DBWI: Europe didn't support the Confederacy

Oh please, we're all aware that India was inevitably going to be lost anyway.

South Africa used that excuse to break away from the Crown, but everyone knows it was just because Apartheid was unacceptable to the Imperial Parliament. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, for example, has been a model of interracial peace and equality for ages now.

Of course the Sun has Set on the Empire. You know as well as I do that the loss of mainland North America prompted the British and remaining Dominions to form the central Imperial Federative Government, which evolved into today's Imperial Commonwealth. Why do we need an Empire?
So Apartheid was unacceptable to the British crown, but Mother England sure didn't have a problem allying with the Confederacy, which literally had real actual slavery well into the 1900s and Apartheid-style segregation policies after that. The honest truth was, Britain had nothing to gain from allying with the Confederacy. They already had trade networks with reliable sources of cotton. I guess countries abusing minorities is only unacceptable to the "Imperial" Parliament when there's not an opportunity to vindictively get back at America.

Rhodesia, a model of interracial peace and equality? Come on. You know better.
 
So Apartheid was unacceptable to the British crown, but Mother England sure didn't have a problem allying with the Confederacy, which literally had real actual slavery well into the 1900s and Apartheid-style segregation policies after that. The honest truth was, Britain had nothing to gain from allying with the Confederacy. They already had trade networks with reliable sources of cotton. I guess countries abusing minorities is only unacceptable to the "Imperial" Parliament when there's an opportunity to vindictively get back at America.

Rhodesia, a model of interracial peace and equality? Come on. You know better.

Britain sided with the Confederacy because Lincoln was too stubborn to apologise to the British after the Trent Affair. You must be aware of how abhorrent slavery was to most of the British public? Intervention began because of the Union's refusal to acknowledge Britain's neutral rights. Of course, there was the Embargo of 1869 imposed by the Empire against the Confederacy to try and stop the slavery, which was one of the reasons why the new country was so unstable. Pity it didn't work.

'Imperial' is merely a cultural remnant of the former Empire, not representative of the government system of the central body of the Commonwealth.

If the Imperial Commonwealth is so bad, I would again draw your attention to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in Ulster by the Catholic Irish. This is ignored by the United States.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The Francise was extended to southern Rhodesia in the late 50s. That's why the name is double-barrelled, because it represent the black majority and the white minority. If you're referring to the recent ethnic tensions, that's due to the general global trend further away from liberalism, and is not government sanctioned (AFAIK).
 
Britain sided with the Confederacy because Lincoln was too stubborn to apologise to the British after the Trent Affair. You must be aware of how abhorrent slavery was to most of the British public? Intervention began because of the Union's refusal to acknowledge Britain's neutral rights. Of course, there was the Embargo of 1869 imposed by the Empire against the Confederacy to try and stop the slavery, which was one of the reasons why the new country was so unstable. Pity it didn't work.

'Imperial' is merely a cultural remnant of the former Empire, not representative of the government system of the central body of the Commonwealth.

If the Imperial Commonwealth is so bad, I would again draw your attention to the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in Ulster by the Catholic Irish. This is ignored by the United States.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. The Francise was extended to southern Rhodesia in the late 50s. That's why the name is double-barrelled, because it represent the black majority and the white minority. If you're referring to the recent ethnic tensions, that's due to the general global trend further away from liberalism, and is not government sanctioned (AFAIK).

Oh, for the love of god, stop harping about Ulster. That wasn't ethnic cleansing. There was a mass migration of Ulster Scots back to Scotland after Ireland won its independence, yes, but that was entirely of their accord after their leaders hyped up the threat of a 'Catholic despotism.' (a threat that never has, and never would have occurred. You will note that the Protestant population in the rest of Ireland was never harassed after independence, and Ireland even elected an Anglican Taoiseach in the 1960s!) I won't deny that there was a smattering of retribution attacks against the Scots community, but those were never authorized by the Dublin government or condoned. If you weren't so busy having an ax to grind, you might recall that the Republic actually entered into negotiations with Great Britain in the 1950s and paid compensation to those Scots who had emigrated; something which they did entirely out of their own goodwill and for the sake of relations between them and your nation. They certainly never had any moral obligation to so since the Scots emigrated of their own free will.

As for the Isle of Man, they speak a dialect of Gaelic and a majority of the population actually identifies as Irish and has stated it wishes to join the Republic. This shouldn't be difficult to understand in the least.
 
I wish the Americans and other English speakers would stop complaining about eachother just long enough that we could finally throw the damned Slavs out of Europe. The Germanic peoples of Europe need you, can't you all stop squabbling?

I mean, sure, the Russians were stopped in the treaty of Lübeck, but if the English stopped whining about Ireland/Canada and the Americans about the South they could do something useful in the first, second, or third Elbe 'skirmish'/war - might have kept the Rheinbund from declaring any Russian crossing the border a reason for nukes on Moscow (and we can only guess if any of the border skirmishes will ever really trigger that - so far the slavs have kept to the disputed areas only, but then they haven't really won any of the wars since Lübeck so they couldn't go further).
 
I wish the Americans and other English speakers would stop complaining about eachother just long enough that we could finally throw the damned Slavs out of Europe. The Germanic peoples of Europe need you, can't you all stop squabbling?

I mean, sure, the Russians were stopped in the treaty of Lübeck, but if the English stopped whining about Ireland/Canada and the Americans about the South they could do something useful in the first, second, or third Elbe 'skirmish'/war - might have kept the Rheinbund from declaring any Russian crossing the border a reason for nukes on Moscow (and we can only guess if any of the border skirmishes will ever really trigger that - so far the slavs have kept to the disputed areas only, but then they haven't really won any of the wars since Lübeck so they couldn't go further).

As far as I understood, the Russians don't really want to cross the Elbe.

I was reading Churchill's "Keys to the Enigmatic Empire" and he argues that PanSlav ideology sought first the restoration of all traditional Slavic lands, and the destruction of the 'German menace' as a secondary objective.

Then, when the first was achieved, the 'German menace' was retooled to bring the west Slavs more on board. The intense militarization of the German border, from the Baltic to Vienna, also helps keep dissidents from leaving.

(And yes I understand not everyone agrees with Churchill. I admit he could let his politics color his writings a wee bit. I just don't find the argument that the Russians really were trying to drive Germany into the sea realistic)

IMHO Churchill is right, since after the Elbe border was established, the Russians pushed south for Constantinople. The DMZ is not even a few hours from Istanbul. Thank God for the Italian fleet, because without it, I think both Greece and the Sultanate would have fallen.

EDIT: and I just realized, would Italy be the Mediterranean powerhouse it is without the American-led partition of France?

I mean they got all of France's North African possessions, and then all that oil money...
 
Last edited:

I was referring to the actions of the IRA, which continues to harass remaining Ulstermen to this day, and the actions of which are largely ignored by both the Irish and American governments.

As for the Isle of Man, no Irish state has ever ruled the island within the last several hundred years. The Irish Republic has no claim of this Crown dependency of the Kingdom of Great Britain.

I wish the Americans and other English speakers would stop complaining about eachother just long enough that we could finally throw the damned Slavs out of Europe. The Germanic peoples of Europe need you, can't you all stop squabbling?.

It would have been more helpful to your cause if you had refrained from siding with the Americans and rebel Canadians during the Atlantic War, as dreadnought jenkins mentioned earlier. While the PanSlavic ideology is repugnant, you can understand why Great Britain has been slow to enter into any sort of defence arrangement with Germany or Austria.
 
It would have been more helpful to your cause if you had refrained from siding with the Americans and rebel Canadians during the Atlantic War, as dreadnought jenkins mentioned earlier. While the PanSlavic ideology is repugnant, you can understand why Great Britain has been slow to enter into any sort of defence arrangement with Germany or Austria.
I'm sure it will be very nice for the English to know they had good reasons to abandon us when the Russians finally do push through and capture Rotterdam and Antwerp, or after when they're capturing the white cliffs of Dover 'well at least we had a good reason to let them come this far!'.

Though indeed, the Americans are even ungrateful thanks to their obsession with the racists down south.
 
I'm sure it will be very nice for the English to know they had good reasons to abandon us when the Russians finally do push through and capture Rotterdam and Antwerp, or after when they're capturing the white cliffs of Dover 'well at least we had a good reason to let them come this far!'.

Though indeed, the Americans are even ungrateful thanks to their obsession with the racists down south.

I'm certain vital interest will ensure that, should the PanSlavs try any further westwards advance, Great Britain will intervene in Germany's favour. We did help the Danes to stop the Slavic advance through Schleswig, after all.

I just had a thought - if the United States remained strong and retained the South and California, would Japan be as powerful as it is today? Maybe Russia would still have Sakhalin, or maybe even China could keep Manchuria? Or am I being a bit too ambitious here? I just wondered if a strong US with access to the Pacific would be able to project its influence to the Far East.
 
OTOH, the Japanese keep the Russians out of the Pacific, and counterweight the Chinese. That's the reason the British don't mind Japanese hegemony over the the North Pacific and non-British former colonies in the Far East, despite ANZAC discomfort over 'Japan's protege' Indonesia. And of course, Japan is Britain's protege, which is another point for Japan in Britain's book.
 
Last edited:
The Northern Union bastards would've had their Federal Government plans go forwards after The War of Northern Aggression AKA The 2nd American Revolution. Probably would adopt some stupid and silly ideology like whatever that Marx guy was going at. Soon, THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN! NO MORE NORTHERN TYRANNY, UP WITH STATES RIGHTS!
 
I doubt Russia will make it over the Elbe in a serious way.

Considering they can barely keep order in some of their various internal republics - looking at you, Chechnya, Donbass, Galicia and Finland - and especially considering the state of their economy, they're on course for disaster sometime soon. Eventually the economy will crash and the wheels will come off the Bear.
 
The Northern Union bastards would've had their Federal Government plans go forwards after The War of Northern Aggression AKA The 2nd American Revolution. Probably would adopt some stupid and silly ideology like whatever that Marx guy was going at. Soon, THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN! NO MORE NORTHERN TYRANNY, UP WITH STATES RIGHTS!
And this is why Lee and Stonewall were A** hats. They created this insane "Noble warrior Farmer" culture that basically ensured that the best roles for southerners were fighting and farming. There is a reason that the south doesn't have the film industry of Kansas City. I mean There was even books on the evils of industry to the "poor afros" telling them to be happy as share croppers for it's "nobility".

And just because I feel like throwing some fighting words. Lee wasn't even that good of a general, he was against the worlds biggest idiot in the form of McClellan. He was so incompetent it should be considered treason with his name put down next to Custer, and Crassius.
 
OTOH, the Japanese keep the Russians out of the Pacific, and counterweight the Chinese. That's the reason the British don't mind Japanese hegemony over the the North Pacific and non-British former colonies in the Far East, despite ANZAC discomfort over 'Japan's protege' Indonesia. And of course, Japan is Britain's protege, which is another point for Japan in Britain's book.

So you're suggesting that British/Commonwealth influence in the Orient would be reduced if a United America weakened Japan? Is that really likely, considering the liklihood that Great Britain will still want to keep the PanSlavs contained? Couldn't the British try to exclude American influence by force?
 
And this is why Lee and Stonewall were A** hats. They created this insane "Noble warrior Farmer" culture that basically ensured that the best roles for southerners were fighting and farming. There is a reason that the south doesn't have the film industry of Kansas City. I mean There was even books on the evils of industry to the "poor afros" telling them to be happy as share croppers for it's "nobility".

And just because I feel like throwing some fighting words. Lee wasn't even that good of a general, he was against the worlds biggest idiot in the form of McClellan. He was so incompetent it should be considered treason with his name put down next to Custer, and Crassius.
As typical of a northerner, you both have been brainwashed by birth to follow Fed propaganda from your so called "free-press", but also have a stick up your ass so far that you cannot admit the truth. At least those Plainers have a lot in common with us. Even fought with us on the 3rd revolution. Though, the Feds keep shoving it down that it never rebelled "due to the unshared hate of Afros the Midwest did not have." And we don't have industry 'cause we believe Jefferson is the greatest Founding Father. That a America with only a man, his family, a farm, and the local community of similar men is the ideal one. Not some Northern urban-industrial hellhole fill with smog and too cramped with people to form proper identities!

GREATNESS TO THE SOUTH, FOR IT WILL RISE ONCE MORE!
 
Top