NationStates Jolt Archive


civil war/nazi germany

Right thinking whites
26-12-2004, 01:03
ok i had a kinda wierd dream last night

in my dream me and some one else time traveld(i dont know how) to the civil war era and either killed or saved some one (not sure which) upon retuning to the present we saw that the south had won the war but also that the nazis took all of europe africa and most asia withexecption of a small portion that japan controled

so my question, would the nazis have won, or survived with a lot to show for it, ww2 had the south won the civil war?
Hogsweat
26-12-2004, 01:07
Rule number two of life: NAZIS ALWAYS LOSE
PIcaRDMPCia
26-12-2004, 01:11
Were you reading any of Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels? Seems to me like your dream was his idea of how history would have gone, with the exception of Nazis still existing in your dream.
However, I would have to say that with North America divided as such, and otherwise events proceeded normally, we would have had a dictator in both the CSA and Germany.
Tekania
26-12-2004, 01:14
It's really not all that clear cut. Because there is nearly a century of time between the two events.

First of all, it assumed a loss by WW1 German forces: Could this be guranteed without US involvement in WW1? The USA might have gotten involved, in a lesser capacity; but such capicity would be unknown? Over that period, how many of those territoties, becomming states, would have allied with the CSA as states, or USA as states?

There is at least, a fair chance there would have BEEN NO Nazi Germany, nor a WW2.
Tekania
26-12-2004, 01:16
Were you reading any of Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels? Seems to me like your dream was his idea of how history would have gone, with the exception of Nazis still existing in your dream.
However, I would have to say that with North America divided as such, and otherwise events proceeded normally, we would have had a dictator in both the CSA and Germany.
How would the CSA have had a dictator if things proceeded normally?
The Empire of Jason
26-12-2004, 01:22
This is flawed, because the South would not have sided with the Nazis. Because the South was not anti-Semitic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Benjamin
PIcaRDMPCia
26-12-2004, 01:25
How would the CSA have had a dictator if things proceeded normally?
Because in World War One, the CSA most likely would have sided with Germany because the USA would side against Germany, if events proceeded normally. This is due to the fact that there would most definitely be extreme hatred between the USA and the CSA. Following the defeat of Germany, the CSA would be subjected to the same horrible effects of the Versailles treaty that Germany was, which was what allowed Hitler to rise to power. Consequently, a dictator would also rise to power in the CSA, though most likely in this case the Jews of the CSA would be Blacks. It all has to do with the animosity shared between the USA and the CSA that would most likely crop up if the South won the Civil War.
The Empire of Jason
26-12-2004, 01:41
Because in World War One, the CSA most likely would have sided with Germany because the USA would side against Germany, if events proceeded normally. This is due to the fact that there would most definitely be extreme hatred between the USA and the CSA.

The USA and the UK don't have extreme hate for eachother...

Following the defeat of Germany, the CSA would be subjected to the same horrible effects of the Versailles treaty that Germany was, which was what allowed Hitler to rise to power. Consequently, a dictator would also rise to power in the CSA, though most likely in this case the Jews of the CSA would be Blacks. It all has to do with the animosity shared between the USA and the CSA that would most likely crop up if the South won the Civil War.

It's debateable that had the CSA sided with Germany in WWI (which is possible), lost, and gone to depression like the rest of the world, that a dictator might have risen. But, I seriously doubt The South would have been incredibly racist against blacks. Arguably, the South's loss in the Civil War caused the racism of the South. If the South had won the Civil War, I seriously doubt that slavery would have lasted longer than 8 years, and racism in general in the South wouldn't have lasted much longer at all after that.
PIcaRDMPCia
26-12-2004, 01:44
The USA and the UK don't have extreme hate for eachother...



It's debateable that had the CSA sided with Germany in WWI (which is possible), lost, and gone to depression like the rest of the world, that a dictator might have risen. But, I seriously doubt The South would have been incredibly racist against blacks. Arguably, the South's loss in the Civil War caused the racism of the South. If the South had won the Civil War, I seriously doubt that slavery would have lasted longer than 8 years, and racism in general in the South wouldn't have lasted much longer at all after that.
Perhaps. I'm arguing mostly from the standpoint of how Harry Turtledove handled the issues in his series of alternate history novels; to me, they work very well. I suggest you look into them, starting with "The Second War between the States" and follow from there through his alternate versions of World War One, the years between, and then World War Two. Then see what you have to say. My entire arguments rests upon those books, actually, and without you having read them, it would be difficult to explain my point. It's moot anyway. I suggest you read them; they're quite the good read.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 01:45
Or the other way. Given that Britain almost recognized the CSA, if the south had ultimately won, as part of that they most almost been recognized by the british empire.

Well that would surely make the CSA part of the entente cordial, and as such alligned against Germany in world war I. The flip side is that the USA would almost have aligned with the central powers.

Briefly, WWII would have been: British Empire, France, Italy, Russia and CSA against Germany, Austria, Ottoman Empire and USA.

It is impossible to say how that would have turned out, a professor of byzantine history has already written several books about it though.
Nihilistic Beginners
26-12-2004, 01:50
CSA would never had allied itself to any European dictorship, the Confederate States fought the Civil War in the first place because they were against a federal dictatorship.
Tekania
26-12-2004, 02:03
Because in World War One, the CSA most likely would have sided with Germany because the USA would side against Germany, if events proceeded normally. This is due to the fact that there would most definitely be extreme hatred between the USA and the CSA. Following the defeat of Germany, the CSA would be subjected to the same horrible effects of the Versailles treaty that Germany was, which was what allowed Hitler to rise to power. Consequently, a dictator would also rise to power in the CSA, though most likely in this case the Jews of the CSA would be Blacks. It all has to do with the animosity shared between the USA and the CSA that would most likely crop up if the South won the Civil War.

The USA fought in WW1 against Germany, because they were allies with Brittain and France. If it had been a USA/CSA, they would both have been allies, because the CSA would allied with Brittain and the USA with France.

Your assumption that the CSA would have allied itself with Germany, is fundamentally flawed. If anything, the CSA would simply not have been involved in WW1 and been a neutral, in all likelihood (It would have been very hard to get CSA involvement in a external war, since the CSA lacked hardly any central authority nor military force...)

Sorry, Picard, your scenario simply would not work.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 02:11
The USA fought in WW1 against Germany, because they were allies with Brittain and France. If it had been a USA/CSA, they would both have been allies, because the CSA would allied with Brittain and the USA with France.

Your assumption that the CSA would have allied itself with Germany, is fundamentally flawed. If anything, the CSA would simply not have been involved in WW1 and been a neutral, in all likelihood (It would have been very hard to get CSA involvement in a external war, since the CSA lacked hardly any central authority nor military force...)

Sorry, Picard, your scenario simply would not work.

The USA fought in world war I because it was worried about france and britain collapsing and thus loosing billlions of dollars of war loans.

France had nothing to do with it.
Conceptualists
26-12-2004, 02:14
First of all, it assumed a loss by WW1 German forces: Could this be guranteed without US involvement in WW1?
You greatly overestimate the role of the US in WWI
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 02:19
You greatly overestimate the role of the US in WWI

*nods*

By the time the USA showed up in force the damn thing was virtually over.

Had we joined in 1915, the 1916 offensives would probably have ended the war two years earlier.

In fact, the US entry to WWI, sort of buggered the whole thing up a bit. Never mind. In WWII the US saved the world.
PIcaRDMPCia
26-12-2004, 02:20
Or the other way. Given that Britain almost recognized the CSA, if the south had ultimately won, as part of that they most almost been recognized by the british empire.

Well that would surely make the CSA part of the entente cordial, and as such alligned against Germany in world war I. The flip side is that the USA would almost have aligned with the central powers.

Briefly, WWII would have been: British Empire, France, Italy, Russia and CSA against Germany, Austria, Ottoman Empire and USA.

It is impossible to say how that would have turned out, a professor of byzantine history has already written several books about it though.
Exactly, exactly, exactly! That was my entire argument! You've clearly read the same books I did.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 02:26
Exactly, exactly, exactly! That was my entire argument! You've clearly read the same books I did.

Yes I have read those books. And they are a jolly good read. You have to take them with a grain of salt though. Modern history is not Turtledove's forte, and he takes a great deal of artistic license with modern history.

Still it's all good fun, and you can't really complain too much since if you change one thing in history, who can really say how the rest turns out.

Have you read S.M. Stirlings Draka books, those are really good too.
Right thinking whites
26-12-2004, 02:41
ok i guess i wasnt clear in the first post the csa won there was no usa left
no i wasnt reading an alterne history book, in fact i've been rereading the speeker for the dead
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 02:51
ok i guess i wasnt clear in the first post the csa won there was no usa left
no i wasnt reading an alterne history book, in fact i've been rereading the speeker for the dead

Well with no USA, potentially things could have been very different.

There are just to many branches of history to extrapolate from that to make any accurate predictions. Possibly however, the CSA could have practices "reverse reconstruction" on the North and de-industrialized it as punishment. In addition the immigration patterns to the CSA may well have been very different to those of the USA, leaving it a far less populus nation than the US in the 1900's. In that case, assuming WWI had ended much the same way - it being a primarily european affair - then there would have been no arsenal for democracy during WWII, leaving the Nazi's with the upper hand.

That being said, those immigrants - and fleeing US loyalists - may instead, have chosen to settle in the commonwealth/British Empire. In that case, CSA aid may have been superfluous with Canada and the British antipodes filling the role that the US played.
Colerica
26-12-2004, 03:05
ok i guess i wasnt clear in the first post the csa won there was no usa left
no i wasnt reading an alterne history book, in fact i've been rereading the speeker for the dead

Why would there have been no United States if the Confederate States had won the War of Northern Aggression? The Confederacy didn't seek to destroy the North, they only were fighting to have a separate, independant nation.

If the CSA had won Lincoln's War, the US would have eleven less stars...and that's about it....the CSA and USA would have been two different nations, co-existing on a shaky basis with one another. I doubt the CSA would have even entered World War One, let alone side with Germany....

Moving to World War II, the Confederacy would have sided with the Allies, not the Nazis. The Nazis would still lose. As aforementioned, Nazis always lose.
HM Kaiser Wilhelm II
26-12-2004, 03:15
Depends on several things...

If the Confederacy had achieved it's independence early on in the war, by perhaps taking Washington D.C. after First Manassas, an equitable peace may well have been arranged. The North was certainly not eager to fight the South and a sizable minority (whom nearly replaced Lincoln with anti-war McClellan in '64) wanted peace with the South.

Judging by the writings of both the leaders of the North and South, excluding Lincoln, Seward, and the small group of abolitionists, it seems very likely that the North and South would have "reunited" in some way in around the 1870s.

If not a re-union under the United States Constitution, the two nations USA and CSA may well have formed close economic ties (for obvious reasons), perhaps a military alliance to defend their mutual economic interests in North America. England would have sided firmly with the South, because the English economy at that time was dominated by the textile industry, which was fuelled by Southern-grown cotton. (True, cotton was also imported from India, but it was different from Southern cotton and deemed an inferior variety.)

There is no way a victorious South would have instituted "reverse reconstruction" on the North, that is a ludicrous assertion. The South did not fight to conquer the North, or impose its will over the North, but simply wanted "to be left alone" as Jefferson Davis so aptly put it.

One thing to consider, though, is if the South had achieved independence early, say after First Manassas in 1861, there would have been no long drawn out trench-style warfare for the European powers to study. Germany, in particular, learned from the War (somewhat) while other powers, France most notably, considered it a bunch of backwoods farmers blasting each other. Without the lessons learned from the War Between the States, wars in Europe may have been considerably different.

It is my belief that compromises would have been made, ties established, and the USA and CSA would have become indistinguishable -- if not already reunited -- by the turn of the century. Also, the South not being utterly devastated by the war (and with 640,000 men not killed in the war), the American industry and economy may well have advanced even faster than otherwise. The industrialization of agriculture would have made slavery impractical economically (that trend was already showing in 1861, but nobody really saw it yet) and the death of American slavery wouldn't have been anywhere as traumatic. Southern resentment of forced emancipation which led to the Black Code laws, etc., would not have existed and the full measure of civil rights towards blacks may have come about by the turn of the century.

By 1917, if WWI progressed as it historically did and if the Lusitania had been sunk, and the Zimmermann Telegramm received with the same furur (mind you that New Mexico was considered part of the Confederacy), the USA and CSA if still separated (which is unlikely) would have gone to war against Germany together. Even so, by the time American forces began fighting in early 1918, the British blockade had already starved Germany into submission. The end was inevitable, not through victories on the battle front, but by starving the German populace through British naval power. Without American forces, the Great War would have ended perhaps a few months later, but the Germans were starving at a rate of 50,000 a month and influenza was claiming thousands more.

America did not even join WWII against the evils of Nazism until they declared war on the USA. Given a victorious Confederacy scenario, would there have been a US/CS base at Pearl Harbor? Would the US/CS be considered a threat to Japanese expansion and empire in the Pacific? Without a Pearl Harbor or a threatened Japan, the USA/CSA may well have never even joined WWII.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 03:42
Depends on several things...

If the Confederacy had achieved it's independence early on in the war, by perhaps taking Washington D.C. after First Manassas, an equitable peace may well have been arranged. The North was certainly not eager to fight the South and a sizable minority (whom nearly replaced Lincoln with anti-war McClellan in '64) wanted peace with the South.

Judging by the writings of both the leaders of the North and South, excluding Lincoln, Seward, and the small group of abolitionists, it seems very likely that the North and South would have "reunited" in some way in around the 1870s.

If not a re-union under the United States Constitution, the two nations USA and CSA may well have formed close economic ties (for obvious reasons), perhaps a military alliance to defend their mutual economic interests in North America. England would have sided firmly with the South, because the English economy at that time was dominated by the textile industry, which was fuelled by Southern-grown cotton. (True, cotton was also imported from India, but it was different from Southern cotton and deemed an inferior variety.)

There is no way a victorious South would have instituted "reverse reconstruction" on the North, that is a ludicrous assertion. The South did not fight to conquer the North, or impose its will over the North, but simply wanted "to be left alone" as Jefferson Davis so aptly put it.

One thing to consider, though, is if the South had achieved independence early, say after First Manassas in 1861, there would have been no long drawn out trench-style warfare for the European powers to study. Germany, in particular, learned from the War (somewhat) while other powers, France most notably, considered it a bunch of backwoods farmers blasting each other. Without the lessons learned from the War Between the States, wars in Europe may have been considerably different.

It is my belief that compromises would have been made, ties established, and the USA and CSA would have become indistinguishable -- if not already reunited -- by the turn of the century. Also, the South not being utterly devastated by the war (and with 640,000 men not killed in the war), the American industry and economy may well have advanced even faster than otherwise. The industrialization of agriculture would have made slavery impractical economically (that trend was already showing in 1861, but nobody really saw it yet) and the death of American slavery wouldn't have been anywhere as traumatic. Southern resentment of forced emancipation which led to the Black Code laws, etc., would not have existed and the full measure of civil rights towards blacks may have come about by the turn of the century.

By 1917, if WWI progressed as it historically did and if the Lusitania had been sunk, and the Zimmermann Telegramm received with the same furur (mind you that New Mexico was considered part of the Confederacy), the USA and CSA if still separated (which is unlikely) would have gone to war against Germany together. Even so, by the time American forces began fighting in early 1918, the British blockade had already starved Germany into submission. The end was inevitable, not through victories on the battle front, but by starving the German populace through British naval power. Without American forces, the Great War would have ended perhaps a few months later, but the Germans were starving at a rate of 50,000 a month and influenza was claiming thousands more.

America did not even join WWII against the evils of Nazism until they declared war on the USA. Given a victorious Confederacy scenario, would there have been a US/CS base at Pearl Harbor? Would the US/CS be considered a threat to Japanese expansion and empire in the Pacific? Without a Pearl Harbor or a threatened Japan, the USA/CSA may well have never even joined WWII.

Well I was addressing RTW idea that the CSA had destroyed the US. In that case the war would have been long and bloody, so "reverse reconstruction" is not out of the question.

Two other things: I think the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71), probably loomed larger in strategic thinking than the US civil war. Addtionally, Japanese aggression against the US was a result of an oil embargo - in part - moreso than the fact that the US had a naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Smeagol-Gollum
26-12-2004, 03:56
The simple observation is that states or nations based on racism collapse, either from internal or external pressures.

The reason is that racism is inherently inefficient - to determine everything, or indeed anything, on the basis of race means that you are disregarding other factors, to your own cost.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 04:04
The simple observation is that states or nations based on racism collapse, either from internal or external pressures.

The reason is that racism is inherently inefficient - to determine everything, or indeed anything, on the basis of race means that you are disregarding other factors, to your own cost.

India has been around for a while. China seemed to make it work for several hundred years too.
Globes R Us
26-12-2004, 04:14
Depends on several things...

If the Confederacy had achieved it's independence early on in the war, by perhaps taking Washington D.C. after First Manassas, an equitable peace may well have been arranged. The North was certainly not eager to fight the South and a sizable minority (whom nearly replaced Lincoln with anti-war McClellan in '64) wanted peace with the South.

Judging by the writings of both the leaders of the North and South, excluding Lincoln, Seward, and the small group of abolitionists, it seems very likely that the North and South would have "reunited" in some way in around the 1870s.

If not a re-union under the United States Constitution, the two nations USA and CSA may well have formed close economic ties (for obvious reasons), perhaps a military alliance to defend their mutual economic interests in North America. England would have sided firmly with the South, because the English economy at that time was dominated by the textile industry, which was fuelled by Southern-grown cotton. (True, cotton was also imported from India, but it was different from Southern cotton and deemed an inferior variety.)

There is no way a victorious South would have instituted "reverse reconstruction" on the North, that is a ludicrous assertion. The South did not fight to conquer the North, or impose its will over the North, but simply wanted "to be left alone" as Jefferson Davis so aptly put it.

One thing to consider, though, is if the South had achieved independence early, say after First Manassas in 1861, there would have been no long drawn out trench-style warfare for the European powers to study. Germany, in particular, learned from the War (somewhat) while other powers, France most notably, considered it a bunch of backwoods farmers blasting each other. Without the lessons learned from the War Between the States, wars in Europe may have been considerably different.

It is my belief that compromises would have been made, ties established, and the USA and CSA would have become indistinguishable -- if not already reunited -- by the turn of the century. Also, the South not being utterly devastated by the war (and with 640,000 men not killed in the war), the American industry and economy may well have advanced even faster than otherwise. The industrialization of agriculture would have made slavery impractical economically (that trend was already showing in 1861, but nobody really saw it yet) and the death of American slavery wouldn't have been anywhere as traumatic. Southern resentment of forced emancipation which led to the Black Code laws, etc., would not have existed and the full measure of civil rights towards blacks may have come about by the turn of the century.

By 1917, if WWI progressed as it historically did and if the Lusitania had been sunk, and the Zimmermann Telegramm received with the same furur (mind you that New Mexico was considered part of the Confederacy), the USA and CSA if still separated (which is unlikely) would have gone to war against Germany together. Even so, by the time American forces began fighting in early 1918, the British blockade had already starved Germany into submission. The end was inevitable, not through victories on the battle front, but by starving the German populace through British naval power. Without American forces, the Great War would have ended perhaps a few months later, but the Germans were starving at a rate of 50,000 a month and influenza was claiming thousands more.

America did not even join WWII against the evils of Nazism until they declared war on the USA. Given a victorious Confederacy scenario, would there have been a US/CS base at Pearl Harbor? Would the US/CS be considered a threat to Japanese expansion and empire in the Pacific? Without a Pearl Harbor or a threatened Japan, the USA/CSA may well have never even joined WWII.


I love this sort of conjecture, the only problem being we tend to imagine what we'd possibly like to have happened. Having said that, I broadly agree with you. Remember though, the US civil war really was brother against brother. Had, as you say, the South won early on I believe that within a couple of decades the two 'Americas' would have developed a relationship similar to the relationship between US states now. Regarding WW2 don't let's forget that the British and the US were blockading Japan before Pearl Harbour, starving it of oil. I doubt very much that a Northern and Southern America would have had very different foreign policies, their interests would have been intertwined. So I think WW2 would probably not have been much different to how it actually was. I think the most important question, which we've skirted round, is how the relationship between the South and GB would have evolved. Personally, I think that as the Americas became ever closer the relationship with GB may well have been even stronger and I also think that the South may well have pressured the North to join the struggle against facism at the beginning, along with Canada and the other Empire / Commonwealth nations.
Globes R Us
26-12-2004, 04:16
India has been around for a while. China seemed to make it work for several hundred years too.

Yeah and the US hasn't done too bad with its mixed ethnicity.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 04:19
Yeah and the US hasn't done too bad with its mixed ethnicity.

I'm not saying that non-racist societies are unstable either. I am just suggesting that racist ones can be stable as well.

In any event, the US put a good two hundred years in (at least if you count the colonial period) as a stable society. So it sort of militates for my point.
Defensor Fidei
26-12-2004, 04:19
Yeah and the US hasn't done too bad with its mixed ethnicity.
That was true until about 1965.
Globes R Us
26-12-2004, 04:22
That was true until about 1965.

I think if you compare the economy of the US in 1965 to now, you might just find a huge increase.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 04:26
I think if you compare the economy of the US in 1965 to now, you might just find a huge increase.

Yes, but you are making a counterfactual claim. You have no idea how much the economy would have increased without the civil rights movement.
Globes R Us
26-12-2004, 05:45
Yes, but you are making a counterfactual claim. You have no idea how much the economy would have increased without the civil rights movement.

As nor do you.
Lacadaemon
26-12-2004, 05:51
As nor do you.

Which was my point.
Ice Hockey Players
26-12-2004, 07:21
If, in the odd chance, the South managed to break free from the USA, it is doubtful that the Nazis would have taken over. The Japanese might have been a bigger nuisance, frankly, since they wouldn't have the same huge target on their backs.

Let's say that in 1862 the USA and CSA sign a peace treaty, Lincoln gets his ass kicked out of office in 1864, and the two nations go their separate ways. This is not to say that the North would have treated blacks as equals right off the bat; racism existed in the North, even if it was in smaller doses. The South would have turned into a nation of people taught to be fiercely loyal to voth their state and nation, eventually becoming more authoritarian and religious. However, it's insane to say that the CSA would have had a dictator; as hard-line conservative as the South can be, giving up their democratic rights is not high on the list of most Southerners.

The USA and CSA would have been bitter enemies at first, but they would have learned to work out their differences and eventually become trading partners. Some border disputes may arise, but all-out war is unlikely; potential skirmishes, riots, and terrorist attacks are possible, but not another full-scale war. The North wouldn't want one because they knew what happened the first time, and the South wouldn't want one because they know that a long war would favor the North.

The CSA would claim the southeast and New Mexico and maybe one or two other states; the USA would take everything else. The U.S. would be more interested in exploration and taking in new territory than the CSA, which woulod have nothing to do with Alaska and Hawaii. The USA would involve itself in World War I; the CSA would avoid foreign wars.

It is entirely possible that the CSA would enter World War II, but it is inconceivable that they would work with the Nazis. That said, the Japanese might have backed off the USA if there were a CSA. The Nazis would lose the war in Europe, especially due to the USSR, but it might take longer to finish them off. The Japanese could go unchecked in Asia if theyh stay the hell out of the USA and Russia. With a weakened USA, Japan might have fought the Russians, who could not possibly have fought a two-front war.

Anyway, I am really tired and might pick this up later.
Right thinking whites
26-12-2004, 21:55
bump
Tekania
26-12-2004, 22:21
Agreed, the Idea of the CSA working with the Nazi's is counter-intuitive to everything the Confederate States stood for.
Tekania
26-12-2004, 22:25
In fact, it is quite likely; that the CSA would have broken further.

The moment Virginia left the CSA the other secessionist states rallied behind her. Not surprising.... Virginia has a long history of leadership in revolution.

However, given that Virginia had remarkably different ideas towards slavery than the rest of the South, chances are, either somehow, they would become "Virginian" and eventually abolish it as industry increased in suit... Or the CSA would have fragmented further (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas seceding from the CSA into yet another Nation)...

It could have been likely, that by the time of WW1 or even WW2, there could have been 3 "The (X) States of America"
Iztatepopotla
26-12-2004, 22:47
I don't think that if the CSA had accomplished its separation from the USA that the two nations would remain separate for long. At most a few decades and then they would reunite under a different constitution.

Anywat, let's imagine they don't reunite. There are two things that we should consider: Hawaii would be British, and there would have been no way to stop Japanese advance in the Pacific; neither the USA nor the CSA would have gotten themselves involved in a European war, being both isolationists and more worried with each other.

WWI would have gone pretty much the same as it did, Russian revolution and all, since the USA played such a small role in it. But, WWII may still not have happened. You are forgetting one of the main causes for the ascent of Nazism which was the global economic crisis of 1929, caused mainly by the plummet of the US economy which took most of the world's economy with it.

Without a strong, economically expasionist USA in the late XIX century, the global economies would not have been as tightly linked to a single market, causing no collapse.

No collapse means no revolts in France, Italy and Germany, and perhaps not even Spain. And in a climate of stability Hitler would not have found such a receptive audience.

Or perhaps the toughness of the Versailles treaties would have brought hardship to Germany, allowing Hitler to rise. If he did and WWII happened, I think Britain would have fallen without the supply bridge from the USA, and Germany and Japan would have been able to fight the USSR off.
Count-Frickin-Chocula
26-12-2004, 22:55
Not only would the Nazi's lose (again) but they would lose worse.... the south controlling the nation probably would have given them damn yankees some balls and we would have gone in earlier and handed the nazis assess to them a whole hell of a lot earlier. (no i'm not from the south, just CO) :sniper: