would the confederates have helped the Nazis

Kruska.......
William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.
Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.
In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.
Hello LeEnfield,

I am aware about the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (Just didn't remember the exact year - so I wrote in the 1830's) Due to knowing about slavery in the above mentioned British Asian Colonies - I had the impression that the 1833 act was more or less only directed towards black slaves and the respective trade.
As such I ment to point out that slavery in general was only abolished by the British government in 1874.

Regards
Kruska
 
To respond to Kruska and Orang Kaya's question regarding the issue of slavery in Southeast Asia: I based that comment on an article I read recently that highlighted the huge Thai sex industry in particular. Basically, the definition of slavery is holding someone against their will, making them do things they don't want to do, and not paying them for doing them. And I'm not implying that all (or even the majority) of slaves being held are in Southeast Asia. Here in America, for example, a lot of illegal aliens are bonded into slavery, particularly in the restaurant and cosmetics industries. Globally, human trafficking is second only to the drug trade in profitability, and that's why it continues. Examples could most likely be found in every country in the world.
Hello Jeff Simmons,

yes there are cases in maybe a few thousands or ten-thousands in Asia, that were coerced into prostitution. The by far vaster number is voluntarily getting into that trade - it a kind of Asian mentality issue towards money, security and sex that is difficult for Europeans to follow on.

Since in most Asian countries prostitution is forbidden - many of the arrested sexworkers come up with the coercing story in order to safeguard themselves towards legal prosecution.

Yes - there are numbers of cases but nowhere near a million - even if one might get that impression upon having been to Asia.

Regards
Kruska
 
Okay firstoff 0.o yesterday we had only like 5 posts.

Just in case of the confederates had won the war:

Do you think the confederates would team up with the russians to defeat the north americans?

What would have happened if they would have been able to conquer north america?

What do you think, how long would it take them to stop fighting each other?

If they wouldn't stop fighting each other before WW2 how would it affect it?
 
Okay firstoff 0.o yesterday we had only like 5 posts.

Just in case of the confederates had won the war:

Do you think the confederates would team up with the russians to defeat the north americans?

What would have happened if they would have been able to conquer north america?

What do you think, how long would it take them to stop fighting each other?

If they wouldn't stop fighting each other before WW2 how would it affect it?
The Official name is War between the States. It wasn't a Civil War, the CSA had no intention of conquering the US, they just wanted thier own country. No way of knowing how Confederate foriegn policy would have been. Someone, after independence & before the War started, thought a joint US-CS takeover of Cuba from Spain would be a good thing, because of other events the plan wasn't viewed seriously in Richmond. So the Spanish-American War might have happened with both Countries being Allies, perhaps, but anything past 1900 would be wild speculation.
 
This is like arguing, "If Mighty Mouse and Superman got into a fight, which one would win?"

This reminds me of the scene in the Rob Reiner film "Stand By Me" where the two boys are saying:

"If Superman and Mighty Mouse got into a fight, which one would win?"
"Don't be stupid...Mighty Mouse is a cartoon character and Superman is a real guy!"
 
I admit it

Yeah, "Stand By Me" is where I got that Mighty Mouse/Superman thing..."But it would be a good fight." If you haven't seen this movie, you're really missing out on something. It is based on a novella by Stephen King, part of a collection called "Different Seasons." "The Shawshank Redemption" also came from that collection.
 
Should i watch that film?
Hello COFindus,

Yeah - why not.

No matter how you twist it - the socio - and geopolitical platform in the USA or a CSA were not given IMHO - as for a CSA or CSA/USA to connect with Hitler.
The USA and also the Southerners were not of a Facist mindset or had geopolitical ambitions towards their neighbors, such as Hungaria, Rumania etc.

So tell me - why do you think that a CSA would have been attracted towards a Hitler.

Or why should a capitalistic society such as a CSA ally with a communist Russia to attack the USA? When did ever a capitalistic society or government ally with a communist country to make war on someone?

Hitler IMO only "allied" with Stalin in regards to Poland - believing or counting on the issue of Britain and France not declaring war on him - since they would have neded to declare war on Russia too. He assumtion was obviously wrong.

Regards
Kruska
 
Hello COFindus,

When did ever a capitalistic society or government ally with a communist country to make war on someone?

Kruska


Did I miss something here? The US and Great Britain (both capitalist societies) gladly allied with the communist Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. It wasn't a comfortable relationship, but it worked. Again, did I miss something on this?
 
Did I miss something here? The US and Great Britain (both capitalist societies) gladly allied with the communist Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. It wasn't a comfortable relationship, but it worked. Again, did I miss something on this?
Hello Jeff Simmons,

I guess you did :smile:, or me by assuming that "making war" on someone - implies to attack someone.

The way I see it, Britain and the USA did not ally to attack Germany.
Germany had attacked Poland and the bad British and French declared war on Germany.
Germany declared war on Russia as such making Britain and Russia fighting against a common agressor.
Germany declared war on the USA, as such the USA entered into a war that already involved Britain and Russia.

I do not see a Britain, France, Russia and USA forming an alliance so as to attack Germany - or should I? :lol:

COFindus question was:

Do you think the confederates would team up with the russians to defeat the north americans?

This implies to me that Russia and the CSA join up to attack the USA - and not, to become allies in order to defend against an attacking USA.

So please let me re-phrase more precisly: When did ever a capitalistic society or government ally with a communist country to attack someone?

Regards
Kruska
 
Last edited:
allies

Kruska:

The side that won was collectively known as "the Allies," comprised of the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin met several times to discuss strategic goals. Under what circumstances would "the Allies" not be allied with each other? It doesn't matter when or how they entered the war; the fact is that they were joined together (or allied) to stop German aggression.

Russia was a valuable asset to the US and Great Britain, and they were very fortunate to have this alliance, even if the Soviet Union were communist. They were fierce fighters; half of all the dead in the European Theater were Russians. Without such tremendous pressure on the Germans from the east, Hitler might have actually won.

I think you are going to have to give me your definition of "allied," because you and I aren't looking at the same dictionary.

Also, why do you call Great Britain and France "bad" for declaring war on Germany following the invasion of Poland? Should they have just sat around with their thumbs up their butts while the blitzkrieg overran the entire continent, at which point it would be impossible to do anything about?
 
Kruska:

The side that won was collectively known as "the Allies," comprised of the US, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin met several times to discuss strategic goals. Under what circumstances would "the Allies" not be allied with each other? It doesn't matter when or how they entered the war; the fact is that they were joined together (or allied) to stop German aggression.

Russia was a valuable asset to the US and Great Britain, and they were very fortunate to have this alliance, even if the Soviet Union were communist. They were fierce fighters; half of all the dead in the European Theater were Russians. Without such tremendous pressure on the Germans from the east, Hitler might have actually won.

I think you are going to have to give me your definition of "allied," because you and I aren't looking at the same dictionary.

Also, why do you call Great Britain and France "bad" for declaring war on Germany following the invasion of Poland? Should they have just sat around with their thumbs up their butts while the blitzkrieg overran the entire continent, at which point it would be impossible to do anything about?
Hello Jeff Simmons,

I don't think that the issue is the term "Allied" - one can be allied for many reasons.
The issue to me is to defend against or to attack someone - two very different issues to me. The USA and Britain allied to attack Iraq, but they allied in WWII to defend against the agressor Germany. The Allies teamed up to defend against Germany and not to attack Germany - I think we do agree on that - right?

So: Do you think the confederates would team up with the russians to defeat the north americans?

Implies to me - would the CSA and Russia become allies to attack the USA? and therfore my response:
When did ever a capitalistic society or government ally with a communist country to attack someone?

The "bad" British and French is more of a sarcasm - since IMO - if they had not declared war on Germany - the situation of Poland would not have changed anyway - and Hitler would have attacked Russia.

Hitler would still have lost the war in Russia - and some hundred thousands of lives in the West would have been spared. If France and Britain would have attacked in September 1939 then the declaration of war would have probably ended WWII already in 1939 and spared millions of lives.

The "inconsequent" declaration of war by Britain and France only forwarded a great reason for Hitler to go and attack them (Being able to sell it to the Germans as: defend Germany against these two) and as such getting his hands on hundereds of thousands of Jews, Communists and whatever the Nazis termed to be of no value or right to live.

Regards
Kruska
 
Last edited:
My answer is no

Kruska:

Would the CSA join the Russians in a fight to conquer the northern states?

I seriously doubt it. True Southerners hate communists. That's about all I have left to say on this subject.
 
Kruska:

Would the CSA join the Russians in a fight to conquer the northern states?

I seriously doubt it. True Southerners hate communists. That's about all I have left to say on this subject.
Hello Jeff Simmons,

exactly, and that is why I forwarded to COFindus:

When did ever a capitalistic society or government ally with a communist country to attack someone?

Regards
Kruska
 
And whats with the "how long would they need to stop fighting each other?"

Just to mention the thing with southern people not teaming with russia even if they were at war with the usa (if i got that right) it would be pretty much the same thing as in WW II. The allies teamed up with the soviet union and afterwards communism became the new enemy. Wouldnt it be possible that they would fight (maybe defeat) the USA and afterwards just fight each other again?
 
Jefferson Davis and the CSA announce to the world that they intend to lower cotton and tobacco prices if the CSA is recognized. (Davis "embargoed" cotton to raise the price, a strategy that Backfired. Great Britain started to grow cotton in Egypt....) Britain and France see the CSA as a major market.

General Lee arrives at Gettysburg and says:

Who's the fool trying to attack the Union army uphill and with them behind stone walls? Lee and his troops move off. The Union attacks Lee at a place of his choosing, and the Army of the Potomac is destroyed. Lee marches on Washington.
Great Britain and France recognize the CSA. Lincoln and Congress ratify a treaty to recognize the independent CSA. Grant retires and becomes a haberdasher again.

The KKK and the resultant worship of bigotry, which grew out of the punitive war fought by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan and the abomination called "reconstruction" never flourishes.

Mechanization replaces slavery. The CSA remains a nation of wealthy plantations that produce cotton, tobacco, coffee, rice and cranberries. The Union struggles. It looses badly in a war with Spain, and is seen as a backwater. The CSA becomes a part of the European mainstream.

There is a great war in Europe. The USA, jealous of France and England, joins the Central Powers. The CSA joins England and France. The World War is so named when the CSA, with help from Japan as well as France and England, invades the USA and puts them out of the war. The Allied powers defeat the Central powers
in two years.

No Russian Revolution: Lenin never gets back to Russia.
No disastrous Versailles treaty, no Austrian Corporal or Sick #2 (IL Duce)

back to the "real" time line:

Hitler sent agents to the mid east to provoke a separation from English Colonial rule. Part of that legacy was Saddam Hussein and the Bath party (founded by the Gestapo....)
Hitler sent agents to "the South." They were all either turned double or hanged (okay, maybe a few were fed to gators...)
Hitler helped fund the IRA, which was not one of his better plans. (He had so many other bad ones that this was not the worst, but it was a horrible failure.)
Hitler had very little if any success connecting to the KKK and trying to create a second war of rebellion between the North and South. If the South had separated, I can't see why a bucolic plantation culture would join with the fascist-socialist Axis.
 
Hello hardlec,

oh boy - you got a vivid imagination as well :-D:thumb:, I love the Japanese part.

Regards
Kruska
 
Back
Top