So I heard it was a bit of cliche for the CSA to join the Allies and for the US to join the Central Powers in WW1 but one of things I keep hearing is "the world would be radical different". How exactly does the Confederacy effect the political of the globe in not just North America and the Caribbean. But In Europe, Africa, Asia and even the Pacific. Because I genuinely don't know how this effects German Unification, Balance in Europe, the Balkan Wars, Boxer Rebellion, Spain, Philippines, Scramble for Africa, Japan, etc.
How does the existence of a surviving Confederacy effect Europe or Global Geopolitics in General?
- Thread starter Oba Cahokia
- Start date
Unless one believes that butterflies beget butterflies, I don't see a surviving CSA having a direct impact on Asia and the Pacific Basin. TTL USA is not going to have power projection into the Pacific. I also do not see an impact on Africa or European affairs outside of GB and France. TTL CSA is going to be relatively weak and concerned with survival in North America. If the POD is Franco-British diplomatic intervention following CSA victories on both fronts of the 1862 offensive, then there will be a strain in USA relations with those powers. But eventually I see those relations adjusting to whatever are the current needs of the USA and those powers. If the POD is the Union throwing in the towel because of war weariness in 1864 then the international effects will be even less. A surviving CSA, at least initially, is going to be a weak and fractious state with little industry and little power projection capabilty.
Huh? The USA not projecting power into the Pacific is a pretty big change for the Asia-Pacific. Did you mean to say the CSA would not be projecting power there?
Spain and the Philippines would be the big one, since the CSA would be in prime position to intervene in Spanish Cuba (and Puerto Rico) during the revolts there. The biggest problem on their side is that unlike the US, they're much more dependent on what Britain and especially France (Second Empire would be their biggest ally) say they can do since even crash industrialisation won't give them the self-sustaining industry to supply a war in the Caribbean. But assuming sometime between 1875 and 1900 they conquer Cuba and Puerto Rico, then that's pretty damaging to Spain's prestige and reputation and would certainly new powers like Germany or Japan to try and move in on the Philippines. The US TTL would have less interests on the other side of the Pacific and no reason to start a war with Spain, so they might just be a mediator.
I'm not totally sure what would happen in the Philippines. Maybe there's an independent Filipino Republic with Chinese-style concession territories to Japan and Germany, and maybe another Great Power like the US? Or perhaps it's like Qajar Persia where it's independent but the Great Powers have economic zones? But either way, that's going to change how both Japan and Germany evolve since it gives them a much bigger foothold than OTL in that corner of Asia.
As for alliances, the Entente CSA cliche exists for a reason. They would continue exporting cotton and tobacco to British factories, and maybe even American factories if relations improve. They're pretty much a side show, just like Brazil and Argentina were OTL.
I'm not totally sure what would happen in the Philippines. Maybe there's an independent Filipino Republic with Chinese-style concession territories to Japan and Germany, and maybe another Great Power like the US? Or perhaps it's like Qajar Persia where it's independent but the Great Powers have economic zones? But either way, that's going to change how both Japan and Germany evolve since it gives them a much bigger foothold than OTL in that corner of Asia.
As for alliances, the Entente CSA cliche exists for a reason. They would continue exporting cotton and tobacco to British factories, and maybe even American factories if relations improve. They're pretty much a side show, just like Brazil and Argentina were OTL.
The US had been projecting power into the Pacific since the War of 1812 because of New Englander interests in whaling and the maritime fur trade. By the ACW, American influence was very rooted in Hawaii. There's essentially no reason why the US wouldn't keep up their competition in the Pacific, especially since relations with Britain may be more hostile TTL. Yes, the US will be poorer, but it will have a larger military to project power in the Pacific.
If the Franco-Prussian War still proceeds as IOTL, there would be no more Second Empire by 1871.
Is it an excuse or motivation for a faster European scramble for Africa, justified by a perceived risk of the CSA resuming the trans-Atlantic slave trade, despite any public and constitutional disavowals it makes?
I am a person who believe that Confederate independence would have huge effects globally.
For example, Japan might be affected. In OTL Boshin War, Satcho alliance used weapons like the Spencer rifles or Enfield rifles, which they acquired as a surplus weapon after Civil war. Confederate independence means more need for rifles, so this flow of weapons might be butterflied away. Maybe due to lack of good guns, Tokugawa Shogunate would be able to defeat Satcho alliance.
This can lead to Sino-Japanese war may not happen or delayed, because former Tokugawa Shogunate officials had more cooperative view towards Qing China and Korea. Without Sino-Japanese war, history of East Asia will be totally altered. Anyway, these are my two cents.
For example, Japan might be affected. In OTL Boshin War, Satcho alliance used weapons like the Spencer rifles or Enfield rifles, which they acquired as a surplus weapon after Civil war. Confederate independence means more need for rifles, so this flow of weapons might be butterflied away. Maybe due to lack of good guns, Tokugawa Shogunate would be able to defeat Satcho alliance.
This can lead to Sino-Japanese war may not happen or delayed, because former Tokugawa Shogunate officials had more cooperative view towards Qing China and Korea. Without Sino-Japanese war, history of East Asia will be totally altered. Anyway, these are my two cents.
How so? Geography does not automatically mean 'prime position'. Honestly it's almost more likely that the US still intervenes in Cuba and Puerto Rico to project power into the Gulf of Mexico as part of containing the CSA. Isn't it generally assumed that an independent CSA will wind up being pretty poor and weak anyway? Cotton or no, slavery is not a sustainable industry in a world that hates slavery, and it's unlikely the CSA will give it up in a hurry since it was basically their whole reason for wanting independence to begin with.
Yeah man the world that hated slavery so much that Brazil only ended it sometime during the 1890s. Also since the change is during the 1860s there might not be any major revolution in Cuba or Puerto Rico. For all we know the rise of the Confederacy might help Spain as the Confederates might wish to expand economically init the area rather than just invade it.
Also I can fully see Latin America having more influence in North America since the US is not going have as much influence due to not having the south. I mean Chile had a bigger navy than the US at one point. Brazil and the Confederates might see each other as partners in their support of slavery.
Also I can fully see Latin America having more influence in North America since the US is not going have as much influence due to not having the south. I mean Chile had a bigger navy than the US at one point. Brazil and the Confederates might see each other as partners in their support of slavery.
Name another European or European-descended country, in the age of European domination, that practiced slavery after 1865 besides Brazil.
Spanish Cuba kept slavery until the 1880s.
David T has a post here on how the Union victory helped advance the cause of abolition outside the US.
Confederate Victory’s Effect on European History
Yeah I'm with you. To me it is far more likely the CSA turns into a basket-case economically. The decentralized nature of their constitution would make it harder, not easier, to keep standing armies and navies and project power, especially once other sources of cotton (India and Egypt mostly)...
www.alternatehistory.com
Assumed by who? I've never seen that outside of a few posts here which cite no sources. The fact is there was industry, obvious potential for mass expansion of industry (as happened OTL), and European bankers who didn't really care about slavery who would invest in the CSA (just like they did the Brazilian Empire). The CSA has a large population relative to Latin America (not counting slaves) which has a relatively high literacy rate. And if we assume a course like Argentina or Brazil, then that doesn't preclude a large military (hell, that's probably mandatory), including a large navy which is perfectly capable of contesting with distant Spain over an island 90 miles offshore which is full of people who hate Spain anyway.
bguy
Donor
Would the Confederates even be interested in seizing Cuba? I know Cuba was a target of southern expansionism pre-Civil War but wasn't a lot of that about the South wanting additional slave states to counter the growing number of free states? (An issue that doesn't exists in an independent CSA.) Thus even aside from the difficulties involved in seizing Cuba (which will require the Confederates not only to defeat the Spanish but also to then put down the inevitable large rebellion on the island) an independent CSA might well find continued Spanish control of Cuba to be to their advantage (at least as long as the Spanish maintain slavery), since the Confederacy will be less of an international pariah as long as there is at least one European nation still practicing slavery on a large scale.
It's an opportunity to assert themselves on a global scale, there are existing historic interests, and the fact the Cubans themselves hate the Spanish would be perceived by the Confederacy as a sign they should take over. There is also the concern of a black slave rebellion in Cuba or a power like Britain or France taking over the island and abolishing slavery.
For Cuba, maybe Hohenzollern become Spanish throne while Prussia bargained French expansion elsewhere? France may think Confederate expansion is mildly better than encircled by Hohenzollern powers (I have no clue whether such scenario is feasible).
Considering how Northern blockade damaged Confederate economy, most Confederates will agree that some ports that can be center of blockade runners in Gulf of Mexico (which is easier to access than directly go to Britain and France) is needed. In my opinion, whether this port is directly controlled by Richmond or controlled by friendly powers can go either way.
On a different note, if Confederate victory lead to survival of Imperial Mexico like some assumes, France would invest more on Americas in order to consolidate and protect what they gained. Would this investment be enough to butterfly away investment toward Russia, including financing trans-Siberian railway?
Considering how Northern blockade damaged Confederate economy, most Confederates will agree that some ports that can be center of blockade runners in Gulf of Mexico (which is easier to access than directly go to Britain and France) is needed. In my opinion, whether this port is directly controlled by Richmond or controlled by friendly powers can go either way.
On a different note, if Confederate victory lead to survival of Imperial Mexico like some assumes, France would invest more on Americas in order to consolidate and protect what they gained. Would this investment be enough to butterfly away investment toward Russia, including financing trans-Siberian railway?
Not to my knowledge, but the South believed they might. This was part of the reasoning for the Ostend Manifesto.