• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It is good to see the non-AF parties throwing their weight around. And every success is just going to make them bolder. Of course, AFP is going to have an answer sooner rather than later. Periods of power never last, and we already saw the Conservative unity fraying.

Prohibition is repealed! This calls for a drink! :D

And those naval battles have sealed the deal on the seas. The Entente/USA can land anywhere now. After Ifni, do you plan to go more in the Mediterranean or take out the UK? The Med. is closer, but the UK can't get reinforcements with your naval dominance.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Finally, prohibition is gone! And, more importantly, the war is going well! But surely Syndicalist resistance will harden now...
 
Lightening War – April 1951 – June 1951
Lightening War – April 1951 – June 1951

1740939673466.png

While the future of the war effort had come under significant threat by debates in Washington in the first third of 1951, the nation’s domineering Chief of Staff might have been expected to move on the front foot to make his presence felt. Indeed, Patton had planning to travel back to Washington from his African military HQ in Accra, Ghana, from where he had directed the campaigns in Benin-Nigeria and West Africa over the past year before he fell serious ill from malaria, leaving him largely out of action until the spring. This illness had ensured the key questions of war and peace that surrounded the 1951 budget negotiations were solely a civilian political matter, and reduced the great General’s stature at home – where his larger than life presence had led many to assume that he would exercise significant control over such crucial decisions. Nonetheless, while weakened politically and with new political pressure bearing down on his back, he had not wasted his time in plotting the next stage of the war.

1740939762169.png

After the near-flawless execution of capture of Ifni, US Marines forged northwards into the Moroccan interior through April, capturing the historic city of Marrakesh without a fight. It was only in the final week of the month that they faced serious resistance for the first time, just south of the key port of Casablanca where a mixture of native Moroccan and British troops formed defences that were far too strong the exhausted marines, with their overstretched supply lines, to break. As a result, over the next fortnight fighting in the Moroccan front paused almost entirely while both sides hurried reinforcements to the front.

At this delicate stage of the campaign, Casablanca was everything. Without it, the Americans were reliant on a single modestly sized port in Ifni with which to supply their entire force in Morocco, a port which was already 400-odd miles from the frontline. If the Americans could not capture Casablanca, with its valuable port facilities, in May then their entire operation risked failure. It was with this front of mind that General Patton relocated from his headquarters in Accra to the more rustic surrounds of Ifni in order to plan a daring and typically highly aggressive operation.

1740939781577.png

Throughout his military career, Patton’s central philosophy had been that the key to victory was an unrelentingly offensive posture and the mobility required to take advantage of it. From 4 May, American forces began to attack the fortified positions in and around Casablanca – supporting by a heavy naval bombardment. However, the main focus of the American offensive was not in Casablanca itself but the countryside just east of the city, where US forces unleashed the concentrated power of swarm of hundreds of tanks – piercing through the syndicalist lines and driving into the space behind. By noon on 7 May, motorised infantry reached Rabat, just north of Casablanca and in doing so cut the city off from the rest of Morocco. This manoeuvre precipitated the total collapse of the syndicalist defence of the country over the course of the next two weeks.

While the large Internationale force in Casablanca fought on for some time longer – the city, and its 75,000 surviving defenders, surrendered on 13 May. But by the time this occurred Casablanca was the least of the syndicalists’ worries. After the capture of Rabat, advanced American units had continued northwards before swinging east to seize Fez. Left in disarray by the rapid movement of US forces in their rear, the syndicalists had attempted to withdraw back to new lines – but in so doing left a large 70,000-strong force just west of Fez to be enveloped and destroyed.

1740939806645.png

By now, complete panic and chaos had taken hold among the syndicalists. On 21 May, after American troops moved into Tangiers, the government of the Commune of Morocco offered their unconditional surrender to the United States, as the Internationale ordered a complete withdrawal from the country. The syndicalist forces fled in three directions – eastward towards Algeria, and towards the Rif ports of Ceuta and Melilla. While those that went east, for the most part, slipped out of the American grasp, the troops that attempted to escape by sea saw no promised evacuation force materialise while Patton’s men remained hot on their tails – leading to no fewer than a quarter of a million further syndicalist soldiers being captured at the ports, bringing the total number of Internationale troops captured in the course of just three weeks past 400,000. This was a victory of great scale and strategic importance, achieved at minimal cost and breakneck speed. If Patton’s star had been tarnished after the bloody campaigns in West Africa in 1950, his reputation as a military genius had been embellished once more.

1740939852990.png

Hot on the heels of their great victories in Morocco, Patton, ever the aggressive commander, demand that his tired troops keep up their momentum and push on into Algeria – once the heartland of the French Republican government whose exiled administration remained a nominal member of the Entente alliance. After the rapid pace of the syndicalist collapse in Morocco, the battle for Algeria was notably slower as the syndicalists stymied efforts to outflank them as they made an orderly retreat back to the gates of Algiers over the course of three weeks. By the time they reached the city, the Americans’ supply lines were badly overstretched and the Internationale had brought large numbers of reinforcements to the front. But nonetheless, victory still appeared within close reach.

1740939880632.png

Weakened by the loss of his Congressional majority and the thrusting approach of the Conservatives, which had seen him agree to unhappy compromises over Prohibition and the budget, in 1951 President Thurmond was in desperate need of finding a new motivating force to revive his Presidency and energise the home front behind the war effort. He would find it in God.

American Christianity had been significantly changed by the evangelical revival brought about by the Fourth Great Awakening. Beginning in the ruins of industrial cities of the Mid West, recently liberated from the syndicalists, during the Civil War – it quickly swept over the entire nation and saw major Protestant Churches split and fundamentalist denominations surge in strength as charismatic revivalist meetings attracted mass audiences. By the second half of the 1940s, the energy of the Awakening had largely dissipated – with the comforts of material prosperity, the fading of memories of the existential threat to American Christianity posed by the Civil War, and the institutionalisation of many of the key political aims of the evangelical movement, playing their part. However, its imprint was permanent – with adherents of evangelical denominations forming the largest single block of American society, outnumbering mainline Protestants for the first time.

However, the United States’ entry into the Weltkrieg in 1948 had changed things, and brought a new generation of revivalist preachers to the fore, the most significant of whom was the electrifying Billy Graham. A North Carolinian Southern Baptist, Graham had witnessed the wartime evangelisation of the late 1930s as a young man and was inspired to dedicate his life to Christ. Like many other evangelists, Graham was strongly supportive of the war against the Third Internationale – viewing it in terms of a manichaean struggle between good and evil, Christian civilisation and syndicalist barbarism. And he would frequently centre his sermons around the spirit of Crusade – seeing his audiences grow rapidly in size and enthusiasm, not only in the South but across the country.

1740939904248.png

President Thurmond, who was himself a Southern Baptist, was keen to capture this energy to support his struggling government and ferment wider public enthusiasm for the continuation of the war and embraced the new revivalists more closely than any of his predecessors. After spending Easter with Graham at the end of March, in April he attended a mass meeting being held at Charleston, South Carolina, his home state, where he appeared on stage alongside Graham and other preachers and spoke to the audience in biblical terms about the sacred mission to overcome the Internationale and liberate the millions of Christians living under tyranny in Europe. After this, Thurmond invited Graham to become his personal spiritual counsel and take on the capacity of an official advisor to the White House.

1740939927149.png

The Internationale’s defeats through 1950 and 1951 had been visibly costly and left the syndicalist movement appearing more vulnerable on the international stage than at any point since the defeat of the German Empire. Naturally, this attracted the interest of the Moscow Accord, the other great victor from the destruction of the Hohenzollern imperium half a decade before, whose own vicious anti-revolutionary ideological predilections had been suppressed in the name of realpolitik for years. Yet now, as the Americans and their Entente allies reached with miles of the European continent, it was still widely assumed that their outright victory would necessitate the Russians opening a second front. Yet in this, Russia’s mighty generalissimo Baron Wrangel was cautious – reluctant to throw his nation, still recovering from the horrific losses sustained on the Eastern Front a decade before and struggling to integrate the newly reconquered territories back into the Russian state, into another catastrophic conflict for the benefit of his unreliable old American allies.

1740939948531.png

However, others within Moscow’s orbit were much less circumspect. Indeed, the greatest advocated for Accord intervention were not in Moscow at all but in Berlin. Crushed between the twin pincers of Wrangel and the syndicalists, the German Republic was born in the final days of the first phase of the Weltkrieg as Social Democrat politicians deposed the Kaiser in absentia after he had fled the country from Germany and threw themselves at the feet of the Russians. Left in control only over the eastern and northern lands of Prussia, Hannover and Saxony while syndicalists states were established in Austria and West Germany, the Republic struggled to survive its first years amidst a mass influx of refugees from the west and the total devastation of the country.

While the Russians busied themselves establishing new states in their own image across, monarchical and reactionary, across the new states of eastern Europe than came under their control after the defeat of the Kaiserreich, Republican Germany stood out distinctly. It was perhaps inevitable that a Social Democratic government would not last long in this context, with right-winger Theodore Oberlander assuming power at the head of a union of conservative and nationalist parties in 1947. Oberlander would prove more independent than the Russians might have predicted – with a strongly anti-syndicalist line that often caused discomfort in the uneasy peace in continental Europe and friendliness with the Americans. Having played a key role in supporting Germany through the humanitarian catastrophe of the mid-1940s, the United States was very popular in East Germany while many saw in its war with the Internationale the nation’s only hope of reunification.

Consistently arguing for a second intervention in the Weltkrieg within the Moscow Accord, as Entente forces closed in on Europe itself Oberlander began to make ever more open and provocative offers of support – including the donation of military equipment to the United States and the signing of a treaty of friendship, that saw the Americans affirm their recognition of the Berlin regime as the legitimate government of all Germany.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
The quickest turnaround between chapters we've had for quite some time as we lurch forward towards some of the most crucial moments in the war!

Of course AF loves Apartheid, let's hope they don't try to bring it to America (i.e. they never get a trifecta)

AF did a lot to advance racial laws in the immediate post-Civil War era - but never implemented something as comprehensive as Apartheid in that time. Since 1945, they've only held that trifecta for 2 years (1949-1951) and their domestic agenda was left very much subservient to the war effort. Who knows which direction they would look to push things if they can regain control of the House and Presidency again in the 1950s.

Without a doubt, it is concerning. Has there already been any movement, disturbance, or post-civil war insurrection related to the Black population?

We've seen some occasional unrest and disturbances (most notably with some riots in 1950), while prior to this many Black Americans were involved in the syndie movement and its underground successors in the 1930s and early 1940s. On the most peaceful side, the Liberals have always back civil rights causes. But at this stage resistance has been piecemeal and uncoordinated among Black Americans and almost always led by left-leaning white activists in one form or another. But as we proceed further forward in time and the level of education among African Americans rises - we are getting to the point where Black-led political leadership is liable to become a more serious thorn in the side of segregationist America.

It is good to see the non-AF parties throwing their weight around. And every success is just going to make them bolder. Of course, AFP is going to have an answer sooner rather than later. Periods of power never last, and we already saw the Conservative unity fraying.

Prohibition is repealed! This calls for a drink! :D

And those naval battles have sealed the deal on the seas. The Entente/USA can land anywhere now. After Ifni, do you plan to go more in the Mediterranean or take out the UK? The Med. is closer, but the UK can't get reinforcements with your naval dominance.

It's going to be a very interesting election year in 1952 (we're now a year and a half out from the next Presidential election). At this stage Thurmond's hopes of re-election are now essentially entirely pinned on improvements in the war situation. If victory looks on the cards come November 1952 he will surely be in a strong position to be re-elected, if we arrive at that point with hundreds of thousands dead and an Internationale that's alive and kicking then whoever is nominated to face him will surely fancy their chances.

Yes, at this stage the battle for the seas is effectively over. The syndies can still put out big fleets to keep me on my toes, but I am able to secure naval supremacy in multiple sea zones on the European coastline now for extended periods. As for where we go after Morocco, a naval invasion is now inevitable and we will learn in the next update where I am planning for it to hit. But I will wait until then to reveal where the hammer will fall ;).

Finally, prohibition is gone! And, more importantly, the war is going well! But surely Syndicalist resistance will harden now...

If we can carry on like we did in Morocco the war will be over by Christmas! :p Although I suspect the syndies will be somewhat wiser from here - certainly an invasion of continental Europe isn't going to be anything like as easy as this most recent campaign, while even in North Africa the reds aren't quite finished yet.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Thurmond invited Graham to become his personal spiritual counsel and take on the capacity of an official advisor to the White House.
Given Graham's talks of crusades, I get the feeling there may be an attempt to take the Middle East...
 
Lightening War – April 1951 – June 1951

View attachment 1260563

While the future of the war effort had come under significant threat by debates in Washington in the first third of 1951, the nation’s domineering Chief of Staff might have been expected to move on the front foot to make his presence felt. Indeed, Patton had planning to travel back to Washington from his African military HQ in Accra, Ghana, from where he had directed the campaigns in Benin-Nigeria and West Africa over the past year before he fell serious ill from malaria, leaving him largely out of action until the spring. This illness had ensured the key questions of war and peace that surrounded the 1951 budget negotiations were solely a civilian political matter, and reduced the great General’s stature at home – where his larger than life presence had led many to assume that he would exercise significant control over such crucial decisions. Nonetheless, while weakened politically and with new political pressure bearing down on his back, he had not wasted his time in plotting the next stage of the war.


After the near-flawless execution of capture of Ifni, US Marines forged northwards into the Moroccan interior through April, capturing the historic city of Marrakesh without a fight. It was only in the final week of the month that they faced serious resistance for the first time, just south of the key port of Casablanca where a mixture of native Moroccan and British troops formed defences that were far too strong the exhausted marines, with their overstretched supply lines, to break. As a result, over the next fortnight fighting in the Moroccan front paused almost entirely while both sides hurried reinforcements to the front.

At this delicate stage of the campaign, Casablanca was everything. Without it, the Americans were reliant on a single modestly sized port in Ifni with which to supply their entire force in Morocco, a port which was already 400-odd miles from the frontline. If the Americans could not capture Casablanca, with its valuable port facilities, in May then their entire operation risked failure. It was with this front of mind that General Patton relocated from his headquarters in Accra to the more rustic surrounds of Ifni in order to plan a daring and typically highly aggressive operation.

Throughout his military career, Patton’s central philosophy had been that the key to victory was an unrelentingly offensive posture and the mobility required to take advantage of it. From 4 May, American forces began to attack the fortified positions in and around Casablanca – supporting by a heavy naval bombardment. However, the main focus of the American offensive was not in Casablanca itself but the countryside just east of the city, where US forces unleashed the concentrated power of swarm of hundreds of tanks – piercing through the syndicalist lines and driving into the space behind. By noon on 7 May, motorised infantry reached Rabat, just north of Casablanca and in doing so cut the city off from the rest of Morocco. This manoeuvre precipitated the total collapse of the syndicalist defence of the country over the course of the next two weeks.

While the large Internationale force in Casablanca fought on for some time longer – the city, and its 75,000 surviving defenders, surrendered on 13 May. But by the time this occurred Casablanca was the least of the syndicalists’ worries. After the capture of Rabat, advanced American units had continued northwards before swinging east to seize Fez. Left in disarray by the rapid movement of US forces in their rear, the syndicalists had attempted to withdraw back to new lines – but in so doing left a large 70,000-strong force just west of Fez to be enveloped and destroyed.


By now, complete panic and chaos had taken hold among the syndicalists. On 21 May, after American troops moved into Tangiers, the government of the Commune of Morocco offered their unconditional surrender to the United States, as the Internationale ordered a complete withdrawal from the country. The syndicalist forces fled in three directions – eastward towards Algeria, and towards the Rif ports of Ceuta and Melilla. While those that went east, for the most part, slipped out of the American grasp, the troops that attempted to escape by sea saw no promised evacuation force materialise while Patton’s men remained hot on their tails – leading to no fewer than a quarter of a million further syndicalist soldiers being captured at the ports, bringing the total number of Internationale troops captured in the course of just three weeks past 400,000. This was a victory of great scale and strategic importance, achieved at minimal cost and breakneck speed. If Patton’s star had been tarnished after the bloody campaigns in West Africa in 1950, his reputation as a military genius had been embellished once more.


Hot on the heels of their great victories in Morocco, Patton, ever the aggressive commander, demand that his tired troops keep up their momentum and push on into Algeria – once the heartland of the French Republican government whose exiled administration remained a nominal member of the Entente alliance. After the rapid pace of the syndicalist collapse in Morocco, the battle for Algeria was notably slower as the syndicalists stymied efforts to outflank them as they made an orderly retreat back to the gates of Algiers over the course of three weeks. By the time they reached the city, the Americans’ supply lines were badly overstretched and the Internationale had brought large numbers of reinforcements to the front. But nonetheless, victory still appeared within close reach.


Weakened by the loss of his Congressional majority and the thrusting approach of the Conservatives, which had seen him agree to unhappy compromises over Prohibition and the budget, in 1951 President Thurmond was in desperate need of finding a new motivating force to revive his Presidency and energise the home front behind the war effort. He would find it in God.

American Christianity had been significantly changed by the evangelical revival brought about by the Fourth Great Awakening. Beginning in the ruins of industrial cities of the Mid West, recently liberated from the syndicalists, during the Civil War – it quickly swept over the entire nation and saw major Protestant Churches split and fundamentalist denominations surge in strength as charismatic revivalist meetings attracted mass audiences. By the second half of the 1940s, the energy of the Awakening had largely dissipated – with the comforts of material prosperity, the fading of memories of the existential threat to American Christianity posed by the Civil War, and the institutionalisation of many of the key political aims of the evangelical movement, playing their part. However, its imprint was permanent – with adherents of evangelical denominations forming the largest single block of American society, outnumbering mainline Protestants for the first time.

However, the United States’ entry into the Weltkrieg in 1948 had changed things, and brought a new generation of revivalist preachers to the fore, the most significant of whom was the electrifying Billy Graham. A North Carolinian Southern Baptist, Graham had witnessed the wartime evangelisation of the late 1930s as a young man and was inspired to dedicate his life to Christ. Like many other evangelists, Graham was strongly supportive of the war against the Third Internationale – viewing it in terms of a manichaean struggle between good and evil, Christian civilisation and syndicalist barbarism. And he would frequently centre his sermons around the spirit of Crusade – seeing his audiences grow rapidly in size and enthusiasm, not only in the South but across the country.


President Thurmond, who was himself a Southern Baptist, was keen to capture this energy to support his struggling government and ferment wider public enthusiasm for the continuation of the war and embraced the new revivalists more closely than any of his predecessors. After spending Easter with Graham at the end of March, in April he attended a mass meeting being held at Charleston, South Carolina, his home state, where he appeared on stage alongside Graham and other preachers and spoke to the audience in biblical terms about the sacred mission to overcome the Internationale and liberate the millions of Christians living under tyranny in Europe. After this, Thurmond invited Graham to become his personal spiritual counsel and take on the capacity of an official advisor to the White House.


The Internationale’s defeats through 1950 and 1951 had been visibly costly and left the syndicalist movement appearing more vulnerable on the international stage than at any point since the defeat of the German Empire. Naturally, this attracted the interest of the Moscow Accord, the other great victor from the destruction of the Hohenzollern imperium half a decade before, whose own vicious anti-revolutionary ideological predilections had been suppressed in the name of realpolitik for years. Yet now, as the Americans and their Entente allies reached with miles of the European continent, it was still widely assumed that their outright victory would necessitate the Russians opening a second front. Yet in this, Russia’s mighty generalissimo Baron Wrangel was cautious – reluctant to throw his nation, still recovering from the horrific losses sustained on the Eastern Front a decade before and struggling to integrate the newly reconquered territories back into the Russian state, into another catastrophic conflict for the benefit of his unreliable old American allies.


However, others within Moscow’s orbit were much less circumspect. Indeed, the greatest advocated for Accord intervention were not in Moscow at all but in Berlin. Crushed between the twin pincers of Wrangel and the syndicalists, the German Republic was born in the final days of the first phase of the Weltkrieg as Social Democrat politicians deposed the Kaiser in absentia after he had fled the country from Germany and threw themselves at the feet of the Russians. Left in control only over the eastern and northern lands of Prussia, Hannover and Saxony while syndicalists states were established in Austria and West Germany, the Republic struggled to survive its first years amidst a mass influx of refugees from the west and the total devastation of the country.

While the Russians busied themselves establishing new states in their own image across, monarchical and reactionary, across the new states of eastern Europe than came under their control after the defeat of the Kaiserreich, Republican Germany stood out distinctly. It was perhaps inevitable that a Social Democratic government would not last long in this context, with right-winger Theodore Oberlander assuming power at the head of a union of conservative and nationalist parties in 1947. Oberlander would prove more independent than the Russians might have predicted – with a strongly anti-syndicalist line that often caused discomfort in the uneasy peace in continental Europe and friendliness with the Americans. Having played a key role in supporting Germany through the humanitarian catastrophe of the mid-1940s, the United States was very popular in East Germany while many saw in its war with the Internationale the nation’s only hope of reunification.

Consistently arguing for a second intervention in the Weltkrieg within the Moscow Accord, as Entente forces closed in on Europe itself Oberlander began to make ever more open and provocative offers of support – including the donation of military equipment to the United States and the signing of a treaty of friendship, that saw the Americans affirm their recognition of the Berlin regime as the legitimate government of all Germany.
Would mountaineers fit the terrain of Morocco and parts of Algeria more? And is airborne operation feasible under this circumstance?
 
Graham is a new Coughlin for a new age. Mass media and propaganda is going to be increasingly key as the war continues. Thurmond will want as many people to hear Graham's voice as possible.

I understand why Russia is hesitant to enter the war, but ideology and realpolitik demands they do so at some point. They can't let the US and Entente have free-reign over what the post-war situation looks like.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Graham is a new Coughlin for a new age. Mass media and propaganda is going to be increasingly key as the war continues. Thurmond will want as many people to hear Graham's voice as possible.

I understand why Russia is hesitant to enter the war, but ideology and realpolitik demands they do so at some point. They can't let the US and Entente have free-reign over what the post-war situation looks like.
OMG we need something like Road to 56 at this rate (hell, make the tech tree to 60s or even later, Dieselpunk let's go)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well, that is a quick turnaround! :D Patton is well on the way to legendary status by now.
 
A couple of great chapters.
leading to no fewer than a quarter of a million further syndicalist soldiers being captured at the ports, bringing the total number of Internationale troops captured in the course of just three weeks past 400,000
Again, wow. It must only be their deep continental manpower reserves that are now keeping them going. All these troops that have been wiped out would have been far harder to defeat in Europe itself, closer to supply lines and better able achieve mutual support.
Although I suspect the syndies will be somewhat wiser from here - certainly an invasion of continental Europe isn't going to be anything like as easy as this most recent campaign
True though. Careful planning will be necessary. How does the overall comparison of div numbers and industry look between the two blocs at the moment? Does one side or the other have a clear advantage?
 
A couple of great chapters.

Again, wow. It must only be their deep continental manpower reserves that are now keeping them going. All these troops that have been wiped out would have been far harder to defeat in Europe itself, closer to supply lines and better able achieve mutual support.

True though. Careful planning will be necessary. How does the overall comparison of div numbers and industry look between the two blocs at the moment? Does one side or the other have a clear advantage
My theory right now is that either Portugal all over again or Algeria, a massive north African campaign like irl is no go due to tyranny of space and time. (Hell, maybe consider landing in Britain or Ireland at this rate. Marines capture airports, fly transport planes in, and the launch a massive airborne/marine invasion of Britain proper). If you want I can make a graphic for the plan
The force concentration rn is WW1 tier. It’s a miracle American troops have been able to make breakthroughs, consider either invest in massive heavy tank fleet, airborne or nuclear to create any future breakthroughs. There’s also the theory with massive airpower demolishing railroad/supply hub of the enemy and simply outattrit them.
 
For Portugal/Algeria campaign consider making more mountaineers to handle rugged terrain/mountain, maybe covert existing Marine units for this matter. For Britain campaign consider more paratroopers and transport plane. For mainland invasion of europe consider nuclear bomb and more heavy tank divisions
 
If you want to launch a campaign in the Mediterranean, aimed at more isolated targets like the islands there, you're gonna have to take controll over the Straits of Gibraltar. And this is a scenario where you simply cannot do that without a Iberian campaign launched first. With North Africa secured, you do have a excelent base of operations allowing for the airforce to at the very least compete, which is a big contributing factor to the failure of the last attempted Iberian campaign. The second option would be the other "approach" to Europe. The USA has by now undertaken the Southern Approach, over the various islands that dot the Mid Atlantic to eventually arrive in Morocco. The Northern Approach would be pushed for big by the Canadians at this point, that is to go via Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe and Shetlands to eventually arrive at the British Islands. If you can win big navally, the islands can be cut off one by one, and Britain can become a second mustering point for a invasion of Red Fortress Europe. Where untill now Patton has gotten his glory mainly, if the navy wants in on it, they'd also push for this approach, because they'd be the main campaign makers, unlike the Iberian option where they have a secondary role
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you want to launch a campaign in the Mediterranean, aimed at more isolated targets like the islands there, you're gonna have to take controll over the Straits of Gibraltar. And this is a scenario where you simply cannot do that without a Iberian campaign launched first. With North Africa secured, you do have a excelent base of operations allowing for the airforce to at the very least compete, which is a big contributing factor to the failure of the last attempted Iberian campaign. The second option would be the other "approach" to Europe. The USA has by now undertaken the Southern Approach, over the various islands that dot the Mid Atlantic to eventually arrive in Morocco. The Northern Approach would be pushed for big by the Canadians at this point, that is to go via Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe and Shetlands to eventually arrive at the British Islands. If you can win big navally, the islands can be cut off one by one, and Britain can become a second mustering point for a invasion of Red Fortress Europe. Where untill now Patton has gotten his glory mainly, if the navy wants in on it, they'd also push for this approach, because they'd be the main campaign makers, unlike the Iberian option where they have a secondary role
I'm in favor of "Britain first", Patton's tanks are simply more adapted to the terrain of Britain and France rather than the pathetic hills of North Africa. The limits of sea power means you cannot really advance as deep as you can in real life.
 
1741291772642.png

My theory of United Kingdom invasion. Joint paratrooper/marine invasion of England will commence after Marines seize Ireland.
The 1st corp of Marine (6-10 divs) will land in Northern Ireland and sever the link towards broader continent. The 2nd corp will be tasked with clearing out Ireland proper. The paratroopers will have to be shipped in alongside armored units to make the drive on Dublin. After that the second phase shall commence
1741292475399.png
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Over Here, Over There! – June 1951 – October 1951
Over Here, Over There! – June 1951 – October 1951

1742058109607.png

The progress of American forces through May and June had been staggering, with Morocco overwhelmed in just a few weeks, entire syndicalist armies captured and US forces reaching the outskirts of Algiers – North Africa’s greatest city. However, in achieving these feats the Americans, ever pressed on by General Patton’s impatience, had outrun their supply lines, exhausted their troops and underestimated their enemy. Through the final two weeks of June, heavy fighting engulfed the western suburbs of Algiers but failed to produce any breakthrough. When the syndicalists struck back in early July they sent the Americans into a hasty retreat back towards the port of Oran, near the Moroccan frontier, where the two tired armies would establish stable frontlines and dig in.

This brought an end to the dramatic war of movement in North Africa that had seen sweeping territorial changes from week to week since April and paving the way for an extended stalemate. Undoubtedly, the loss of momentum frustrated American military planners, who had believed the Internationale in North Africa had been effectively beaten given the scale of its losses in Morocco. Despite this, the conquest of Morocco had significantly opened up the Entente’s wider strategic possibilities – with the country now providing a staging post from which its forces could strike against its next target.

1742058174627.png

As it had been for so much of the nation’s history, race was never far from emerging as a key issue in American domestic politics. In DC, many Conservatives were keen to challenge the limits of Thurmond’s American System, on the grounds of states rights and decentralisation if not for moral reasons, while the party’s dependence on the Liberals for winning majorities in the Senate put further pressure on their leadership to act. The most obvious place to begin this fight was over the restrictions on inter-state movement that had been placed on African Americans following riots the previous summer – laws which had drawn significant ire from the Conservatives’ backers in business, who were negatively impacted by a tightened labour market.

However, while President Thurmond had been willing to compromise over Prohibition, he viewed a resumption of largescale migration of Blacks to the industrial cities as an existential threat to both the South and the rest of the country, particularly in the context of heightened wartime tensions. As had been the case when the roles had been reversed, when he dominated Congress as House Speaker and President Taft occupied the White House, Thurmond was willing to find common ground and compromise on almost anything – but never on racial question. He thereby made clear in no uncertain terms that he would block any attempt to remove the restrictions on movement, at least for the duration of the war.

1742058378131.png

Speaker Bricker, much like many other Conservatives, believed on a philosophical level that Congress should take greater oversight over the war effort. However, the breakdown in relations with the White House on internal movement undoubtedly pushed Conservative Congressional leaders to seek confrontation on this question. As such, the House put forward an amendment to an otherwise routine Bill extending material support to the Canadian and Brazilian militaries that provided Congress with the ability to revoke the exceptional War Powers of the President by simple majority vote. While the amendment would have little immediate impact, it would act as a direct threat and challenge to the President – threatening to wrestle authority away from him at any moment.

Although the Conservative leadership was strongly in favour of the amendment, with many seeing it as a means of leveraging the White House into ramping down the scale of the bloody conflict across the Atlantic, it was not universally popular – with a sizeable minority of Conservatives strongly opposed to any move that would undermine the war effort, and cast them as unpatriotic as opposed their Longist rivals. While the amendment passed through the House with relative ease, where the large Conservative majority was further cushioned by the votes of the majority of the Liberal caucus, in the evenly balanced Senate things were far less certain. Indeed, with key Senators including the Conservative William Fulbright and the Liberal Nelson Rockefeller coming out against the amendment – the chamber was evenly tied – 46 votes to 46. This turned the fate of the amendment over to the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President.

1742058481870.png

Now 70 years old, the ageing Henrik Shipstead and endured a torrid term as Vice President. Selected to balance out Thurmond’s jingoistic agenda and Southern character; he had never been at ease with the administration and had only grown more so as time had gone on and the White House committed ever more intently to total war. Even on domestic issues, he had been critical of the President – particularly over the perceived indifference of the administration to the plight of farmers, many of whom had been negatively effected by the opening of the previously highly protected American economy to Canada as the alliance between the two North American nations deepened. As such, from a fairly early stage of Thurmond’s presidency, Shipstead had been frozen out almost entirely, leaving his resentments to simmer and grow.

Since the 1950 Midterms robbed America First of its comfortable Senate majority and left the chamber on a knife-edge, it had been obvious that there was potential for the normally largely ceremonial role of the Vice President as the Senate tie-breaker to become significant. However, despite discreet entreaties from the opposition, Shipstead had remained publicly loyal to his party. That was until 8 October, the day before the Senate’s vote on the amendment, when Shipstead made a dramatic speech before the National Farmers Union where he criticised the conduct of the war and claimed that the President had become insulated around a clique of zealous war hawks who were driving the country to disaster. The next day he backed backed the amendment, securing its passage, while the Senate chamber descended into scuffles as members of the America First caucus denounced Shipstead as a traitor and Judas and attempted to drag him from his chair. Thereafter he was stripped of his formal membership of the party and all but exiled from DC.

1742058541252.png

The shift in the political mood in the United States over the past year, with the prospect of a negotiated truce with the syndicalists now openly discussed in the corridors of power in Washington and across the nation, had gravely hit the nation’s northern ally in Canada. After fighting on against the Internationale for half a decade along following the collapse of the German Empire the entry of the Americans into the war and shortly thereafter the ascent of President Thurmond to the White House with a commitment to the total destruction of syndicalism; had appeared to represent an almost divine deliverance that had brought the prospect of the reconquest of British homeland into focus. That now appeared to be under threat from the vagaries of domestic American politics.

It was in hopes of influencing that opinion, building sympathy from Canada and the British cause and strengthening the Entente alliance, that King Albert would embark on a grand three month long tour of the United States through the summer of 1951 – visiting the majority of the states in the Union and dozens of cities from coast to coast. Accompanied by his fresh-faced daughter and heir Elizabeth; King Albert would make speeches, meet with local politicians, take part in parades and attend countless photo opportunities that captured the fascination of the American public. The significance of this imperial tour was not to be understated – no British monarch had ever stepped foot on American soil, not even during the colonial period, and it was almost unheard of for a foreign head of state, let alone a monarch, to sojourn in the country for such a lengthy period.

Yet undoubtedly, it was a success. Albert attracted fascination no matter where he went and won glowing press – most notably when Princess Elizabeth spoke individually with a Minuteman veteran in Georgia who had lost his leg during the American-Canadian a decade before, and offered a sizeable donation from the royal family to American veteran organisations.

1742058576704.png

The failure of the Algerian offensive in the mid-summer had forced American military planners to rethink their approach. Massing hundreds of thousands of men in Morocco, Patton was eager to strike aggressively – and was facing significant political pressure from Washington to produce results that would demonstrate that the war was winnable. However, with the Maghreb still in syndicalist hands his strategic options for attacking Europe itself were more limited.

Indeed, the continued quagmire to the east made the case for attacking the southern coast of Iberia unanswerable. Close to bases in Morocco, it could rely on short supply lines support from aerial and naval forces in North Africa, while also presenting a crucial opportunity to take control over both sides of the Pillars of Hercules – and with it total control of access to the Mediterranean from the Atlantic – as well as a string of valuable ports of sufficient scale to sustain a large force in continental Europe at Cadiz, Gibraltar and nearby Algericas. Furthermore, intelligence reports indicated that the region was inadequately garrisoned – with the syndicalists expectant that the Americans would not move on the European mainland until the conclusion of the North African campaign.

To lead the operation, Patton turned to up-coming commander Mark Clark. A more junior commander during the Civil War years, Clark’s selection to lead the prestigious task of bringing Entente forces back to European soil anger many of the older Generals of the that period – but he had drawn significant praise from Patton for his aggressive leadership during the recent campaigns on African soil.

1742058603915.png

By mid-1951 the Entente might have won dominance on the seas, but in the air its struggle with the Internationale was far from decided. Indeed, with cutting edge technology and remarkably strong aircraft construction, especially in the Union of Britain, the Internationale had maintained a slight edge in the battle for the skies despite America’s relentless industrial output. However, Clark sought to bypass this advantage in support of his campaign through the use of cutting edge rocket technology – using Tangiers as the launch pad for the largest usage of rockets in military history to that point, raining down hundreds of rocker-propelled munitions on the Andalusian coast and, crucially, hammering its inland rail and road links while the Internationale’s airmen were left helpless to intervene.

This mass rocket assault presaged the arrival of the grizzled marines, veterans of half a dozen major amphibious assaults over the course of the war, on the sunny beaches of the Gulf of Cadiz on 14 September, completely overwhelming Iberian defences on the coast between Faro in the Portuguese Algarve and Guadalquivir river within three days. From there, with the Internationale struggling to organise an effective counter attack, the marines pushed on – seeking to consolidate their foothold on the continent. Crucially, Cadiz fell on 20 September after only very light fighting – providing access to one of the largest ports in the region and allowing for the ferrying of large quantities of supplies, heavy equipment and reinforcements across the water from Tangiers.

1742058627445.png

Over the next two weeks, into early October, the Entente enclave continued to grow – with their troops curling around the coast both east and west to capture important ports in Malaga, Portimao, and the famous fortress city at the Rock of Gibraltar as well as inland to the largest city of Andalusia in Seville. These gains were crucial, providing the invaders with the necessary logistical infrastructure to support a large military force in Iberia. However, during the same period the numbers of troops involved in the theatre ballooned at an incredible pace, effectively freezing frontlines as advances became too costly in the face of such concentrated numbers. By the first week of October the two armies facing one another numbered in the many hundreds of thousands, and included 150,000 Canadians – by far the largest commitment of Canadian servicemen to any front since the mid-1940s. The battle for Europe was now met in earnest.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
the Senate chamber descended into scuffles as members of the America First caucus denounced Shipstead as a traitor and Judas and attempted to drag him from his chair. Thereafter he was stripped of his formal membership of the party and all but exiled from DC.
There's only a year left until the election, Thurmond's got to be looking for a new running mate surely. With the President's situation not being the strongest, do senior AF options sit out the chance to be the new running mate and try to pick up the pieces in 1956, or sign on with the hope of the war continuing to improve for America?...
 
Given Graham's talks of crusades, I get the feeling there may be an attempt to take the Middle East...
Well, the "Crusader Spirit" was a real thing for American involvement in World War Two (Eisenhower's biography is called that), so I doubt they need to obsess over middle east for that

Yes, that idea of 'Crusades' was very big in this period without it necessarily bringing back ideas of Hospitaller knights and chainmail - the RL Billy Graham called his evangelical missions Crusades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billy_Graham's_crusades. And the idea of a 'Crusade against Communism' was a popular one in the Cold War era (and some used the same language about the Nazis in WW2) - its in that spirit we are meaning it.


Graham is a new Coughlin for a new age. Mass media and propaganda is going to be increasingly key as the war continues. Thurmond will want as many people to hear Graham's voice as possible.

I understand why Russia is hesitant to enter the war, but ideology and realpolitik demands they do so at some point. They can't let the US and Entente have free-reign over what the post-war situation looks like.

Coughlin will be just 60 at this point, but he really does feel crude and out of time - Graham is a much smoother face and one better equipped to deal with new mediums to remain influential. The RL Graham is a fascinating figure who had a really significant influence over American politics for more than half a century - so we can expect him to remain a player in this world for some time to come.

The Russians are in a sensitive position here. They have their German allies chomping at the bit for the fight, but it is to their advantage to let the Entente wear the Internationale down as much as possible before they intervene themselves. They are still not even a decade out from their war against the German Empire, which will have claimed many millions of lives. If they time things right though, they could avoid the worst of the fighting and still claim vast swathes of Europe - if they go in too early they will be in a battle of attrition against a very powerful foe, if they stay out of it they are either going to allow syndicalism to survive permanently on their doorstep or invite the Americans to uncomfortably deep into Eastern Europe.

OMG we need something like Road to 56 at this rate (hell, make the tech tree to 60s or even later, Dieselpunk let's go)

The tech tree does become an issue here as I think it was around this point, or maybe into 1952 when I maxed out all available tech. We also have all the major powers with division counts numbering in the hundreds - and the biggest hitting the 300 div max limit as well. I have plotted out story points beyond the stage where my gameplay ends, so I'm considering whether I can use other mods to continue with some gameplay - or potentially even just model smaller scenarios (individual wars for example) without them all be connecting to a single grand campaign. I still have plenty from the original KR run through to the end of the war and somewhat after though before we reach that point.

Well, that is a quick turnaround! :D Patton is well on the way to legendary status by now.

Indeed, if he can pull off a victory over the Internationale he will surely eclipse Huey Long as the most significant figure of the mid-century America - bridging both that Civil War era, the establishment of the post-Civil War settlement in the 1940s and the American phase of the Weltkrieg. In RL he died by a car accident in 1945, but the old dog is only in his mid-60s at this point. Still some fight left in him!

Would mountaineers fit the terrain of Morocco and parts of Algeria more? And is airborne operation feasible under this circumstance?
He's always a legend. Actually I think the armored force would be better on less rugged terrain (western europe it means, it would be up to marines and mountaineers for quite a bit of African theatre)

The tanks did surprisingly well in Morocco given it is very rugged terrain as you mentioned - but they really do need the chance to get into some more open fields before we can see them achieve their greatest potential. Let us hope for Patton's sake that we get the chance to see a true American Blitzkrieg in the months ahead.

As for airbourne operations - we do have a chunk of paratrooper divisions, but we don't have as sufficient level of aerial superiority to risk major para operations - the skies are still hotly contested and in some places the syndies have the edge.

A couple of great chapters.

Again, wow. It must only be their deep continental manpower reserves that are now keeping them going. All these troops that have been wiped out would have been far harder to defeat in Europe itself, closer to supply lines and better able achieve mutual support.

True though. Careful planning will be necessary. How does the overall comparison of div numbers and industry look between the two blocs at the moment? Does one side or the other have a clear advantage?

In terms of force comparisons. At this stage the Entente as a whole has around 500 divs (around 300 US, 100 Canadian and aprox 100 from everyone else) while the Internationale still has a edge with 600-700 and an advantage in fielded manpower of 8 million Entente vs aprox 10 million syndie. And this is after a significant narrowing of the gap over the past year with the mass surrenders in West Africa and Morocco. We are getting closer and closer to parity now - and a fairly large part of the syndie army comes from the small and medium sized members of their alliance (who generally have worse troops than the UoB and CoF core) while the large bulk of Entente forces come from our two best militaries. Those figures also don't include the Brazilians, a co-belligerent but not an alliance member (which sadly means we can't count on them to join the front).

The levels of casualties that Europe has suffered since 1940 must be incredible - running many tens of millions when you factor in the first Weltkrieg phase and this prolonged Entente-Internationale war on top of one another. Much of the continent must be approaching the level of losses in the ballpark of those of OTL Germany or even the Soviet Union in parts.

My theory right now is that either Portugal all over again or Algeria, a massive north African campaign like irl is no go due to tyranny of space and time. (Hell, maybe consider landing in Britain or Ireland at this rate. Marines capture airports, fly transport planes in, and the launch a massive airborne/marine invasion of Britain proper). If you want I can make a graphic for the plan
The force concentration rn is WW1 tier. It’s a miracle American troops have been able to make breakthroughs, consider either invest in massive heavy tank fleet, airborne or nuclear to create any future breakthroughs. There’s also the theory with massive airpower demolishing railroad/supply hub of the enemy and simply outattrit them.

Force concentration is becoming a desperate issue. Look at the troop numbers in Southern Spain within 3-4 weeks of the landings. Thats dozens and dozens of divisions fighting over a fairly small piece of land and in rough and mountainous terrain. Offensives are extremely costly and the defender suddenly has a big advantage. We will get into it in the coming updates - but the level of attrition and casualties for the US are about to go in a steep upward trend. And there's questions over how much of this can be borne politically at home given the pressure coming from Congress.

For Portugal/Algeria campaign consider making more mountaineers to handle rugged terrain/mountain, maybe covert existing Marine units for this matter. For Britain campaign consider more paratroopers and transport plane. For mainland invasion of europe consider nuclear bomb and more heavy tank divisions

I definitely gravely underproduced mountaineers for the number of heavy fighting I was going to be doing in mountainous terrain - both Algeria and Southern Spain are completely dominated by it and it is playing a big role in delaying our advances. We do have some heavy tank brigades attached to our infantry - who back a serious punch to them. As for nuclear weaponary - well let us say that American scientists haven't been sitting on their hands since they saw other powers develop nukes in the past year ...

If you want to launch a campaign in the Mediterranean, aimed at more isolated targets like the islands there, you're gonna have to take controll over the Straits of Gibraltar. And this is a scenario where you simply cannot do that without a Iberian campaign launched first. With North Africa secured, you do have a excelent base of operations allowing for the airforce to at the very least compete, which is a big contributing factor to the failure of the last attempted Iberian campaign. The second option would be the other "approach" to Europe. The USA has by now undertaken the Southern Approach, over the various islands that dot the Mid Atlantic to eventually arrive in Morocco. The Northern Approach would be pushed for big by the Canadians at this point, that is to go via Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe and Shetlands to eventually arrive at the British Islands. If you can win big navally, the islands can be cut off one by one, and Britain can become a second mustering point for a invasion of Red Fortress Europe. Where untill now Patton has gotten his glory mainly, if the navy wants in on it, they'd also push for this approach, because they'd be the main campaign makers, unlike the Iberian option where they have a secondary role

I agree that we really needed Gibraltar to be able to have full freedom of action in the Western Med - which was one of my big reasonings for choosing Southern Spain as our 2nd attempt at a European landing. If we can just hold on to the enclave we have - we will be in a stronger position, never mind if it can be expanded from here. The big issue will be if everything gets sucked into the void of a war of attrition in Andalusia, but let us not worry just yet!

We will be returning to look at the situation in the North Atlantic in the next update, with some key changes taking place there that will have an important impact on the war. No spoiling there yet though ;).

That interservice competition you allude to is an interesting point, and something we haven't unpicked too much at this stage - I hope we'll get a chance to look into that more deeply in the coming updates.

I'm in favor of "Britain first", Patton's tanks are simply more adapted to the terrain of Britain and France rather than the pathetic hills of North Africa. The limits of sea power means you cannot really advance as deep as you can in real life.
My theory of United Kingdom invasion. Joint paratrooper/marine invasion of England will commence after Marines seize Ireland.
The 1st corp of Marine (6-10 divs) will land in Northern Ireland and sever the link towards broader continent. The 2nd corp will be tasked with clearing out Ireland proper. The paratroopers will have to be shipped in alongside armored units to make the drive on Dublin. After that the second phase shall commence

In terms of the first step for taking us forward in our invasion of Europe - we didn't go for Britain but perhaps the most obvious option of the short hop over from Tangiers to the Costa del Sol. You're right though that our armies with large numbers of tanks aren't especially well suited to this terrain - which anywhere beyond the coast becomes very mountainous fast. However there were key plus sides to having a short distance from our bases in Morocco, the concentration of ports and the chance to gain complete control over the entrance to the Med. That said, the US military is very large - and we can feasibly fight on multiple fronts (and indeed logistically it isn't really possible to commit all our forces into a single small enclave anyway).

Your strategy of attacking Britain has its clear advantageous - knocking out a key player in the Internationale, pleasing the Canadians and securing that aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe. The hard part is the distance to bases - especially as Iceland remains syndie and Ireland neutral at this stage, making the Azores the closest potential launchpad barring any precursor campaigns.

We haven't heard much from the North Atlantic since the early part of the war, but I can reveal we will be turning our eyes there in the next update ;).
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: