I could see the CSA having a similar *WWI to Italy OTL; a small, underdeveloped nation that enters on the winning side hoping for glory and ends up hemorrhaging blood and treasure for minuscule gains, leading to a flirtation with or outright fall to fascism down the line.
Dixieland: The Country of Tomorrow, Everyday (yet another Confederate TL)
- Thread starter TastySpam
- Start date
Could be, but IMO OTL German or Italian style fascism wouldn't really take as well with the rural, conservative and relatively individualistic culture of the region. The militarism, the racialism and the vitalism associated with fascism? I can see that developing. Maybe even the aesthetic (Laconophilia and modified neoclassicism come to mind) but the super centralized state? I'm skeptical.
Regarding a war, the the Confederates, having built a new army, might try to flex their muscles in the war as a means of 1. Acquiring new colonial territories (though bringing in large numbers of non-whites would raise eyebrows among that society and its a pretty lame casus belli to begin with) 2. escaping a national malaise and getting in on a little glory (pretty lame too, especially considering that nobody in Europe ever helped them ever) or 3 getting revenge on somebody for disrupting their trade or something like that. This last one only happens if the risk of joining is not great and would likely be on the end stages of the war (many countries did this kind of thing IOTL).
But in any case, the size of their actual contribution might have to be limited because there could be a lot of division within the country about committing to a fight in Europe, there would be financial issues (unless the US supports them as a sort of proxy) and even the challenge of shipping their men accross the sea and supplying them there, which again, is expensive. In fact, they could make a good amount of money in such a war by staying officially neutral much like Spain did IOTL. If they do eventually show up with a fighting force, then their old hit and run tactics will not be possible and how long their famous elan would last against barbed wire, field artillery and machine guns is questionable.
By my reckoning, the worst case scenario from a military standpoint would be that they would basically lose an expeditionary force and suffer from a severe disruption of foreign trade up to and including some kind of blockade attempt. Nobody will invade because it's futile and because the USA would probably object. Also, even a military fiasco would not collapse the country. It might functionally knock it out of a war but the groundwork for another Confederate Civil War? I just don't feel it here.
The Confederates might try to fight Mexico though. They're almost certainly never going to recognize that Texas border.
Last edited:
Bookmark1995
Banned
Well...
Fascism, or any kind of hardcore nationalist ideology, requires several things:
1. An easy racial or political target on which to blame society's problems on (the Nazis blamed the Jews, the Hutus blamed the Tutsis).
2. A serious historical grievance that rallies the nation (For the Germans, it was Treaty of Versailles, for the Serbian nationalists, it was Kosovo).
3. A hated external enemy (For the Nazis it was the communists, for the Soviets it was the capitalist West).
4. A bad economy (The Great Depression created the extremist environment of the 1930s).
5. A period when national mood is at its lowest .
6. A cherished territory that the group wants. (The Italians wanted mare nostrum, the Nazis wanted Lebensraum)
I think it is possible for the TTL Confederates to achieve all of these things.
Something hardcore nationalist is definitely cooking here. Of course, all these things happened to many countries and the results were often similar but still took somewhat different forms because of cultural and historical differences as well as practical considerations. Their commonality was that the flavors of militant authoritarian government were hoped to "get things done".
For the Confederates
1. This one is obvious, though remember that Black'
s are already quite disenfranchised and can hold little power in society.
2. Hated external enemy? Well, the biggest grievance against an external nation is probably the loss of the Texas border strip (Texas's shape is so iconic and they ruined it!) but the whole Union bailing them out and subsequent "carpet bagging" wasn't too popular either. Maybe something will happen to piss them off but war with the USA seems a bit, well, insane. Other than that, Spanish Savannah is a gripe but it is canonically stated that it serves a much appreciated function and the locals are clearly happy with the arrangement. In any case, its return could very likely be negotiated a few years early peacefully if it was considered important enough to throw a fit over (though it is going back in 1938 anyway).
4. We'll see how the economy turns out. It's diversifying but still kind of volatile and unbalanced.
5. If they lose another war, then I'd worry, but they've been through an internal rebellion and survived so it'd have to be pretty disheartening.
6. Again, Texas border strip. Maybe taking Cuba if the USA somehow allows it? they've got a lot of territory and it's rather much secure already. Very much unlike Europe.
But again and regardless of what exactly is upsetting people, I can see the CSA with a somewhat fascist government, even a dictatorial one if people are desperate to "get things done", but even so, I'm not sure if we would see such a state-centered ideology since the upland rural whites who make up a huge proportion of the country and many of its military men, have long been kind of skeptical of that sort of thing. And the Confederacy is next to the USA which will tend to keep it on a leash, whether it likes it or not.
Last edited:
Bookmark1995
Banned
1. In a future where Black Confederates gain civil rights, it might be possible for hypernationalist White Confederates to see their black neighbors as a fifth column.
2. Well, in a future war, it might be possible for a Virginian to invade West Virginia, claiming those coal rich areas as their personal "lebensraum."
4. A collapsed economy is the kind of thing that pushes people toward extremism.
5. A lost war, especially if it results in the rise of liberalism, can be the fire that fuels extremism.
6. Depends on how much a future Confederate nationalist can claim those lands as "necessary."
1. Or more likely as just a menace or threat in their own right in keeping with the notion that they were inherently violent/uncivilized and all secretly vengeful. It's not hard to imagine because this kind of happened IOTL.
2. Well, this hypothetical Confederacy could try I guess. Why invade for West Virginian coal though when there's already substantial coal in Alabama, Texas and to a lesser degree, Mississippi? Plus the oil in Texas and Oklahoma. It would take someone really nuts to try that.
5. Yeah, but I doubt they'd get Versailles level treatment though for picking the wrong side. Who's going to occupy them and enforce punitive terms? What if the USA doesn't like the idea of its biggest trading partner getting screwed over?
Last edited:
Bookmark1995
Banned
1. Well...
Genocidal racism doesn't...have any rational basis. The goal of genocidal maniacs is to make the general public think the racial enemy is simultaneously "a threat" and "vermin."
The Tutsis could somehow be portrayed as "cockroaches" and somehow being powerful enough threat to Hutus that their deaths were "necessary."
Jews could be both portrayed as "vermin" and "the greatest danger to the Volk."
That is the process of dehumanization: making sure people think the people being slaughtered aren't people.
And it is...disturbingly easy to do.
2. Well, economic nationalism comes from the need to control vital resources and ensuring the enemy cannot use them.
Bookmark1995
Banned
2. Well, it depends on how extremist the hypothetical Confederate Fuhrer is. If he is extreme enough, he could viciously smear the USA as "race-traitors" and invade him.
Fascism in Italy didn’t have some minority, they blamed societal ills, neither did Hungary.
Honestly I could easily see Dixie go fascist, some people think the rather decentral structure would keep racism from rising. I disagree, fascism rise when a country have failed, and Dixie have failed and it failed because of its decentralized structure and existing political elite. That’s perfect for a movement, which want to centralize power like fascism.
Honestly I could easily see Dixie go fascist, some people think the rather decentral structure would keep racism from rising. I disagree, fascism rise when a country have failed, and Dixie have failed and it failed because of its decentralized structure and existing political elite. That’s perfect for a movement, which want to centralize power like fascism.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Italy was rocked by revolution for a few years. It was a period known as a Bienno Rosso. One of Mussolini's enemies has been socialists.
Chapter 60 - The South American Naval Arms Race and Civil War
The South American Naval Arms Race and Civil War
Amusingly, the most vicious naval arms race would take place not even in Europe or Asia, but rather South America. The aftermath of the Great Pacific War, which was almost entirely decided on sea, not on land, made several Latin American countries realize how important naval power was. The ongoing Confederate-Spanish War also taught them this. In addition, the peace between Peru-Bolivia (often just called the Andean Confederation) and Chile left neither side particularly happy.
In addition, the Americans were not allowed to help negotiate the territorial dispute between Peru-Bolivia and Paraguay [1] because they were quite reasonably seen as too close to Peru-Bolivia. The Confederates were eventually brought in to help negotiate, but they were rather unhelpful and their diplomats were eventually pulled back due to the outbreak of war with Spain. As a result, South American nations quickly became playing fierce power politics.
The Chileans and the Paraguayans shared an enemy in Peru-Bolivia, so military cooperation between them became quite the norm. Chile and Peru-Bolivia both rebuilt their navies with gusto, gaining overseas partners. Immediately after the end of the Great Pacific War, the Chileans ordered the construction of the Capitán Prat from French shipyards. Upon its completion in 1886, it became the most advanced pre-dreadnought battleship in the New World. The Chilean Navy became so strong, that when José Manuel Balmaceda lost the confidence of the Conservative Congress and Conservative-dominated Navy, he realized that the situation was hopeless, and instead of possibly starting a civil war, he immediately resigned.
The power of the Chilean navy terrified the Argentinians, who immediately embarked on their own massive ship-building program. Relations between the two nations had been extremely poor after the Chilean delegation stormed out of the 1881 boundary negotiations with regards to Patagonia due to (correct) allegations that the Argentinians were allowing the Americans to supply Bolivian-American forces in the Great Pacific War through Argentinian territory. The Argentinians, perhaps drawing on large amounts of immigration from Italy (which only increased due to America being seen as unfriendly to Catholics), contracted with various Italian shipyards to build their own navy, ordering the battleship Independencia.
In turn, the massive Argentinian naval build-up also inspired yet ANOTHER South American nation to enter the ludicrous South American arms race. The Brazilian Navy was seen as particularly powerful, with two powerful battleships, the Riachuelo and Aquidabã. This took place under the powerful Joaquim Marques Lisboa, Marquis of Tamandare. The Marquis of Tamandare, having been literally old enough to start his service in the Navy of Portugal-Brazil, was a well-respected leader. He was put in charge of a second naval buildup that was sparked by fears of continued American intervention in South America, especially because after the Paraguay-Brazil border compromise, it had been the policy of the Brazilian government to support Paraguay against Argentinian and Andean territorial claims. It became feared that the United States would use its navy to pressure Brazil. As a result, the Brazilians added another two top-of-the-line ships to their Navy between 1885-1889, leapfrogging the Chileans into becoming the most powerful navy in the Americas.
This naval build-up would have a remarkable influence in the Brazilian Civil War of 1890. Coffee oligarchs were enraged that the Brazilian monarchy had totally abolished slavery in 1890. It was originally to be done in 1888, but it was temporarily delayed by Brazil's hosting of the Confederate States and Spain in the Conference of Rio de Janeiro, since it might have jeopardized Confederate participation by making it seem like Brazil had an axe to grind against them. Regardless, in 1891, a military coup was launched against the Emperor of Brazil by Deodoro da Fonseca and Floriano Peixoto. Largely successful, they seized control of the capital, declaring Congress abolished, the Monarchy abolished, and a new Republic established. However, several royalists were furious, especially after the death of Emperor Pedro II as he was fleeing the nation. Conspiracy theorists quickly arose, claiming that Pedro II had been murdered by the revolutionaries.
Although the army largely supported the Federalist Revolution, it was opposed strongly by the Navy. In addition, two foreign leaders both had been carefully eyeing the Brazilian Revolution. The Brazilian Navy responded by going completely AWOL, parking outside of Rio, and starting to bomb positions of the Brazilian Army. The Rio Grande do Sul revolted again, claiming that the Federalist government sought to crush their autonomy once again. In addition, Antonion Conselheiro, a mystic prophet in Northern Brazil (in Bahia) was gathering followers, claiming (accurately) that the Republic was a conspiracy of slaver oligarchs. In many cases, his men were joined by veteran soldiers who had sailed directly from the Christian Commonwealth of North Carolina to protect them. This caused his numbers to swell, which caused local Brazilian army troops to retaliate against them. Immediately, war was to also break out in Bahia.
The Brazilian Federalists still had the loyalty of most of the army. What was to break their spirit was horrifying information. The French were on their way. Princess Isabel, now to many, Empress Isabel, was an ultramontist married to Gaston, the Count of Eu, the grand-son of King Louis Philippe of the House of Orleans. Napoleon IV, unlike his father, deeply sought the support of the Orleanists in France, under Prince Philippe, Count of Paris, who also more or less inherited the Legitimist claim to the French throne as well. Prince Philippe, a genuine democrat, had even signed up for the Union Army in the American Civil War to help defeat the slavery. Napoleon IV came to him with a simple offer. If was willing to renounce his claim to the French throne, the entire House of Orleans would be welcomed back to France, given all of their old titles (minus the actual monarchy), and the French Army be immediately deployed to help his cousin, Gaston (who he grew up with in the Clermont Mansion in Surrey, England). After all, if Napoleon III triumphed gloriously in Mexico, why couldn't Napoleon IV triumph gloriously in Brazil? Best of all, the British public was remarkably sympathetic to the Orleanists, and although the British government loathed any flexing of French power abroad, they had no standing to condemn them. They tried to get the Confederates to do their dirty work for them, but this failed, especially as the Confederates were too internally divided to do anything like this. Eventually however, they found two ways to accomplish their objectives.
Worst of all for the Federalists, that wouldn't even be the only foreign interloper. Prince Pedro Augusto, increasingly estranged from the rest of the Brazilian Imperial Family, still believed himself to be the best successor to Pedro II, especially as many members of the abolished Congress actually supported him. He also became increasingly erratic. President James Blaine had been eagerly looking for a way to flex American power abroad during his regime. Inviting Augusto Pedro from exile to Washington D.C., the United States announced the reestablishment of the Monroe Doctrine in the aftermath of the American triumph in the Spanish-Confederate War, recognizing Augusto Pedro as the legitimate Emperor of Brazil. American marines were immediately deployed down the East Coast, to fight a second war in South America. Due to close American relations with Peru-Bolivia in the wake of the Great Pacific War, this translated into those nations allowing supplies to float to the Federalists, even though the Imperial Navy had mostly blockaded the nation.
The Federalists had a few surprising friends in the war. First, the North Germans pretty much reflexively opposed anything the French did, so a North German military attachment was quickly drilling Federalist Brazilian troops in the Prussian way of warfare. Italian supplies, from the reasonably powerful Italian navy, were also flowing into Brazil. The British gave them full access through Gibraltar, which quickly brought Italy and Britain closer together in diplomacy. Finally, Great Britain remained officially neutral, but one seemingly independent nation didn't. The Dominion of Canada, increasingly divided on religious lines and in the middle of a Culture War with the Catholic Church, immediately jumped to support President Peixoto of the Federalists (Fonseca died not soon after taking power as President).
Argentina most notably enjoyed close relations with both Italy and the United States, so it took the unusual position of supporting both Peixoto and Augusto Pedro. In contrast, the British public (and its donations) were largely divided between Peixoto and Isabel. That being said, the two Royalist factions didn't actually spend that much time fighting each other - they spent most of their time fighting the Federalists, especially as Augusto Pedro's base of support quickly became the far South and Isabel's base the far North. The prosperity of Pedro II's reign was to end in the most brutal spat of violence to ever hit Brazil.
---
[1] OTL, President Hayes helped resolve this dispute!
Republic now loading.
Error
Brazil has encountered a problem with Republic and needs to restart.
You lucked out man, two monarchs for the price of one republic.
A Confederate *Fascism doesn't necessarily need to be centered on racism, although I can't imagine it would be less racist than the rest of Confederate society or that race would be irrelevant. I think it's fair to look at the Balkan, Mediterranean, Iberian and South American fascist states as more representative of the median than Nazi Germany.
That's why I mentioned Italy; in this period, it's 1) a relatively new and rural nation, with 2) limited and uneven industrialization, and 3) strong internal regional identities (also, well-studied; there's plenty in the literature - Robert C. Fried and Paolo Malanima just on quick googling - to consult). And because, like you mentioned, the strong, 'super centralized' state? Much more hype than reality in Mussolini's Italy (where the trains still didn't run on time). They might talk about a strong state, and they'd certainly idealize one ('all white men pull together for a bright future!'), but the reality is unlikely to match the rhetoric.
The biggest obstacle I see is honestly religious; if you look at the average fascist state, one commonality you see is Catholicism (even in Germany; look at what religion the key figures of the Nazi movement were raised in). You can argue that the echo of the Counter-Reformation is a crucial component of fascism (I think that's going too far), and that the Protestant religious culture of an independent Confederacy isn't fertile ground - so much depends on how this TL's Southern Baptist Convention responds to the events of the late 19th century and how the religious culture of North America as a whole evolves. Do we get a *Pentecostalism? If so, does it cross the Mason-Dixon? Lotta questions.
That's why I mentioned Italy; in this period, it's 1) a relatively new and rural nation, with 2) limited and uneven industrialization, and 3) strong internal regional identities (also, well-studied; there's plenty in the literature - Robert C. Fried and Paolo Malanima just on quick googling - to consult). And because, like you mentioned, the strong, 'super centralized' state? Much more hype than reality in Mussolini's Italy (where the trains still didn't run on time). They might talk about a strong state, and they'd certainly idealize one ('all white men pull together for a bright future!'), but the reality is unlikely to match the rhetoric.
The biggest obstacle I see is honestly religious; if you look at the average fascist state, one commonality you see is Catholicism (even in Germany; look at what religion the key figures of the Nazi movement were raised in). You can argue that the echo of the Counter-Reformation is a crucial component of fascism (I think that's going too far), and that the Protestant religious culture of an independent Confederacy isn't fertile ground - so much depends on how this TL's Southern Baptist Convention responds to the events of the late 19th century and how the religious culture of North America as a whole evolves. Do we get a *Pentecostalism? If so, does it cross the Mason-Dixon? Lotta questions.
Did, with pretty much an identical ending. PoD is sadly too late to butterfly it out.
What was butterflied out was President Rutherford B. Hayes helping Paraguay and Argentina work out their border.
And people say nothing ever happens in South America...
Bookmark1995
Banned
And people say nothing ever happens in South America...
The issue is that South American conflicts don't really have any scope beyond that immediate area.
Most conflicts are usually internal, involving the military, rebellions, the CIA, or a mixture of all three. And the full extent of foreign intervention involves debts owed.