O/T The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany vs. The American Confederacy

[Hamstersss]

This is for Steve.

As far as I'm cocncerned, there are some parallels and a LOT of differences. So I'll start it out with just a dichotomy:

Similarities:

Both nations underestimated foreign involvement.

-The Confederacy thought Europe couldn't stand by while cotten supplies dried up and Germany didn't think Britain and France would go to war for Poland.

Both nations had a single, massive strike against them in the civil rights area.

-Slavery and the Holocaust.

Both nations lost, badly, beaten by overwhelming firepower.

-Northern industrial might and American industrial might are probably the closest points in these two conflicts.

Differences:

Political Institutions

-The Confederacy was a democracy with term limits and a free press.

-Germany was a totalitarian state with a massive propaganda machine.

Technical Skill

-The North had the most modern arms, equipment and logistics.

-Germany had, arguably, the best tanks, planes and guns.

The Odds

-The Confederacy held off a vastly superior foe four years, with a chance to win two years into the fighting.

-Germany was steadily defeated with only one serious counterattack after their stall in Russia.

Well?

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Dittohead]

Well? What about the rest of us.

Actually I'm surprised nobody's done a stars and bars modification for the victory flags.

[Hamstersss]

Been done. And the ol' battle flag on the American Airborne Troops. And the white paint battle flag on the Shermans. Hell, my Amis look like they're fresh from the Army of Northern Virginia.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-25-2000).]

[Steve Clark]

OK, here it goes. The points made above are good, but simplistic. There is one distinct difference though - one fought as a civil war while the other fought a nation vs nation (or more accurately, a fantasy race against supposedly inferior races). That's not where the arguments lie, though.

I contend that the Southern Confederacy should not ever rise again, no more than Nazism nationalism should. I have studied Southern Culture in grad school at UNC and know its history and culture. However, to say that there could be a Southern Confederacy nowdays is not correct, IMHO. And to say that one would want to fight to preserve or promote 'Southern ideals' is no different than supporting neo-Nazis wanting to preserve and promote their ideals within the German nation.

The Allies fought against the Axis for alot of reasons, one being to fight against a very real and dangerous threat to their way of living. The Union fought against the Confederacy also for alot of reasons, one being not because the Union was threatened but that the United States of America was threatened. And that was worthy.

Anyone that is interested in military history can study the Nazi German army as well as the Confederate army without believing in their ideals. But both fell for very good reasons and should stay fallen.

[Formerly Babra]

Very simplistic. For one thing, the Confederacy wasn't a nation in the true sense -- it was a Confederacy of independent States.

One was a war of aggression, the other was a war for independence - a revolution. To equate Southerners with Nazis (even by implication) is a little extreme to say the least.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Hamstersss]

Just to hit on a couple points:

The Civil War was not truly a civil war and more resembled a war between nations than any civil war. Contrast the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution and the French Revolution with the Civil War. You will see that the States of America were, for all intents and purposes, seperate nations with the right to secede from the Union.

Before the North moved forces to stop the South's secession, there were more slave states IN the union then out. They seceded, not because of slavery, because they believed in a fundamental right to secede.

It is well known that there were massive desertions and discontent in the North when the war shifted focus from Union to slavery. The Civil War was no more fought for slavery than WWII was fought for the freedom and rights of the Jews. I think slavery is wrong but you cannot argue that the North thought it was wrong and they would fight a war to end it as the facts will not support such a case. Once slavery is gone, the South is in the right in every other issue.

The North was fighting for the free passage down the Mississipi, cheap cotton and the dissolution of the right to secede. The side that won that war is the side that created our current consumer state, with its massive corporations and its disregard for the individual. You could see it coming before the war, you could see it during the war, you could see it with Reconstruction and you can sure as heck see it now.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Hamstersss]

And the points I made were mere foundation pieces, not my magnum opus, hence the simplicity. I agree absolutely with you Babra.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Steve Clark]

Formerly...and the Confederate army did not fight some campaigns as if they were a war of aggression? Even though their primary directive was not to conquer, they still used similar blitzreig(sp) strategies to go after and destroy the Army of the Potomac.

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

Formerly...and the Confederate army did not fight some campaigns as if they were a war of aggression? Even though their primary directive was not to conquer, they still used similar blitzreig(sp) strategies to go after and destroy the Army of the Potomac.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both of the Army of Northern Virginia's advances into the North were commited with much aplomb. Any civilian supplies that they took were paid for and they never pillaged and razed like the Union armies did to Vicksburg, Fredericksburg, Chatanooga, Atlanta, Charlston, Savannah and countless points in between.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

Formerly...and the Confederate army did not fight some campaigns as if they were a war of aggression? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Southern armies only twice crossed onto northern soil, culminating the battles of Sharpsburg and Gettysburg. Hardly a war of aggression. The goal (in their view mind you -- I'm not making value judgments here) was to defend the South from perceived Northern aggression.

Desertions in the ANV rose sharply during the Maryland campaign as Rebels who had signed up to defend their hearth and homes were loathe to leave Southern soil. The Gettysburg campaign was an attempt to bring the Army of the Potomac to battle on Southern terms and defeat it. "Conquering" the North was never even remotely considered as policy.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Steve Clark]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Before the North moved forces to stop the South's secession, there were more slave states IN the union then out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of the states were in the Union before South's secession. Not a good point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>seperate nations with the right to secede from the Union<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once slavery is gone, the South is in the right in every other issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First you say that this was not a true civil war and then you talk about the South as being a single entity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The side that won that war is the side that created our current consumer state, with its massive corporations and its disregard for the individual<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a pile of rubbish (IMHO of course). You truly believe that if for some godforsaken reason the Confederacy remained today that there would not being any corporations in the Southern states and that it would all be a land of yeoman farmers?!?!

The 'side' that won the ACW was the United States of America. The so-called separate Union states did not win the war no more than the so-called separate Southern states lost the war. The country as a whole won and because of what happened in the 20th century, that was a very good thing too.

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before the North moved forces to stop the South's secession, there were more slave states IN the union then out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the states were in the Union before South's secession. Not a good point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not very well informed. Initially, only seven states seceded, leaving eight slave states in the Union. It was not until the United States declared secession illegal and raised troops to defeat the Confederacy that four more states seceded.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

seperate nations with the right to secede from the Union

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once slavery is gone, the South is in the right in every other issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First you say that this was not a true civil war and then you talk about the South as being a single entity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To familiarize yourself with the terminology, a civil war, such as in France and Russia, occurs ACROSS geographic lines between CIVIL lines. Had all the poor people of the union rose up against the rich (Russia) or the Burgouise against the aristocracy (France) it would have been a CIVIL war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The side that won that war is the side that created our current consumer state, with its massive corporations and its disregard for the individual

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a pile of rubbish (IMHO of course). You truly believe that if for some godforsaken reason the Confederacy remained today that there would not being any corporations in the Southern states and that it would all be a land of yeoman farmers?!?!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe if the Confederacy survived, the ideals of its foundation would still flavor its society, as has happened with the US. And this idea of the Confederacy being a backward agrarian state is hogwash. How many presidents came from Virginia? How many poets, artists and writers came from the South?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The 'side' that won the ACW was the United States of America. The so-called separate Union states did not win the war no more than the so-called separate Southern states lost the war. The country as a whole won and because of what happened in the 20th century, that was a very good thing too.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Union was a unified force before the war. The states of the Confederacy are well known for their individualistic nature. Georgia tried to secede from the Confederacy near the end of the war and one of the things that doomed the Confederate States in the face of Union industrial might was their individuality.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[Formerly Babra]

To slip OT just once more, some clarification is needed. A "Civil War" is by definition a war for control of a state, two factions fighting a war for control of the government of a single nation.

This does not describe the American Civil War. The South did not want to control the North; they wanted to be removed from it. A number of other names have been proposed for it, but I prefer Héros von Borcke's "War for Southern Independence" as hitting closest to the mark.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Lawyer]

Well, Suh, before BTS closes this thread down for obvious reasons, jus' let me say that I am a proud Virginia gentleman, I am known to drink that namesake, and I am saving my Confederate money for when the South shall rise again.

Plus, the Nazi's were not nearly as well armed as your average good ole' boy in a pick-up. Now, go wash-out yo' mouth.

------------------

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can be used against you....

[guachi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Civil War was no more fought for slavery than WWII was fought for the freedom and rights of the Jews. I think slavery is wrong but you cannot argue that the North thought it was wrong and they would fight a war to end it as the facts will not support such a case. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poppycock.

The underlying cause of the American Civil War was slavery.

Yes, Lincoln did say early in the Civl War that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists." Within a year, however, Lincoln and Congress had made freeing the slaves a Union war policy. teh Gettysburg address seems pretty clear to me that the Union aim was freeing the slaves.

I find the hypocrisy of the Southern states ironic. They were for state's rights and a weak federal government everywhere except regarding the fugitive slave law. There, they wholeheartedly supported strong federal intervention.

Jason

[Guest Mirage2k]

Ah...just when I thought AP US History was over and I was safe...

Just kidding, I love American history (got a 5 on the exam...go me!)

-Andrew, desperately looking for things that would make him attractive to a college or university.

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi:

Poppycock.

The underlying cause of the American Civil War was slavery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite correct. The underlying cause of secession was slavery.

The underlying cause of the war was the attempt by the North to keep the South in the Union by force of arms.

If you don't see the distinction, there's nothing I can do to illustrate it.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The underlying cause of the war was the attempt by the North to keep the South in the Union by force of arms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't that be the immediate cause?

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

Wouldn't that be the immediate cause?

-Andrew

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Semantics I guess. One could also say the secession was the cause of the war and be technically accurate in the same way that all divorces are the result of marriage.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Nice job Elijah meeks. Yes it was a war of Agression, by the north. I'm so, not sorry, but a people have the right to choose how they live their lives. So I think the Federal government of the north was way outta line going to war. And don't say Fort Sumpter, because every country has the right to own all of its land. Can't have an island of the Federals south of the Mason-Dixie. On the slavery issue, which is seperate from the war issue, is the CSA should have been attacked just for the sole reason that the blacks should be free. Same reason South Africa should have been attacked to remove their evil systems down there. And Steve I have to agree that the war had many causes, but to say"one being not because the Union was threatened but that the United States of America was

threatened. And that was worthy." First I don't believe that the Federal government of the north was threatened at all. The south simple wanted the right given to the people of the world to day by the United Nations. That all be have the right to self-determinaton. They felt like the norht was not living up to the Consitution. And since most of the people in the southern states that did sign the Consitution, they had died of old age. This was an entire new generation! How and why should they be bound to something they never signed! Its like taken over Scotland, declaring yourself king, and then killing a Scotsman for Treason.

P.S. Fun getting a chance to BS with you all. We can all agree that its a moot point cuz the north has been writing the History books for 150 years. Just look at Guachi's post.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

Once slavery is gone, the South is in the right in every other issue.

The North was fighting for the free passage down the Mississipi, cheap cotton and the dissolution of the right to secede. The side that won that war is the side that created our current consumer state, with its massive corporations and its disregard for the individual. You could see it coming before the war, you could see it during the war, you could see it with Reconstruction and you can sure as heck see it now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you actually suggesting that the world in general and the South in particular would be a better place if the South had won the war? And don't try to disassociate slavery from Southern culture, because you can't. Had the South won slavery would have continued well into the 20th century, and the current state of civil rights for blacks would be deplorable. Southern culture having a greater regard for the individual? HA! Sure. As long as your skin is white.

Ever heard the term "United we stand, divided we fall"? That's why the North fought the war. Lincoln and most of the Northern soldiers knew that both the northern and southern states would never be as strong as seperate nations as they would as one. The US is today the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world, and the southern states are sharing in that prosperity. This would not have happened if the South had won (at least not to the same degree). Was the North the aggressor? No doubt. And I'm glad they did it.

And the South will never rise again (in a military sense). For 2 reasons:

1. Why the heck would they? They're doing quite well the way they are.

2. There are fewer and fewer people around who still entertain a romaniticized view of the Old South. Modern society, with most people moving around the country, means that fewer people living in the South were actually born there, or come from traditional Southern families. In fact, this is true of almost every region in the country.

Well, that my 2 cents...

[Chupacabra]

Going back to the original point -

I don't think you can make comparisons between two such radically different events. As you yourself point out, the differences are much greater than the similarities.

To me, it's like saying that the First Punic War and World War One are similar because Romans fought in both.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Brian Rock]

Why does this topic keep coming back again and again when it has nothing to do with CM?

Can't we take it to alt.opinions.don't.change?

[Hamstersss]

So let me get this straight, the main aim of the war was to end slavery, as evidenced by actions a year into the war and the Gettysburg Address (Greatest speech of all time). Also, the civil rights of the blacks would be deplorable had the south won the war.

So first, why didn't the North invade before the South seceded? If these people wanted so badly to end slavery, where were the soldiers?

Second, Reconstruction failed. Terribly. Reconstruction was instrumental in destroying any civil rights movements. "The blacks have nothing because nothing was given them but freedom." Who was supposed to supply them with some means to make a living? The crushed and defeated South? No, the prosperous and victorious North. Did they? No, after the war they were happy to march back North and concentrate fully on making money.

If the war was about slaves, don't you think they would have come out of it better? This was a war of subjugation.

Oh, and all the best generals (Excepting Sherman, of course) are Southern. Patton's grandfather served in the Army of Northern Virginia. So nyah!

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

Chupacabra,

First off, isn't that just the silliest superstition you've ever heard. Don't you think they could've come up with a sea serpent or giant or something???

I think everything is interrelated, especially nations at war and its a great exercise to compare them. These two are superficially similar, so the fun comes when you point out how surprisingly dissimilar they are, and then turn around and point out how surprisingly similar they are.

------------------

You wouldn't know the dust of Thermopylae if it came up to you, handed you a business card reading "Dust of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.E.", then kicked you in the shins.

-Hakko Ichiu