The Great and Grand Alternative History Discussion Thread.

You're assuming that the South wouldn't continue to face trouble from the Northern rebels. Or that Mexico wouldn't be interested in basically taking their land back. (Which is what that would be a case of in that timeframe, not so much annexing. Part of the reason Congressmen from the North didn't want to make Texas a state for nine years was that they were afraid that it would continue to be rich farming ground throughout the entirety of the South, thus adding more slave states and adding to that issue.)

My thinking is that after taking over, the new Confederacy or whatever would turn rather imperialistic regarding their next door neighbors. It'd be in both Mexico's and Canada's interests to give the rebels weapons and bodies and such, to keep that mess from becoming a problem. Remember Manifest Destiny? The South winning very likely would have tripped that into fucking overdrive.

edited 9th Jun '12 11:54:10 PM by AceofSpades

Yeah, I figure Manifest Destiny would be the reason why a Victorious South would lead to a more aggressive (perhaps stronger?) America.

Arming the Rebel North or incursions in the South border would be natural, but if Sherman (who would be labeled a War Criminal) still attempted his March to the Sea, the South may have gotten ideas from that.

Mexico tries to take its land back? Ok, the South pulls out but destroys as much infrastructre as it can. Destroying bridges, railroads, entire towns/cities, collapsing and booby trapping mines, poisoning wells, infecting the livestock with deseases and salting the Earth out of sheer spite.

Canda starts giving the North help? Southern Assassins start cropping up. Demagouges roam their street preeching about White Supremacy, a merciless campagin of sabotage and False Flag operations start up.

BTW, one of the worst fires in Canada's history was started by a black slave woman trying to run away, so I don't see Canada being all that opposed to slavery anyway. Specially not after the USA sells them the idea of a better future, a greater tomorrow where a decent white man could enjoy the friuts of his labor, that was provided by his slaves.

South Africa, folks: it took hints and tips on how to do things from Southern States as it was. If, in a world where the South won and British colonial history still remained roughly the same, I'm betting South Africa would be an even worse mess than it turned into: probably supported by America all the way. Imagine a Boer War (either one, I'm not picky) where the Boers actually find active, rather than clandestine (and rather pathetic) help from outside to topple British Rule? They could win it. And, start the apartheid republic sooner.

Heaven alone knows what that would mean to Rhodesia, Mozambique, German South West Africa and the rest. Swaziland would have no chance of even starting up, if belligerency becomes the name of the game: those mountains, properly dammed, would make useful catchment areas for parts of the Eastern Cape Provence, Natal and the Traansvaal.

Or, a massive homeland created there to shove at least 3 major tribes together, consisting of over 100 clans (none of whom can stand each other's guts for more than five minutes). Fun.

So, uh: don't just say "Africa: mess" and have done... America actually had more of an influence historically than you've given it credit for.

Brief History of Grief: a list of South African wars, in which, if you look, you can find the roots of apartheid. And, more apartheid. Quickly reading through that, I've not actually seen an entry for the United Party's investigative trips to America (the Nationalists followed suit, as I recall). Weird that: there were a few. Although, off the top of my head, Smuts wasn't one of the ones to go. Damn: wish I still had that text book.

edited 10th Jun '12 1:48:57 AM by Euodiachloris

Great Britain illegalized slavery long before the U.S. did, which meant it was illegal in Canada too. I doubt one incident of a black woman setting things on fire would matter in light of instability in the US potentially becoming a threat to Canadian citizens. Canada was ruled by British laws, and they would cleave to that much more closely than anything the US had to sell. (Basically, Canada's actions in the 1800s can't be taken into account without also taking Britain into account. Canada wasn't officially independent until the 1900s I think.)

Seriously, though, a government does not base an entire political policy on the actions of one woman trying to escape. That would have to be some extreme propaganda to convince them, and even if they convinced them of the wonders of slavery it still wouldn't have been legal in Canada without England's say so, and no country likes being invaded.

I don't know enough about African history to comment on what Euo said, though.

Presumably the USA would have just kept dropping bombs until the war came to a de facto end. Or, it would have pettered out into some kind of insurgency across the Pacific as the US returned to island-hopping their way towards Japan.

Either way, if the war were to drag on, the Chinese would be in a position to push into an increasingly vulnerable Korea and turn their attention to a Taiwan that has no US protection. If the war were continue long enough, the resulting toll it would take on Japan combined with an advancing PRC would probably be enough incentive for the Japanese to surrender and start to side with the USA against the Chinese Communists.

I think that ultimatley East Asia would end up being dominated by the PRC, while Japan ends up an unstable mess with a defunct economy and a variety of ultranationalist factions battling for control and some left-wing groups thrown in for good measure. Souring Cold War relations would see the USA back and arm an anti-Communist ally in Japan.

edited 10th Jun '12 3:01:03 AM by TheBatPencil

I really, seriously doubt that. Even at the height of its power Japan was unable to get more Chinese land than Manchuria and the coastal cities, and there was no sign that it could've pushed onwards into the mainland (in particular, the mountainous ranges in the west). And that was already before the West seriously took part in the Asian theatre of the war (USSR had an agreement with Japan, while US' only response was to not to ship the oil and other resources to Japan- and given that the alt. US thought that all other races were below them she would not have given Japan anything in the first plac, let alone stopping it).

(Not sure if this is politically correct or not....)

Joan of Arc is miraculously and throughly victorious.

She may be hit arrows, but she recovers, she may be captured, but she escapes with help from defecting enemy faithful. She may be accused of heresy and witchcraft, but an army of angry Frenchmen eager to defend her honor makes this a minor annoyance at best.

A combination of dumb luck, religous fervor and marrying the right man (Who this is, is a mystery me) becomes the foundation of France's new Golden Age.

As Queen Joan's reign is long and blessed with calm weather, many able ministers and a great wealth of philosophers, poets and maveric scientists (It is a Golden Age after all) who pave the way for human progress, many other nations start getting....ideas....

If one Maiden of Orleans could cause so much to change in favor of France, perhaps they should have their own.

Each nation starts an arms race to create their own special Maiden.

Maidens from all over are screened for selection to represent their nation as "Maiden ________ of __________"

Filling the role of Beauty Contest Winner, Cheerleader, Symbolic Commander of the Nation's Armies, Spokesperson to God in behalf of her nation, a Leader and potential marriage candidate to seal alliances.

On one hand, their value as a diplomatic tool could probably be very useful, on the other hand, the closet modern analog I can think of to this is Sarah Palin.

Anybody got better ideas?

edited 10th Jun '12 5:32:20 AM by Natasel

If the South won the American Civil War then might the Alaska purchase have never gone though? With a much more belligerent neighbour to the south could Canada have ended up buying Alaska from the Russians? Combine this with the US's focus being much more on the south than the north and I'm wondering if you could see the arrival of Canada as a great power.

edited 10th Jun '12 10:09:14 AM by Silasw

I'm pretty sure that if the South had gained its independence in '63 or '64, that would not have been the end of it. The North still had its powerful manufacturing base and a significant demographic edge ... and in light of what poor-spirited winners they were during Reconstruction, it boggles the mind to contemplate what bad losers they'd have been. No, the North would have rearmed and regrouped, the Confederacy would have faced multiple Northern attempts at reconquest throughout the rest of the century. It pains me to say it, but it's inconceivable that the South could have fended them all off.

Even absent this, the Confederacy's political logic sort of works against the "expanding Southward" scenario. Their Constitution owed a lot to the original Articles of Confederation; with such an incredibly weak federal government, it's likely that the C.S.A. would have undergone internal disruptions and secessions. Even by 1863, there was an incredible amount of bad blood between the deep South and the Confederate "Southwest" (Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, etc.)—the latter felt that they'd been abandoned to the Northern armies, and were openly weighing secession. So it's easy to picture internal fragmenting of even a victorious South into pieces that the North could snap back up at its leisure.

I can't, personally, think of any realistic way for the CSA to have won the ACW ("realistic" disincluding things like Turtledove's The Guns Of The South), even in the Union army's most incompetent period. The south didn't have the manpower, didn't have the industry, and its logistical infrastructure was a joke (the least of which being multiple railway gauges that made long-distance shipping a freaking nightmare). About the only thing in a historical context*

Though, on that note (and getting back to the main thread topic), I do absently wonder if much of significance would've changed if it was Goering that was arrested, and Hitler was the one who escaped after being wounded and then got hooked on morphine (Goering's OTL situation). I'm not really up on the period between the Putsch and 1935, though, so I don't really know enough to contribute to speculation on any changes.

edited 10th Jun '12 10:55:39 AM by Nohbody

Didn't George B. Mc Clellan say that if he was elected he would immediately end the war with the South? His election might've been the way for the South to win the war. Though they probably would've been retaken a few years later.

The South could have won, just not militarily. Lincoln losing the election in 1864 to Mc Clellan is one example of how. Or the Civil War beginning in 1857 and Buchanan toweling after the first few Confederate victories. Or Lincoln being assassinated shortly after Andrew Johnson became VP.

Perhaps for irony killed and robbed by a pair of run away slaves....

What if the Bay Of Pigs invasion had succeeded?

F**kin' hell if the South had won the Civil War, then World War One wouldn't be started in Sarajevo, but by the invasion of Canada and the rest of the Americas by the Confederate States of America!

The Cold War would have probably ended a bit earlier by a few years or so.

edited 30th Aug '12 3:18:28 AM by entropy13

By themselves, of course not; however they were angling for support from Britain in the early stages of the war. If Lincoln hadn't made it into a moral battle over slavery, and instead kept it as a simple revolt, Britain might've interfered on the CSA side just so there'd be two weak nations competing with them instead of one strong one.

This would, of course, have led to a history of European meddling in the Americas (well, after the 1800s anyway).

Had the CSA indeed won, with British help, then that would be one of the biggest mistakes they have ever done. That would be akin to appeasing Hitler throughout the 30s until it was too late, although it would actually be worse since they would be helping the CSA "unify" the states under its banner and prepare it to proceed in dominating the Americas, and eventually the world.

This then would differentiate the CSA from Nazi Germany, because there is no "Hitler" for them, and make it more akin to Imperial Japan.

And as I have said before, World War One won't start in 1914 because of the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary; it would start with the invasion of the Philippines (which would be independent in 1898 because the US won't go to war against Spain yet), Mexico, Canada, Cuba (same with the Philippines), and the other countries in Central America and the Caribbean.

A "good thing" about this though, is that it's quite possible that there won't be a World War Two at all. Meaning there was just "The Great War", which would mean the CSA have been utterly destroyed, or the CSA have conquered much of the world.

edited 30th Aug '12 5:33:47 AM by entropy13

Ok then, what if the Iranian Revolution in 1979 didn't happen, or did fail to unseat the Shah?

edited 30th Aug '12 7:05:03 AM by Greenmantle

The First Gulf War would have happened earlier instead of 1991.

^ I suspect Iranians and Iraqis would argue which was the "First Gulf War"...

/smartass

edited 30th Aug '12 10:22:46 AM by Nohbody

Just before things go to hell, Hitler chokes on Frankfurter and dies at the height of Nazi power.

Who will fill the power vaccum? Will Germany still try to conquer the world? And if so, could they actually win without a madman in charge?

edited 30th Aug '12 1:53:25 PM by Natasel

Anybody, yes, and no.

"Just before things go to hell,"

That's a pretty vague statement. I'm assuming the moment your talking about is somewhere between May 1941 - November 1942. A more specific time period would help me give a more accurate answer.

But to answer your questions:

"Who will fill the power vaccum?"

1.Hermann Göring is the most likely person, due to having been promoted to Reichsmarschall (Marshal of the Realm) in 1940. This position had established him as successor to leadership of the Reich. However if Hitler's death occurred before May 10, 1941, there is a significant chance of Rudolf Hess succeeding Hitler. Wilhelm Keitel, Heinrich Himmler, Wilhelm Frick, Martin Bormann and Joseph Goebbels are all possible (but less likely) candidates for Hitler's position.

"Will Germany still try to conquer the world?"

2. The answer question is very dependent on when exactly Hitler died, and who succeeded him. Goering (the most likely successor) had played an influential part in the planning of Operation Barbarossa so it seems likely that he will at least attempt to invade the U.S.S.R. at some point.

"And if so, could they actually win without a madman in charge? "

3. Again, the answer question is very dependent on when exactly Hitler died, and who succeeded him. Goering's handling of Operation Barbarossa (assuming that he doesn't call it off) and his reaction to the Pearl Harbor attack (assuming that it happens, and hasn't happened already) will be critical factors in the war's outcome.

edited 30th Aug '12 5:22:09 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Methinks it highly improbable that Göring would have been the heir. He was totally unpopular within the party, at least after the Battle of Britain. This even comes up to Hitler himself who would call Göring (behind his back) a "Schwein" (pig). As before 1942... that's quite a thing to ponder.

One thing I know. Would Hitler have died in the summer of 1939, everyone in Germany would have thought him to be the greatest statesman ever, greater than Bismarck. He would probably have a status akin to Atatürk in Turkey irl. But then... Without Hitler, the Nazis are nothing. I would even go sofar as to say that there is no such thing as a Neo-Nazi, because it's impossible to be a Nazi without having Hitler as some kind of messias-figure and that is highly improbable when he's known to be dead - but than again, that happens even to the best messiae. So my guess would be that the princes of the party would have had a relentless, byzantine power-struggle which would have impaired Germanys ability to wage war. So delayed, the inherent problems in the programs of the Nazis would be revealed, and soon, the last Nazi would take a train into the exile to the Netherlands (they would take Nazis, they have even taken Wilhelm II, who attacked them). But then? Communists? Thomas Mann grows some nuts and becomes Kanzler-president in a third-republic-like second German republic? The Kaiser finally figures how to buy a train ticket to Berlin, says something incredibly stupid and goes to Aruba, this time (Cheer up, lad, Aruba's better than St Helena)? I see only one greater problem in the scenario: Danzig-Westpreußen...

"Methinks it highly improbable that Göring would have been the heir."

Then who? With Hitler dead and Hess gone (assuming this was after May 1941), Goring was easily the most powerful person in the party. He had his haters, but so did everyone else in the party. The only one had any chance of leading a coup against him was Himmler, and he had little motivation and plenty of his own enemies (Bormann, Frick).

And when did Wilhelm II attack the Netherlands?

edited 30th Aug '12 7:24:56 PM by DeviantBraeburn