4 ms·

I'll bite - imagine then a South that sided with Germany in WWII.

bena 7y ago
That's not a guarantee. There were Nazi sympathizers in what would have been Union states during that time. Support for the war was not 100%. If we're defining the South by the slave trade, then they'd have strong ties to the British, the French, and the Dutch through that. All Allied powers. Connections to the Axis powers would have been Portugal and Spain. You're making the mistake of assuming that just because one immoral act was committed that there were no redeeming values to be found in the people. That is just untrue. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had secession succeeded. We can speculate that slavery would have still eventually ended, maybe later. Reconstruction obviously doesn't happen. Do the two nations become more Canada/US, Mexico/US, East/West Germany, or even North/South Korea? Are there scuffles over unclaimed territory? Who knows. The point is that it could have just as easily be the former Union joining the Axis. We don't know.
- danharaj 7y ago
  > You're making the mistake of assuming that just because one immoral act was committed that there were no redeeming values to be found in the people. Slavery was a pillar of society, continuously reproduced and reinforced, over many generations. "one immoral act"
  - bena 7y ago
    And something the nations of the United States, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium all engaged in. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, it was reprehensible. No one is denying that. But let's not pretend that it was only the Southern states in the United States that engaged in it. To assume that just because those states attempted secession over slavery that they'd also be sympathetic to the Axis powers is to deny them any sort of nuance. It also ignores that by that logic, all of the countries I mentioned earlier should also have been Axis powers. So please, go argue semantics somewhere else.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      How did you jump to the conclusion that I wanted to blame only southern states? I made a remark on how "one immoral act" so egregiously downplays slavery. > To assume that just because those states attempted secession over slavery that they'd also be sympathetic to the Axis powers is to deny them any sort of nuance. It also ignores that by that logic, all of the countries I mentioned earlier should also have been Axis powers. Hitler admired America, the Reich took great inspiration from it. The British pioneered industrialized concentration camps. Belgium is on the hook for extraordinarily cruel amounts of genocide on top of slavery. It makes you think that maybe history isn't the result of some Manichean battle of good and evil. There should be a rule that anyone who says "by that logic" is about to put stupid words in your mouth.
      - bena 7y ago
        throwaway123x2 speculated that the South would have joined the Axis. I mentioned that that is not a guarantee. And that if his reasoning was the slave trade, then there are issues with that line of thought. Because there are. I made a plea for empathy and suggested that just because a society has made mistakes doesn't make them "evil". You decided to argue the semantics of me saying "one immoral act". I was the one arguing for a view of history that isn't some "Manichean battle of good and evil". And I don't see how any of my posts do anything but that. People who say "there should be a rule" don't really want to argue points. And maybe if you don't want stupid words in your mouth, don't say them.
        throwaway123x2 7y ago
        No, my point was that if there was a state whose founding cause was white supremacy, they would be much more likely to align with Nazi Germany's idea of Aryan Supremacy. And regardless of whether that is true or not, my even greater point is that the USA and CSA would likely have found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict and fought a war on the North American continent that would have not only caused much greater loss of life, but also prevented either state from helping an isolated Britain in Europe, greatly improving chances of a Nazi triumph there.
- a_crc 7y ago
  I'm assuming most of the alt-history buffs reading this have already heard of it, but I thought I'd point out that this scenario plays out in great detail in Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory
- throwaway123x2 7y ago
  I think the cultural imperative for white (or indeed, Aryan) supremacy would have closely linked the south to Nazi Germany. However, regardless of how the war would've played out, the North American continent would've been ravaged again as there would be an American front that would've prevented the Americans from providing much needed reinforcements in Europe.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I'll bite - imagine then a South that sided with Germany in WWII. Or, imagine WWII not happening at all, because it would be the CSA, not Mexico, that the Germans prodded into conflict with the USA during WWI (if, as seems likely, the USA still managed to become a major industrial power and was still inclined towards the Allied Powers; otherwise there would be no need), and that likely is more successful at distracting the USA from being in a position to swoop in as a fresh power when both sides are near collapse, so you don't get the clear Allied victory and punitive terms at the end of WWI that lead to the Nazi rise to power.

bena 7y ago

That's not a guarantee. There were Nazi sympathizers in what would have been Union states during that time. Support for the war was not 100%. If we're defining the South by the slave trade, then they'd have strong ties to the British, the French, and the Dutch through that. All Allied powers. Connections to the Axis powers would have been Portugal and Spain. You're making the mistake of assuming that just because one immoral act was committed that there were no redeeming values to be found in the people. That is just untrue. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had secession succeeded. We can speculate that slavery would have still eventually ended, maybe later. Reconstruction obviously doesn't happen. Do the two nations become more Canada/US, Mexico/US, East/West Germany, or even North/South Korea? Are there scuffles over unclaimed territory? Who knows. The point is that it could have just as easily be the former Union joining the Axis. We don't know.

danharaj 7y ago
> You're making the mistake of assuming that just because one immoral act was committed that there were no redeeming values to be found in the people. Slavery was a pillar of society, continuously reproduced and reinforced, over many generations. "one immoral act"
- bena 7y ago
  And something the nations of the United States, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, and Belgium all engaged in. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, it was reprehensible. No one is denying that. But let's not pretend that it was only the Southern states in the United States that engaged in it. To assume that just because those states attempted secession over slavery that they'd also be sympathetic to the Axis powers is to deny them any sort of nuance. It also ignores that by that logic, all of the countries I mentioned earlier should also have been Axis powers. So please, go argue semantics somewhere else.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    How did you jump to the conclusion that I wanted to blame only southern states? I made a remark on how "one immoral act" so egregiously downplays slavery. > To assume that just because those states attempted secession over slavery that they'd also be sympathetic to the Axis powers is to deny them any sort of nuance. It also ignores that by that logic, all of the countries I mentioned earlier should also have been Axis powers. Hitler admired America, the Reich took great inspiration from it. The British pioneered industrialized concentration camps. Belgium is on the hook for extraordinarily cruel amounts of genocide on top of slavery. It makes you think that maybe history isn't the result of some Manichean battle of good and evil. There should be a rule that anyone who says "by that logic" is about to put stupid words in your mouth.
    - bena 7y ago
      throwaway123x2 speculated that the South would have joined the Axis. I mentioned that that is not a guarantee. And that if his reasoning was the slave trade, then there are issues with that line of thought. Because there are. I made a plea for empathy and suggested that just because a society has made mistakes doesn't make them "evil". You decided to argue the semantics of me saying "one immoral act". I was the one arguing for a view of history that isn't some "Manichean battle of good and evil". And I don't see how any of my posts do anything but that. People who say "there should be a rule" don't really want to argue points. And maybe if you don't want stupid words in your mouth, don't say them.
      - throwaway123x2 7y ago
        No, my point was that if there was a state whose founding cause was white supremacy, they would be much more likely to align with Nazi Germany's idea of Aryan Supremacy. And regardless of whether that is true or not, my even greater point is that the USA and CSA would likely have found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict and fought a war on the North American continent that would have not only caused much greater loss of life, but also prevented either state from helping an isolated Britain in Europe, greatly improving chances of a Nazi triumph there.
a_crc 7y ago
I'm assuming most of the alt-history buffs reading this have already heard of it, but I thought I'd point out that this scenario plays out in great detail in Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series of novels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory
throwaway123x2 7y ago
I think the cultural imperative for white (or indeed, Aryan) supremacy would have closely linked the south to Nazi Germany. However, regardless of how the war would've played out, the North American continent would've been ravaged again as there would be an American front that would've prevented the Americans from providing much needed reinforcements in Europe.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I'll bite - imagine then a South that sided with Germany in WWII. Or, imagine WWII not happening at all, because it would be the CSA, not Mexico, that the Germans prodded into conflict with the USA during WWI (if, as seems likely, the USA still managed to become a major industrial power and was still inclined towards the Allied Powers; otherwise there would be no need), and that likely is more successful at distracting the USA from being in a position to swoop in as a fresh power when both sides are near collapse, so you don't get the clear Allied victory and punitive terms at the end of WWI that lead to the Nazi rise to power.