Why do you like a Confederate victory?

[dropbearabroad]

"Even if it's a literary exercise, the idea of a Confederate victory is repulsive."

I think that's unfair on writers of such TLs. AH is about considering other possibilities, to exclude cases where the world is in a much worse position, or the bad guys win, cuts out a lot of interesting literature. Fanboyism is a potential risk on those TLs but I don't see anything morally wrong in itself with Confederate victory, or Nazi victory, what ifs.

If nothing else, they give the reader another perspective on how lucky we are to live in a relatively free and fair society today.

 

[Saphroneth]

"Even if it's a literary exercise, the idea of a Confederate victory is repulsive."

I think that's unfair on writers of such TLs. AH is about considering other possibilities, to exclude cases where the world is in a much worse position, or the bad guys win, cuts out a lot of interesting literature. Fanboyism is a potential risk on those TLs but I don't see anything morally wrong in itself with Confederate victory, or Nazi victory, what ifs.

If nothing else, they give the reader another perspective on how lucky we are to live in a relatively free and fair society today.

Sure - if treated well. But all too often fanboyism cuts in. Same thing happens with the Axis Victory TLs - they often seem to involve NOTNAZIs who don't mistreat any happy smiling Jews, or the like.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

See, that's the thing.

The core tenets of socialism (as a basic philosophy) involve equality. The implementation has always failed, though.

The core tenets of Nazism involve killing off millions of people. The implementation succeeded in so far as they killed millions of people.

i.e. the actual communist/socialist states around the world have been poor implementations of what may actually need to only ever be done by a staged process. (For examples of the staged process, see: government run healthcare, laws regulating capitalism, legal and active unions, and universal suffrage. Hi, I'm from Britain, have some free healthcare. We're all a little bit socialist.)
The actual Nazi state we have seen in our history was a justly truncated implementation of a horrific policy which axiomatically required the deaths of millions.

Actually Marx was quite open about the fact that, in his opinion, creating the socialist utopia would require exterminating the "reactionary elements" in society, and never gave any indication of being anything other than perfectly fine with this. Sure he'd support freedom and equality after all his political opponents had been killed, but then again I'd imagine that the Nazis would have been all in favour of racial harmony once they'd exterminated the "inferior" races.

As for the question in the OP, I'd say that the main reasons are (a) most posters are American, (b) the US Civil War is one of the best-known events in American history, and possibly also (c) the pleasure of seeing the weaker side beating their stronger opponents (even if in this case the opponents were actually in the right). It's the same sort of thing that makes people read stories about an underdog hero triumphing over adversity, or play Ryukyu in Europa Universalis and try to make them into a world-spanning empire.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

I don't.

As a biracial American with a deep belief in the importance of human dignity and rights, the success of a nation ideologically committed to human enslavement is the stuff of nightmares, similar in vein to a Hitler Wins WWII style of story.

I enjoy stories with the opposite line of effect; the Union wins earlier, easier, and builds a better nation with a better reconstruction and the quiet removal of the Wilsonian revival of racism.

The Confederacy is high octane nightmare fuel. I think a dark story that discusses the ramifications of SLAVERY TODAY, the effects of Modern Style-American Democracy collapsing under its own contradictions, and the world giving up on the idea of universal rights in favor of some kind of National Moralism that unites, as Hitler did, one's nation, one's ethnicity, and one's ethics.

Would be quite a scary world indeed.

I agree 100%. I am so glad to see someone who shares my point of view.

I fully understand the appeal of dystopian fiction - I'll even acknowledge it as useful in helping us understand that we should be thankful for some fortunate turns of history. But I think it should always be countered with utopian fiction. I love the question, "How could we do better?" and it is this question that drives my interest in alternate history and future history.

Keep up the good fight.

- Miranda

 

[Henriksson]

As a Conservative American, with a deep belief in importance of human dignity and rights, the success of a nation ideologically committed to Communist tyranny, is the stuff of nightmares, similar in vein to a Hitler Wins WWII style of story.

...

Screw it, you and your ilk are not worth the muscle power required to type a response to this.

 

[Saphroneth]

Actually Marx was quite open about the fact that, in his opinion, creating the socialist utopia would require exterminating the "reactionary elements" in society, and never gave any indication of being anything other than perfectly fine with this. Sure he'd support freedom and equality after all his political opponents had been killed, but then again I'd imagine that the Nazis would have been all in favour of racial harmony once they'd exterminated the "inferior" races.

I am aware of this (and, frankly, I sometimes think it might have been justified at least for the very worst part of the Gilded Age - remember, that's when he was writing, when people were literally dying because the factory owners wanted to save a few bucks.) I reject that part of it, because I'd prefer gradual change, though I would probably argue that sometimes there are causes worth dying and killing for. (Freedom is a good one, though you have to be damn careful about how you go about it.)

However, the way it's actually worked out is that some nations (cough cough) have managed to implement some of the policies he believed should take place, without any kind of mass slaughter, and the nation in question is - I believe - better for it. (i.e. there are good and novel bits to Marxism, which are what are commonly considered socialism nowadays, and they can be "safely" extracted.)
I don't think that applies for any of the tenets of Nazism.

 

[YamSeng]

First, we don't "like" Confederacy victory, it's a popular Alternative History trend as "what if Nazis won" doesn't people would have liked a Nazi victory.

Then, American Civil War was an important moment of USA's history, and while it had little impact elsewhere, it's one of the founding moment of american identity, defining what america was politically, historiographically, mentally. Maybe moreso than the American Independence War.

Giving the really important proportion of Americans on the board, it's no surprise that it's considered by many persons.

Confederates are far from Nazis. Confederates were part of the USA, which enshrined it in its constitution from Washington's election to 1865, and in my opinion the USA is as evil as the CSA in the slavery regard. The point is, while slavery in itself is wrong, it goes no where near the concentration camps and genocide of millions of people that the Nazis, and the Soviets did. While the CSA/USA were not the greatest nations on the earth, they are not the worst nations.

I understand you were saying its a major point in history, but I needed to point that out as a lot of people consider nazis=condfederates.

 

[Lateknight]

Confederates are far from Nazis.

They are the closes thing America has to nazis though.

 

[YamSeng]

They are the closes thing America has to nazis though.

No. Not even close. Closest thing we have to Nazis in America is the US government condoning the murder and genocide of millions of Native Americans so we could have there land for "living space", which the USA then sold off or had settled.

I dont support slavery, but theres a point for some self control when calling the rebels the makers of mass murder is different.

 

[zoomar]

...

Screw it, you and your ilk are not worth the muscle power required to type a response to this.

Why on earth would any liberal-minded person say this in response to a post that considered the success of "Communist tyranny" and success of "Nazi Germany" as both being "the stuff of nightmares". I realize Corbell Mark IV was inverting language from another poster to make his point, and also realize that Nazi Germany was more nighmarish, but surely any liberal-minded person who values democratic ideals and the rule of law should find "communist tyranny" the stuff of nightmares. You don't?

 

[Lateknight]

No. Not even close. Closest thing we have to Nazis in America is the US government condoning the murder and genocide of millions of Native Americans so we could have there land for "living space", which the USA then sold off or had settled.

I dont support slavery, but theres a point for some self control when calling the rebels the makers of mass murder is different.

We never killed millions of indians not even close we did kill thousands and ethically cleansed the lands of dozens of groups of people . That's terrible starting a war that kills millions of your country men to preserve slavery is worst.

 

[YamSeng]

We never killed millions of indians not even close we did kill thousands and ethically cleansed the lands of dozens of groups of people . .

Sounds like Nazis to me. The North didnt have to fight the South. They were standing on southern soil, or as the South Carolinians viewed it, and legally its muxed at best. And Im pretty sure it was over a million people.

And all wars cause casulties. Soldiers know what there risks for. You saying the South wanted all those men to die is like saying Washington wanted his troops to freeze to death at Valley Forge.

 

[Lateknight]

Sounds like Nazis to me. The North didnt have to fight the South. They were standing on southern soil, or as the South Carolinians viewed it, and legally its muxed at best. And Im pretty sure it was over a million people.

They attacked federal property they violently suppressed unionist in their states and slavery . And Americans didn't directly kill many natives it was mostly disease still terrible but no one understood that well back then.

 

[YamSeng]

They attacked federal property they violently suppressed unionist in their states and slavery . And Americans didn't directly kill many natives it was mostly disease still terrible but no one understood that well back then.

See what happened in the border states, namely Maryland? The Union violently killed Confederate sympathizers and placed the region under martial law. The killing of symathisers for the enemy is not new, and has been going on for thousands of years.

That aside, this is getting out of hand, but the reason I find the CSA victory interesting is the fact that I wonder how bad the USA could have gotten in the case where it has a chip on its shoulder and a large enemy on its border, possibly two depending on if the Brits aid the South. In those conditions they become like Germany, enemies on all sides, and a chip on there shoulder for revenge. That and socialism might be more acceptable in some ways, and a CSA-USA reunion peacefully after some time apart has always been an interest to me.

 

[Henriksson]

Why on earth would any liberal-minded person say this in response to a post that considered the success of "Communist tyranny" and success of "Nazi Germany" as both being "the stuff of nightmares". I realize Corbell Mark IV was inverting language from another poster to make his point, and also realize that Nazi Germany was more nighmarish, but surely any liberal-minded person who values democratic ideals and the rule of law should find "communist tyranny" the stuff of nightmares. You don't?

Not even remotely in the same league as Nazism. Trying to suggest otherwise is close to holocaust denial.

 

[Lateknight]

Not even remotely in the same league as Nazism. Trying to suggest otherwise is close to holocaust denial.

I agree with you about the nazi comparison it's a tad over the top but how the hell is a inappropriate comparison of the nazi to the confederates holocaust denial.

 

[mudhead]

To attempt to address the question raised in the OP - it's not just the fact that so many board members are from the USA, but I think the ACW is taught as part of the history syllabus at every school. So there's a wide basis of knowledge on it, which means a wide basis of opinions to be aired.

Add to that: it was probably the first major war in history to have a majority of literate participants, so you have a very large contemporary body of work written by all kinds of people (combatants and non-combatants), which is attractive to anyone interested in history.

The technical aspects of it are fascinating - the use of railways and telegraphs, the invention of steam age riverine and littoral warfare, the beginning of continuous engagement warfare...

There's a fairly large body of film and TV work on the conflict, and a lot of fiction.

So you have a sort of momentum: the more people know about something, and the larger the body of existing work they have to draw on, then the more stuff there'll be on this site - and elsewhere - about WIs, TLs, and so on. I'd be surprised if there was less on the ACW.

Add to that all the stuff that's been well enough argued upthread about the profound importance of what the thing was about, then I think there's always going to be a signicant site % on the ACW.

 

[machine3589]

To attempt to address the question raised in the OP - it's not just the fact that so many board members are from the USA, but I think the ACW is taught as part of the history syllabus at every school.

I can confirm this. Even here in Croatia we learn about the ACW in school, and it's pretty much the only event in pre-WWI USA we really learn, aside from the Revolution; and even that gets less coverage overall. Stuff like the Spanish-American war, the Mexican-American war or even the war of 1812. is completely unknown here in the wider populace. Okay, perhaps the Louisiana Purchase or the Alaska Purchase gets mentioned if sometimes, but as far as our history programs are concerned, the pre-1900. history of the USA is: Revolution -> wars against Indians -> ACW -> Westerns.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I am aware of this (and, frankly, I sometimes think it might have been justified at least for the very worst part of the Gilded Age - remember, that's when he was writing, when people were literally dying because the factory owners wanted to save a few bucks.) I reject that part of it, because I'd prefer gradual change, though I would probably argue that sometimes there are causes worth dying and killing for. (Freedom is a good one, though you have to be damn careful about how you go about it.)

However, the way it's actually worked out is that some nations (cough cough) have managed to implement some of the policies he believed should take place, without any kind of mass slaughter, and the nation in question is - I believe - better for it. (i.e. there are good and novel bits to Marxism, which are what are commonly considered socialism nowadays, and they can be "safely" extracted.)
I don't think that applies for any of the tenets of Nazism.

If you're talking about things such as nationalised healthcare, economic regulations, welfare systems and so on, those things (a) aren't really "the core tenets" of socialism, any more than "having citizenship laws and border controls" are "core tenets" of Nazism; and (b) aren't specifically Marxist (the Romans gave subsidised corn to the poor millennia before Marx first put pen to paper; the Athenians gave public aid to war orphans; the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians had a high degree of state control in the economy).

The actual "core tenet" of Marx's idea -- namely the establishment of a classless, stateless, government-less society -- is not only quite literally impossible to bring about, it's also something which its own proponent said would require mass killing to achieve. Marx might have been well-intentioned in his proposal, but if he was, he was well-intentioned in the same way as an al-Qaeda terrorist who thinks that peace and justice can best be achieved by blowing up schools full of children.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Not even remotely in the same league as Nazism. Trying to suggest otherwise is close to holocaust denial.

Communist regimes killed an estimated 85 to 100 million people over the course of the last century. Even though Nazism had the edge when it comes to evil, the two are totally comparable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes