The Confederacy and WWII

[Derek]

Why would the south attack, the south wouldnt have Pearl Harbor as a port nor would it have any reason to be involved in a Pacific war.

Stopping WWII was the right thing to do whether your country was involved or not.

[cpeeks]

Well at the time noone knew of the atrocities taking place. It was a european war.

[Derek]

If the Confederacy gains it's independence, you can be sure that Woodrow Wilson won't become president of the United States, and with America split into two countries, there's a good chance that the U.S. will be run by more isolationist elements when World War I breaks out, assuming it even does as in OTL.  Thus, no U.S. involvement in World War I.  It's possible that Hitler would never come to power in Germany.  Thus, no World War II as we know it.

The Confederacy would have too many of it's own problems to get involved.  The CSA might be a third-world country by the Twentieth Century.

3rd world country? Possibly and I highly doubt slavery would've lasted more than another 20 years. You're saying that if the south had won then WWII may have never happened and no Adolf Hitler.

[ag]

Given that the South would have had no Pacific coast and no Pearl Harbor, it is not clear why'd they enter the war at all, unless they'd have happened to be a British satellite by then, in which case the might have participated the way South Africa did. In fact, CSA would have resembled the actual SA rather well in a lot of respects.

By any reasonable cultural or objective sociological comparisons that analogy is absurd.

Any reasonable nation acts before it is attacked in order to prevent such things as Pearl Harbor. The south would have done just that.

Who'd be attacking the South? Unless it is well within the British orbit, it would have been the last country to have problems w/ the Axis. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have had anything to do w/ the South. I am not claiming they'd necessarily send a congratulatory note to the Imperial Japanese Government on their success in screwing the Yanks, but, to the extent there'd be a public sympathy there in the Confederate perss, it wouldn't have been w/ the USA.

[ag]

Any reasonable nation acts before it is attacked in order to prevent such things as Pearl Harbor. The south would have done just that.

Therefore, by your logic, it was reasonable for Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in order to get the jump on the US.

No because the US was never plotting an attack on pearl harbor.

Does a reasonable country, in your view, need to be sure of that or are indications that another country might be plotting an attack enough?

How can you be sure? With all the wrongdoings going on at that time I think common sense is plenty.

What was it, that was going on, that would have made them nervous (again, assuming they are not a British satellite)? Again, I'd say it would have been the Northern threat, not anything whatsoever that was being done by the Axis. The British trade and political influence might have dragged them into the war on the right side. However, the natural sympathies would have been w/ the Axis, of course.

[ag]

Given that the South would have had no Pacific coast and no Pearl Harbor, it is not clear why'd they enter the war at all, unless they'd have happened to be a British satellite by then, in which case the might have participated the way South Africa did. In fact, CSA would have resembled the actual SA rather well in a lot of respects.

By any reasonable cultural or objective sociological comparisons that analogy is absurd.

Not that absurd. Racialist states, in both cases. Yes, in the CSA the whites would have been a majority (though not such a big majority in a lot of places - remember, it is possible, the black migration to the Northern factories would have never happened). But the political system would still be incapable of accommodating the blacks as anything other than semi-humans.

I am not saying it would have been a carbon copy of SA, but it is hard for me to see another actually existing state that would have been more similar.

[Derek]

Given that the South would have had no Pacific coast and no Pearl Harbor, it is not clear why'd they enter the war at all, unless they'd have happened to be a British satellite by then, in which case the might have participated the way South Africa did. In fact, CSA would have resembled the actual SA rather well in a lot of respects.

By any reasonable cultural or objective sociological comparisons that analogy is absurd.

Any reasonable nation acts before it is attacked in order to prevent such things as Pearl Harbor. The south would have done just that.

Who'd be attacking the South? Unless it is well within the British orbit, it would have been the last country to have problems w/ the Axis. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have had anything to do w/ the South. I am not claiming they'd necessarily send a congratulatory note to the Imperial Japanese Government on their success in screwing the Yanks, but, to the extent there'd be a public sympathy there in the Confederate perss, it wouldn't have been w/ the USA.

WWII if it happened at all had the south won, may have reunited the CSA and the union.

[ag]

Given that the South would have had no Pacific coast and no Pearl Harbor, it is not clear why'd they enter the war at all, unless they'd have happened to be a British satellite by then, in which case the might have participated the way South Africa did. In fact, CSA would have resembled the actual SA rather well in a lot of respects.

By any reasonable cultural or objective sociological comparisons that analogy is absurd.

Any reasonable nation acts before it is attacked in order to prevent such things as Pearl Harbor. The south would have done just that.

Who'd be attacking the South? Unless it is well within the British orbit, it would have been the last country to have problems w/ the Axis. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have had anything to do w/ the South. I am not claiming they'd necessarily send a congratulatory note to the Imperial Japanese Government on their success in screwing the Yanks, but, to the extent there'd be a public sympathy there in the Confederate perss, it wouldn't have been w/ the USA.

WWII if it happened at all had the south won, may have reunited the CSA and the union.

Why? Unless, that is, you think the CSA would have joined on the side of the Axis and lost.

[Derek]

Given that the South would have had no Pacific coast and no Pearl Harbor, it is not clear why'd they enter the war at all, unless they'd have happened to be a British satellite by then, in which case the might have participated the way South Africa did. In fact, CSA would have resembled the actual SA rather well in a lot of respects.

By any reasonable cultural or objective sociological comparisons that analogy is absurd.

Any reasonable nation acts before it is attacked in order to prevent such things as Pearl Harbor. The south would have done just that.

Who'd be attacking the South? Unless it is well within the British orbit, it would have been the last country to have problems w/ the Axis. Pearl Harbor wouldn't have had anything to do w/ the South. I am not claiming they'd necessarily send a congratulatory note to the Imperial Japanese Government on their success in screwing the Yanks, but, to the extent there'd be a public sympathy there in the Confederate perss, it wouldn't have been w/ the USA.

WWII if it happened at all had the south won, may have reunited the CSA and the union.

Why? Unless, that is, you think the CSA would have joined on the side of the Axis and lost.

They would've joined Britain sooner than the US.

[Derek]

What happened to my forum about if the south had won, what would the effects be in regards to WWII? If our nation was still divided, the south may have entered sooner. What are your thoughts?

[The Mikado]

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

[Derek]

Yes but my question was alot simpler than that. The butterfly effect is reality we all know that.

[The Mikado]

Your question has no meaning, though.  The differences between the intervening 75 years would be crucial.

Does the US still have Hawaii and the Philippines, thereby giving it influence in China and a regional threat to Japan?  Is Germany still the loser of the First World War in the same sense, with the similar punitive peace deal?  There are so many minor issues that turn into major ones.

In particular, I don't see a major US presence in the Pacific Islands appearing in your scenario, leading to a lack of a Pearl Harbor and, likely, a successful Japanese domination over East Asia.

[Derek]

Your question has no meaning, though.  The differences between the intervening 75 years would be crucial.

Does the US still have Hawaii and the Philippines, thereby giving it influence in China and a regional threat to Japan?  Is Germany still the loser of the First World War in the same sense, with the similar punitive peace deal?  There are so many minor issues that turn into major ones.

In particular, I don't see a major US presence in the Pacific Islands appearing in your scenario, leading to a lack of a Pearl Harbor and, likely, a successful Japanese domination over East Asia.

Yes let's say that every event that happened between 1865 and 1938 are the same. The north is at a depression but the south is fine. What are the WWII ramifications?

[justW353]

Your question has no meaning, though.  The differences between the intervening 75 years would be crucial.

Does the US still have Hawaii and the Philippines, thereby giving it influence in China and a regional threat to Japan?  Is Germany still the loser of the First World War in the same sense, with the similar punitive peace deal?  There are so many minor issues that turn into major ones.

In particular, I don't see a major US presence in the Pacific Islands appearing in your scenario, leading to a lack of a Pearl Harbor and, likely, a successful Japanese domination over East Asia.

Yes let's say that every event that happened between 1865 and 1938 are the same. The north is at a depression but the south is fine. What are the WWII ramifications?

Nothing would have remained the same if one of the world's few developed nations (at the time) was split in half...

[Derek]

Your question has no meaning, though.  The differences between the intervening 75 years would be crucial.

Does the US still have Hawaii and the Philippines, thereby giving it influence in China and a regional threat to Japan?  Is Germany still the loser of the First World War in the same sense, with the similar punitive peace deal?  There are so many minor issues that turn into major ones.

In particular, I don't see a major US presence in the Pacific Islands appearing in your scenario, leading to a lack of a Pearl Harbor and, likely, a successful Japanese domination over East Asia.

Yes let's say that every event that happened between 1865 and 1938 are the same. The north is at a depression but the south is fine. What are the WWII ramifications?

Nothing would have remained the same if one of the world's few developed nations (at the time) was split in half...

What exactly do you mean by nothing? You mean international affairs?