A question for southerners and germans.

[PrincepsAmerica]

Though I do somewhat sympathize with the South I don't really see how Sherman's actions could be considered war crimes. He avoided civilian casualties as much as possible while destroying the enemies materiel and infrastructure. That's more than you could say for the Allies during World War 2.

 

[Red Door]

And i dont think any southerners give a rats ass about it, because nobody alive today lived through the civil war or knew anyone that lived during the civil war.

Besides the following states:

Obviously, they all had forgotten about the Civil War, especially when their state flags had some kind of representation on it.

Or the Southerners waving their good 'ol Confederate flags? They've obviously forgotten about the war.

No one gives a rat's @$$, yeah....okay, and no one cares about the President's doings either, right?

 

[Babbler]

Georgia changed its flag some time ago, due to the controversy around the flag.

Here an interesting site on the flags of the Confederacy.

 

[CaptainF]

Georgia changed its flag some time ago, due to the controversy around the flag.

Here an interesting site on the flags of the Confederacy.

But even that flag resembles the old Stars and Bars.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

I'm not white. 'nuff said.

Well, maybe not enough said...

A Third Reich taking control of the industrial power of a united Eurasia across the pond in the 1940s (and keeping it for posterity) is not a positive harbinger to my current existence in the alternate history. I wouldn't want to live under that regime in any history and there is a chance I may not have existed at all.

It probably wouldn't have been a gas chamber event, but mass sterilization of the lower races would achieve the same result.

Trust me when I say I wouldn't want to live under that regime either , very few people would, but there are at least two things people seems to forget due to effective propaganda after WW2:

1) The war was a continuation of previous wars, and an attempt of Germany to create a European empire based on the German nation (as opposed to for example the French, who had their try in the 1800s). The Jews were not the issue.

2) When the war was over, half of Europe was put under the tyranny of another dictatorship while the other half spent fifty years in fear of that destructive force. So when people talk about the good outcome of the war I feel there is reason to disagree.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

http://media.putfile.com/Hank-Williams-Jr---If-The-South-Woulda-Won

This may answer some questions.

President Hank Williams and the "Patsy Cline-day"?

It was the South that attacked Fort Sumter.

Or do you call Afghanistan the war of United States' Aggression? Even though Al Qaeda attacked U.S. its somehow our fault for invading?!

You know Godwynn, Al Qaeda is a criminal organisation, not a government of any country.

See, here's the thing. I'm not sure if you're teachers aren't making the connection or what... but...

Typically the non-slavery argument goes that this is about <insert argument here>. Usually the argument is states rights, tariff, or culture. The problem is that all these other potential issues lead directly back to slavery.

The problem with your reasoning Shane, is that you use a headline to describe an entire chapter of history, and that is misleading. It gives the viewer the notion that the northerners were fighting for freedom and equal rights for all men, wich I think we can agree, was hardly the case.
There is no chance, had the south won, that they could have kept the system of slavery for very long. The pressure from the rest of the world would have forced the CSA to abolish it in the early 1900s at the latest. If slavery was the only issue, the thought of a civil war over a doomed institution seems a bit odd, wouldn't you say?

I live in the South but im glad that the South lost. I understand their were many issues in the Civil War, but i don't support slavery and if the South won, there STILL might be slavery in the south (unlikely IMO, but still possible).

Had the south tried to keep slavery, they would have become the equalent of today's North Korea, just waiting for an invasion or a collapse.

I severely doubt there would be slavery for another 40 years in the CSA, 150 is unthinkable. The amount of international pressure would have been to large, not to mention the economy would have had to evolve as the North's did and that means a supplanting of the cotton-slave based economy with a more industrial one.

I just think the whole structure of the CSA was doomed to fail, as someone said before...thier whole country was founded on STATES rights and seceeding whenever you had a disagreement. What would have stopped Texas, or Florida, or Kentucky from seceeding when the CSA ran into some rough patches in the first few decades?

I love the whole gray thing though, very stylish.

I you are bound to go down, you might as well go down in style.