Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)

[naraht]

I'm on the phone but I think in the battle of Nashville wiki box you made reference to how the casualties there were X% of overall casualties for each side of the entire war. You can always use that as a good starting point.

Which leads to the fact that the calculations will have different end dates for the five participants (I'm including Centro, did Centro have the same start date?). It also made me think how much the statement, "The war is over, but they dying isn't" will apply to each of the five participants.
For the CSA, just because they've surrendered doesn't mean that the Winter of 1916 is have much more food available and the US will definitely be dealing with Insurgents.
For Mexico, the question that springs to mind is for a Mexican Soldier coming home from Georgia killed in Fighting in San Antonio, will they be treated as a GAW casualty. But I'm expecting that death rates in 1916 won't be significantly different than 1912.
For Centro, I think the Author has indicated that it may be decades before peace truly comes to Honduras & Guatemala, with them actually starting to look *more* like OTL. US Banana companies controlling the leadership with fighting in the rural areas.
For Brazil, the dying is over for now, I don't think the author has indicated how bloody the move to Integralism will be.
For Chile, we know the socialists end up in power, but how bloody the 3(?) way war is an open question.

 

[Jabroni of the Earth]

I'm honestly surprised the US is even bothers denying the extrajudicial killings. Given how the war started and the causes leading up to it the US would have to do a whole fucking lot worse then extrajudicially execute a couple thousand adult male suspected partisans to lose the moral highground here. Hell the Modern US still does that with drones.

I'm gonna be complete honest I view enslaving someone for decades to be on the same moral level as raping or murdering them. Plenty of countries most of them in fact view or have in the past viewed both of those capital offenses. IMO The US could put every adult male slave owner up against a wall and paint every plantation barn red and pink with the blood ashd guts of those who view thier fellow man as chattel and they would have done nothing more morally reprehensible then hanging a murderer.


Short of treating the Confederates exactly how the US treated the native Americans in decades previous (IE whole scale annihilation and genocide) I do not see how exactly the US could lose the moral highground given Confederate actions early war and the sheer depravity and vileness of the confederaste state, institutions and general culture.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I'm honestly surprised the US is even bothers denying the extrajudicial killings. Given how the war started and the causes leading up to it the US would have to do a whole fucking lot worse then extrajudicially execute a couple thousand adult male suspected partisans to lose the moral highground here. Hell the Modern US still does that with drones.

I'm gonna be complete honest I view enslaving someone for decades to be on the same moral level as raping or murdering them. Plenty of countries most of them in fact view or have in the past viewed both of those capital offenses. IMO The US could put every adult male slave owner up against a wall and paint every plantation barn red and pink with the blood ashd guts of those who view thier fellow man as chattel and they would have done nothing more morally reprehensible then hanging a murderer.

Well, yes - we know how bad the Confederacy is. But remember, this is the early 20th century and the Confederacy joined the brotherhood of nations over sixty years previously. Although most western nations would look upon the institution of slavery as backwards, inhumane and wrong - they are also going to at least accept the Confederay's main argument that African-Americans are not as 'advanced' as European whites (this isn't to say that there won't be many who do understand the true horrors of slavery and racism, but they will not be the majority). Furthermore, many will believe that slavery is naturally withering on the vine as a result of Progress: they will point to the dwindling numbers of slaves to show that its just not economically viable any longer as a system. Because of this, there will be large sements who view the final ending of slavery as a Good Thing, but will also believe that using violence to overthrow it is unjustified because it's dying on its own.

Also, its important to remember that many extrajudicial killings will be against civilians. The United States has signed treaties which stipulate that non-combatants are not to be harmed. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907 actually outline was rights and protections civilians have: and being killed by enemy soldiers is pretty much right now. Now to us, the readers, many of these civilians may be plantation owners or wicked defenders of slavery. But that's not going to be the public perception of many in the Cinqo-verse. There will naturally be horror at the Confederate actions in DC and Baltimore, no doubt, but reprisal killings en mass is not going to be viewed well: if anything it will just reinforce a European sense of superiority over their American cousins, because certainly THEY wouldn't act in such a barbaric and uncivilized manner. Yes, many of those who are being killed will likely be partisans; but that just muddies the water further.

So, no, should the extent of extrajudicial kilings by Union soldiers in the Confederacy come to light, its highly unlikely that they would lose the moral high ground entirely: the CSA has done too good of a job of digging their own moral and public relations grave since they came into being. But it does make sense to mitigate the damage to prevent the court of public relations lumping the CSA and USA together into the camp of "irrational, blood thirsty belligerents who commit all these wrongs on each other because no one can get over history" (and, hey, that's an attitude we see enough of in OTL in many conflicts as it is; no matter who is morally right). The only thing the US could do to utterly destroy their hold on the oral high ground would be if they openly began to CELEBRATE the extra judicial killings: but luckily, I doubt anyone, save true radicals, is going to go there.

 

[Dalek Ix]

Still would not want to be a lone american soldier into a bar in Mexico City in uniform at this point. My Guess is that Mexico and the US have probably exchanged ambassadors though. Mexico has also probably had a chance to go through its pre-war embassy in Washington at this point, which for diplomatic reasons has probably been redesignated as a Consulate in the short term.

So long as the new US ambassador isn't Henry Lane Wilson.

 

[Jabroni of the Earth]

Well, yes - we know how bad the Confederacy is. But remember, this is the early 20th century and the Confederacy joined the brotherhood of nations over sixty years previously. Although most western nations would look upon the institution of slavery as backwards, inhumane and wrong - they are also going to at least accept the Confederay's main argument that African-Americans are not as 'advanced' as European whites (this isn't to say that there won't be many who do understand the true horrors of slavery and racism, but they will not be the majority). Furthermore, many will believe that slavery is naturally withering on the vine as a result of Progress: they will point to the dwindling numbers of slaves to show that its just not economically viable any longer as a system. Because of this, there will be large sements who view the final ending of slavery as a Good Thing, but will also believe that using violence to overthrow it is unjustified because it's dying on its own.

Also, its important to remember that many extrajudicial killings will be against civilians. The United States has signed treaties which stipulate that non-combatants are not to be harmed. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907 actually outline was rights and protections civilians have: and being killed by enemy soldiers is pretty much right now. Now to us, the readers, many of these civilians may be plantation owners or wicked defenders of slavery. But that's not going to be the public perception of many in the Cinqo-verse. There will naturally be horror at the Confederate actions in DC and Baltimore, no doubt, but reprisal killings en mass is not going to be viewed well: if anything it will just reinforce a European sense of superiority over their American cousins, because certainly THEY wouldn't act in such a barbaric and uncivilized manner. Yes, many of those who are being killed will likely be partisans; but that just muddies the water further.

So, no, should the extent of extrajudicial kilings by Union soldiers in the Confederacy come to light, its highly unlikely that they would lose the moral high ground entirely: the CSA has done too good of a job of digging their own moral and public relations grave since they came into being. But it does make sense to mitigate the damage to prevent the court of public relations lumping the CSA and USA together into the camp of "irrational, blood thirsty belligerents who commit all these wrongs on each other because no one can get over history" (and, hey, that's an attitude we see enough of in OTL in many conflicts as it is; no matter who is morally right). The only thing the US could do to utterly destroy their hold on the oral high ground would be if they openly began to CELEBRATE the extra judicial killings: but luckily, I doubt anyone, save true radicals, is going to go there.

I am not one hundred percent sure if I agree with this. The Confederacy literally opened the war with an organized Roman style sack on the US Capital! Complete with the mass rape and enslavement. Not something the troops did on there own in thier zeal but intentionally planned and orchestrated by Confederate high command. Then they did it again in Baltimore!!

The Confederacy has essentially designated an entire subsect of the US military and civilian population to be killed or enslaved on encounter. No other fate awaits a black US soldier or civilian captured by Confederates in this war. I am all for rules of war as long as both sides are at least pretending to abide by them. But when one side not only openly flouts them but gloats and glorify its numerous violations of the rules of war why should the other side not respond in kind?

How can you even begin to expect black American soldiers or thier comrades to be perfect little angels following the Hague convention line by line when many of them signed up specifically because the Confederates raped, murdered and enslaved thier friends and families in DC and then preceded to openly gloat about it? They know they will be afforded no such luxuries as hague convention protections when they encounter Confederate forces. They know what awaits them if the Confederates capture them. They know what fate awaits thier family if the Confederates do somehow miracously turn the tide and turn the war around and invade the US again. The Confederates have proved it to them time and time again and gloated about it.

Why should the US even care what Europe thinks? The US is still fairly isolationanist if you dont count the Americas. They do not nor should not care what Europe thinks. Not to mention Europe's illusions of superiority and gentlemen ship are about to be oblittered by the CEW.

Look let me put it this way if you ever find yourself in the position of being an alternate history Confederate slave owner staring down the barrel of a United States servicemans rifle and dont want to be shot in the face here are three things you could try to get out of your predicament.

1. Don't own people

2. Petition your government to not sack DC and Baltimore or better yet not attack the US to begin with.

Unfornately both methods 1 and 2 would require a time machine thus leaving you only with option 3. Think a goodbye to your family, friends, and the slaves you very shortly wont own anymore, bite your own tongue off, pray you bleed to death before the man shoots you and have a nice extremely hot eternity.

 

[naraht]

So long as the new US ambassador isn't Henry Lane Wilson.

I *think* the Author has indicated that the United States and Mexico stay at peace through the next few years, so I doubt it...

Note, the other two people mentioned in the Wikipedia paragraph about Henry Lane Wilson's actions in Mexico would be almost as fun. The confidential agent (William Bayard Hale) who informed President Woodrow Wilson of the situation ended up as a Propaganda advisor for Germany from 1915 to the US entry in the war and ended up having to flee to Europe and Died in Munich and John Lind, the former Governor of Minnesota who was sent by WW and WJB as an Envoy for Mexican Affair jumped in with both feet and ended up supporting Carranza in 1920.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I'm on the phone but I think in the battle of Nashville wiki box you made reference to how the casualties there were X% of overall casualties for each side of the entire war. You can always use that as a good starting point.

Now that I'm back in the office I can actually use the search feature and keep multiple tabs open at the same time, found this post from a bit ago of me doing the actual math.

"So let's crunch some numbers given this update.

"... roughly a tenth of Confederate war dead..." 94,566 CSA killed in Nashville, times ten means the CSA has roughly 945,660 soldiers killed during this war.

"....sixth of total aggregated casualties..." 514,920 total CSA casualties, times six means 3,089,520 CSA killed, wounded, and captured soldiers during the war.

"...one in five of every casualty sustained by the United States occurred in the Nashville Campaign." 880,549 total American killed and wounded (no captured total provided) times five means 4,402, 745 American casualties overall.

Roughly 4.4 million American military casualties compared to "only" 3.1 million Confederate ones. And these numbers do not include any civilian casualties (of which there are probably at least in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands by war's end), any free blacks kidnapped and sent south, or any incidental casualties, such as death by malnutrition, famine, or disease among civilians."

Again, that 4.4 million vs 3.1 million casualty count only counts military casualties. The hundreds of thousands of Confederate civilians who starved/froze to death in the winter of 1915-1916 and beyond, for example, are not included in those numbers.

 

[naraht]

Now that I'm back in the office I can actually use the search feature and keep multiple tabs open at the same time, found this post from a bit ago of me doing the actual math.

"So let's crunch some numbers given this update.

"... roughly a tenth of Confederate war dead..." 94,566 CSA killed in Nashville, times ten means the CSA has roughly 945,660 soldiers killed during this war.

"....sixth of total aggregated casualties..." 514,920 total CSA casualties, times six means 3,089,520 CSA killed, wounded, and captured soldiers during the war.

"...one in five of every casualty sustained by the United States occurred in the Nashville Campaign." 880,549 total American killed and wounded (no captured total provided) times five means 4,402, 745 American casualties overall.

Roughly 4.4 million American military casualties compared to "only" 3.1 million Confederate ones. And these numbers do not include any civilian casualties (of which there are probably at least in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands by war's end), any free blacks kidnapped and sent south, or any incidental casualties, such as death by malnutrition, famine, or disease among civilians."

Again, that 4.4 million vs 3.1 million casualty count only counts military casualties. The hundreds of thousands of Confederate civilians who starved/froze to death in the winter of 1915-1916 and beyond, for example, are not included in those numbers.

Says a lot about the technology of the GAW (like OTL WWI) where the *winner* takes more casualties than the *loser* even though most of the fighting was on Confederate Land.
It also doesn't count civilian deaths in places like DC, Baltimore, Nashville and Atlanta. Given the number of Civilian deaths, I'm guessing that in total, the Confederacy ends up losing more people than the US.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Says a lot about the technology of the GAW (like OTL WWI) where the *winner* takes more casualties than the *loser* even though most of the fighting was on Confederate Land.
It also doesn't count civilian deaths in places like DC, Baltimore, Nashville and Atlanta. Given the number of Civilian deaths, I'm guessing that in total, the Confederacy ends up losing more people than the US.

If it doesn't exceed then at the least it will be very close, especially if you count in "incidental" population loss (for lack of a better word) such as missed births and people not emigrating to the country post-war.

 

[Gman]

Can't wait for the Liberals to win 300 seats in the House in 1916 and break the Democratic "Western Wall".

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Can't wait for the Liberals to win 300 seats in the House in 1916 and break the Democratic "Western Wall".

You and me both buddy, take this failure of a Democratic Party out behind the barn and put them out of their misery. Maybe then people who aren't inept, myopic, or both can be in charge then.

 

[Gman]

You and me both buddy, take this failure of a Democratic Party out behind the barn and put them out of their misery. Maybe then people who aren't inept, myopic, or both can be in charge then.

And then the Socialists win and create a workers republic with syndicates and everything

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

Now that I'm back in the office I can actually use the search feature and keep multiple tabs open at the same time, found this post from a bit ago of me doing the actual math.

"So let's crunch some numbers given this update.

"... roughly a tenth of Confederate war dead..." 94,566 CSA killed in Nashville, times ten means the CSA has roughly 945,660 soldiers killed during this war.

"....sixth of total aggregated casualties..." 514,920 total CSA casualties, times six means 3,089,520 CSA killed, wounded, and captured soldiers during the war.

"...one in five of every casualty sustained by the United States occurred in the Nashville Campaign." 880,549 total American killed and wounded (no captured total provided) times five means 4,402, 745 American casualties overall.

Roughly 4.4 million American military casualties compared to "only" 3.1 million Confederate ones. And these numbers do not include any civilian casualties (of which there are probably at least in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands by war's end), any free blacks kidnapped and sent south, or any incidental casualties, such as death by malnutrition, famine, or disease among civilians."

Again, that 4.4 million vs 3.1 million casualty count only counts military casualties. The hundreds of thousands of Confederate civilians who starved/froze to death in the winter of 1915-1916 and beyond, for example, are not included in those numbers.

The proportion of military casualties killed in WWI varied between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 among the major powers; given the situation in the last year or so of the war, it's reasonable to assume that the US is able to better care for wounded and get somewhere closer to the latter than the Confederacy is, so the US may not have too many more KIA than the Confederacy.

Agreed that the Confederate civilian death toll is going to be significantly higher than the American. Only a portion of Maryland experienced complete devastation, early in the war when the rest of the US was intact and able to support refugee populations, and the US was able to retake the territory reasonably expeditiously.
Meanwhile, the United States slogged its way through four Confederate population and industrial centers (NOVA, KY along the Ohio, Nashville, and Atlanta) using total war methods once both sides hit full mobilization, and deliberately burnt the state of Georgia to the ground and damned near salted the earth at a time when the remaining Confederate territories couldn't possibly support the resultant refugee population. A ratio of 4 or 5 to 1 is not unexpected here.

All that aside...

I'd regard the OTL population of the Southern states at the time (26.5 million or so) as a ceiling, given the increased mortality experienced by slaves vs freedmen IOTL and the decreased ability to attract immigration. In addition, at this time IOTL the US had around 10 million African American citizens, of whom no more than 800,000 resided in the North, which points to there being at least 8-9 million slaves in the Confederacy at this point.

That puts the citizen population of the Confederacy ITTL no higher than 17 million, give or take a bit. Which means a million military deaths is roughly twice the proportional rate of France IOTL, and might represent as much as 40% deaths among military-aged men, plus missing births.

I'm... not sure that's survivable for an industrial state, it might be retcon time.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I'd regard the OTL population of the Southern states at the time (26.5 million or so) as a ceiling, given the increased mortality experienced by slaves vs freedmen IOTL and the decreased ability to attract immigration. In addition, at this time IOTL the US had around 10 million African American citizens, of whom no more than 800,000 resided in the North, which points to there being at least 8-9 million slaves in the Confederacy at this point.

That puts the citizen population of the Confederacy ITTL no higher than 17 million, give or take a bit. Which means a million military deaths is roughly twice the proportional rate of France IOTL, and might represent as much as 40% deaths among military-aged men, plus missing births.

I'm... not sure that's survivable for an industrial state, it might be retcon time.

One factor you're leaving out of your calculations is that slavery has been growing less profitable for a few decades now and so there's been a growing number who have already been manumitted by this point already. I'm not sure what the proper percentage of the African-American population in the Confederacy is already free, but it would be substantially higher at the start of the war than twenty years earlier. So, though the loss of life in the Confederacy is catostrophic, i don't suspect that it will be as high as 40% of all military aged men.

Also, Germany during WW2 lost roughly 46% of its male population according to David Glantz (assuming I'm reading that correctly) and though the post-wars years were no walk in the park, it didnt lead to the collapse of industrialized civilization there either. So there's really no need for a retcon.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Also, Germany during WW2 lost roughly 46% of its male population according to David Glantz (assuming I'm reading that correctly) and though the post-wars years were no walk in the park, it didnt lead to the collapse of industrialized civilization there either. So there's really no need for a retcon.

Germany isn't a great comp though because basically the only thing keeping Germany afloat for a while immediately postwar was the largess of the Big Four. Safe to say a Marshall Plan/Molotov Plan isn't happening to the CSA after this war.

 

[KingSweden24]

Which leads to the fact that the calculations will have different end dates for the five participants (I'm including Centro, did Centro have the same start date?). It also made me think how much the statement, "The war is over, but they dying isn't" will apply to each of the five participants.
For the CSA, just because they've surrendered doesn't mean that the Winter of 1916 is have much more food available and the US will definitely be dealing with Insurgents.
For Mexico, the question that springs to mind is for a Mexican Soldier coming home from Georgia killed in Fighting in San Antonio, will they be treated as a GAW casualty. But I'm expecting that death rates in 1916 won't be significantly different than 1912.
For Centro, I think the Author has indicated that it may be decades before peace truly comes to Honduras & Guatemala, with them actually starting to look *more* like OTL. US Banana companies controlling the leadership with fighting in the rural areas.
For Brazil, the dying is over for now, I don't think the author has indicated how bloody the move to Integralism will be.
For Chile, we know the socialists end up in power, but how bloody the 3(?) way war is an open question.

I don’t think I’ll get that into the weeds with GAW casualty calculations - for the Chile example, for instance, the Chilean Civil War is definitely a result of the GAW rather than part of it (like how post-WW1 conflicts are counted distinctly)

I'm honestly surprised the US is even bothers denying the extrajudicial killings. Given how the war started and the causes leading up to it the US would have to do a whole fucking lot worse then extrajudicially execute a couple thousand adult male suspected partisans to lose the moral highground here. Hell the Modern US still does that with drones.

I'm gonna be complete honest I view enslaving someone for decades to be on the same moral level as raping or murdering them. Plenty of countries most of them in fact view or have in the past viewed both of those capital offenses. IMO The US could put every adult male slave owner up against a wall and paint every plantation barn red and pink with the blood ashd guts of those who view thier fellow man as chattel and they would have done nothing more morally reprehensible then hanging a murderer.


Short of treating the Confederates exactly how the US treated the native Americans in decades previous (IE whole scale annihilation and genocide) I do not see how exactly the US could lose the moral highground given Confederate actions early war and the sheer depravity and vileness of the confederaste state, institutions and general culture.

Well, yes - we know how bad the Confederacy is. But remember, this is the early 20th century and the Confederacy joined the brotherhood of nations over sixty years previously. Although most western nations would look upon the institution of slavery as backwards, inhumane and wrong - they are also going to at least accept the Confederay's main argument that African-Americans are not as 'advanced' as European whites (this isn't to say that there won't be many who do understand the true horrors of slavery and racism, but they will not be the majority). Furthermore, many will believe that slavery is naturally withering on the vine as a result of Progress: they will point to the dwindling numbers of slaves to show that its just not economically viable any longer as a system. Because of this, there will be large sements who view the final ending of slavery as a Good Thing, but will also believe that using violence to overthrow it is unjustified because it's dying on its own.

Also, its important to remember that many extrajudicial killings will be against civilians. The United States has signed treaties which stipulate that non-combatants are not to be harmed. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907 actually outline was rights and protections civilians have: and being killed by enemy soldiers is pretty much right now. Now to us, the readers, many of these civilians may be plantation owners or wicked defenders of slavery. But that's not going to be the public perception of many in the Cinqo-verse. There will naturally be horror at the Confederate actions in DC and Baltimore, no doubt, but reprisal killings en mass is not going to be viewed well: if anything it will just reinforce a European sense of superiority over their American cousins, because certainly THEY wouldn't act in such a barbaric and uncivilized manner. Yes, many of those who are being killed will likely be partisans; but that just muddies the water further.

So, no, should the extent of extrajudicial kilings by Union soldiers in the Confederacy come to light, its highly unlikely that they would lose the moral high ground entirely: the CSA has done too good of a job of digging their own moral and public relations grave since they came into being. But it does make sense to mitigate the damage to prevent the court of public relations lumping the CSA and USA together into the camp of "irrational, blood thirsty belligerents who commit all these wrongs on each other because no one can get over history" (and, hey, that's an attitude we see enough of in OTL in many conflicts as it is; no matter who is morally right). The only thing the US could do to utterly destroy their hold on the oral high ground would be if they openly began to CELEBRATE the extra judicial killings: but luckily, I doubt anyone, save true radicals, is going to go there.

@DanMcCollum replied better to this than I could have

So long as the new US ambassador isn't Henry Lane Wilson.

The worst diplomat in history, bar none

I am not one hundred percent sure if I agree with this. The Confederacy literally opened the war with an organized Roman style sack on the US Capital! Complete with the mass rape and enslavement. Not something the troops did on there own in thier zeal but intentionally planned and orchestrated by Confederate high command. Then they did it again in Baltimore!!

The Confederacy has essentially designated an entire subsect of the US military and civilian population to be killed or enslaved on encounter. No other fate awaits a black US soldier or civilian captured by Confederates in this war. I am all for rules of war as long as both sides are at least pretending to abide by them. But when one side not only openly flouts them but gloats and glorify its numerous violations of the rules of war why should the other side not respond in kind?

How can you even begin to expect black American soldiers or thier comrades to be perfect little angels following the Hague convention line by line when many of them signed up specifically because the Confederates raped, murdered and enslaved thier friends and families in DC and then preceded to openly gloat about it? They know they will be afforded no such luxuries as hague convention protections when they encounter Confederate forces. They know what awaits them if the Confederates capture them. They know what fate awaits thier family if the Confederates do somehow miracously turn the tide and turn the war around and invade the US again. The Confederates have proved it to them time and time again and gloated about it.

Why should the US even care what Europe thinks? The US is still fairly isolationanist if you dont count the Americas. They do not nor should not care what Europe thinks. Not to mention Europe's illusions of superiority and gentlemen ship are about to be oblittered by the CEW.

Look let me put it this way if you ever find yourself in the position of being an alternate history Confederate slave owner staring down the barrel of a United States servicemans rifle and dont want to be shot in the face here are three things you could try to get out of your predicament.

1. Don't own people

2. Petition your government to not sack DC and Baltimore or better yet not attack the US to begin with.

Unfornately both methods 1 and 2 would require a time machine thus leaving you only with option 3. Think a goodbye to your family, friends, and the slaves you very shortly wont own anymore, bite your own tongue off, pray you bleed to death before the man shoots you and have a nice extremely hot eternity.

I do agree with a lot of this from our modern perspective, though that still doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t pride itself on not encouraging straight up looting and massacres. Looking the other way, however…

I *think* the Author has indicated that the United States and Mexico stay at peace through the next few years, so I doubt it...

Note, the other two people mentioned in the Wikipedia paragraph about Henry Lane Wilson's actions in Mexico would be almost as fun. The confidential agent (William Bayard Hale) who informed President Woodrow Wilson of the situation ended up as a Propaganda advisor for Germany from 1915 to the US entry in the war and ended up having to flee to Europe and Died in Munich and John Lind, the former Governor of Minnesota who was sent by WW and WJB as an Envoy for Mexican Affair jumped in with both feet and ended up supporting Carranza in 1920.

Supporting Carranza was the right choice right up until he hopped on that train with most of the Mexican treasury’s gold, to be fair. Huerta was simply that bad

Now that I'm back in the office I can actually use the search feature and keep multiple tabs open at the same time, found this post from a bit ago of me doing the actual math.

"So let's crunch some numbers given this update.

"... roughly a tenth of Confederate war dead..." 94,566 CSA killed in Nashville, times ten means the CSA has roughly 945,660 soldiers killed during this war.

"....sixth of total aggregated casualties..." 514,920 total CSA casualties, times six means 3,089,520 CSA killed, wounded, and captured soldiers during the war.

"...one in five of every casualty sustained by the United States occurred in the Nashville Campaign." 880,549 total American killed and wounded (no captured total provided) times five means 4,402, 745 American casualties overall.

Roughly 4.4 million American military casualties compared to "only" 3.1 million Confederate ones. And these numbers do not include any civilian casualties (of which there are probably at least in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands by war's end), any free blacks kidnapped and sent south, or any incidental casualties, such as death by malnutrition, famine, or disease among civilians."

Again, that 4.4 million vs 3.1 million casualty count only counts military casualties. The hundreds of thousands of Confederate civilians who starved/froze to death in the winter of 1915-1916 and beyond, for example, are not included in those numbers.

I’d say these figures land relatively close to our final figures

Can't wait for the Liberals to win 300 seats in the House in 1916 and break the Democratic "Western Wall".

While this is clearly meant to bait our friend Curtain Jerker, lol, you’ll be waiting a while. Libs aren’t getting anywhere near 300 seats, and their upside in 1916 in the Senate is actually fairly limited by them doing well with the Class 1 seats in 1910.

The proportion of military casualties killed in WWI varied between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 among the major powers; given the situation in the last year or so of the war, it's reasonable to assume that the US is able to better care for wounded and get somewhere closer to the latter than the Confederacy is, so the US may not have too many more KIA than the Confederacy.

Agreed that the Confederate civilian death toll is going to be significantly higher than the American. Only a portion of Maryland experienced complete devastation, early in the war when the rest of the US was intact and able to support refugee populations, and the US was able to retake the territory reasonably expeditiously.
Meanwhile, the United States slogged its way through four Confederate population and industrial centers (NOVA, KY along the Ohio, Nashville, and Atlanta) using total war methods once both sides hit full mobilization, and deliberately burnt the state of Georgia to the ground and damned near salted the earth at a time when the remaining Confederate territories couldn't possibly support the resultant refugee population. A ratio of 4 or 5 to 1 is not unexpected here.

All that aside...

I'd regard the OTL population of the Southern states at the time (26.5 million or so) as a ceiling, given the increased mortality experienced by slaves vs freedmen IOTL and the decreased ability to attract immigration. In addition, at this time IOTL the US had around 10 million African American citizens, of whom no more than 800,000 resided in the North, which points to there being at least 8-9 million slaves in the Confederacy at this point.

That puts the citizen population of the Confederacy ITTL no higher than 17 million, give or take a bit. Which means a million military deaths is roughly twice the proportional rate of France IOTL, and might represent as much as 40% deaths among military-aged men, plus missing births.

I'm... not sure that's survivable for an industrial state, it might be retcon time.

The figures you’re using here suggest a demographic disaster similar to Serbia and Russia in WW1 or, as @DanMcCollum notes, Germany in WW2. Those countries bounced back eventually (YMMV on Serbia granted) and the CSA will eventually recover in some form from the massive hole blown through its demographics. It definitely won’t be pretty, though.

Germany isn't a great comp though because basically the only thing keeping Germany afloat for a while immediately postwar was the largess of the Big Four. Safe to say a Marshall Plan/Molotov Plan isn't happening to the CSA after this war.

Nope certainly not.

 

[naraht]

I don’t think I’ll get that into the weeds with GAW casualty calculations - for the Chile example, for instance, the Chilean Civil War is definitely a result of the GAW rather than part of it (like how post-WW1 conflicts are counted distinctly)


@DanMcCollum replied better to this than I could have

The worst diplomat in history, bar none

I do agree with a lot of this from our modern perspective, though that still doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t pride itself on not encouraging straight up looting and massacres. Looking the other way, however…

Supporting Carranza was the right choice right up until he hopped on that train with most of the Mexican treasury’s gold, to be fair. Huerta was simply that bad

I’d say these figures land relatively close to our final figures

While this is clearly meant to bait our friend Curtain Jerker, lol, you’ll be waiting a while. Libs aren’t getting anywhere near 300 seats, and their upside in 1916 in the Senate is actually fairly limited by them doing well with the Class 1 seats in 1910.

The figures you’re using here suggest a demographic disaster similar to Serbia and Russia in WW1 or, as @DanMcCollum notes, Germany in WW2. Those countries bounced back eventually (YMMV on Serbia granted) and the CSA will eventually recover in some form from the massive hole blown through its demographics. It definitely won’t be pretty, though.

Nope certainly not.

I realize that it is a matter of opinion, but I still support Joseph P. Kennedy for the crown in that regard. Whatever else Henry Lane Wilson did, he wasn't an ambassador to a major power.
I simply remember that the Confederacy is *not* suffering the level of Casualties that Paraguay did in the War of the Triple Alliance.
As a branch of the LDS grows in the Confederacy *simply* due to their support of Polygamy.
I fully expect that an otherwise honorable US Officer between Nashville and reaching the ocean would walk past a soldier committing Arson, might walk by a soldier stealing something small and valuable, but would probably *not* walk past a soldier (or group of soldiers) committing Rape or Murder.

 

[KingSweden24]

I realize that it is a matter of opinion, but I still support Joseph P. Kennedy for the crown in that regard. Whatever else Henry Lane Wilson did, he wasn't an ambassador to a major power.
I simply remember that the Confederacy is *not* suffering the level of Casualties that Paraguay did in the War of the Triple Alliance.
As the LDS grown in the Confederacy *simply* due to their support of Polygamy.
I fully expect that an otherwise honorable US Officer between Nashville and reaching the ocean would walk past a soldier committing Arson, might walk by a soldier stealing something small and valuable, but would probably *not* walk past a soldier (or group of soldiers) committing Rape or Murder.

LDS in Confederacy as a maneuver to repopulate is actually a kind of interesting idea, especially if FLDS isn’t as successfully crushed by the Quorum as they were IOTL

 

[Aged_Urbanist]

One factor you're leaving out of your calculations is that slavery has been growing less profitable for a few decades now and so there's been a growing number who have already been manumitted by this point already. I'm not sure what the proper percentage of the African-American population in the Confederacy is already free, but it would be substantially higher at the start of the war than twenty years earlier. So, though the loss of life in the Confederacy is catostrophic, i don't suspect that it will be as high as 40% of all military aged men.

Also, Germany during WW2 lost roughly 46% of its male population according to David Glantz (assuming I'm reading that correctly) and though the post-wars years were no walk in the park, it didnt lead to the collapse of industrialized civilization there either. So there's really no need for a retcon.

I don't think it substantially changes the point if I substitute "white" for "citizen" in a few places, TBH. It'd be around 40% of military-aged white males, even if the free black population is over a million in 1910.

You're definitely misreading whatever source that is as German/Austrian military and civilian deaths combined were 8-9% of the population in WWII.

The figures you’re using here suggest a demographic disaster similar to Serbia and Russia in WW1 or, as @DanMcCollum notes, Germany in WW2. Those countries bounced back eventually (YMMV on Serbia granted) and the CSA will eventually recover in some form from the massive hole blown through its demographics. It definitely won’t be pretty, though.

I assume you mean the USSR in WWII, because Russia's military deaths in WWI were actually quite light proportionally? In WWII the USSR and Germany suffered around 30% and 25% of their prime-age male populations killed, respectively. The USSR, in particular, struggled with that for decades.

Serbia was even more screwed over in WWI, but paradoxically the high number of civilian casualties, disproportionately women, may have evened the demographics out some from what I've read. And it was much closer to a pre-industrial society than TTL's USA or CSA, which meant that massive waves of death among children were closer to the norm than the exception, and more easily "made up."

To cross-check my gut above, the OTL US population distribution in 1910 had around 28% of the populace between the ages of 15 and 30, half male, so if that can be generally applied ITTL, there are approximately 2.4 million Confederate prime-aged white/citizen males; a million deaths is 41% of that number.

In light of the USSR's post-WWII experience, it is perhaps survivable in a sense, but it's a clusterfuck.

 

[5000 Cows]

LDS in Confederacy as a maneuver to repopulate is actually a kind of interesting idea, especially if FLDS isn’t as successfully crushed by the Quorum as they were IOTL

I also foresee in the aftermath you're going to have a LOT of introspection that might lead to large parts of the population being open to much more creative interpretations of religion than they are used to down there. It might be *quite* lively in the CSA in the decades afterward in that regard.