DISCUSSIONS
I beleive the world would be completely different. Would we have been in WW1, possibly, WW2, i don't think so, but who know's. Post what you beleive would have happened.
The only difference between a Murderer and a Killer, is how you kill the person - Unknown
- Ukalaw
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 09, 2010
- posts: 71
Indeed. Washington would have fallen inside a week. Neither nation would have been very powerfull, and most likley still would not be today. You could go on to argue that there may have not even been a cold war. And god only knows how much longer slavery would have gone on.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
The C.S.A. would not be strong indeed, so if the Cold War would not happen, wouldthe U.S.S.R. be in control, or did our involvment directly cause a chain reaction.
My idea is
USA fought spain, which led to our Cuba and pacific holdings, and we helped fight against Germany.
CSA didnt fight spain, did not have pacific holdings, and WW1 is won by Germany. USSR might still form but would fall to germany. No Cold War.
That is what i think.
The only difference between a Murderer and a Killer, is how you kill the person - Unknown
- Ukalaw
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 09, 2010
- posts: 71
Gettysburg was close to a "near run thing" as any battle ever fought. However, had the CSA won that battle, the AVN had sustained substantial casualties and been seriously weakened from what it had been going into the battle. Additionally, for as many Federal troops as had fought at Gettysburg, there was an even greater army garrisoned in and around Washington D.C. -- and Lee's forces were in no condition to establish and maintain any kind of lengthy siege of Washington. Even if Lee could have seriously threatened the security of Washington, the government could have adjourned to another city (probably Philadelphia) as it did when Washington was burned in the War of 1812.
Overall, if the CSA had won Gettysburg, it would have been disruptive to the Union efforts to prosecute the war, but it would NEVER have led to the CSA winning the war. At most, it would have added another six months to the duration of the war. The basic underlying Union advantage (>22 million Yankees; <5 million Rebs) would inevitably wore the South down.
[And before you go there, by the time of Gettysburg, nothing was about to prompt Gt Britain or France to jump in on the side of the CSA. National recognition AT MOST, but no military assistance (beyond selling the CSA weapons, which they had been doing all along anyway).]
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
Say, hypothetically, the CSA had won the war. What would the Union have become. I doubt it would have continued as the UNITED States of America
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
If you have seen Gettysburg, Britain sent a man to see them, but i was not going to go there, because, The U.S. Threatened War with any ANY! Nation that recgnised the C.S.A. The Uk would not ofwanted to go to war with america, again.
I Beleive like i said in my last post, that the CSA would stay out until it was strong, which it would probably not going to be for a long while.
Also, the CSA built ships in the UK.
The only difference between a Murderer and a Killer, is how you kill the person - Unknown
- Ukalaw
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 09, 2010
- posts: 71
The Union would not have had the manpower to sustain a war with another nation. And, as CaptainPatch said above, It would greatly hurt the UKs national image to have supported the CSA openly.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Good point's.
Off Topic
Captain Patch, do you have an xbox live gamertag of Captain Crazy?
The only difference between a Murderer and a Killer, is how you kill the person - Unknown
- Ukalaw
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 09, 2010
- posts: 71
Ukalaw said
The C.S.A. would not be strong indeed, so if the Cold War would not happen, would the U.S.S.R. be in control, or did our involvement directly cause a chain reaction.
My idea is
USA fought Spain, which led to our Cuba and pacific holdings, and we helped fight against Germany.
CSA didn't fight Spain, did not have pacific holdings, and WW1 is won by Germany. USSR might still form but would fall to Germany. No Cold War.
That is what i think.
Germany lost WW1 as soon as the French and British held them during the Schlieffen Plan. Just before the Americans came over they had one last go in Operation Michael and failed. After this it was a matter of time. The UK and France at the time didn't have the manpower to counter-attack but could hold Germany and the war of attrition would have eventually seen the allies win. The US made the war end early by making the allies having enough manpower to break the German lines. Germany would have won the WW2 though without American industry involved on the Allied side
Ukalaw said
If you have seen Gettysburg, Britain sent a man to see them, but I was not going to go there, because, The U.S. Threatened War with any ANY! Nation that recognised the C.S.A. The UK would not of wanted to go to war with America, again.
I Believe like I said in my last post, that the CSA would stay out until it was strong, which it would probably not going to be for a long while.
Also, the CSA built ships in the UK.
I doubt America had the possibility of going to war with a world superpower in the middle of a civil war either. They would have strongly objected but would have stopped short of war with the UK
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
I was just relaying that message.
The only difference between a Murderer and a Killer, is how you kill the person - Unknown
- Ukalaw
- location: United States
- joined: Jun 09, 2010
- posts: 71
MajorLufbery said
Say, hypothetically, the CSA had won the war. What would the Union have become. I doubt it would have continued as the UNITED States of America
There are a fair number of alternative history nooks on just this topic. (http://io9.com/5113987/how-the-south-won-the-american-civil-war ) By far, the best written is the one by Harry Turtledove.
If the Union lost the ACW, it would NOT cease to exist. The remaining 21-22 States would have continued to be the USA, just a much-diminished one. STRONG industry, but weak Agriculture. But with the money from Industry, shortfalls could be made up on the world market.
The biggest shake-up would most likely have been in the Government. Having lost the ACW, heads would have rolled "because they are the reason we lost!" The primary reason the US would have lost would have been because of poor leadership in the field. With that in mind, West Point and similar institutions would be seriously bolstered. Mindful of the guerrilla-bushwhacker violence of Kansas and Missouri, the Northern Border States would be heavily garrisoned to deal with any CSA raiders that would "forget" that the war was over (and to suppress any other like-minded Northern sore losers going in the other direction as well). This of course would mean that the US military would be significantly increased (instead of relying so heavily on State units).
For the entirety of the next generation (@20 years) there would have been a LOT of agitation in the US to "go back and do it right this time!" And the inclination would be to not hold anything back (as had been done with the Gatling guns). And with a MUCH stronger industrial base, better and more plentiful weapons would be available.
During this 20-year post-ACW period, the CSA's biggest weakness would be its deliberate hamstringing of the central Government. The CSA was more than anything a Mutual Defense Pact between the member States. Without a strong central Government to coordinate the defense of the CSA as a whole, the likeliest action would be for the Border States to nearly bankrupt themselves preparing adequate defenses for the next inevitable US onslaught. Meanwhile, States "in the rear areas" would pursue other economic pursuits -- while woefully neglecting the expensive overhead of building and maintaining their miltaries.
The ONLY viable military option that the CSA would have when faced with the MUCH faster growth rate of the US population plus the still MUCH larger industrial base that the North possessed, would be to offer freedom to the large population of slaves (@50% of the CSA population) -- which would be fought tooth-and-nail by the slave-owners. But when it boils down to, "We can either do this now, or we may as well surrender already" when the shooting started, what choice did they really have?
Given that the 2nd ACW started within 20 years of the end of the first, that conflict would be practically a blitzkrieg. If the 2nd ACW did NOT start within 20 years, the rationale for not doing so would be, "We're better off without them anyway." (Accompanied by the South being raped continuously when trying to buy Northern goods.)
Because of the reaction to losing the war to the CSA, the US (or reassembled USA) would be MUCH more militaristic. First solutions to most political problems would be "Send in the Army!" more often than not. Going into WWI, the US would have been MUCH better prepared. The question though, would be: Given the US's much more martial government, which side would it join in that conflict? (And keep in mind the attitude that the US "lost the first ACW because those British and French bastards had been supplying the Rebs from the get-go!")
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
So why support them in a Europeon conflict?
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
MajorLufbery said
So why support them in a Europeon conflict?
Which "them" are you referring to?
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
Britain & France. From the US point of view.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
In that case, exactly my point. Add to that the fact that about 1/4 of the US population was of German-descent.
There's a damn good case to argue that Wilson & Co were deliberately creating instances where a US-flagged ship would be torpedoed, just so the US would "reluctantly" declare war against Germany. Some documentation exists that the German Espionage network had been fed misinformation that the Lusitania was transporting munitions to the Allies. And if it wasn't the Lusitania, then some other US ship would have been sunk, sooner or later.
"They made us go to war with them!" Happens a LOT in the "official" accounts of US History. War of 1812. Spanish-American War. WWI. WWII. Viet Nam.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
So if USA join on the side of the Germans, they break the blockade, so Germany can keep on running properly and supplying troops, British troops retreat to Britain, probably along with colony armies, USA invade Britain, Germany are able to execute the Schleiffen plan because there are no resisting Brit forces for the all important north-most army group, Germany take France, then Russia, possibly Italy, USA take Britain, whose colonies declare independence as colony armies have been called back. So no WW2, Japan is allowed to take over China, and probably goes for the rest of Eastern Asia as well, taking India etc, and then there are 3 world empires who are pretty well balanced.
In order to know how to use free will, we must first know how to fight for it.
Because the Europeans had so many financial interests in South and SE Asia, a spreading Japan threatening everything from India to Australia would most likely have unified most of Europe and the US to stop that expansion. (Especially after the Rape of Nanking.) [And the fact that the sides would most likely be all-Caucasians on one side and Orientals on the other is purely coincidental! lol] Japan tearing into the new Commie USSR might have been tolerated, but threatening Hong Kong, Macao, Dutch East Indies, et al would have drawn the lines as: Japan on one side; EVERYBODY else on the other.
"Until you know what is worth dying for, Life isn't worth living."
"Choose wisely"
- CaptainPatch
- MHII, MH
- location: United States
- joined: May 23, 2010
- posts: 1758
and japan wasn't stupid. they had some of the most competent millitary and political advisors in the world, if they were planning to expand, and they believed the world would gang bang em if they became hostile to china, they would most probably steamroll russia.... again. as we'll, britain would surrender before being invaded by the US or germany (possibly giving up colonies to satisfy the US and germany (i can see germany getting malasia and all it's rubber and tin and the US getting Hong Kong or some other place in the pacific.) also, italy has a reputation of backing down from a fight, so they would probably surrender as well. russia would lose (that was really inevitable) and france would fall, most likely becoming a demiliterized zone, as there would be no possible way that germany could make money of an occupied france. and france may have gone fascist instead of germany (for the same reasons as germany became fascist)
the spanish civil war would probably have gone republican, and i can imagine spain and france being the new germany and italy, as well the ottomans would probably take ejypt.
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
beast566 said
So if USA join on the side of the Germans, they break the blockade, so Germany can keep on running properly and supplying troops, British troops retreat to Britain, probably along with colony armies, USA invade Britain, Germany are able to execute the Schleiffen plan because there are no resisting Brit forces for the all important north-most army group, Germany take France, then Russia, possibly Italy, USA take Britain, whose colonies declare independence as colony armies have been called back. So no WW2, Japan is allowed to take over China, and probably goes for the rest of Eastern Asia as well, taking India etc, and then there are 3 world empires who are pretty well balanced.
The British army had the biggest navy in the world at that time and would have triumphed over the American navy. The navy could have also forced through any blockades
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
