What if the South won the Civil War?

That's impossible. What the most people called Germany is not Germany. A very big part of Germany was conquered from the Prussians and the Prussians made big parts of Germany to provinces of Prussia. What people call normally "German empire " or "Deutsches Reich" was indeed a Prussian empire. It's said the Prussians were an army which had an empire.

The USA is an extraordinary mighty nation in the size of a continent. Whether "to be weaker" would be good or bad is another question. The Dinos for example died out because they were big and strong.

The USA made possible the results of world war 1. And all results of world war 1 exploded. Nothing was stable after world war 1 any longer.

You don't have any idea how fragile the construct of history "Hitler" is. Are you for example able to imagine a "Third Empire" with armed and uniformed private people who had cried "Heil Schicklgruber"? Schicklgruber was the real name of Hitler. Everyone had laughed. Not so with the name "Hitler" - a simple name - poetry - changed something in the world history. He got the name "Hitler" because of a mistake. Nearly everything in the life of Hitler was a kind of absurde game - and similar absurde games were played with lots and lots and lots of people - specially in the trenches of world war 1, where men were murdered in many ways - for example with bombs or toxic gas. I'm quite sure Hitlers brain was damaged there. Not to forget: Indeed existed only one German empire in history - the holy roman empire. The second empire was the Prussian empire, which was leaded from a Brit during world war 1, emperor William II, who was educated from Queen Victoria, and the Third empire was Hitlers empire.

If the USA had ignored the declaration of war of Hitler, then Hitler never had any chance to attack the USA. For the USA it was very easy to attack Germany.

In world war 1 Japan was on the side of the USA. Japan has arrested German soldiers. That's why "Die Ode an die Freude", the ode to joy, is meanwhile also part of the Japanese culture. They learned Beethovens 9th symphony from our prisoners of war in Japan.

See: http://www.seattletimes.com/enterta...ethovens-ninth-a-japanese-new-year-tradition/

 

I called him mass-murderer.

Where did I say Hitler and Stalin were good guys? Your "scum is still scum" shows me nevertheless more about your own psychology. I'm easily able to imagine Hitler saying "Scum is still scum" or Stalin saying "Scum is still scum". So what do you learn from your enemies?

 

THEY DIDN'T?

 

No. Just unlikely, for a number of reasons.
The North - could- have kept its inept military leadership in place, allowing the south to use its superior field commanders to attrit the union army to the point where the people demand a stop to the war.
The south -could- have gotten between DC and the closest field army with the ability to stop it, forcing the North to sue for peace.
The south -could- have convinced the UK to intercede on its behalf, loosening the union chokehold on southern ports and reduce if the ability og the union navy to trasnport men and material.
There's lots of perfectly plausible "coulds" here.

 

If the Confederacy had triumphed in their war against the United States, we'd have statues of horses' arses from California to the New York island, from the Redwood Forest to the gulf stream waters in a land made for me.

Also, the slave states would have abandoned the abominable practice of subjugating human beings for fun and profit anyway - circa 1960.

 

Do you speak with me?

 

Probably a lot earlier. Slavery in the New World disappeared in the 1880's.

The Civil War was a pointless tragedy.

 

I interpreted from your words that you implied that Hitler and Stalin were not bad guys. The following commit is not an insult but since I can tell that English us not your native tounge you may have written something that your did not intend to come out the way it did.

 

Edit -- There is a strong probability slavery would have been abandoned due to slave rebellions. I thing that abolitionists would gave snuck weapons to slaves over time. There would have been a lot of failures but eventually the slaves would have caused so much trouble that the economic gain wouod have been exceeded by the loss of life and property.

 

I would like to see: if general Sherman was allowed to finish what was stopped by Lincoln

 

True. Am I being overly optimistic in speculating "1960"?

 

As I said the possibilities of an alternative history is many fold.
Gingrich wrote a book with the theme that the south took Maryland and held it during the war.

 

Aha. Did you ever try to speak with a psychiatrist or a psychologist about your problems?

Give me the sentence which you misinterpreted and I will try to translate it for you from English to English. Otherwise you could perhaps be interested to read the eristically dialectic from Arthur Schopenhauer of the year 1830; here are his short lines about empty rhetoric: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/die-kunst-recht-zu-behalten-4994/1 .

 

Slavery would have come to an end within a couple of decades.

If the South has been successful, it is very possible Czarist Russia would not have fallen and that Germany might have won WW2.

The South might have won if it had invaded the North with Sherman's scorched earth strategies. Northern cities could have easily been burned to the ground for construction standards of that era.

More significantly, the South might have won without war at all if there had been no attack on Fort Sumter.

 

My fault I misread the date that is why I edited my comment. Slavery would have been abandoned before 1960.

 

We can only speculate, but somewhere between 1945 and 1965 seems highly likely.

 

Yup. New Englanders were alone in wanting to use force against the Southernerst until Sumpter.

South Carolinians have never been smooth political operators. Andrew Jackson once threatened to hang their entire legislature.

 

My point is that by the late 19th century Prussia was but a province of Germany. The old Prussians where a hybrid of Germanic tribes and Baltic tribes. The Prussian language filed by the early 18th century. Once Bismark unified the German principalities- forget Prussia.

 

Always liked Andy!

 

Yes I did also speculate that with a weakened US without Dixielandia the Germaniac Nazis would have prevailed. As to the Czarist Empire well that could have been interesting. We US that is the patriotic good part of America (LOL) most likley may not have been able to afford to buy Alaska so she knows if selling Alaska hurt the Czarist terrorist government or not. Remember that there was revolt in the Czarist evil empire in 1905 that failed I so the Romanovs were already in trouble.

 

I think that ole Sherman made his point. Look at all the tanks he got. I do mean tanks.

 

Which kind of presumes that they would be supportive of the whole slavery thing, which they were not

Maybe
, on the other hand apartheid in South Africa was little removed from slavery and persisted well into the 20th century

 

Before you

Before you get your panties in a knot go read the first paragraph of your post # 122 and then translate that to English. Again I do not insult those who are not native English speakers because I understand how difficult it can be to master the English language if you do not learn it as a child.

 

My point exactly that without a strong USA the results of WWI woukd gave been different.

 

No - Grant was in charge. There is no way the South could have won. The South was wrecked at the time of Appomattox.