iron cross
Active member
if the Confederates would of won the American civil war would the Americans have helped the Nazis in world war 2 ?
would the confederates have helped the Nazis
Orang Kaya
Active member
Yer joking right?
I guess the acual idea behind that was the confederates being racists and for slavery but i think that Le is right, they wouldn't have any reason to team up with the germans, at that time everyone was racist (or close to) and that didn't keep them from fighting each other.
Naddoður
Active member
Confederates were Americans too. Let us not forget that they died fighting for “another” America, though one with a nearly identical vision, and they lie buried at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. They were fighting for their country to remain free under their own constitution which was written remarkably similar to the original U.S. Constitution.
Descendents of these same Confederates then rose again and helped defeat the Nazis, to whom they by some are unjustly compared. At this very moment, yet another generation of Confederates is fighting on the other side of the globe against terrorists. Anyone knowledgeable of history should be disturbed by the comparison of the Confederacy to the Nazis. Anyone from the South should be deeply offended. The Nazis had the murderous SS. The Confederates had “good ol’ boys.”
Descendents of these same Confederates then rose again and helped defeat the Nazis, to whom they by some are unjustly compared. At this very moment, yet another generation of Confederates is fighting on the other side of the globe against terrorists. Anyone knowledgeable of history should be disturbed by the comparison of the Confederacy to the Nazis. Anyone from the South should be deeply offended. The Nazis had the murderous SS. The Confederates had “good ol’ boys.”
Orang Kaya
Active member
As a Southerner I'm not disturbed, just stunned at the simplistic suggestion.
I guess theres something bad about the “good ol’ boys” if you just keep looking.
I dont want to compare them with the real murderous Nazis (dont just say the SS its not like all of the SS were the bad guys.... you got the idea) anyway its all just a question of the perspective you could also say "The Nazis were just fighting for a better world" wich they were somehow doing.... in theyr own very special way.... for theyr own very special world...
And just to mention just because youre from the south that doesn't mean youre Confederate, as long as you dont wanna slave black guys.... that is the main difference right?
I dont want to compare them with the real murderous Nazis (dont just say the SS its not like all of the SS were the bad guys.... you got the idea) anyway its all just a question of the perspective you could also say "The Nazis were just fighting for a better world" wich they were somehow doing.... in theyr own very special way.... for theyr own very special world...
And just to mention just because youre from the south that doesn't mean youre Confederate, as long as you dont wanna slave black guys.... that is the main difference right?
Naddoður
Active member
I don´t think you quite understand what I have written.
With respect to the SS, I don´t think we should go into such a discussion.
Jeff Simmons
Active member
Confederate objectives
I find this scenario absurd. The Confederates weren't fighting because they had an unnatural hatred of blacks; they were fighting in order to break off from the rest of the United States to preserve their way of life and their economy, which was largely dependent on slave labor. They did not put blacks in concentration camps or perform gory experiments on them. They did not burn them in ovens by the millions. Yes, a lot of southerners were racist, but they wouldn't have been foolish enough to follow a man like Hitler, especially if the northerners were fighting against him.
I find this scenario absurd. The Confederates weren't fighting because they had an unnatural hatred of blacks; they were fighting in order to break off from the rest of the United States to preserve their way of life and their economy, which was largely dependent on slave labor. They did not put blacks in concentration camps or perform gory experiments on them. They did not burn them in ovens by the millions. Yes, a lot of southerners were racist, but they wouldn't have been foolish enough to follow a man like Hitler, especially if the northerners were fighting against him.
Hello iron cross,
wow - that's jumping to an conclusion bridging almost 80 years.
Well let me try :smile:
"IF" the Confederates would have won - would they have formed an independent country such as Confederate States of America CSA? or would they have remained within the USA but with their own preferential federative rights?
Let's asume that they would have formed a CSA. It would IMHO have been a State with a strong racial and conservative mindset. The only possible ally or friend they would have had, might have been Imperial Germany, Britain or France. Britain might not have shared their racial views in the long run - and in regards to facing the Union towards Canada - might have prefered to stay rather neutral, which would leave Germany and France.
The high society and therefore the politicians of the CSA were certainly more attached or attracted towards the French culture - and in 1865 the most powerfull country in Europe would have been France, so rather unlikely that Germany would have become the close buddy and Allied of the CSA.
In that case what would the CSA have done during the French-Prussian war in 1871/2 and what would they have done in 1914?
I believe that the CSA political mindset would have been far more towards isolationism then even a Roosevelt USA. I believe that the CSA would have remained neutral in both conflicts. With only the Union maybe entering WWI in 1918 - it is very likely for Germany not to have lost in a Versaille context - as such there would never have been a Hitler.
Would the CSA still be a slave holder country in 1920? - I guess not but somewhat of an Arpartheid country. Was there a Jewish problem or a noticable Jewish population in the CSA? - I would say no. A problem with communists? also I would say - no.
So what would have been a binding issue between the Nazis and those agricultural CSA fellows? they would already have an Arpartheid system - what more would a racial minded society need?
The CSA would propably have been quite open towards a HJ or simmilar Nazi organisations in their country - such as South Africa or the USA in the 30's, but they would have still forwarded an isolationism policy.
As such the CSA government would not have helped or allied with the Nazis - and they would also not have gone to war. But they would have tried to make some CSA$ in trading with the Nazis.
Okay back to 1865 - I am dead sure that if the Union would have lost the war - they would have produced more cannons and weapons in the next 5 years and then it would have been war again - I simply can't believe that the far stronger Washington would have ever accepted a CSA or a CSA to break away from the USA.
Just my two cents worth :smile:
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Jeff Simmons
Active member
excellent analysis
Kruska...that was more than "two cents worth," but it was well thought-out and very well done. It would be hard to subvert your argument.
But being a Southerner, I must say one thing: If the CSA still existed during WWII and Hitler had conquered Europe and then decided to invade the CSA...well, there's just some parts of the South that you don't want to invade, unless you're cruisin' for a major ass-whooping.
However, it's all moot. The whole scenario is like a B-rated movie.
Kruska...that was more than "two cents worth," but it was well thought-out and very well done. It would be hard to subvert your argument.
But being a Southerner, I must say one thing: If the CSA still existed during WWII and Hitler had conquered Europe and then decided to invade the CSA...well, there's just some parts of the South that you don't want to invade, unless you're cruisin' for a major ass-whooping.
However, it's all moot. The whole scenario is like a B-rated movie.
LeEnfield
Active member
Slavery was common problem and was old as time it's self and was all over the world and all countries had been involved in it some time or other. Now the Southern states had bigger investment in slavery than the north. One of the other factors that pushed America into this war was that Britain had banned Slavery then went on to enforce this ban world wide. While enforcing this ban Americans ships were stopped and slaves released, now America then had a choice of going to war with Britain over the banning of slavery. As most people in the North of America were against slavery and as the Northern states had the most greater population the choice was made to abolish slavery.
Hello Jeff Simmons,
glad that it found your acceptance
and the question is kind off moot - but I can tell you that many people in Europe and in Germany have expressed that thought and still do.IMHO, most Europeans knew why they shipped out to the USA - and they surely wouldn't have wanted their previous government form, to show up or arrise in the "Free" USA.
Also I am quite sure that if most occupied countries during WWII, had possessed a simmilar amount of private weapons such as the USA or - the Southerner folks "maybe even a bit more?" - the Germans would have had a real hard time.
Hello LeEnfield,
I am a bit surprised - you or someone has an update for me? I was under the impression that Britain fully abolished slavery about 10 years after the American civil war - due to the East-India Company being dissolved in 1874. I have been raised in Singapore and therfore I know that slaves were held in these British colonies - such as Malaya, Brunei, Singapore, Ceylon and IIRC India in the 1870's. (Maybe the abolition act in the 1830's was confined towards African slave trade only?)
Regards
Kruska
Last edited:
Jeff Simmons
Active member
slavery today
I must point out that there are an estimated 27 million people being held as slaves around the world today, primarily (but not exclusively) in Africa and Southeast Asia. The countries in which this is practiced are making no alliances, making no invasion threats, and no one is threatening to invade them because of it. Slavery today doesn't seem to make much of a difference in foreign policy, and I would be willing to bet that it wouldn't have made a difference in the foreign policy of the Confederacy.
I must point out that there are an estimated 27 million people being held as slaves around the world today, primarily (but not exclusively) in Africa and Southeast Asia. The countries in which this is practiced are making no alliances, making no invasion threats, and no one is threatening to invade them because of it. Slavery today doesn't seem to make much of a difference in foreign policy, and I would be willing to bet that it wouldn't have made a difference in the foreign policy of the Confederacy.
Hello Jeff Simmons,
now you really got my attention!! :smile:
In which South-East-Asian countries are slaves being held? - or what would you perceive to be a "slave" even in a maybe broader sense?
Regards
Kruska
Orang Kaya
Active member
Yes:As a resident of SE Asia for some time now, I would like this explained too.
Most likely the sex slave trade. There was a book(s) written in the '60s detailing the trade from Europe to Asia, Mid East & Latin America. One story in it sounds like the basis for the movie "Taken". What I recall the story was women were disappearing around Paris. One American business exec's secretary disappaered. Seems he was ex OSS or something & traced down a guy who knew what happened to her. It said he tied the guy to a chair on a yacht & started breaking bones. Eventually he found out that the women had just left on a frieghter for Brazil. After throwing the chair overboard with the guy still attached, the Frech Navy was informed & sent a Destroyer that freed the women. Don't recall Title or Author.
iron cross
Active member
so you think the ss were murderous that is called war i don't see it as that they were helping to make the world a better place look at it now most people worship money its a capitalist world nobody cares anymore the world has gone to the dogs
LeEnfield
Active member
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.
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.
Jeff Simmons
Active member
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.