Let's thank War & Peace for Sponsoring this video: war-and-peace.com/?shortlink=9d9b7b5c&pid=Monsieur_Z_Influencer&c=Monsieur_Z_Influencer We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it! Become a channel sponsor: ru-vid.com/show-UCQR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHAjoin Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
I'm not to sure Italy would join Russia, especially if their being flanked on both land and sea not to mention the only reason they became a united kingdom was bc of french military help also the confederacy had a shit for brains navy I doubt they'd ever take anything from Spain especially if they had a slave economy can't imagine that going over well for the inhabitants also id imagine France would push into California and New Mexico any former Mexican land with the exception of Texas not only for economic reasons but as to assert to the Mexican people that they shall have their empire back quelling any future rebellion and ensuring peace in the region for the time being. the confederacy would probably be a puppet of France and Brittain and would steadily go into decline. with French, British, and Ottoman assistance, I really don't see why Austria wouldn't just stalemate Prussia and Russia as the latter was itself multi-ethnic (Poland, baltic land) id also imagine the german states being split on whether to join Prussia or Austria as unlike 1866 and 71 in this scenario both players were active and competing in a global war for dominance in which the German states would be at the mercy of the victor and have no real say as such would be forced to choose sides.
@Not Needed in 1860 ruler was Tzar Alexander 2. He was more German than Russian, because of his parents and a long dynastic connections between Romanovs and european royal houses. In 1960 leader of Russian was Nikita Khrushev. He started as son of simple Russian peasant. In some sense Khrushev is more connected with average Russian people than Tzar Alexander 2
@@jackthorton10 I don't think it would've been that dangerous. And honestly a lot of the issues with the Russian empire was that it hadn't yet modernized. And as they were basically enemies of the British they weren't exactly getting any help on that front. Now imagine they gain an Ally in the only empire who can actually compete with the industrial might of the British. With the basically inability to TOUCH the US from Europe, what the US gains in an ally is the potential next hegemon of Europe. And that not only Aids in power projection but now puts the US squarely in European affairs as a fairly major power.
A lot of things are weird thoughts to people at the time too. The idea that the US, UK and France would be strong allies would have been completely asinine to people living 200 years ago.
Russia had their own agenda not to defend America but to put their fleet out of harm's way as the British had destroyed half of their fleet in the black sea
CSA: yo bois in Europe gib help Britain and France: ehh CSA: we have mobile game sponsor... Britain and France: Take what you can and get out of my sight
What if Japan and China had formed alliance against the communists? If Japan committed to invading Siberia and backed the nationalists against Mao's communists in exchange for economic concessions, WW2 would have been quite different at least in Asia.
well, Japan technically declared war on the Nationalist KMT, as they didn't recognize the communist revolution. This led to today's history of the united front between the nationalists and communists. Such an agreement would have never passed with an extremely anti-sino Japanese government and a massive anti-Japanese sentiment across all of China. Had Japan not taken Manchuria and kept good relations with China in the 1800-1900s, such an alliance might be feasible.
I don’t think people quite seem to appreciate or even realize just how much pressure General Lee was under. That man had the full weight of the South’s future and international aid placed firmly on his shoulders while fighting a war with a serious deficit of dwindling manpower, resources, and technology and that could hardly ever hope to be replaced. People say he blundered towards the end but to be honest, after years of that kind of pressure in a war he didn’t even want in the first place against an enemy composed of his own friends, colleagues, and students, it’s a wonder he didn’t crack sooner.
Lee was a brilliant general who had some outstanding victories during the war. If the South had better supplies and manufacturing capabilites, the Civil War might had a different outcome
Confederate battle flag has nothing to do with Germany or white supremacy! It's about Southern Heritage. Just an fyi, however, kkk and Nazi lovers stole the flag for evil
@@Sceptonic freed slaves colonized Liberia in real life. Most newly freed slaves were English speaking Christians, so they would likely westernize Liberia to an extent if enough colonists went there.
The pacific republic won’t last long in this scenario tbh. You underestimate manifest destiny. Remember that with more amicable relations with Britain Americans still called for 54-40 or fight. Imagine if on this timeline it was also fueled by animosity from the previous war. And now that parts of Canada are officially in the Union, sea to shining sea is now not bound to only mean below the 49th parallel. And now that all the slave states are in the confederacy and with Canada in the union, there wouldn’t be anything to hold back the sentiment of turning the war into a war for abolition.
Depends whether the north would really want a round 2 after a war that nasty. Especially since the fiercest abolitionists would have probably already volunteered for the first civil war and gotten their numbers whittled down. I think that people would generally prefer to pressure the South in other ways, especially since the CSA's allies were also fairly abolitionist. As far as the Independent Pacific, yeah without some STRONG alliances from the war I can't see it lasting.
DIEGhostfish A war lost because of foreign intervention. We’d see a US that’s very resentful of their perceived “bullying” of the European powers. The confederates would be seen as nothing more than European puppets. European lapdogs scavenging over the corpse of their God-given land. A good propaganda machine would spin it off as a conspiracy of old Europe that has sought to dismantle their more perfect union from the start. A president could give a speech like “They never wanted us to exist and prosper as a nation. They have tried for a century to dissolve our nation. They marched their troops and burnt down our capital time and time again. But they will never put out the flames of liberty. Those of you who were sympathetic to the cause of the rebels know that the empires of Europe had no qualms slaughtering slave and white men alike. America will never be safe until we have driven every last one of the European powers and their puppets and pawns out of our continent. Your children and their children and all generations ahead will always be living in the shadow of terror at the will of monarchs an ocean away. But we will prevail. The stars in our banner will guide us out of the darkness of that shadow.” Something like that. Idk. Germany was very willing to March under the drums of war even after the devastation of the Great War. Restoration of perceived stolen land and wounded national pride was a very powerful political motivation back in those days. American patriotism has or at least had the fervency seen only dogmatic calls for holy wars and crusades.
Doesn't help IIRC the south after this kind of war wouldn't have the industry nor the navy for a round 2. If the Union had better generals and spun the war as a war to end slavery then the south wouldn't have much european assistance (since that's one of the reasons they didn't interfere in the actual events) and would have to face the whole "We'll fill our vacant ranks with a million freemen more". If you think about it, that'd potentially be 4 great wars back to back. And people say this is a bad timeline.
Some count our French and Indian War as being the first real world war, and the Cold War as about the tenth - depending on who’s counting. Our Civil War was part of around number six - again depending on who’s counting. France had a massive number of troops in Mexico, trying to make it a French colony, and Canada was filling up with British forces. The plan was for them to let the Union and Confederacy fight to utter exhaustion, then invade from Canada and Mexico to reclaim their old territories. What stopped this from becoming a wider conflagration connected to the other wars going on in Europe and the world was, first, the Czar of Russia sent the powerful Russian fleet off the American coasts with sealed orders that in case of invasion by the British and French the Russian fleet was immediately under the command of Abraham Lincoln. Secondly, President Lincoln found a general (Grant) who had the ability to actually win the war.
What if Germany was formed with the greater german solution (Germany, Austria, Czechia, Slovenia and Istria, maybe also Venedig) or What if Marie Theresia had to bow to her familys will and married Frederick the Great
@@savagedarksider5934 well maybe he likes it or not, he will be forced to have an heir with maria even if they dont love eachother. Maybe respect eachother? But they will probably have an heir from pressure from both the prussian and austrian courts
@@savagedarksider5934 yess, I don't think Stalin would accecpt a monarchist restauration in Germany, I Mean, few things are against communism like a conservative prussian dinasty
This theme is thoroughly covered in the eleven volume "Southern Victory" series by the master of Alternate History, Harry Turtledove. He covers the period from 1861 through 1945, incorporating the Civil War and both World Wars. I highly recommend this reading to any fan of AH or to anyone whose interest was piqued by this posting.
I love how the conclusion of the second idea leaves both sides wanting to fight another conflict. Everyone got something but everyone, save for the CSA and maybe France (unless they did lose Alsace), lost something that is worth a war to retake. I'm particularly interested in what the Ottomans will do. The Anglo-Franco support of Greece puts them in a position where an alliance with the United States is desirable. With the strait now in Greek hands, this means Russia now has a reason to support the Ottomans since Greek control of the strait is now British and French potential to cut them off. Imperial Mexico as part of the French and Confederate affiliation plus the annexation of the Spanish Caribbean is also nice. It feels like the Golden Circle idea could evolve into the CSA's answer to the Monroe Doctrine, which is probably a lot more reasonable than incorporating the whole American South, Central America, Caribbean, and northern South America into one superstate.
@@buddermonger2000 Likely a faster development of Iron clad warships rendering french and British fleets impotent to Union blockades and faster adoption of the Gatling gun, France, Spain and the Britain would be hard pressed to supply equipment and ground troops in numbers needed to swing things in favor of the Confederation, The union had nearly 700k troops at its peak(2mil serving over all) while the Confederation had 360k peak(1mill serving over all), Shipping the 200k troops needed to even the odds across the Atlantic would be a major undertaking and keeping them fed in the south an even bigger one.
@@mikeb5063 You do realize that Britain had the largest navy in the world at the time right. Also they controlled all of India. I don’t think Logistics would be a major problem for Britain.
@@Kaiserboo1871, Its a long trip to America and soldiers eat alot, The south was having issues feeding its self early on into the war so 200k euro troops will need to be supplied tons of food, A steam ship can do it in 8-10 days a sailing ship takes a month, now factor in ammo for rifles and cannons as well as thats another thing the south was having a time supplying its self with so thats all going to need to be shipped over
What if the Qing Empire never fell? What if Ethiopia was never cut off the Horn Coast and became a successful African empire? What if India was never colonized? What if the Byzantines Survived keeping Greece and Anatolia BUT The reconquista also failed in the same timeline.
Great Britain saw the potential for us civil war and was developing alternate sources of cotton. Which actually turned out to be better financially for Great Britain.
@@americannatsoc5205 Did you ever do an Il Duce tank run for Italy? I did. Conquered the whole world by 1947... minus Australia because I could not get past Italian naval idiocy.
Germany would likely lose the war faster since they had a war with Britain and the Soviets would likely attack them in 1941 since facism and communism are political enemies and additionally, Stalin is building up his army it's obvious where he will deploy those large army of his.
@@Deridus Okay, let me ask something that is definently not relevant! How many mental illnesses do i need to combine pokemon with the second world war?
@Monsieur Z The only thing I would change would be the possibility of an Earlier Ireland. When I was thinking through this and wondered about The UK entering the war my mind jumps to the Fenian Brotherhood. In my mind British support for the Confederacy would've worn away any Irish support for the Confederacy and they'd have switched sides, refusing to fight with the Oppressor they left. Seeing the need to weaken the UK prominent Irish officers and Fenians would have petitioned Lincoln to allow them to return home. Many Fenians joined various militaries around the world in order to gain experience that could help Ireland rebel. Union and Confederate Irish officers now united against the UK petition Lincoln to return home and start and uprising to weaken British resolve in their intervention in the Civil war. Essentially with the masses of Immigrants in the Union I always kinda thought a UK intervention in the Civil war would've caused essentially a series of worldwide civil wars rather than a true world war.
@@godzpeedx7ii75you know Irish immigrants gated the UK for holding Ireland as part of the brotsh empire they would not fight side by side with the very britsh empire that held ireland for centuries.
What if Fantasy races existed in the real world? What if Anastasia Romanov survived? What if Fascism wasn’t discredited and it became a influential ideology similar to Communism What if Japan won WW2? What if Japan became Communist? What if France became Fascist before WW2? What if Belgium became Fascist? What if Italy became Communist? What if America becomes a Protestant Religious Theocracy similar to Islamic Iran and Saudi Arabia? What if America becomes a Dictatorship? What if Hitler didn’t declare war on the US? What if World War 3 happened today? What if 9/11 never happened? What if Bernie Sanders was elected? What if Trump was assassinated? Understanding Communism
1. What if civil war turned into a hyphen war 2. What if japan had a another civil war 3. What if russia had a new hyphen war 4. What if Austriahungary had a hyphen war 5. What if turkey joined communism 6. What if japan discovered Hawaii 7. What if communism succeeded over Europe before fascism succeed 8. What if fascism and communism turned more heat 9. What if the central powers invaded russia 10. What if yugoslavia survived the cold war.
1) A lot of Wars and genocides, perhaps humans never became the dominant species of our planet 2) Realistically, nothing would be different. Ideally, she could be rescued by the White Army and perhaps she would inspire the various factions of the White Army to unite and fight the Red Army. Whether or not they succeed is another story but if they did perhaps she would become the next Tzar and the second female Tsar in history, the first being of course Katherine the Great. 3) In order for Fascist to become as influential as Communism, the world must never found out about the horrors of the German Reich, especially about the Holocaust. If they present themselves as the protectors of the free Democracies against the Red Army then perhaps some countries would adopt that ideology, especially those countries that are near communist states. We could expect a lot of Wars and conflicts, civil wars and genocides. Very bad idea. See Cody's video for more in depth analysis ( What if Trotsky ruled the USSR ) 4) If they don't allied themselves with Hitler and as long as they don't attack Pearl Harbor then they have a lot of possibilities to conquer the entirety of the East Asia and establish their Empire. I believe this counts as a victory. Otherwise, they are doomed, unless the Axis Powers win, which is another story by it's own. I suggest you read the book The Man in the High Castle, or watch it's adaptation on a TV series for more in depth analysis 5) Only if the Soviets conquer the island during WWII. Otherwise, it is impossible. The Japanese see their Emperor as their God and they would never rebelled against him. The only times they did rebelled were against their Shogun, their highest General. That's the main reason why the Japanese never leaned towards socialism. Their culture is against this ideology. 6) It is very possible, considering that it almost happened in our timeline. During the Spanish Civil War, France was divided between their Nationalist and Socialist Party. As such, I see no reason why this couldn't occur. However, this doesn't change much the WWII. You just have a stronger Axis that could easily win WWII. Imagine Hitler expanding towards Russia instead. 7) Your talking about Benelux. Nothing would change. Perhaps WWII was faster but I cannot predict the outcome. 8) It is extremely possible, but instead of Communists, they could become Syndicalists. Perhaps they would expand their ideology to the Balkans. We basically have two different factions of socialism, The Soviet Communism and the Mediterranean Syndicalism. Interesting idea. I don't know which branch would be more popular and I surely cannot predict how many civil wars would these ideologies create across the globe, but I can imagine a very divided world. The Cold War of this timeline would be either extremely interesting, or extremely boring. See World of Kaiserreich for more intel. 9) Rather impossible in my opinion. A theocracy is formed under the wing of an empire or an authoritarian regime. The US were formed under the principle of freedom and thus, a theocracy would be against this. 10) Only if Japanese don't allied with Axis and if America doesn't intervene in WWII. The Axis win WWII, almost all of Europe is enslaved, white supremacy blahs blahs blahs 11) Nuclear Holocaust. We all gonna die. End of story. Just wait a few weeks and we will see. Or not, hopefully. 12) Watch Cody's Video, it explains everything. 13) I have no idea who that guy is 14) Let me guess, you're asking for research purposes? Or do you have something in your mind? ( Yes officer this comment right here ) 15) Yes
The US already are a dictatorship: the president has too much power and is not elected democratically. Neither are the congresspeople. The President has legislative and executive power, Congress has legislative power and judges have judical power. Judges are assigned by the P, so he has JP to some degree too. And the elective power is not in the hands of the people: you have to register to vote (in democracies, you're invited to vote); there are only 2 candidates; the candidate who gets the most votes in a state, wins that state; each state has a number of members for the Electoral College, this number differs per state; the EC chooses the P and some of the members don't even have to choose the one they're assigned to. Elections for the Members of Congress are similar. Conclusion: Members of EC decide who the P and Nembers of C become, P and MoC decide everything. This is undemocratic: Democracy《 demos kratein (the people decide). Fair democracy = multiple candidates, most votes in the entire country 》P and/or MoC, because in the current system of USA, P and MoC are elected unfairly, causing a risk of them not having most people's votes in total ("Popular Vote").
I love it! And here are the lists that I want to see the future video. 1. What if Korean Empire never fails. 2. What if Korea becomes the colony of France? 3. What if Japan becomes the colony of the USA? 4. What if Xinhai Revolution failed? 5. What if Two Sicilian Empire had a colony or refuse to united with Italian Empire? 6. What if USA failed in the Spanish American war? 7. What if Ethiopia was the superpower in the African continent? 8. What if Park Chunghee survives in the 10/26? 9. What if China was scrambled like Africa? 10. What if China won the First Sino-Japanese War? 11. What if Guiana becomes the state of Canada? 12. What if Bulgaria joins the Allies in WW1? 13. What if the Berlin uprising success and the Soviet evacuate East Germany? 14. What if the second Korean war happened in 1975 or 1994? 15. What if Grand Admiral Yi sun shin never died? 16. What if Japan invades Australia? 17. What British and France involved the civil war? 18. What if the Confederates won the civil war? 19. What if the Mongolian Army success to invade Japan?
You kind of forgot about the western campaign led by Grant. He humiliated the Confederate generals fighting over the Mississippi and his second in command Sherman rolled up the the eastern half of the confederation while Grant forced Lee into a running fight south into Virginia. (Little known fact: Grant lost 10% of the forces he commanded in battle, but Lee lost 17-15% of all the forces he commanded in battle.) when Grant captured Vicksburg, he would’ve been one of the most tactically inclined general in the world. I remember a quote from a historian that went something along the lines of “if Lee was the Caesar of his day, the Grant was the Hannibal.” I don’t know how true that is true, but Grant had nearly a hundred thousand men, a steady supply line, and unquestioned command of the field. As for Britain invading the east coast, it is highly unlikely, the US had 90 active vessels at the start of the war, though that is a threatening on paper they were vastly out classed, but the British wouldn’t know that, the Trent affair was an unexpected event and it would take time for the British to build and invasion force without abandoning their other colonies. Let’s say it took until spring for a force to be gathered, the US built on average 100+ ships every year. And these were modern and expensive with well trained crews. By 1862 the IS would’ve begun building their considerable iron clad fleet, and in the couple of months it would take for a slow war fleet with invasion forces, the US would be able to contest anything the British threw at them. And in the fallowing years the US fleet would sky rocket to being the second or third most powerful navy (and they didn’t have multiple continents to patrol.) My point is that you excluded too many things that were quite important.
In short we win its sort of the same t I've and we take Canada all of it. In the after math ofbthe war Russia might keep Alaska and divide up Canada with us or sell us Alaska anyway. So I can see the USA have bad relationships with the British, French and Spanish empires of the west. And leaning to siding with Russia Prussia. In short an alternative central powers and allies. With the USA siding with the central powers on account of the allied nations siding with southern rebel states snd invading the USA. We have a good relationship with Russia and Prussia both whom he better off in this timeline. And they would have a common goal of beating the British and French empires via war or economic. Communism would not rise in Russia and fascism won't rise in Germany but it might rise in Britain and france.
I said something along the same lines without mentioning as many as you did. The US had much better generals and overall a better doctrine of actual strategic victory it simply took time for them to start reaching the higher ranks. Once they had however it was a done deal and the US was already on track to just go full industrial which it would've done even harder here.
@@eidoneverchoosen1171 I think Russia will still sell Alaska. There wasn’t much of a reason to keep it, and with America as a closer ally and a more overtly powerful nation will just make holding a needless burden.
At no point could the US challenge British naval might, by the end of the war the us navy was coastal but any open water sea battle away from coastal batteries would lead to the complete destruction of the American fleets. The US wasn't capable enough to mass produce ships to challenge the British and actually out produce them and still maintain high production for the many armies needed to win on land.
When I was first in College [77] I had a US History professor who was black [Dr Williams] he included a lot of black history and learned a lot I didnt know. He had a surprising perspective that the south should have been allowed to secede legaly, avoiding the carnage that followed. He maintained slavery would have colapsed within 10 years or so, and as horrible as it was would have saved more lives and avouded the deep scars caused by the war.. He was also of the opinion that there would have been a later reunification when faced with external threats. Most history taught here centers on the US perspective [not unsurprisingly] but there was so much else going on in the world going on at the time. A broader lesson perhaps. THanks for the thoght provoking discussion
This is true, the british and French supported the south. Russia did threaten European powers to stay out of the Civil War or it would declare war on them, which in a serious ultimatum Russia sent its fleet to New York city and California and began mobilizing
Seems much more plausible then Turtledoves 191 timeline. And this world's version of World War 1 would be, in a word, interesting. Edit:..so Russia just helped Greece retake Constantinople? Oh boy, there’s gonna be a LOT of happy Orthodox Christians.
@@bubbasantonio7563 You can see in the post-war territory that Greece seems to have retaken the area around the entrance to the Black Sea, including where Constantinople would be. Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting the map?
Another missing fact was that a large amount of Canadians volunteered for US due to the view on slavery, which could in turn make the Canadian public view the British government as a betrayer of their ideals. Possibly leading to rebellion.
France did intervene militarily in the Civil War. At the Battle of Palmito Ranch in 1865, French forces on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande fired on Union forces on the other side who were engaged with a Confederate force that eventually won the battle. This was the last battle of the war.
Very interesting look at the Civil War. Realization dawn on me, it doesn’t matter if Lincoln freed the slaves or not; the industrial revolution would have made slavery obsolete in the next 10 years or so. I also feel if Lee would had gone after the Union by attacking Washington instead of Gettysburg would have forced the Union to seek a peaceful solution to ending the war.
One of my ancestors was sent to Philadelphia by the Russian Navy. A few years ago i found evidence that they had orders to shoot at boats with the confederate flag
In our timeline the Confederates offered native tribes representation in the Confederate Congress and Senate for their support in the war if they manage to win there would have been States under Native American jurisdiction and Rule wow
Been waiting for someone to do this video for years. You're the first one I've seen do an actually proper, detailed scenario. Dont forget kids. You can ÂŁWĀݧ count on Mr.Z. So Let's get to #100,000strong.
its an ongoing study they stayed Roman to a certain degree. but they got hit by the black death, the saxon invasions, then viking raids which left them more and more isolated. The dark ages were darker for britain than anywhere else.
The Scots prob would've taken it over at some point and it would probably just remain some small insignificant country to this day, meaning the US wouldn't exist.
Did You Know There Were Lots Of Confederates In Montreal? .The Jefferson Davis Family Had Lived In Montreal..John Wilkes Booth And The Other Confederates Logged At The St.Lawrence Hall Situated At 13 St. James Street..In Montreal.. It Is Still There But No Longer A Hotel..
When the North let those British Spies go in 1862, Britain had 10-15,000 troops in Canada. By 1864 the Army of the Potomac (just Grant's army now) there were 400,000 troops. No, it was too late for England in particular or Europe in general.
England didn't want to support Canada especially after rebellions in upper and lower canada. If war was declared, im pretty sure more troops would come in through Nova Scotia. But I can't see the modern provinces of Quebec and Ontario willingly going to the USA. Ontario was settled by Loyalsts who left almost everything not to be American and Quebec had thrown in its vote for language and cultural preservation in 1812. No room for a Catholic French speaking state in the USA.
UK: huh, wanting to break off from a government you disagree with to pursue your own political power? Union: shut up... UK: man, this looks so familiar. Can chunks of land just straight up leave like that? Union: *shut up!* UK: man, it’s on the top of my tongue, I swear I’ve seen this before... *USA has left the chat*
I still think back to what Shelby Foote said in regard to how the Union fought the war with one hand behind it's back. if it got to the point where Britain and France got involved, the Union would have brought the other arm out and crushed the South and then turned it's eyes to Canada. European intervention most likely would have further galvanized the Union bringing in more ppl who had been on the fence about fighting. The war in Virginia to me always seemed to be more of a holding action until Grant took command than the west and Carolinas where Union victories were beginning to become more and more. Also, with the addition of Ironclads and iron made ships the danger to the British fleet would have been such that it would have been a hard sell for them to go beyond more than just a stern shaking of the fist by them at the US while France was just one German crossing the border from surrendering. the threat of German and Russian domination of the continent was too much of a risk for them to take.
I wonder about the issue of slavery in the Confederacy. One of the reasons England stayed out of the war was the fact that a large portion of its population wanted to see slavery abolished since it had been abolished already in the areas the British Empire controlled. The South's leadership resisted the idea of abolishing slavery when England's leaders suggested that would make recognition easier; yes, the South did offer to do this in about 1864, but the war was lost by then. Then there's the issue of the South's failed cotton embargo policy. Instead of earning big profits and establishing lines of credit when the Union blockade was poor, the South withheld cotton to pressure England and France into granting recognition and support. This policy failed, leaving the South an economic train wreck. England and France would have had to spend a lot of propping up the South's economy. Would the Great Powers have continued backing a South in economic decline, especially if it still refused to abandon slavery?
How about an Alternate Timeline were instead of Nicolas II surviving the massacre, its Anastasia. Like the animated movie but without the fantasy elements and the songs.
A confederate ship visited Melbourne during the war and some Australians joined the ships crew, but I had no idea how close it came to being a world wide affair.
I’d love to see a scenario where this happened, but with Prussia directly supporting the Union as well, where the Union still win, and the. WWI goes on as normal. Would the US support Germany?
I'll be honest...I don't think it would've been as much of a victory as you think it was. A lot of the issue with earlier union issues were with simply navigating the ineffective generals and tossing them out. As soon as the good generals were able to rise and have power, the union were on a track for a successful victory. A lot of the union generals were really focused on strategic victories vs the confederate idea of a single, big, tactical victory that would prove their might. Despite the intervention of the British and French I don't think they would've stopped the Anaconda plan which was already a crippling strike to the confederacy. And with the British intervention pulling out so early thanks to the Mexican intervention, it seems like the union would've been able to successfully take on the confederacy as normal. And as soon as the French and British are distracted again thanks to the European War, the US probably would've gone through the confederacy just as they did to try to cripple their economic power. And as soon as that's over probably would've supported Mexico to kick out the French. Overall what I see is a confederate loss and a failed French gamble with an expansion of Russian and Prussian power. Though I doubt the union would have much of the political will to try to suppress the Northwest Republic.
Well, if the latter scenario that he mentioned happened, one possible outcome has already been thought out. Harry Turtledove did an extensive novel series, with the South gaining recognition from France and England, Lincoln resigning in disgrace and joining up with socialists, the South kicking the North a second time, only to be "stabbed in the back by all those damn III's, IV's and V"s in Richmond" at the end of WWI on North American soil...as quoted by a certain artillery 'little sergeant'. The North goes socialist, the South goes fascist...and Canada becomes an occupied territory. And all of this hinges on one little event... ...the Confederate courier carrying Order 191, wrapped around three cigars to keep them dry, does not drop it in an open field for a Union scout to find, but rather in the middle of a Southern troop column, to be picked up and returned to him.
@@davegreenlaw5654 what i was suggesting was that the Confederates win by British and French support not on their own merits that turtledove suggested but by British support
Great points, but I would like to bring a few more points about Balkans in this alternate WW1. First of all, it isn't guaranteed that Balkans would automatically join Russia. Peace treaty of Paris passed responsibility for Balkan Christians to all world powers. At the time, Serbia was ruled by knjaz Mihailo Obrenović (1860-1868). His policy was always marked with caution. Although he wasn't outright pro-Austrian as his successors, he never did something so uncautious as involvement in world war. His only diplomatic success was passing over control of Serbian cities from Turkish army to Serbian army, and that took him five years. He also negotiated with Austria-Hungary to reach some kind of deal over Bosnia, and refused German and Italian proposal to attack Austrians in 1866. Russia was weakened with Crimean war and wasn't so much of a factor anymore - and such event as an world war might very well throw the huge mess into course of Serbian politics. Another factor was military weakness of Balkan states. This wasn't 1912. Ottomans were still strong. Serbian army reform was only underway, and still Serbian army wouldn't reach it 1912 fighting condition until 1885. Romanians were even weaker and lacked equipment so much they had to demand it from Serbia - cannons were nonexistent. Bulgarians still had no independence, and revolutionaries would need guns too. Montenegrins of course would have to be supplied by foreign powers almost entirely. Greece was perhaps in the best shape, but still not enough. It is unimaginable - for me - for knjaz Mihailo to take active part in WW1 and serve as mere Russian puppet in Russia dominated world, as he preferred more balanced approach.
I've noticed that every scenario where the CSA becomes independent, it would try and succeed in occupying Cuba and Puerto Rico away from Spain. But what if the Cubans sided with Spain instead rather than rebel in order to defend centuries of Hispanic heritage? After all, Cuba was a Spanish province. With the Union next door, the Confederacy can't simply send most or all troops to invade Cuba. The war might become a stalemate. Spain might have to give up Puerto Rico just to retain Cuba. Or in a worse scenario if Spain having a major disadvantage, they might have to trade the Philippines just to keep Cuba intact. This scenario would mean a peaceful transition in rule and with the CSA investing heavily in education and infrastructure, the Philippines independence movement would not gain footing but accept the CSA. Then the CSA finally can trade easily in Asia and has friendly British Malaya and French Indochina next door.
You are missing an important point in this analysis. The Spanish navy might have been small compared to the navies of the UK and France, but during this time it was stronger than that of the US before the civil war, and far stronger than anything the South could put together in the short to medium term, or even the medium to long term, for that matter.
Actually it was even though it was a small conflict to the old world it happened when tensions were vary high in the old world and everyone was looking for a accuse to start a war
Basically: France and Britain: Yeah we could TOTALLY destroy them, if we tried but I mean we have a bunch of stuff happening in Europe and I just don't think it would be worth the time sooo...
C'mon man, dont perpetuate myths. Sure, the UK and France had relied on Southern cotton, but in the 1860s, both nations had a glut in home grown cotton, one of the main reasons they didnt help was they didnt need Southern cotton. What they did need was Union wheat.
I think you over estimated France and The Confederacy way too much, How would France fight mexico white being Occupied by Prussia? The brits would also be way to over extended to help the Confederacy. Europe makes sense, except Corsica and Savoy would go back to Italy. There is no way that mexico would loose to France tho and The Union would probably annex Canada together with The Confederacy.
Sceptonic They weren’t even close to defeating mexico the war was a total disaster and really screwed the public’s image of Napoleon. Also even if the whole french army was in Europe is would do shit against Prussia as seen in the Franco Prussian war, and now they also have to fight Italy and Russia. Paris would fall in under 3 months France wouldn’t be able to keep Mexico even if the occupied the whole thing. Britain would be too busy trying to save France to do anything against the US and the US would support of Prussian and Russian Generals. The war would be really one sided. Like not even close. The only part that the British might see some success is in the seas.
Sceptonic Prussia hadn’t really industrialized by the Franco Prussian was either it was only after the war under Germany did they industrialize, Belgium and France were actually a bit ahead of Prussia. Prussia was just a military beast, always was basically. And with Russia and Italy by their sides there is no way France could win. I love France but after Napoleon war just wasn’t their thing. They are having a come back now tho.
Sceptonic Italy wanted Rome for a long time but France would let them have it. In history Rome had to hand over savoy and nice in order to be allowed to invade Rome. Italy was kind of vassal state to France and kind of hated them, but they had no other choice. Keep in mind that Italy was 1/3 of its size and wasn’t really the powerful. They only had Lombardy, piedmont, Liguria, Tuscany, Emilia-romagna and Umbria.
You don't mention the main issue 'slavery', The idea that the British public would support a British government which supported the confederacy is laughable 😂.
Lincoln feered that the South's primary trade partner Great Britan, with its dominant Navy and extensive Armies, would join the Confederacy as an Allie. Had that happened, we would be humming "Dixie" as one of our national melodies, and .'The Stars and Bars" would still be flying over Southern public Areas
The South was never betting on a protracted war for various reasons. First, it could not sustain a protracted war, even before the ( illegal) Blockade. The Union refusal to recognise the CSA made the blockade illegal though it was quite effective. Second, the CSA was optimistic about gaining international support and recognition; they were over-optimistic. Third, there was great confidence that domestic pressure on President Lincoln would force him to end the War. They fully realised that Democrats did not support the War. And that even Republicans would get tired of the War if victory took too long. Certainly, by 1863, many Republicans were tired of the War's cost and growing casualties. But President Lincoln was determined to see it through.
There are few suggestions that have caused such existential terror in me as this one. I mean, the Mongols conquering Europe caused hardly a flutter, but Lennin conquering Poland? I shudder to think of the consequences.
@Andrew Mitchell yes, I would, but that's neither here nor there (smiling.) It's just, Soviets on the border of 1930's Germany sounds like Churchill's worst nightmare. The Finns had weather, determination, and crap Soviet leadership in thier favor. Against the Reichswehr (pre-NSDAP), no amount of crap leadership or defender's grit would prevent the Asiatic hordes from reaching the Rhein. The UK and France fighting for the defense of Weimar Germany? No way, man. Only thing that might, MIGHT, prevent a war would be the Japanese on the war path.
Thank you so much for this video its hard to point out to people how important the civil war was besides just it being about slavery this shows just how much it effected the world. Thank you so much
