Or that option works too.. Just so many butterflies from winning and staying alive as a nation to make something that would be ww 1..
Would a victorious CSA be in the Entente or CP?
- Thread starter LucaTheDevilCat
- Start date
Maybe thr North becomes more German friendly.. A csa victory could hurt the Monroe Doctrine quite a bit.. After all it was the Spanish American War that really put the USA on the imperialistic tract.. If the south wins that's awkward
Thomas1195
Banned
That would not change Kaiser Wilhelm's ascension and his blatant Weltpolitik expansionist policies in Latin America (most other lands for colonization had already been taken by the Brits and the French). They were the main reasons for US-German antagonism since the very late 19th century.
Monroe Doctrine IOTL was accepted by the Brits and for a long time it was the Brits who enforced it. Britain would not hesitate to dump the South for the North as the latter provides a far more lucrative market for British investors.
Deleted member 94680
I don’t see how an independent CSA butterflies away the Franco-Prussian War or WWI as some have suggested? Am I missing something?
I very much doubt American politics had any affect on Bismarck's desire to unify Germany or the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s competition for primacy in the Balkans with the Serbs and Russians.
I very much doubt American politics had any affect on Bismarck's desire to unify Germany or the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s competition for primacy in the Balkans with the Serbs and Russians.
tl;dr The French win in Mexico so Nap II doesn't need to go to war with Prussia to save face.
Deleted member 94680
So how does an independent CSA make the French win in Mexico? Also the loss in Mexico wasn’t the primary cause of the FPW, so I don’t see that butterflying the latter conflict away. France in Europe is still threatened by German unification. Mexico and America simply aren’t that important to the continental statesmen of the day.
Exactly, the Confederates existing wouldn’t change anything in Europe for the period of German and Italian unification. OTL, the French invasion of Mexico lasted until 1867, and they still lost. What’s a victorious Confederacy going to do? March an army south to help the French? And even if the French manage to get a grip on the country, guerrillas are going to be a problem, so that’s a lot of French troops potentially there to pacify the country, and those troops would still have to leave once the Franco-Prussian War starts. Either way you cut it, France isn’t going to have a Mexican puppet.
If the USA is irredentist then the CSA would not stay around until 1914 to become a member of an alliance system.
If the USA is not irredentist, if instead they're just uneasy neighbors, then there's no point for the CSA to pick either side as Eurasian matters are none of their concern.
If the USA is not irredentist, if instead they're just uneasy neighbors, then there's no point for the CSA to pick either side as Eurasian matters are none of their concern.
One evening in late 1893, Petar Princip is absorbed by a newspaper story about the Confederacy and falls asleep before he can impregnate his wife...
My main issue with the post American Civil War Turtledove books is that I am very sceptical of the United States itself surviving a situation where it attempts to use military force to get the seceding states to return and fails for some reason. This is partly due to the lack of prestige and the precedent that state secession will work. Its partly due that whatever causes the failure would be a radical enough POD as to shatter the United States.
The South getting modern weaponry would actually be the one situation that would work with the USA surviving the defeat since being defeated by weapons sent from the future would be a good enough excuse for the federal government to keep some prestige, plus the "Guns of the South" occurs at a point where the federal forces had started to win some victories. Another situation that might have worked is the federal government and the other thirty some states just letting the six Deep South states go peacefully. But I think anything else winds up shattering the USA. And if not, the North just keeps trying again and again until eventually they reconquer the South.
Also agree that we are probably going to get World War I butteflied away or into something entirely different in this world.
But yes, there is a good chance that the CSA is aligned with the British empire due to lots of economic (its their main trade partner) and strategic reasons. There is also a good chance that Woodrow Wilson is the Confederate president during this period.
The South getting modern weaponry would actually be the one situation that would work with the USA surviving the defeat since being defeated by weapons sent from the future would be a good enough excuse for the federal government to keep some prestige, plus the "Guns of the South" occurs at a point where the federal forces had started to win some victories. Another situation that might have worked is the federal government and the other thirty some states just letting the six Deep South states go peacefully. But I think anything else winds up shattering the USA. And if not, the North just keeps trying again and again until eventually they reconquer the South.
Also agree that we are probably going to get World War I butteflied away or into something entirely different in this world.
But yes, there is a good chance that the CSA is aligned with the British empire due to lots of economic (its their main trade partner) and strategic reasons. There is also a good chance that Woodrow Wilson is the Confederate president during this period.
Deleted member 94680
Ha ha perfect!
Seriously though, there’s no way short of extreme handwaving and ASB that USA/CSA politics would affect the European political situation to the extent that the Franco-Prussian War or the geopolitics that led to WWI would be stopped from developing.
I was only slightly exaggerating. My point is that even if you think the general geopolitical situation in Europe would be unaffected by the outcome of the ACW, the specific war that broke out in 1914 was not just the result of the general geopolitical situation, but of many contingencies that might have been subtly affected by other contingencies decades earlier.
(FWIW, Robert Fogel in Without Consent or Contract did argue that a successful Confederacy would indeed have had direct effects on European politics, because the Confederacy could have used its power to support aristocratic against democratic forces in Europe. https://books.google.com/books?id=F-KIAOQxKigC&pg=PA415 I am not necessarily arguing that; I am saying that much more "minor"-seeming events with their roots in the 1860's could matter by 1914.)
The Confederacy would probably end up owing Europe and lot of money. So it would be in the best interest of the people ruling the Confederacy to be on good terms with the Europe, most likely France and England
That one was going to happen eventually considering the egos involved
And wipe out a massive amount of the wealth of both planters and industrialists, ie the men who would be running the government. Yeah, good luck with that.
Anyhoo, honestly by the time of OTL WWI I doubt the CSA would be in good enough shape to take either side. More likey they're engaged in a revolution, ala Mexico, or a banana republic subservient to the stronger US, which long ago decided that reconquering the south was more trouble than just threatening it with war anytime the CSA's government doesn't do what Washington wants.