Texas wasn't always ready to become an independent nation so it depends on when.
What really is the future of the CSA?
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
Even if cotton barons accept to industrialise the CSA, there are a couple of problems:
- The CSA doesn't have enough coal and oil to seriously industrialise
- A good chunk of the population lives in extreme poverty so they can't contribuite to the economy in any way. Slaves/marginalised blacks don't buy stuff while the finances of poor whites are limited
EXCUSE ME?!
The ENTIRE Nazi regime was radical. Genocide (on an industrial scale, no less) was state policy in the Reich.
As for the Wehrmacht, they absolutely were fanatics. There is an entire Wikipedia article that talks about the war crimes perpetrated by the Wehrmacht, including the Holocaust.
One of the Wehrmacht generals went on to found a neo-Nazi political party in post-war Germany, and was exiled for it. He repeatedly denied the Holocaust, and died in 1997 an unrepentant Nazi.
The Nazi were radical, generals believed in Nazism; what I wanted to say is that the Germans were forced to be a part of the army, they weren't there because they wanted to die for the Lebenstraum.
Most of the war crimes were done by the SS and there aren't many armies who didn't do war crimes when things begin to go South and the Generals certainly didn't try to prevent their soldiers from doing damage at the expense of the local population.
We we just had a deviation about the main argument, had you arrived at almost any other moment we wouldn't be talking about ww2
It's fair to say most German soldiers were drafted. That the rank and file committed war crimes against the populations of the countries they occupied goes without question.
Given that many American planters in the CSA actively preferred to plant cotton compared to other crops in order to make a profit in the American Civil War, if the CSA wins in the American Civil War, I think that there would be a whole lot of food shortage because of the planters and the fact that the CSA recently was in a war. Given that the food shortages caused food riots in the American South in the year 1863 IIRC, there could probably be a whole lot of discontent regarding the CSA government, even more so if the CSA government decides to focus on growing cotton rapidly to preserve the wealth and lifestyle of the planters.
Well they'll sort of be forced to do something, nobody is stupid enough to not give food to its own people.
This is the Confederacy, households are expected to raise their own food on whatever land they're not using for cotton.
This MF didn't single-handledly end almost two hundred years of imperial rule just for you to forget his absolute lack of empaty for the lower classes
Combined with the worst elements of the Empire of Manchuria, for that matter, with how they’d be using “industrialized” slavery.
You'd be surprised.
The Brits did it multiple times.
The Russians did it (which cost the Tsar his throne, which he 100% deserved because it was his own stupid fault).
The CS did it.
Political leaders are far from perfectly rational.
1. The Romanov Dynasty ruled Russia since the Times of Trouble, but since the Ivan IV Russia was a Tsardom which is kind of an empire, it's just that after their victory in the Great Northern War the Europeans started to acknowledge that Russia was an empire.
2. He cared about his own people, he was just extremely incompetent and refused to make any change, but he did saw himself as designated by God to rule the Russians
3. His people were starving during WW1, had there been no war or had it ended earlier, the Russians would've had enough to eat
Brits? I don't know
The Tsar wasn't in a position to give food to its own people 'cause he didn't have it.
Political leaders will very soon understand why they should do something even if they don't want to.
I think Worffan was referring to the famines in Britain's colonies, so there's that.
Irish famine of 1845-1852. Deliberately exacerbated by the Brits, causing lasting social agitation that eventually led to the loss of most of Ireland.
Bengal famine of 1943, caused by deliberate destruction of food and farmland by British authorities.
Note sure about this - neither of them probably would not impose tariff on raw cotton.
Citation needed? Anyway, Union industries were already rapidly moving towards iron and steel at that time.
The CSA would not be able to effectively introduce and enforce industrial policies on a national level.
No.
1) Factory jobs still paid much higher than what they got back in Europe.
2) The North had loads of fertile arable lands in temperate climate in the Midwest and the Plains - which would have attracted almost every immigrant who wanted to get a farm (mostly Protestant Northern European immigrants who detested slavery strongly - sorry Confederates).
Look at one of my comments above, 1/9 of Union industry in 1860 is well below Italy and Japan.
You know what, the vast majority of immigrants of all kinds before 1860 went North. The South barely got any. You can just have a look at each states foreign born population stats over the years.
Famines in colonies and famines on your own "superior" population aren't the same thing, those in the colonies are there to be exploited, those in your homeland need to be treated well to not have a revolution
And yet the imbeciles in charge of the Confederacy continued to emphasize the production of cotton over food crops, even as widespread hunger wracked the CS.
Hey, remember that time Nicky let his soldiers shoot an orthodox priest and a few hundreds people because they thought peacefully marching for better conditions was socialism?