Let’s assume that the CSA manages to win the American Civil War. Develop a scenario where the Confederacy not only survives into the World War II era but manages to interact with Nazi Germany and even become allies. I know, I know. Nazi Germany probably won’t exist. But let’s assume it does for the sake of the scenario.
WI: CSA-Nazi Germany Alliance
- Thread starter PGSBHurricane
- Start date
As deplorable as the CSA is, I can't really see them partnering with a "Nazi Germany" analogue or the literal Nazi Germany. Especially with a powerful USA which would outnumber it in population and resources by an even longer shot than in the 1860s and might be looking for any reason to take them down for revenge of the last war. If the CSA were to do such a thing, I feel it would be seen as unpopular as the Confederates would probably be just as isolationistic as their northern brethren when it comes to European affairs and Germany doesn't have the military capabilities (such as a Navy) to support the CSA as compared to Britain in a future war.
Another thing is I can find it difficult for the CSA to embrace the rabid anti-semitism of the Nazis especially given that the CSA's secretary of state Judah Benjamin was a Jew (and a practicing one at that) and if he were to make an alliance with say the British, the Confederates might make him a hero for saving the CSA. If anything, the CSA is more likely to be partnered up with Britain and France than Germany (who actually sympathized more with the USA during the Civil War). I mean, the CSA would be under immense pressure to reform itself and ban slavery if those two powers wanted to keep the alliance justified since them having slavery just makes the Brits and French look hypocritical with their anti-slavery stance.
If the CSA partners with Nazi Germany..they screwed themselves. The US President (lets assume FDR or an FDR analogue) will use this as an excuse to militarily build up as the CSA has just partnered with an aggressive military power (really three including Japan and Italy) and the USA will feel surrounded with a Pro-Axis CSA on their doorstep, Japan in the Pacific, and the Nazis across the Atlantic. Basically, hostilities are pretty much inevitable and the CSA will face the full might of the Anglo-Soviet-American Alliance and will be crushed and probably mostly annexed back into the USA (or at least many border-states) and will just become another black-spot in Confederate history once news of the Holocaust and other atrocities committed by the Axis comes out.
Another thing is I can find it difficult for the CSA to embrace the rabid anti-semitism of the Nazis especially given that the CSA's secretary of state Judah Benjamin was a Jew (and a practicing one at that) and if he were to make an alliance with say the British, the Confederates might make him a hero for saving the CSA. If anything, the CSA is more likely to be partnered up with Britain and France than Germany (who actually sympathized more with the USA during the Civil War). I mean, the CSA would be under immense pressure to reform itself and ban slavery if those two powers wanted to keep the alliance justified since them having slavery just makes the Brits and French look hypocritical with their anti-slavery stance.
If the CSA partners with Nazi Germany..they screwed themselves. The US President (lets assume FDR or an FDR analogue) will use this as an excuse to militarily build up as the CSA has just partnered with an aggressive military power (really three including Japan and Italy) and the USA will feel surrounded with a Pro-Axis CSA on their doorstep, Japan in the Pacific, and the Nazis across the Atlantic. Basically, hostilities are pretty much inevitable and the CSA will face the full might of the Anglo-Soviet-American Alliance and will be crushed and probably mostly annexed back into the USA (or at least many border-states) and will just become another black-spot in Confederate history once news of the Holocaust and other atrocities committed by the Axis comes out.
Last edited:
Plus if the CSA is buddies with the Entente, you can bet your star spangled ass the Union will buddy up with the CP. ... and probaably take more of Africa because now they need more agrarian land. And both of those events require a Great White Fleet
You could honestly swap out Germany with CSA and Jews with African-Americans and it would not be much different. Both were viciously racist societies with Germanic white people at the top and everyone else beneath them. And while I hate to think the CSA could go down the same route as Nazi Germany regarding atrocities committed, it’s not implausible if the CSA gets really hard hit by the Depression and the far right comes to power. The most plausible scenario would be for the British and French to dump the CSA after the Great War because of the issue of slavery/racism and for the Boll Weevil to work like it did in OTL. Then the Depression hits them hard and with the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany, they have an ally who has similar politics.
There are too many butterfly over the 60-70 years following the PoD, even assuming everything go as OTL in Europe.
What happened to the CSA political and social system in those year? Are they just like OTL US but with segreation on steroids ? Are they a totalitarian state à la Timeline-191 ?
Or are they a failed state with a third world economy ruled by quasi-feudal lords?
Or did a communist revolution happened because of the way workers and slave with trated, so they became the Confederation of Multiracial Social Republics ?
What happened to the CSA political and social system in those year? Are they just like OTL US but with segreation on steroids ? Are they a totalitarian state à la Timeline-191 ?
Or are they a failed state with a third world economy ruled by quasi-feudal lords?
Or did a communist revolution happened because of the way workers and slave with trated, so they became the Confederation of Multiracial Social Republics ?
Admittedly though, in otl, the Southern states based upon opinion polls and other metrics, was the least accepting of Nazism as it existed within Germany out of all the areas of the US. Some articles have been written on this topic and the supposed oddity of the Southern states having a near knee jerk dislike of Nazism despite some Nazi propaganda inserting positive opinions of segregationist policies in the South, while decrying the evils of prior Southern society in the 1880s and previously under slavery (due to the proximity exhibited between those of European descent and their African slaves or workers).
The opinions of why this is the case, is inconclusive. Perhaps the antisemitic urge was lower in the US South than in other areas of the US, due to manifold factors. We may also postulate that some Southerners might have conceived of the Nazi ideology as abhorrent in the sense of its moderately revolutionary tinge. Lastly, perhaps it is the case that Southern whites were more interested in proving their devotion to US foreign policy expansionism, as was noted by many scholars when studying the ebb and flow of war support in the South after the regime of Woodrow Wilson.
Ultimately, it is mostly implausible the notion that the CS having won, survived or otherwise gathered its means for separation from the US without re-entry, that in such a scenario would too the Nazi party come to power as otl. We could postulate scenarios surrounding that, that is manipulate into an atl a fascist or what have you, government. However, its character might be different.
Personally, in a scenario wherein the CS is independent, its prospects point more towards British or French alignment and if either of these leave, the CS might become a colonial entity of the US, economically subservient and controlled by US industrial concern as otl. Though, an atl Germany projecting power that far afield is perhaps untenable, considering that the British would seek to support any faction in the CS which would subvert this maneuver and both may be unwilling to stoke the flames of the US.
The British supported slavery in the Nejd and the Arabian peninsula and enver invaded the Ottoman Empire nor refused to assist the Empire against Russia. The British utilized its anit-slavery stance selectively to target other, often non-western countries for conquest and colonization. Britain also never did have warfare with Spain or disallow them fair relations due to slavery persisting in Cuba into the 1890s. France, taking a particularly anti-slavery position, is just as laughable, considering the French close permissiveness toward slavery in its African holdings and its indirect support of the CS via Mexico.
This has nothing to do with South Africa, but the Confederate States of America.
The comparison is valid though. It is not hard to imagine the CSA in a similar position as South Africa.
I believe that the mere existence of the CSA would butterfly the existence of Nazi Germany.
It is not impossible that it alters significantly the unification of Germany.
It is not impossible that it alters significantly the unification of Germany.
An independent CSA still functional in the 1910-1920 period would almost certainly butterfly the OTL Nazis by completely altering the Great Powers dynamics pre-WW I. As pointed out above, the CSA
would very likely be allied with the UK and France probably from the point in 1862-1863 when they chose to intervene in our CW (the only way the CSA could reasonably actually secure their independence.) By 1910 chattal slavery would be moribund if not over, and the CSA would most likely be an economic satellite of the UK. The knock-on effects on US internal politics might make it impossible for any US - Entent alliance to ever form. Perhaps the US becomes an ultra isolationist nation, ignoring Europe and concentrating it's interests in Latin America and Asia. Anyway, all that being said, either WW I doesn't happen at all or is so different than OTL that the likelyhood that Corporal Hitler ever rises to power is practically nil.
would very likely be allied with the UK and France probably from the point in 1862-1863 when they chose to intervene in our CW (the only way the CSA could reasonably actually secure their independence.) By 1910 chattal slavery would be moribund if not over, and the CSA would most likely be an economic satellite of the UK. The knock-on effects on US internal politics might make it impossible for any US - Entent alliance to ever form. Perhaps the US becomes an ultra isolationist nation, ignoring Europe and concentrating it's interests in Latin America and Asia. Anyway, all that being said, either WW I doesn't happen at all or is so different than OTL that the likelyhood that Corporal Hitler ever rises to power is practically nil.
No the CSA wouldn't support the Nazis. Especially since by the time of WWII with butterfly nets cast, slavery would be a done for with a similiar position to OTL US, minus the anti Indian and Asian policies. Not only that the CSA was specifically nuetral like the US. Without an interventionist president like Wilson for the US and decades of foreign wars that the OTL US had, I don't see the CSA getting involved unless the US gets involved and attacks them. Unless the CSA had its ideology changed to interventionist, it would have been nuetral during both world wars. The second world war wouldn't even happen if a parinoid US decides to side more with Germany or stay totally neutral.
Skallagrim
Banned
I'm afraid you're engaging in pretty blatant context-dropping here. "X has these traits, Y has these traits, therefore X and Y would consider themselves natural partners." Uh... no. Hell no. That's not how it works. Even if we -- using the distance of historical observation -- see similarities as defining, the parties themselves may not. They may consider their differences far more essential.
Others have pointed out that the US South was the least pro-Nazi in OTL. There are reasons for that. Consider the context of Nazism. It's a set of ideas that don't just exist in a vacuüm. The Nazis consider themselves revolutionary. Their most famous song, you know the one, famously chants about how Horst Wessel was shot by reactionaries. The modern-day paradigm of left and right tends to a-historically classify the Nazis as naturally tied to reacionary causes, but again: interpretation from hindsight. They considered themselves the radical and revolutionary bringers of a New Order. The US South, by comparison, actually did tend towards fairly generic reactionary social ideals. To a 1930s Southerner, the Nazis would look like nothing so much as off-brand communists. (This doesn't have to be correct, but you must consider their actual perspective and self-image.)
Now let's look at the other side. Where did German immigrants to the USA settle? Overwhelmingly the North. Without the CSA, assuming similar migration in the ATL (which we must, if we are murdering buterflies to allow the Nazis to ever exist), the German-American contingent in the North would carry relatively more weight in politics. That alone is a reason for quite a few more ATL Northern politicians to tend to a pro-German position.
Now consider Northern politics. Look at late 19th century imperialist tendencies. The age of Southern filibustering was long gone, and it was Northern corporate interests that now drove such things. Look at militarism. I point at Theodore Roosevelt and the (very, very Northern) progressive movement... and at the Great White Fleet. Look at eugenics. Again, you will find yourself gazing at the progressives, who were almost exclusive to the North. (The South was a segregated society: separation was the creed there. If you want to see proposed ventures to "improve" the "lesser" negroes through selective/restricted reproduction, you will typically have to cast your gaze North...) Even the way progressives thought about physical fitness is a sort of precursor to what we saw with the Nazis: the idea that "racial fitness" can be trained into the population was very popular. It was the progressive movement that was most inclined to think about public health, too-- including ideas about the adverse effects of certain substances. This also became an obsession of the Nazis (who agitated vocally against smoking). Men like Theodore Roosevelt were also very sympathetic to vaguely (or not-that-vaguely) nationalistic youth organisations, the extremist form of which we again saw in Nazi Germany later on. Even T.R.'s approach to nature preserves (national parks to be enjoyed in a "vitalising" and "invigorating" way by the people) is a precursor to the way Hitler felt about that.
I'm not suggesting Teddy Roosevelt was a Nazi, of course. Not even close. But if you take the progressive movement that proliferated in the Northern US (and was mostly non-existent in the South) in the early 20th century, and you particularly take the rather militaristic side to it that T.R. embodied... well. All you have to do is pull all its ideas into a radicalised extreme, and you'll have something remarkably close to Nazism. That perverse, twisted extreme never came into being in the USA of OTL. I rather doubt that it would in this ATL scenario. But without the reactionary and agrarian South, the more industrialised North, with its much higher relative percentage of German-Americans, and with its much higher percentage of support for the T.R. kind of progressive politics... That would be the America most inclined to siding with Nazi Germany. I still think they wouldn't do it. If Franco and Salazar didn't actually commit to backing Hitler, then I see no reason for this alt-USA to do so. But the USA, and not the CSA, would be the American nation with a vocal contingent of pro-German people. Keep in mind, Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford -- just to mention two names -- were both from Michigan, and not Alabama.
There is no doubt in my mind that, save for some strange fluke of history, the scenario where the CSA survives and World War II still happens and both USA and CSA pick sides (which I still doubt would happen), it'll be the North allying with Nazis. Not the South. The CSA would side with Britain and France-- nations that Hitler described as "reactionary powers". That's where the CSA would fit in.
Not to mention that with America on its side, the CP are going to win by 1917 by latest, assuming that the butterflies ensue that we still get the Entente and Central Powers in a form recognizable to OTL observers.
That's mostly because it was in the British Commonwealth. Hell, as it is a few Afrikaners tried a pro-Nazi revolt.
The argument still stand. If the CSA are on the "conservative" side in term of waiting to contain the territorial expansion ambition of the Axis states, they would tend to naturally stand with the Allies, like Skallagrim said.
The main motivation of allies, at least at first, were more geopolitical than ideological ones I would say.
It really does depend on the situation, TBH. But I can and will say this: it is not that unlikely that a Confederacy that manages to survive to the 1930s would necessarily be all that opposed to the Nazis(contrary to what a lot of modern "Lost Cause" types in particular might wish to think!)-the key question is, would the CSA merely remain neutral, or would they be willing to risk war with the Union by openly welcoming the Nazis?
Haven't really seen any conclusive evidence to support this particular idea, TBH. It is true that organizations like the German-American Bund were more prominent up North, but this is only because Nazism in itself was, to a very large extent, seen as a particularly peculiarly German thing in the '30s-and outside of Texas there simply weren't very many German-Americans south of VA/KY.
Sadly.....I'm sorry to say this-especially being from TX myself-but again there's really no evidence to support this-even in places like California and the Northeast strong dislike of Nazism was, unfortunately, primarily limited to the left(socialist or otherwise) and sections of the middle of the country. And the South even had a fair few of it's own open fascist sympathizers, too, a couple of the most notorious examples being John Rankin(who even fucking opposed the Nuremberg Trials!), from Mississippi, and "Cotton Ed" Smith who served South Carolina in the Senate; and Rankin, despite kowtowing to fascists, kept winning re-election to the House until 1952.
Interestingly enough, it actually is true that there were not insignificant chunks of the South where anti-Semitism really wasn't quite as bad as some places up North.....but that kinda only goes so far-remember what I pointed out about Congressman Rankin above, and there were less overtly pro-fascist guys like Ted Bilbo and Martin Dies who kept getting re-elected despite their own questionable leanings during that time period.
Of course there were many Southerners who saw Nazism as not just distasteful, but outright abhorrent.....but these were mostly liberal, progressive or otherwise(whatever few there were), and moderate Southerners, and wouldn't have opposed it for being "revolutionary".
John7755 made that assertion, yes, though as I've pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for this.
Wessel was actually shot by a Communist, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_Höhler
(Also, just to briefly touch on this; there were conservatives who opposed the Nazis, but those folks were nearly all moderates-it may be true that some of the actual reactionaries weren't exactly impressed with the Nazis' style of getting things done, but most of them in general saw them as potentially useful even if nothing else, and a good number of them came to being staunch defenders of the Nazis later on, for a variety of reasons.)
The Nazis really were tied to quite a few reactionary causes, though; it may be true that not all facets of the Nazi program were reactionary-their economic program really was almost centrist in it's construction-but there was a lot stuff like "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" being put out there(not to mention the bans on abortion, and things like that). Even going by the most strictly pedantically traditional definition of "reactionary", the Nazis weren't even really opposed to monarchism by and large(even if not always embracing their local monarchy openly like their Italian counterparts under Mussolini did).
That was how they sometimes marketed themselves, sure. In reality, though, their actual beliefs, and actions, were different. Beneath their modernist trappings, the Nazis heavily promoted all sorts of traditionalist ideals-"Kinder, Küche, Kirche", again, being a prominent example of this.
So did the Nazis.
In regards to the bold: a modern Southern conservative might well believe this, yes(hell, a number of American conservatives in general do these days).....but not in the 1930s, no. If anything, many Southern conservatives in the immediate pre-War were likely indifferent at best and there were very likely a fair number, sadly, who outright sympathized with fascism to varying degrees-after all, John Rankin from MS, as I pointed out earlier, even publicly opposed the Nuremberg Trials, but that didn't stop him from winning elections all the way up until 1952.
Some progressives did, yes. Not all, however(and a fair number actually outright opposed racial eugenics.....and even eugenics altogether in some cases), and plenty of anti-progressive elements were themselves hugely into eugenics and the like as well.
Correlation =/= causation, however.
If anything, TBH, a South-less North would be less inclined to side with Nazi German in this particular type of scenario, overall, if anything: part of it would be indeed because of the progressive movement-including Rooseveltian progressives-having more of a say in public life.....but also, an even bigger reason is that because there'd rather less structural and scientific racism-so much of even the latter(Samuel A. Cartwright, anyone?), let alone the former, came directly out of the South, that it'd be almost impossible to ignore the potential ripple effects without essentially engaging in outright handwaving.
@CaliBoy1990
For some evidence; I suggest that you look into the 1992 article, seek The Nazis and the American South in the 1930s: A Mirror Image? This work composes some evidences regarding opinion polls, journalistic opinions in newspapers and how Southern media reported on the Nazis. The opinion of Grill and Jenkins in the study is that the Southern states *in general* held a dislike for the Nazi regime prior to 1939, wherein it intensified afterward. Regarding the points I made, as to why the South may have had little to no public support or sympathy to the Nazi regime, these are gathered primarily from the article that I reference. You may dispute with those have done the studies on the topic, I am not proficient enough to argue further, aside than to direct you toward their works.
Texas is an anomaly; less than preferable to lump her together with the remainder of the Southern States, especially on this matter in specific.
Regarding some of the politicians that you mentioned, most are from Mississippi, no? This state was quite known for its radical political climate, especially one that was enthralled by the KKK and racial-class grievance, at least since the rise of Vardaman. However, the most successful politician in the US South during the Interwar years, was certainly Huey Long, who was actively opposed to Antisemitism (note, the association to Father Coughlin was prior to his antisemitic urges that began, if I remember rightly, in 1937, two years following Long's demise) and too issued statements against the Nazi regime as early as 1931 and 1932. Though, I suppose that you may call Long a socialist, and this may be the case; however it is still important to note the interwar colossus upon the face of the South, who in comparison make images like Rankin or Dies appear as mere children whose name is forgotten with the passing wind.
It is also important to note, the most important far left wing rural union north of Mexico existed and operated in the South, the STFU (Southern Tenant Farmers Union) and you may acquire Cry From the Cotton: The Southern Tenant Farmers Union and the New Deal. Such groups found vast popularity in the rural South, especially Arkansas and Tennessee, such movements as we learn were snuffed by the New Deal Coalition intentionally. I mention this example, so as to provide a complexity and nuance to the discussion and nuance to how the Southern regions operated and the diversity that existed within, both political and social.
Also, why would you call Roosevelt a progressive? His policies if anything amounted to a as some have noted 'a monumental construction and maintenance of capitalism in the US South.'
For some evidence; I suggest that you look into the 1992 article, seek The Nazis and the American South in the 1930s: A Mirror Image? This work composes some evidences regarding opinion polls, journalistic opinions in newspapers and how Southern media reported on the Nazis. The opinion of Grill and Jenkins in the study is that the Southern states *in general* held a dislike for the Nazi regime prior to 1939, wherein it intensified afterward. Regarding the points I made, as to why the South may have had little to no public support or sympathy to the Nazi regime, these are gathered primarily from the article that I reference. You may dispute with those have done the studies on the topic, I am not proficient enough to argue further, aside than to direct you toward their works.
Texas is an anomaly; less than preferable to lump her together with the remainder of the Southern States, especially on this matter in specific.
Regarding some of the politicians that you mentioned, most are from Mississippi, no? This state was quite known for its radical political climate, especially one that was enthralled by the KKK and racial-class grievance, at least since the rise of Vardaman. However, the most successful politician in the US South during the Interwar years, was certainly Huey Long, who was actively opposed to Antisemitism (note, the association to Father Coughlin was prior to his antisemitic urges that began, if I remember rightly, in 1937, two years following Long's demise) and too issued statements against the Nazi regime as early as 1931 and 1932. Though, I suppose that you may call Long a socialist, and this may be the case; however it is still important to note the interwar colossus upon the face of the South, who in comparison make images like Rankin or Dies appear as mere children whose name is forgotten with the passing wind.
It is also important to note, the most important far left wing rural union north of Mexico existed and operated in the South, the STFU (Southern Tenant Farmers Union) and you may acquire Cry From the Cotton: The Southern Tenant Farmers Union and the New Deal. Such groups found vast popularity in the rural South, especially Arkansas and Tennessee, such movements as we learn were snuffed by the New Deal Coalition intentionally. I mention this example, so as to provide a complexity and nuance to the discussion and nuance to how the Southern regions operated and the diversity that existed within, both political and social.
Also, why would you call Roosevelt a progressive? His policies if anything amounted to a as some have noted 'a monumental construction and maintenance of capitalism in the US South.'
Last edited:
To be honest, there probably would be segregation like OTL but on steroids. And it would not surprise me if it were a semi-industrialized quasi-feudalist State with Democratic tendencies. Basically pre-Revolution Russia meets apartheid South Africa. And it would not surprise me if it were one or two steps away from totalitarianism in the 1930s.
By Germanic I mean not only German but Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and from the Low Countries. They were all very high up on the Nazi racial hierarchy and Anglo-Saxons ruled the south basically. While German-Americans were more likely to support the Nazis than other groups, you can’t dismiss the other Germanic groups who likely would’ve been less hurt than everyone else from Nazi rule if they were in Europe.