So the Confederates win the Civil War (usually with Anglo-French support), and the U.S. gets mad and allies with Germany in WWI and beats the crap out of the South and the cousins. Turtledove's Great War series is the most prominent example of this trope, but I've seen it in online AH since the early '00s. It probably predates that. GURPS Alternate Earths I, published in 1996, had Dixie, so it's one of the earliest examples. Any other ones? I feel that some research on Uchronia.net can probably yield the answer, but I am lazy.
Who invented the "CSA survives, USA in Central Powers meme?"
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Can't think of any off the top of my head, but it does seem that the trope does pre-date Turtledove by a bit. His is just the most popular example of course.
The Confederate States of America: What Might Have Been by Roger L. Ransom
Seemed to touch on the idea of North Vs South in First World War while speculating a CSA victorious world. I don't know if the author got the idea from HT or not.
I vaguely recall most CSA in WWI scenarios before TL-191 as having the CS on the side of the Central Powers or had the US and CS as allies again Germany (both I find to be highly unlikely possiblities)
Seemed to touch on the idea of North Vs South in First World War while speculating a CSA victorious world. I don't know if the author got the idea from HT or not.
I vaguely recall most CSA in WWI scenarios before TL-191 as having the CS on the side of the Central Powers or had the US and CS as allies again Germany (both I find to be highly unlikely possiblities)
Last edited:
Yeah. Quite a few "if the South had won the civil war..." stories and articles written during the Civil War centennial in the early 1960's presumed that the CSA and USA would be on the same side in the World Wars, and those few that presumed a divergence tended to have the CSA with "the bad guys".
Hmm did Turtledove get the idea from the GURPS sourcebook or did he come up with it independently in 1997? Arguably Bring the Jubilee implicitly supported this idea by having the CSA allied with the British Empire.
There actually was quite a bit of anti-British sentiment in the South in 1915:
" There *was* considerable anger among Southerners over the blockade
preventing cotton from reaching Germany. In 1915 it was thought that
Southerners might join with German- and Irish-Americans in Congress
to demand an arms embargo in retaliation for the British suppression of
the cotton trade with Central Europe. John Sharp Williams, the pro-Britsh
Senator from Mississippi, spoke truthfully when he said that every
politician in the South had to be anti-British. On June 28, 1915 the
Georgia state legislature petitioned President Wilson to take every
measure "diplomatic if possible, retaliatory if necessary" to open
American trade in cotton with neutral European ports. However, the
British defused this problem by a secret agreement for the British
government to buy enough cotton to stabilize the price at ten cents a
pound. See the discussion in Arthur S. Link, *Woodrow Wilson and the
Progressive Era 1910-1917* (Harper Torchbooks edition 1963), pp. 170-2"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/7fD79jc0hmY/icUw9_nSAB8J
Perkeo
Banned
Fixed that for you [by replacing 'weird' with 'any'].
I don't think so. Germany's lack of success in creating helpful (or even not counterproductive) alliances pre 1914 is essentially based on Germany choosing the wrong ally over the right one, not so much on Germany running out of options.
Examples:
- When the League of the Three Emperors collapses, choosing Austria over Russia
- Provoking Britain in the futile naval arms race, then literally forcing Britain in the Entente.
But one question remains: Why should the USA and CSA go for a rematch over Germany. What - short of an excuse for the really desperate belligerents - is the German contribution to such an alliance?
I suppose TTL's CSA will be appeased by a similar agreement as OTL South - unless USA and CSA are nuts.
Last edited:
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Keeping the Royal Navy worried about their side of the Atlantic would be the main contribution. Assuming the High Seas Fleet is anything like OTL Britain will not be able to divert enough force to the Western Atlantic to overwhelm the USN
Therefore the USA, is going to want to keep Germany from being defeated and having the HSF dismantled and losing her counterbalance with the RN. Likewise the CSA is going to want Germany weakened so the UK could aid more if the CSA has to face the US again, because the CSA will need all the help it can get
usertron2020
Donor
Winston Churchill wrote "If the South Had Won", as a short story IIRC. Pretty early in his career if my guess is right. So yeah, the trope goes w-a-a-y back.
BTW, IMVHO Turtledove's series was way overblown. The CSA's surviving until they went WWII Nazi was a bridge too far. Lasting until WWI was one thing, but supposing that the Union would let up on them when they had the CSA at their mercy and were ready to finish off the Confederate Threat once and for all?
No. Just no. That the Union was too "war weary" after three straight go arounds in three generations and would be willing to go for ACW IV was airy-fairy logic just to sell more books.
Axis of Time and Island in the Sea of Time were both series that were cut-off too soon and needed at least another book. Certainly the "Soviet-wank" ending in AoT and "Suddenly everyone got hit by a truck!" ending in IitSoT were badly contrived to end the two series as trilogies.
BTW, IMVHO Turtledove's series was way overblown. The CSA's surviving until they went WWII Nazi was a bridge too far. Lasting until WWI was one thing, but supposing that the Union would let up on them when they had the CSA at their mercy and were ready to finish off the Confederate Threat once and for all?
No. Just no. That the Union was too "war weary" after three straight go arounds in three generations and would be willing to go for ACW IV was airy-fairy logic just to sell more books.
Axis of Time and Island in the Sea of Time were both series that were cut-off too soon and needed at least another book. Certainly the "Soviet-wank" ending in AoT and "Suddenly everyone got hit by a truck!" ending in IitSoT were badly contrived to end the two series as trilogies.
Last edited:
True but irrelevant to this discussion, since If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg has the English-Speaking Association (of Union, Confederacy and UK) co-operating to prevent the Great War entirely.
Irrelevant to the thread but you are so right! Both AoT and ISOT were far better and far more interesting than what Birmingham and Sterling focused on later...although the Birmingham After America books are at least a fun Clancyesque read. The Emberverse....well...each to his own I guess.
read that one myself... Churchill is always worth reading, he is a gifted writer. I a pretty sure it came out in the 1930s as he was in not in power at the time.
the other example of ATL involving the South is this old classic
http://www.amazon.com/The-South-Had-Won-Civil/dp/0312869495
(1960 publication)
But I don't recall anyone picking up the South sides with the British, the Americans side with the Germans until Turtledove. While the books as novels have problems (I spend entire chapters not liking any characters, which kind of makes it tough to wade through the story) his ideas are pretty good as to what the CSA could have involved into.
As to whether it would have really survived losing the Great War... that isn't the point. Turtledove wanted to show that the ultimate and most likely result of an aparthaid type system is to completely remove the other race (by killing them all). So while he was stretching the likely outcomes (CSA surviving), his point that a Hitler type leader and a Final Solution type outcome is not unique to Germany (or Rwanda for that matter, and don't forget the Turks and their slaughter of the Armenians).
So I do give him a lot of credit... but one read was more than enough thanks
My impression of the book was that the author deliberately wanted to unify the two countries hence the development of plot. I though did not find it very convincing.
usertron2020
Donor
Why didn't dad just call me Sue???
I got absolutely fed up with the milking of historical names generation after generation in book time. JEB Stuart Jr, OK. Once. But all the time!? Unless you want to see your kids grow up as head-cases, you do not name your son exactly after your own name. You call them after your father, grandfather, brother, an in-laws' name, ANY name but something like "George Washington junior", AND expect the boy to thrive under the weight of such a name.
So when it got to "JEB III, Custer IV, MacArthur MMDXXVIII", it got way out of hand.
Too much for me. I could only get through the later, not earlier books.
I got absolutely fed up with the milking of historical names generation after generation in book time. JEB Stuart Jr, OK. Once. But all the time!? Unless you want to see your kids grow up as head-cases, you do not name your son exactly after your own name. You call them after your father, grandfather, brother, an in-laws' name, ANY name but something like "George Washington junior", AND expect the boy to thrive under the weight of such a name.
So when it got to "JEB III, Custer IV, MacArthur MMDXXVIII", it got way out of hand.
Too much for me. I could only get through the later, not earlier books.
Except there really was a James Ewell Brown Stuart III, and IV, and V, and now we're currently at Jeb Stuart VI
And there was an Army staff officer named Nathan Bedford Forrest III in the Second World War.
Custer never had children, in anyone's timeline, and I have no idea what you're referring to with MacArthur.