If the South had won the Civl War, would we have sided with the Germans in World War 2?
>>446667
If the darkies didn't get deported, we'd have invited the Union to invade us to suppress endless Black communist uprisings.
Would there even be a WW2? Butterfly effect and all that shit.
>>447019
I think that only applies to time travel. We still would have been feeding England and France our cotton and shit.
>>446667
The South could not have won. It was retarded in its conception and was really fucking stupid.
>>447066
>We still would have been feeding England and France our cotton and shit.
Why, when growing it themselves in their colonies is so much cheaper?
>>447066
Well you're essentially time travelling in your OP as you're talking alternate history.
It's like asking "would Hitler beat Russia if commies never got into power?", ignoring that if commies never got in power, neither would Hitler.
The South's victory would have meant secession. The Union's culture would have developed around the concept of hating on the backwards people of the South, so they would have become even more egalitarian.
The South would have been built more around racial supremacy, so they would have wanted to support other movements of the same kind throughout the 20th century. HOWEVER, they would have also been considerably more incompetent for warfare, because they would have feared a slave insurrection any time troops were mobilized elsewhere.
My guess is be that there would eventually be another, even bloodier war between the Union and the Confederacy during or shortly after WWI. The Confederacy would inevitably lose this war, but at a cost of lives higher than WWI's.
This would effectively cripple the United States ability to become a World Power on time for WWII. Nazis and other Anti-Soviet movements would arise earlier in Germany, but still probably lose in the long term to Soviets. Soviets unopposed would extend their grip throughout Europe, probably only leaving Britain, France and the Iberian peninsula alone, as well as steamrolling the Middle East without a strong counterweight.
With a monopoly over Oil, the URSS would manage to survive to this day, meaning a prolonged Cold War.
>>446667
>If the South had won the Civl War, would we have sided with the Germans in World War 1?
Yes. I read it in a textbook written by Prof. Turtledove.
>>447693
>URSS
Why do you swap letters randomly
>>447693
>Nazis and other Anti-Soviet movements would arise earlier in Germany,
German prospects for winning WWI were at least 50/50 until the US put boots on the ground (literal cannon fodder, but that's all the entente needed in 1918). In another timeline where the US can't/won't bank roll the entente, I'm pretty sure that's at least a limited central powers victory. This means no German Nazis; possibly none without the perfect storm of stabbed in the back myth and hitler. Whether the war would have lasted 4 years and Russia collapsed into Soviet shit, who knows?
>>447711
I doubt the US would have made a huge difference if it stayed neutral. Germany was on its last legs by the time it joined and would have fallen eventually. Even if worst came to worst the allies still had pretty much unlimited manpower from their colonies that could have easily taken place as cannon fodder
>>447711
>German prospects for winning WWI were at least 50/50 until the US put boots on the ground
you overestimate late war germany greatly - remember that their last gasp offensives achieved nothing and were defeated without any significant american input, indeed so were the first counterstrikes of the hundred days, but even more importantly, by that point in time germany was starved both literally and figuratively and was sustaining unsustainable losses; certainly without american manpower the allies would have had a much, much harder - and more importantly, slower - time, but germany had nowhere near a "50/50" prospects at thee described time
>>447721
>>447769
1) But why did they launch that final offensive? They wanted to land a knock out blow before the Americans arrived. Whatever the material impact of their arrival, the Germans didn't think they could win if another power with an untapped manpower pool joined.
2) Define neutral. All of the Entente went into debt and purchased materials necessary for the war from the USA. If there was no USA (ALA timeline 181) to supply the Entente, how well do you think they would have performed against the Central powers?
>>447239
The South was one victory away from, in all likelihood, brokering peace with the Union.
The South did not want to win in the sense that they defeated the North and occupied it. The South wanted their independence. That was the end game.
>>447693
They probably would have abolished slavery sooner or later.
>>447693
By the time of the civil war they didn't have that many slaves.
>>446667
Probably not. The south winning would have probably hinged on securing a military alliance and subsequent aid from Britain. That would have probably meant that their support in WWI would have been on the allies still, though probably only serving a similar supply role as the US had for most of the war. Similar situation by WWII: I doubt they would have betrayed Britain considering, besides some similar ideas on race, the South would have very little reason to side with Germany.
