 Harry Turtle Love's Southern Victory series, a.k.a. Timeline 191, is one of the longest and most extensive works of alternate history ever written. It explores a world where the Confederate states won the American Civil War and covers over 80 years of history from 1862 all the way up to 1944. The series consists of 11 books in total, which are further split up into four different series. How If You Remain, The Great War Trilogy, The American Empire Trilogy, and The Settling Accounts Tetrology. It's a really long series, and probably my favorite example of the alternate history genre. I might even review it one day. While this setting does parallel some aspects of our real-life timelines, such as the rise of fascism and the world wars, the world is completely different from our own. On the macro level, there are entire countries and political movements that never come into existence. And on the micro level, there are some subtle shifts in American society, like government rationing and suppression of civil rights. Each of these books is pretty long and covers multiple years of history, so I'll just have to go over everything in order. And since this is alternate history, it doesn't involve any sort of magic or fantastical technology that I can examine and poke holes in. So instead, I'm going to be looking at all the changes to history and figuring out how plausible they are. However, when it comes to alternate history, it's impossible to definitively say what would have happened if something changed. So I'm going to be giving all of these changes one of four rankings. Likely, if the change would probably happen given the previous alterations to the timeline. Possible, if the change is totally possible, but far from a guarantee. Unlikely, if the change would probably not happen but is still possible. And impossible, if the change would never happen in a million years. And it should be noted that while all of these conclusions are based on real history, they are just my interpretations and opinions. If you have disagreements, feel free to voice them. Just make sure that you have actual evidence and arguments behind them. I'm not a historian, I'm just a guy that likes to study history. It's entirely possible that I missed or misunderstood something. It should also be noted that while the whole world changes in this timeline, the books focused almost entirely on events in North America. I'll try to talk about the rest of the world as much as I can, but this will primarily be from an American perspective. The secondary name of the series, Timeline 191, comes from the point of divergence from real history. In 1862, at the height of the American Civil War, Confederate General Robert E. Lee sent out an order to his army to march north through Maryland and into Pennsylvania. This order was called Special Order 191. The Confederates were planning on invading the North in order to force them to recognize Southern independence. The order involved splitting the Army of Northern Virginia into multiple parts and taking separate routes into Pennsylvania so that the Union commanders couldn't figure out what was going on until it was too late. But a Confederate officer accidentally left behind a copy of the order when his unit moved and it was picked up by enemy soldiers. This allowed Union General George McClellan to predict the route of the invasion and halted at the Battle of Antietam. The point of divergence from our timeline is simple. The orders were never found and the Army of Northern Virginia was able to smash the Union forces in Pennsylvania, even occupying Philadelphia for a time. This victory gave France and the United Kingdom an excuse to recognize the independence of the CSA and forced Abraham Lincoln to give up on emancipating America's slaves. Due to these events, the U.S. government capitulated and the CSA was granted independence. Not only that, but they were able to absorb the state of Kentucky and the Indian territory, which is Oklahoma in our timeline. West Virginia still split off from Virginia and rejoined the U.S. though. That's the gist of it anyway. Let's examine how all these changes rate on the scale. The Union Army never finding Special Order 191 is rated as likely. To be frank, it's kind of amazing that the officer who left it behind was so careless in the first place. He literally just wrapped it around a couple of cigars and dropped it in a field. Robert E. Lee defeating McClellan and smashing the Army of the Potomac is also likely. While the difference in abilities between Northern and Southern Generals is greatly exaggerated in popular imagination, the idea that McClellan was pretty incompetent is accurate. He wasn't a total idiot. He was great at organizing and meticulous planning, but he was far too cautious to be an effective battlefield commander. When faced with a more aggressive General like Lee, he would probably have been completely steamrolled. In real life, he was able to win the Battle of Antietam, but he didn't pursue Lee's army, even though he had the initiative. As for France and the UK recognizing the CSA, well, that's a more complicated question to answer. Let's start with the UK. The idea of them supporting a nation founded for the express purpose of preserving slavery is very unlikely, almost impossible. In many ways, Great Britain was the place that started the abolition movement. They outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and got rid of slavery entirely as early as 1833. The general populace was very anti-slavery. They viewed the British Empire as a force that uplifted savages while the other European empires were simply out for profit. Slavery was uncivilized, in other words. In fact, in real life, the CSA tried to strong arm European powers into helping them by embargoing exports of cotton. Instead, they just started getting their cotton from Egypt and India, which wound up being cheaper anyways. The question of France is a little more difficult to answer, though. At the time, France was a monarchy run by Emperor Napoleon III. Not only that, but he was in the middle of invading Mexico to set up a friendly monarchy over there. The reasons for this are complicated, but Napoleon felt confident in his ability to succeed since the Americans were preoccupied with their own war. And in this timeline his gambit worked. He crushed the Mexican Republic and installed Maximilian I as Emperor. I would say that France's recognition of the CSA's independence is likely. It would gain them a new ally, prevent the U.S. from intervening in Mexico, and cost them basically nothing. Napoleon actually being able to take over Mexico is... plausible. By 1865, the French, as well as the Mexican monarchists, had managed to take control of most of the country. But in real life, the U.S. began sending weapons and other support to the Mexican Republicans at this time, giving them a few victories and causing Napoleon to cut his losses. It should be noted that Mexican Republicans have nothing to do with the American political party. They're just people that want a republic for their government instead of a monarchy. Americans are just really bad at naming things. The biggest advantage that the French Empire had over Mexico was its industrial capacity. At the time, Mexico had very few factories and railroads, especially in the north. This means that they would have had a hard time making weapons and transporting supplies. Their disadvantage was that they had to transport most everything across the Atlantic Ocean, so the whole venture was ungodly expensive. If the war kept going, then France would have the advantage, and they very well could have conquered the whole country. It's also totally possible that they would have overextended themselves and the Mexicans would have thrown them out, so that's why this one is just plausible. So with several major victories under their belt and the support of the world's biggest powers, could the Confederate states fully split off from the United States? This is the crux of the entire setting, after all. I've already mentioned my issues with some of the other changes, but if we assume that they all happened as described in the books, then I think it's very likely that the CSA would gain independence. The American military was in complete disarray, and a large subset of their population was already against the war. With the threat of foreign invasion over their heads, public opinion would have turned against the war completely, and President Lincoln would have had no choice but to capitulate. Finally, let's look at the CSA's conquests of Kentucky and the Indian Territory. Before the outbreak of the war, the Indian Territory had several forts manned by Union soldiers, but they were all pulled out to other key areas. Not long afterwards, the Confederate army opened negotiations with some of the tribes that lived there. Many of them agreed to support the CSA, but others stayed pro-Union, and as such they began fighting amongst themselves. This continued until the end of the war when the Union army came back to the territory. In this timeline, though, the Union army never came, which allowed the pro-CSA forces to emerge victorious. I'll just come right out and say that this is a likely outcome. Most of the pro-Union forces fled to Kansas early in the war, meaning that the territory had to be reconquered later, and with the US in no position to do that, the territory being annexed into the CSA seems almost inevitable. Kentucky is weirder, though. Before the war, Kentucky was a slave state. Okay, technically it's a Commonwealth, but no one calls it that, work with me. And it actually declared neutrality early on. The majority of the population was pro-Union, though, as well as most of the state legislature. In September of 1861, Confederate forces occupied the town of Columbus, which caused Union forces to move in and intercept, which caused the legislature to officially declare for the Union. The CSA attempted a full-on invasion in 1862, and without going into too much detail, it went really well for them. They were forced out a few months later by an advancing Union army. However, this army wouldn't have existed in Harry Turtledove's timeline, so the CSA would probably have taken control of the whole state. I just don't think that they could have maintained political control of a region that was so sympathetic to the northern causes, all. There were still plenty of Confederate sympathizers in Kentucky, though, so this change is rated somewhere between unlikely and plausible. As for West Virginia, I think that it would go more or less the same as in real life. See, it was part of Virginia at the time, but after the government's enrichment declared independence, another government formed in the northwest. At first they claimed to be the rightful government of all Virginia, but by April of 1862 they had declared themselves to be a new state. This was all done before Special Order 191 was discovered, so that wouldn't change anything. With the CSA busy trying to bring its new territories under control, it probably wouldn't have the power to enforce its will on West Virginia. Of course they would really resent losing any territory, so they might throw all of their weight into taking it back. So it's a wash. This is just a plausible outcome. So one tiny change to the timeline results in a North America that's totally different than in our world. Bigger changes are coming, though. Especially once we reach... After the war ended, a lot of small changes occurred in American politics. For starters, the war is called the War of Secession instead of the Civil War. Beyond that, the Republican Party fell from power in the elections of 1864, the CSA purchased Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain, then it attempted to purchase the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua. In response to this, the U.S. declared war again, ostensibly to protect Mexican territory from being taken by an imperialist power. This kicked off a conflict known as the Second Mexican War, in which the combined CSA, French, and British forces beat the United States into total submission. In exchange for this help, though, Britain forced the Confederates to free all of their slaves. That's a lot to take in, so let's get started. Keep in mind that from here on, we're assuming that all the previous changes occurred exactly as they were described in the books, however unlikely they were. Let's start with the decline of the Republican Party. Since Lincoln and the radically progressive Republicans were seen as the cause for the war, they were voted out pretty quickly afterwards, and the more conservative Democrats took control. That's not a mistake, by the way. The parties have changed completely in the past 150 years. The Republicans were voted back into power in 1880, since the public wanted the government to take a harder stance on the Confederates. This seems likely. The American public tends to see-saw back and forth between which party they blame for their problems even today. Here's where it gets trickier. After the war, the party collapsed again. Many of its members, including former President Lincoln, left to join the newly formed Socialist Party, and it became little more than a regional party in the Midwest. Let's take a second to examine the Socialist thing, because I'm sure the comments here will be a shit show anyways. The Republicans were radically progressive for their time period, but most people only view that in the context of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was also a huge proponent for workers' rights, and he even made several statements that line up with the labor theory of value. Without going into too much depth, this theory states that the value of a good or service is derived from the labor required to produce it, rather than the supply or the demand. Aspects of the LTV are often invoked by Socialists, and it's also central to Marxism, which maintains that under capitalism, the working class is exploited by the bourgeoisie. To be clear, these statements alone don't mean that Lincoln was advocating for the abolishment of capitalism or collective control of the means of production, but they do show that he had a view of economics that fundamentally differs from just about every capitalist economic theory. He was closer to being a socialist than most every American politician at the time. In addition, people's beliefs change over time. It's impossible to say how Lincoln's experiences would have shaped him, but it's not crazy to say that he would have moved further to the left. Not only that, but with the more conservative southern states leaving the Union, the country as a whole definitely would have moved to the left. So the idea of the Republicans collapsing in a socialist party forming in the vacuum is totally plausible. The CSA purchasing Puerto Rico and Cuba would never happen. Spain's empire had been in decline for decades, arguably centuries by this point, and there's no way that they would let go of any more of their colonies willingly. It wasn't about economics, it was about prestige. So this is the first change that I'll call impossible. And neither island comes into play in the plot of the series either, so I'm not sure why this detail was included at all. The purchase of Sonora and Chihuahua, on the other hand, is much more likely. It's said that Emperor Maximilian was strapped for cash in 1880, so he sold the states to the Confederates. It makes sense that the Confederates would want to buy them, it would allow them access to the Pacific Ocean after all. Emperor Maximilian being willing to sell them is also not too crazy. Mexico was deeply in debt even before the French invasion, and having a protracted war on their soil wouldn't be great for the economy either. So the idea that they'd sell their territory is rated as plausible. It's also plausible, borderline likely, that the US would go to war with the CSA over this. They would be willing to take serious action to prevent the Confederates from gaining any new power at all. As for the European intervention, that's a lot shakier. Both France and Britain blockaded US ports, as well as bombarded them in this timeline. Not only that, but land forces in Canada invaded the country from the north. This is a lot to get to, so let's start with France this time. In both this timeline and real life, the Franco-Prussian war started in 1870. The reasons for this war are complicated, but it makes sense that it would occur since the United States had basically nothing to do with it. In summary, the area that is now Germany was a collection of about a dozen independent states, the largest of which was Prussia. France declared war on Prussia for reasons that are, again, really complicated, and the German states all attacked in response. The war was a resounding German success. It resulted in the abdication of Emperor Napoleon, France's government being restructured into a republic, and Germany finally being united into a single empire. France was completely wrecked by the war, and saddled with massive reparations to boot. Less than 10 years later, they would never have had the will or the money to prosecute a war on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. This change is unlikely. Borderline impossible. As for Britain, the naval blockade is plausible. The CSA was an ally in this timeline, and the US Navy would have been no match for the Royal Navy. Actually, invading the US from Canada is very unlikely, though. Canada is huge, thinly populated, and far away from Britain. As early as the 1860s, the Admiralty had realized that it was basically indefensible from American aggression. Not only that, but things like the unification of Germany forced them to turn their attention elsewhere. In real life, this meant making sure that relations with the US stayed friendly, and even with some sort of Warhawk governments, I find it hard to believe that they would have found a war in the Western Hemisphere worth the cost. So this is rated as unlikely. However, with all of these opponents attacking at once, the Americans didn't stand a chance. Them losing the war in this situation is very likely. It's also very likely that they would ally themselves with Germany since both countries were politically isolated and needed a dependable partner. There was also a rebellion made by Mormons in Utah during the war. In real life, there was a small Mormon uprising in 1857, but the US Army put it down very quickly and with relatively few casualties. The second uprising in 1881 seems a tad random, to be honest. The primary reason the real revolt happened was because the Mormons felt that their religious freedom was being threatened, which... Yeah, okay, it kind of was. But after the rebellion, the general atmosphere calmed down. I find it unlikely that they would want to attempt another one, even if the Army was distracted by another war. And if they did, it would probably be small and disorganized like the one in 1857. However, I'll admit that I'm far from an expert in this particular area, so I'll just rate it as plausible. The Army crackdown, complete with public executions and martial law, is likely, though. They would never tolerate any whisper of secession in this timeline. The last major change I want to talk about here is the manumission of Confederate slaves. Now, here's the thing. The CSA Constitution actually forbade Congress or the President or any state legislature from outlawing slavery. This means that the Constitution would have had to be amended to allow the slaves to be set free. This is mentioned in the book, but the idea of it passing is laughable. It would require a supermajority of states to ratify it. And when you consider that the whole reason for the CSA's existence was to protect slavery, it becomes even more far-fetched. Slavery was an integral part of their society, and I'd bet my left nut that if the people had to choose between losing the war and getting rid of slavery, most of them would choose to lose the war. There might be a couple more pragmatic souls, but they'd be outnumbered. This change is rated as unlikely, borderline impossible. And that's how the world looked in the spring of 1882. But don't worry, things are about to get crazier. So most of the changes to this point have been relatively small outside of North America. By the time you go 50 years past the point of divergence, the whole world starts to look completely different. There's a lot to get to, so let me summarize the events of the Great War real quick. After the Second Mexican War, the United States moved closer to the German Empire, becoming an official member of the Quadruple Alliance, which was the Triple Alliance in our time, along with Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Meanwhile, the CSA became an official member of the Quadruple Entente with Russia, France, and the UK. And while the black slaves in the Confederacy were freed, they still had to live in apartheid-like conditions. They had to carry passbooks with them at all times, or risk a risk, and they weren't even allowed to have surnames. Just like in our timeline, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated in 1914, which caused diplomacy in Europe to collapse and World War I to begin. The Entente and the Alliance, a.k.a. the Central Powers, went to war with each other, which meant that the U.S. attacked Canada and the CSA. The CSA had some early successes, even capturing Washington, D.C., but the front lines soon stagnated and the majority of the fighting became limited to trench warfare, at least at first. Around a year into the war, the black population of the CSA with the support of American weapons rose up to throw off the yoke of their oppressors. But it wasn't just a revolution for racial equality. The rebels were full-on communists, and given the nickname Reds, because Americans are bad at naming things. A dozen small socialist republics popped up overnight and were crushed one by one over the course of a year. While the lines stagnated in the east, Americans slowly began to press the Confederates back in the west. They captured the entire states of Kentucky and Sequoia, which is Oklahoma, IRL, as well as chunks of several other states. The leadership on both sides is shown to be fairly incompetent, but the Americans had an advantage in their much bigger population and industrial base. There was also another Mormon uprising in Utah, funded by the Confederates because Turnabout is fair play. The U.S. made slow progress into Canada, capturing Quebec and setting up an independent republic there. The American Navy also captured the British colony by the Sandwich Islands, Hawaii in our timeline, and managed to hold it against an onslaught from both the British and the Japanese. Both sides developed tanks during the war. However, the Americans built a lot more of them, and they figured out how to use them effectively pretty early on. They were able to break through the stagnated lines in the east and capture most of Virginia, causing the CSA to surrender by the spring of 1917. Meanwhile, in South America, Chile, Paraguay, and Brazil sided with the central powers. They blockaded and attacked Argentina, cutting off its food shipments to Europe. Not much detail is given about the war in Europe. We know that Italy stayed neutral, which it didn't do IRL, and that Germany won the battle of Verdun in 1916. Sometime in early 1917, the French Army mutinied and refused to fight any longer, which forced the French government to surrender. Around this time, the Russian Civil War also started up, which knocked them out of the war as well. In Ireland, a rebellion against British rule took place, supported by the central powers. This left the United Kingdom alone against the combined might of the central powers. Once isolated and facing starvation, they finally surrendered in the summer of 1917. In the aftermath of the Great War, a lot of things changed. Germany intercedes in the Russian Civil War on the side of the Tsar. All the communists, anarchists, liberals, and other groups that opposed his rule were crushed. In exchange, Germany carved out chunks of Russian territory to make their new client states of Ukraine and Poland. They also turned Belgium into a satellite state. Great Britain was forced to recognize the independence of both Ireland and Quebec, as well as relinquish its hold on Canada and the Sandwich Islands, which were occupied by the United States. Austria-Hungary managed to stay united in this timeline, but only barely. From what we understand, it can only hold together with German military and financial aid. It annexed Montenegro, Albania, and part of Serbia. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States reabsorbed the states of Kentucky and Sequoia. They also took back the chunk of Maine that they lost in the Second Mexican War and most of Northern Virginia. They also split off most of western Texas to form a new state called Houston. Of course, the city of Houston is not in the state of Houston, because, as I mentioned earlier, Americans are really bad at naming things. I know that I glossed over some stuff there, but I think I hit all the important beats, and there's an absolute shitload of stuff to gut to, so let's not waste any time. First and foremost, would the First World War still start in this timeline? Probably. The U.S. had very little to do with it at first, and it was mostly due to complex ethnic and diplomatic tensions exclusive to Europe. This is rated as likely, almost guaranteed. Same with the U.S. and CSA joining on opposite sides. The war in North America probably would have gone a little differently than described in the books, though. The Confederates had very little industrial base, and over a third of their population wasn't even allowed to fight at first. The U.S. would definitely have overwhelmed them in a similar manner to the books. I just feel it would have happened sooner. However, most Confederate commanders were in defensive positions from early on in the war, which gave them a huge advantage over the Americans that were attacking. So overall, it's a wash, and this change is just plausible. Now let's discuss the Black Communists. The idea of them latching onto a socialist ideology makes perfect sense. Socialism has a lot of appeal to oppressed underclasses. And them taking the war as an opportunity to organize a revolution isn't too odd either. Similar things happen in real history. For example, IRL the Germans helps to fund and arms the Bolsheviks in Russia. If you can turn part of your enemy's population against itself, you'll distract them, or even make them collapse in on themselves. If the Americans saw an opportunity to help start a red revolution in the CSA, they'd be fools not to take advantage of it. This change is likely. One change that's a bit odd is that the influence that outbreak never happened here. This seems plausible, since whatever mutation created the virus could have easily occurred in someone that was never born in this timeline, but there's not really enough information to make an accurate judgment. The Mormon uprising in Utah is... likely. While the last uprising was weird, the brutal reprisals would certainly have created resentment among the populace. Just like black people in the CSA, the Mormons would have taken their opportunity when it struck. The U.S. taking and holding the sandwich islands seems plausible. They were going up against the largest, most powerful navy in the world, but they managed to catch them by surprise at first. Holding the territory is less likely. The Royal Navy was distracted by events in the Atlantic at the time, but the Japanese could turn their full might against the Americans. I think it's impossible to really predict. That's why this one is rated as just plausible. The other territory that they took from the CSA also makes sense. Northern Virginia would give them a buffer zone to protect Washington, D.C. Kentucky controlled the Ohio River, Sequoia had a lot of oil, and West Texas has... absolutely nothing, but taking it would piss off the Confederates. All of these border changes are likely. South America is difficult to judge here since we get very little info about the political situation. Argentina really did have strong diplomatic ties with the UK, so I guess them siding with the Entente is plausible. I just can't comment on Chile, Paraguay, or the Empire of Brazil. Oh yeah, Brazil is still an empire in this timeline. This change is rated impossible since Emperor Dom Pedro II didn't want the monarchy to continue past his lifetime at all. But the most important question is, could the Central Powers have won the Great War in this scenario? We're going to have to take a look at the situation The first major change is Italy staying neutral, which I'd rate as plausible since their military alliance with Germany and Austria was pulling them in one direction, but their need for French food and British coal was pulling them in another. And that ties into the German victory at Verdun, believe it or not. See, in our timeline, the battle of Verdun lasted from February to December of 1916, and during this, Austria was busy fighting both Italy and Russia. In the summer, the Austrian army took a few divisions of their best troops away from the Russian front to prepare for an attack on Italy. Unfortunately, the Russians launched their own huge offensive right after that, and so the Germans had to divert troops away from Verdun in order to prevent their ally from collapsing. And even more than that, in our timeline Germany had to direct a lot of its forces away from Verdun to stem a giant British attack at the Battle of the Somme. But if the British army was preoccupied with a massive Irish rebellion and the war in Canada, and they had a food shortage because of a blockade, then there's basically no way that they would have had a major attack like that. Germany came pretty close to taking the Verdun citadel in real life. If they had a few hundred thousand extra men to throw at it, I have little doubt that they would have been successful. And if they could have built up defenses around the city, then the French would have had a bitch of a time trying to retake it. They would have had to try and retake it, too. The city was a huge symbol of French national pride and allowing it to remain in enemy hands would have been unthinkable to both civilian and military leadership. They would have thrown hundreds of thousands into the fire in an attempt to get it back. In fact, the battle was actually planned by German Field Marshal Eric von Falkenhayn as a way to, quote, bleed the French white. Now, in real life, the French army mutinied in 1917 because their commanders were constantly sending them on suicidal attacks. And the army leadership was able to de-escalate the situation by, well, no longer sending them on suicidal attacks. If Verdun was taken and they were forced to attack over and over and over again, they were broken eventually. So what I'm getting at is that if Italy stayed neutral and the US joined the Central Powers, then they had a pretty good chance of winning the war. And with that, the other changes, like Austria-Hungary staying united, the defeat of the Bolsheviks, and Eastern Europe coming under German hegemony, all just fall into place. So all of the European changes to the timeline are rated as likely. Overall, this timeline really isn't that crazy. There are a couple of weird changes, like Brazil, and some very unlikely changes, like our slaves, but overall the world that Harry Turtledove created feels like something that could have actually existed. At least so far. There are still seven books for me to get to and they get a lot stranger as time goes on. Remember how all of this started because of one guy not losing his orders? This script is already long as fuck though, so this video will have to be split into two halves. I know people on YouTube hate that, but don't worry, the next part will be a lot of fun. We'll get to watch Confederate Nazis get their teeth kicked in. I'm not even joking, that actually happens. If you want to see it, be sure to rate the video, comment, and of course, subscribe.