AFAIK.

[Reatra]

FTFY

Testicles can't speak, AFAIK.

You haven't been talking to the right ones then.

[Emilio Aguinaldo]

FTFY

Testicles can't speak, AFAIK.

Of course he can't Testicles is already dead, poor great greek playwrite died of asphysiation from his own jokes.

[Reatra]

Testicles can't speak, AFAIK.

Of course he can't Testicles is already dead, poor great greek playwrite died of asphysiation from his own jokes.

Yeah, so sad.

[Arcerion]

Seeing as I have more time today, looking to do a 1910 Historical RP. Anyone interested in fleshing out the idea? Was thinking of having airships being the major fighting force versus dreadnoughts.

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

I have an interesting scenario playing out in me head, twould be a psuedo axis victory ;U;

[The New Lowlands]

I have an interesting scenario playing out in me head, twould be a psuedo axis victory ;U;

>impossible.

[The Industrial States of Columbia]

I have an interesting scenario playing out in me head, twould be a psuedo axis victory ;U;

>impossible.

bombas everywhere... everywhere

[The New Lowlands]

>impossible.

bombas everywhere... everywhere

>still wholly impossible

Axis doing anything right is ASB.

[The Jonathanian States]

bombas everywhere... everywhere

>still wholly impossible

Axis doing anything right is ASB.

In a surprising case of impending Earthican doom & destruction I agree with TNL.

[Reatra]

I have a cool idea for an RP, where it's like 2100 and China has taken her rightful place as the only superpower on earth. The U.S. "Fell" (sort of, mostly just the government losing power and a bunch of race riots in the 2020s) for a time that allowed China to grow even faster than they thought they would etc. etc.

Putinism gains traction in Central Asia and East Asian countries are forced (not at gunpoint, but by the prospect of far more prosperity) to join China's bank (I forget the name sorry)


And other countries are weird too.

[Negara-West Hesia]

I have a cool idea for an RP, where it's like 2100 and China has taken her rightful place as the only superpower on earth. The U.S. "Fell" (sort of, mostly just the government losing power and a bunch of race riots in the 2020s) for a time that allowed China to grow even faster than they thought they would etc. etc.

Putinism gains traction in Central Asia and East Asian countries are forced (now at gunpoint, but by the prospect of far more prosperity) to join China's bank (I forget the name sorry)


And other countries are weird too.

and then india bombs the malacca strait and china literally starves to death : DDD

[Reatra]

I have a cool idea for an RP, where it's like 2100 and China has taken her rightful place as the only superpower on earth. The U.S. "Fell" (sort of, mostly just the government losing power and a bunch of race riots in the 2020s) for a time that allowed China to grow even faster than they thought they would etc. etc.

Putinism gains traction in Central Asia and East Asian countries are forced (now at gunpoint, but by the prospect of far more prosperity) to join China's bank (I forget the name sorry)


And other countries are weird too.

and then india bombs the malacca strait and china literally starves to death : DDD

Um... China wouldn't be at war...

[The New Lowlands]

and then india bombs the malacca strait and china literally starves to death : DDD

Um... China wouldn't be at war...

it's forcing east asian countries to join its central bank at gunpoint.

it will be at war, and assuming you don't just turn it into chinawank: the RP as you described it, it will probably even lose.

[Reatra]

Um... China wouldn't be at war...

it's forcing east asian countries to join its central bank at gunpoint.

it will be at war, and assuming you don't just turn it into chinawank: the RP as you described it, it will probably even lose.

Hehe typo.


Not "now at gunpoint" but "not".

[Kisinger]

So, after a short (not really a discussion) discussion, and coming from a few others, a scenario(following the Trent Affair of Course) Europe get's involved in the American Civil War with both France and Britain joining on the Confederates side and Russia the Union's leaving, Prussia, Italy, and Ottomans Open to pick and choose sides of the conflict. Sound at least meh worthy?

[Kryskov]

So, after a short (not really a discussion) discussion, and coming from a few others, a scenario(following the Trent Affair of Course) Europe get's involved in the American Civil War with both France and Britain joining on the Confederates side and Russia the Union's leaving, Prussia, Italy, and Ottomans Open to pick and choose sides of the conflict. Sound at least meh worthy?

Why would Russia, and any other European power other than France and Britain, give enough fucks to intervene?

[Kisinger]

So, after a short (not really a discussion) discussion, and coming from a few others, a scenario(following the Trent Affair of Course) Europe get's involved in the American Civil War with both France and Britain joining on the Confederates side and Russia the Union's leaving, Prussia, Italy, and Ottomans Open to pick and choose sides of the conflict. Sound at least meh worthy?

Why would Russia, and any other European power other than France and Britain, give enough fucks to intervene?

Russia is the most openly Union European Nation, and would want to preserve them Union, they even have gone as far as docking a fleet at New York Harbor.

Prussia would as well probably try to gain Alsace Lorraine resulting in a war in Europe so basically it comes down to a European/American Conflict. And people have to choose sides.

[The Jonathanian States]

Why would Russia, and any other European power other than France and Britain, give enough fucks to intervene?

Russia is the most openly Union European Nation, and would want to preserve them Union, they even have gone as far as docking a fleet at New York Harbor.

Really? You mean like OTL? Or ITTL? If it's the former, you mind sharing a source or something? I'm actually curious of that, considering I had a few ideas for a timeline that might include the ACW.

Prussia would as well probably try to gain Alsace Lorraine resulting in a war in Europe so basically it comes down to a European/American Conflict. And people have to choose sides.

Actually, that is quite wrong. Taking Alsace-Lorraine, as far as I am aware, never was the plan¹. But they completely wrecked France and after having unified the factions emerged with regards to the French Peace.
Faction A) Led, IIRC, by da Bismarck; Don't take anything. Taking land will make the french permanently hate Germany, something that wouldn't be worth it. (Ironic how things turned out).
Faction B) Forwarded by, amongst others, the Emperor, unless I'm mistaken; Now that we've actually beat up France, let's take some clay. The Germans in some of that land are a nice excuse for taking the rest too.
Now OTL, AFAIK, the result was a certain compromise leaning towards faction B, by which some land, slightly beyond the area inhabited by Germans.

That being said, Bismarck did want war, considering it (debateably, I guess,) the only way to unify the German states. Specifically, in the time ahead of the Franco-Prussian war, the North German Confederation and the three southron states of Baden-Württemberg-Bayern had a defensive alliance. Note how it is a defensive alliance, there we see the marvelous job, and its reason, done by Bismarck on the Ems Dispatch.

Before you propose that Bismarck do the same and taunt the French into war while they were fighting in the Americas as well, that arrangement and the foundation of the NGC actually only happened after the last Austro-Prussian War of 1866.
Meaning that in order to get Prussia to even consider war with France you have to let it knock out Austria first. And then probably also give it some recovery time.

So, after a short (not really a discussion) discussion, and coming from a few others, a scenario(following the Trent Affair of Course) Europe get's involved in the American Civil War with both France and Britain joining on the Confederates side and Russia the Union's leaving, Prussia, Italy, and Ottomans Open to pick and choose sides of the conflict. Sound at least meh worthy?

I'd have to look once more for the source for that, but I'm nearly sure that Britain intervening against the US is nearly ASB, or even actually ASB.
The south has good cotton, but that Britain could take its time to plant in other places. From the North it took food, and food is a good the flow of which you really don't want to stop in a sudden move.

[Kisinger]

Really? You mean like OTL? Or ITTL? If it's the former, you mind sharing a source or something? I'm actually curious of that, considering I had a few ideas for a timeline that might include the ACW.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2013/eirv40n38-20130927/36-37_4038.pdf I can't find the source I had early but yes the Russian Navy did in fact dock at the New York Harbor. As well as Russia is far more Open Union then any European Nation. Though Prussia as well was more friendly to the USA than the CSA. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_i ... _Civil_War

-snip-

I see

I'd have to look once more for the source for that, but I'm nearly sure that Britain intervening against the US is nearly ASB, or even actually ASB.
The south has good cotton, but that Britain could take its time to plant in other places. From the North it took food, and food is a good the flow of which you really don't want to stop in a sudden move.

Actually it's not Britain even proposed invading the USA through Canada, and while waiting for a American response increased their Military personal in Canada, in my timeline I'm proposing the Americans give no apology.

And source for British Warplans: here yah go

[Kryskov]

in my timeline I'm proposing the Americans give no apology.

ASB unless Lincoln gets smacked in the head in the bat and becomes utterly stupid.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

Lincoln was one of America's greatest statesmen, you might as well replace him if he's not going to issue an apology.

Plus, he did not actually issue a formal apology and the Brits did not care.

[The Jonathanian States]

Really? You mean like OTL? Or ITTL? If it's the former, you mind sharing a source or something? I'm actually curious of that, considering I had a few ideas for a timeline that might include the ACW.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2013/eirv40n38-20130927/36-37_4038.pdf I can't find the source I had early but yes the Russian Navy did in fact dock at the New York Harbor.

Fair enough.

As well as Russia is far more Open Union then any European Nation.

I did not (intend to) dispute that, I was solely asking about the fleet.

Though Prussia as well was more friendly to the USA than the CSA. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia_i ... _Civil_War

Actually...
There's one line that indicates your claim. Except....

Most of the small German states were too interested in the current events of Europe to concern themselves with the American war, although they did tend to sympathize more with the Union's attempt to defeat the Confederacy.^{[citation needed]}

So there's that.
Contrary to your claim:

As major powers, Prussia and its rival Germanic state, the Austrian Empire, were more interested, but on the whole they were still less involved in the war than Great Britain and France.[5]

In 1862 the British foreign secretary Lord John Russell tried to have Prussia take part along with France and Russia to seek an armistice to end the war, but for naught.[8]

There were several members of the military elite of Prussia that served as both officers and enlisted men in both armies. There were also official military observers sent to the North American continent to observe the tactics of both armies, which were later studied by future military leaders of Prussia and unified Germany.

Unless of course you care to point out something I missed?

I'd have to look once more for the source for that, but I'm nearly sure that Britain intervening against the US is nearly ASB, or even actually ASB.
The south has good cotton, but that Britain could take its time to plant in other places. From the North it took food, and food is a good the flow of which you really don't want to stop in a sudden move.

Actually it's not Britain even proposed invading the USA through Canada, and while waiting for a American response increased their Military personal in Canada, in my timeline I'm proposing the Americans give no apology.

And source for British Warplans: here yah go

A'ight, I read up on that link of yore up to the title "Naval Forces".
Now, let me show you my case of how that invasion happening is ASB.

n December 22, 1860, with secession still in its early stages, Milne's orders were to avoid "any measure or demonstration likely to give umbrage to any party in the United States, or to bear the appearance of partizanship on either side; if the internal dissensions in those States should be carried to the extent of separation."

Here we see how the British government, and until later it'd stay the same government (OTL, at least, the Viscount of Palmerston was PM between '59 and '65).

This increased British concern over the threat of Confederate privateers and Union blockading ships to British neutral rights, and Milne was reinforced. On June 1 British ports were closed to any naval prizes, a policy that was of great advantage to the Union. Milne did monitor the effectiveness of the Union blockade, but no effort to contest its effectiveness was ever attempted, and the monitoring was discontinued in November 1861.

The Union acts against the interests of Britain, but nothing is done.

Milne received a letter from Lyons on June 14 that said he did not "regard a sudden declaration of war against us by the United States as an event altogether impossible at any moment."

Lyons, I might say, was the British Minister to the US and supposedly an excellent diplomat. I'd assume a respectable and reliable source in this case (for the British, that is).

Lord Somerset, the First Lord of the Admiralty, opposed Palmerston's inclination to reinforce Milne. He felt that the existing force made up largely of steam ships was superior to the primarily sail ships of the Union fleet, and he was reluctant to incur additional expenses while Britain was in the process of rebuilding her fleet with iron ships. This resistance by Parliament and the cabinet led historian Kenneth Bourne to conclude, "When, therefore the news of the Trent outrage arrived in England the British were still not properly prepared for the war which almost everyone agreed was inevitable if the Union did not back down."

Even the bloody British didn't see themselves as ready for that war. If you aren't ready for war at all you most definitely will not start invading areas willy-nilly.

Some land reinforcements were sent in May and June. However when Palmerston, alarmed by the blockade and the Trent affair, pressed for increasing the number of regular troops in Canada to 10,000, he met resistance. Sir George Cornwall Lewis, head of the War Office, questioned whether there was any real threat to Great Britain. He judged it "incredible that any Government of ordinary prudence should at a moment of civil war gratuitously increase the number of its enemies, and, moreover, incur the hostility of so formidable a power as England." In the debate in Parliament on June 21 there was general opposition to reinforcements, based on political, military, and economic arguments

It seems neither the Head of the War Office nor Parliament wanted to increase risk of war.

The First Lord of the Admiralty believed Canada could not be defended from a serious attack by the U.S. and winning it back later would be difficult and costly. Bourne noted, "After 1815 the ambiguity of Anglo-American relations, the parsimony of the house of commons [sic] and the enormous practical difficulties involved always seemed to have prevented adequate preparations being made for an Anglo-American war."[91] Somerset suggested a naval war as opposed to a ground war.

This specifically counters the feasibility of an actual land invasion. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that the First Lord of the Admiralty was (or is?) quite an influential post with regards to British strategy.

Russell was concerned that Lewis and Palmerston might take actions prematurely that would eliminate what chances for peace that there were, so he requested "a small committee …[to] assist Lewis, & the Duke of Somerset" with their war plans. The group was created and convened on December 9.

It seems there was certain concern that the government might be preparing for an avoidable war in a way that makes it less avoidable.

By the end of December, as the crisis ended, reinforcements had raised the count to 924 officers and 17,658 men against an anticipated American invasion of from 50,000 to 200,000 troops.[95]

That's when the crisis ended, IOTL due to the US releasing the prisoners and disavowing the captain's actions.
Now, I'm not the bloody British High Command, or any high command or even military officer trained in doctrine, but unless there was some technological advantage or something, I would not enter this war.

On December 20, Williams also began training one company of 75 men from each battalion of the Sedentary Militia, about 38,000 men in total, with the intention of raising this to 100,000.

Sure, there was some militia in training, but they just started when the crisis ended and most likely still wouldn't have been enough.

The 10-day-long overland passage, and the railway from Riviere du Loup to Ville du Quebec, was within a day's march of the border (in some locations, the overland trail was almost within rifle shot from U.S. territory in Maine)

Our land is easy to invade and the enemy, who isn't too likely to attack, us outnumbers us 5:2 in the best case of 10:1 in the worst. Let's invade, because that makes sense.

In Canada, General Williams had toured the available forts and fortifications in November and December. Historian Gordon Warren wrote that Williams found that, "forts were either decaying or nonexistent, and the amount of necessary remedial work was stupefying."[100] To defend Canada, the British government estimated their manpower requirements as 10,000 regulars and 100,000 auxiliary troops, the latter forming garrisons and harassing the enemy's flanks and rear.

Isn't that optimistic?

By the end of 1862, long after the crisis had subsided, the available Canadian militia and volunteers numbered 24,119, split among 10,000 militia; 10,615 volunteer infantry; 1,615 volunteer cavalry; 1,687 volunteer artillery; 202 volunteer engineers.[108] It was within the context of a generally unprepared Canadian military that military ground plans were formulated – plans contingent on troops that would not be available until spring 1862.[109] Canada was not prepared for war with the United States.[110]

Yep, let's invade. Nothing could go wrong.

In order to counter their weaknesses to an American offensive, the idea of a Canadian invasion of the United States was proposed. It was hoped that a successful invasion would occupy Portland and large sections of Maine, requiring the U.S. to divert troops that would otherwise be occupied with an invasion of Canada directed at its east-west communication and transportation lines. Burgoyne, Seaton, and Macdougall all supported the plan and Lewis recommended it to Palmerston on December 3. However no preparations for this attack were ever made, and success depended on the attack being initiated at the very beginning of the war.

Now true, it seems the plan is supported by three members of this council and recommended by a fourth. But on the other the other hand, OTL this idea was never prepared for. OTL the crisis ended somewhere between 14 days to a month and 12 after that plan was proposed. If you want to invade something, and success depends on invading it immediately with the begin of the war, I'd believe you'd start preparing for it.
But no preparations were made so we can assume that Palmerston declined it. Like any bloody sane person would.

Now, as a hypothetical doctrine for continental warfare in the US it might even make sense, honestly. But as a policy in this specific case it is not short of insanity.
And if Britain does chose to perform this invasion, the most likely result I'd expect is a month or two, heck three, more for the traitors AND the (temporary) loss of Canada to the US.

in my timeline I'm proposing the Americans give no apology.

ASB unless Lincoln gets smacked in the head in the bat and becomes utterly stupid.

Lincoln was one of America's greatest statesmen, you might as well replace him if he's not going to issue an apology.

Plus, he did not actually issue a formal apology and the Brits did not care.

hear fucking hear. Especially that last line. Your PoD is none.

[The Kingdom of Glitter]

The South was incompetent when it came to leadership and whatnot during the American Civil War, unless the British literally took over commanding their army they would have lost again. And the British could not have entered the war unless they wanted to starve everyone in the Isles to death and lose all of their massive investments in American railroads.

Plus, lack of actual resources needed to win a war combined with daft soldiers that shoot their own generals is not a recipe for victory.

The South was destined to lose and tbh it's karma really. Rightfully so too, independence in the name of having the "right" to own other people is a pretty awful reason to start a nation tbh.