What new scenarios would you like to see?

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Anyway, there are already a couple of scenarios covering this concept (one set in 1940, the other in 1914);
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... .php?Id=70
http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenar ... php?Id=670

I haven't looked at the first one lately, but the latter's not bad. By all means design another such scenario if that's what you had in mind. But if you were just looking to play one, here they are.

Great! I didn’t know about the scenarios covering this concept. I will give the latter a try.

Given that these two countries clearly have some outstanding issues, in addition to an enormous frontier, surely the two would have large armies?

The two wouldn’t necessarily have large armies. The US and Canada have an enormous frontier. These countries had outstanding issues during the first half of the 19th Century but they didn’t maintain large armies then … or later.

A prolonged period of peace between the 1860s and 1930s may have led to a reduction in tension and militarization. The US-CSA border may have become as quiet as the US-Canadian border. The two countries may therefore have relied upon large reserve forces of militia (National Guardsmen).

Note that since militia forces weren't really able to stand up to regular troops in the 1860s, it's unlikely that they will be of any significance in the 1930s.

When I refer to militia I mean National Guardsmen. They may not be quite as good as full-time regular forces – but they can stand up to regular forces – especially if they are defending their homes.

I'll note here that the passage of time means that this advantage- already substantial in the 1860s- will be overwhelming by the time of this scenario. You'd have to suppose that, perhaps due to the increased militarisation of the Union, there has been much less immigration.

The North had an overwhelming industrial advantage over the South in the 1860s. This advantage was one of the main reasons why they won. They would also have had an enormous advantage in the 1930s. However, the US only has a limited amount of time to win the scenario. Moreover, the US will not accept casualties as readily as the CSA for political reasons.

Yeah. The scenario lasts until the next Presidential election.

Exactly! The US has to win the war very quickly – or the President will loose the election to a Peace Party candidate.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: redcoat
The two wouldn’t necessarily have large armies. The US and Canada have an enormous frontier. These countries had outstanding issues during the first half of the 19th Century but they didn’t maintain large armies then … or later.

There was never any risk of war between the two, though, because Britain and the United States both had far too much to lose and far too little to gain from such a war. The same is not true of the two states we're discussing here- since we do have them merrily charging off to war. It's hard to imagine the USA electing a President bent on crushing the Confederacy unless there is an underlying tension.

The two countries may therefore have relied upon large reserve forces of militia (National Guardsmen).

The National Guard is quite different from a militia.

The North had an overwhelming industrial advantage over the South in the 1860s. This advantage was one of the main reasons why they won. They would also have had an enormous advantage in the 1930s.

My point is that the gap between the two will have grown in this time. Perhaps if you envisage a South which has colonised Oklahoma and acquired Cuba (and added it as a state rather than a territory), this would help to counteract this.

Exactly! The US has to win the war very quickly – or the President will loose the election to a Peace Party candidate.

Well, whilst the Union barely won the war in four years in the 1860s, the relative power of the defensive is much reduced by the 1930s, with the improvement in communications, the advent of airpower, and the mechanisation of warfare. I suppose it would be established in testing whether the scenario was balanced in this time frame; if not, then one could add external intervention to rebalance it.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Jeremy Mac Donald

ORIGINAL: macgregor
While I'm at it, how about a comprehensive 'War on Terror' scenario starting on 9/11 that would encompass the entire middle east and southern asia that would allow several options(and consequences).(Hmmm...Indonesia?)...

While there is an excellent Persian Gulf II scenario kicking around I don't think anyone has done a War on Terror one. In fact I can't really see how such a scenario could be made using anything like TOAW. Such a scenario would be phenominally political and how do you measure victory?

Interesting concept though - and I would like it if limited moves in this direction were possible. Curt Chambers did an excellent scenario about the War in Vietnam thats truely impressive but twists TOAW out of shape significantly. It'd be nice if we could one day get updates that would make it possible to model Vietnam.

In what way does CSV not model Vietnam properly? I never found any major fault with it.

[redcoat]

There was never any risk of war between the two, though, because Britain and the United States both had far too much to lose and far too little to gain from such a war.

There was more than a risk of war between the two countries in the early 19th Century. Britain and the US actually went to war in 1812.

The same is not true of the two states we're discussing here- since we do have them merrily charging off to war. It's hard to imagine the USA electing a President bent on crushing the Confederacy unless there is an underlying tension.

I do not have the two states charging ‘merrily’ off to war. I have the US going to war during a turbulent decade of social, economic and political crisis. The United States suffered greatly during the Great Depression of the 1930s. This time of crisis could have led to the election of a radical President with a visionary idea: the re-unification of an industrial North with an oil rich South.

The National Guard is quite different from a militia.

Not if you use my very broad definition. In any case, when I referred to militia I meant National Guard.

My point is that the gap between the two will have grown in this time. Perhaps if you envisage a South which has colonised Oklahoma and acquired Cuba (and added it as a state rather than a territory), this would help to counteract this.

I am assuming that the peace treaty that ended the Civil War also allowed the Confederacy to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona would join the CSA. California would also be partitioned between the North and the South.

I am also supposing that the CSA would have industrialized after the Civil War. The Government of the CSA would have established new heavy industries out of strategic necessity. Moreover, the development of the petrochemical industry would have given the CSA economy a boost. By the 1930s the South could have narrowed the industrial gap with the North.

Well, whilst the Union barely won the war in four years in the 1860s, the relative power of the defensive is much reduced by the 1930s, with the improvement in communications, the advent of airpower, and the mechanisation of warfare. I suppose it would be established in testing whether the scenario was balanced in this time frame; if not, then one could add external intervention to rebalance it.

The US military was far from fully mechanized in the early 1930s. Many of the units in the scenario would be ‘leg’ infantry. Moreover, at the beginning of the scenario there would be more ‘horse’ cavalry than ‘armoured cavalry’. There would also be very few aircraft available at the beginning of the scenario. More motorised infantry, armour and aircraft would be introduced as the scenario progressed.

The South was able to stave off the North for four years in the 1860s. With improved communications, concrete fortifications, machine guns and superior morale the CSA may have been able to survive in the 1930s. You have to remember that the power of the ‘defensive’ was still very strong in the 1930s. The hypothetical second civil war would have had more in common with the Spanish Civil War than with the Second World War.

Your point about external intervention is an important one. A CSA in the 1930s – as apposed to the 1860s - would have been a recognized sovereign state. Some members of the international community (including Britain) may have come to its aid – directly or indirectly. The US may therefore have had to keep large numbers of troops stationed along its very long Canadian border ... and coastline. At the very least the US economy may have been subjected to international sanctions – including a crippling oil embargo.

During the original Civil War the North was able to isolate the South from the rest of the world with a naval blockade. In the 1930s a naval blockade of a sovereign country would have been much more difficult to enforce. It could have led to a conflict with Britain or other powers. Moreover, in the 1930s the CSA may have been able to import war materials – including European weaponry - via Mexico.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

There was more than a risk of war between the two countries in the early 19th Century. Britain and the US actually went to war in 1812.

Right. I suppose you're going to argue that the fact that the two countries had no major land armies in North America prior to that is proof that same could happen in this case. This ignores the fact that Britain was fighting a major war in Europe at the time and that the war which resulted was not decided on the Canadian frontier anyway.

I do not have the two states charging ‘merrily’ off to war. I have the US going to war during a turbulent decade of social, economic and political crisis. The United States suffered greatly during the Great Depression of the 1930s. This time of crisis could have led to the election of a radical President with a visionary idea: the re-unification of an industrial North with an oil rich South.

Physically controlling more oil is unlikely to make much difference. The Union has masses of natural resources- just that by the vagaries of economics, they're unable to exploit them properly. What's more, the Union will never go for an obviously costly and bloody war with a country with which they have good relations- not for all the natural resources in the world. Why not just invade Venezuala? Far easier.

An alternative would be to imagine some Northern state or other- one which is perhaps not really in sync with the rest of the country politically- decides that the Federal Government's mismanagement of the Depression has gone too far and decides to secede. At this point the small Union army moves into to crush the session, and the government starts bringing up old memories with slogans like "Don't let it happen again". Naturally, this offends the Confederacy- which proceeds to offer this errant state membership. When it accepts, the Union declares war.

I think that's more feasible than the 'Blood for oil' storyline you had going. Especially when it comes to arranging for the two countries to be much less militarised.

I am assuming that the peace treaty that ended the Civil War also allowed the Confederacy to expand to the Pacific Ocean. The territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona would join the CSA. California would also be partitioned between the North and the South.

I don't think the Confederacy was interested in acquiring California. They didn't want aggrandisment- they just wanted to be left alone. The rest is all reasonable enough- this is all largely empty space which can be filled with southern settlers.

I am also supposing that the CSA would have industrialized after the Civil War.

Up to a point, but their population as of 1930 was a smaller fraction of the North's than it had been in 1860.

Moreover, the development of the petrochemical industry would have given the CSA economy a boost.

You keep talking about oil as though it's the most important thing in the world. Does Saudi Arabia have comparable wealth to western nations? No- because oil doesn't make that much of a difference. Especially since as of 1930 it's only been a significant commodity for the past 20 years. Before that, coal was where it was at.

The US military was far from fully mechanized in the early 1930s. Many of the units in the scenario would be ‘leg’ infantry.

Right. Take a look at what the US Army looked like in 1861. Wasn't much. By year three of the war it's going to be totally unrecognisable.

With improved communications, concrete fortifications, machine guns and superior morale the CSA may have been able to survive in the 1930s. You have to remember that the power of the ‘defensive’ was still very strong in the 1930s. The hypothetical second civil war would have had more in common with the Spanish Civil War than with the Second World War.

Actually I seriously doubt it. While the logistical problems of the 1860s have faded away due to industrialisation and population growth, the problems of the First World War- that the front was so packed with troops that there was no room for manoeuvre- is totally non-existant in North America. The gap between the Appalachians and the sea alone is as wide as the gap from the Channel to Verdun.

Your point about external intervention is an important one. A CSA in the 1930s – as apposed to the 1860s - would have been a recognized sovereign state. Some members of the international community (including Britain) may have come to its aid – directly or indirectly.

Well, you have to decide what's happened in the rest of the world in the intervening time. Naturally, if things are as they were, Britain etc. is going to be disinclined to get too distracted. She has problems of her own- economic and international. The Confederacy can probably buy arms. More than that is less likely.

At the very least the US economy may have been subjected to international sanctions – including a crippling oil embargo.

I dunno. See the quick and effective action taken by the League of Nations over Abyssinia. Ultimately, the international community didn't have the will to stop countries doing as they pleased at this point.

During the original Civil War the North was able to isolate the South from the rest of the world with a naval blockade. In the 1930s a naval blockade of a sovereign country would have been much more difficult to enforce.

The naval blockade wouldn't be a problem, really. As you say, it's a matter of whether or not the South can import materials via Mexico.

[Fidel_Helms]

An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

[geozero]

Zulu Wars...that's what I'd like to see, if a new and improved TOAW can handle other time periods better.

[bluermonkey]

Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting...

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: bluermonkey

Has there ever been a TOAW scenario covering the Japanese war in China from 1936 onwards? Could be interesting...

Not that I know of. Due to the size and scope of that conflict the scenario would have to be a 'monster.' [:)]

[Fidel_Helms]

There is an old scenario called the "Taiping-Tientsin Operation" or something like that which depicts a Japanese offensive in China in 1937 or so if I remember correctly. It was a fun little scenario, but I don't seem to have it on my hard drive and I can't find it at TOAW UK either.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

An interesting point to consider in all of this is that at the time this scenario would take place, the vast majority of American oil imports came from Mexico. Neither Venezuela nor the Middle East were major producers at the time. So a Confederacy which has good relations with Mexico(or has annexed parts of it) and holds most of the Southwest drastically alters the strategic position and the industrial capacity of the United States during this time frame.

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

Perhaps not, but consider what a drastic change that is. Historically, the United States produced a large amount of oil itself, and imported most of the rest from Mexico. In this timeline, most of the US's domestic oil will now be in the Confederacy. The Confederacy is in a very strong strategic and possibly diplomatic position to cut off Mexican oil exports to the US, and of course in wartime the Confederacy will not sell oil to the US. It's a reality which is much more difficult for the US than the historical one.

[redcoat]

Right. I suppose you're going to argue that the fact that the two countries had no major land armies in North America prior to that is proof that same could happen in this case. This ignores the fact that Britain was fighting a major war in Europe at the time and that the war which resulted was not decided on the Canadian frontier anyway.

No … that isn’t my argument at all. I’m arguing the fact that Britain and the US did not maintain massive land armies after the war of 1812 ... or after the British ended their war against Napoleon. I’m saying that after 60 years of peace the US and CSA would have maintained only modest standing armies.

Physically controlling more oil is unlikely to make much difference. The Union has masses of natural resources- just that by the vagaries of economics, they're unable to exploit them properly. What's more, the Union will never go for an obviously costly and bloody war with a country with which they have good relations- not for all the natural resources in the world. Why not just invade Venezuala? Far easier.

A war of re-unification would have been very easy to justify politically. Moreover, a mass mobilisation for a war with the CSA would have solved the problem of mass unemployment – caused by the Great Depression - overnight.

It would be much harder to justify a blatantly ‘colonial’ war against Venezuela – in an ‘anti-colonial’ country like the US. Moreover, the conquest of Venezuela would have been no pushover – even if the Great Powers didn’t intervene. Running the place as a colony would be well nigh impossible.

Besides. I’ve just learnt that Venezuela was not a major oil producer in the 1930s …

An alternative would be to imagine some Northern state or other- one which is perhaps not really in sync with the rest of the country politically- decides that the Federal Government's mismanagement of the Depression has gone too far and decides to secede. At this point the small Union army moves into to crush the session, and the government starts bringing up old memories with slogans like "Don't let it happen again". Naturally, this offends the Confederacy- which proceeds to offer this errant state membership. When it accepts, the Union declares war.

I think that's more feasible than the 'Blood for oil' storyline you had going. Especially when it comes to arranging for the two countries to be much less militarised.

I like your storyline nearly as much as my ‘re-unification for prosperity’ storyline.

Up to a point, but their population as of 1930 was a smaller fraction of the North's than it had been in 1860.

The Confederacy would have had a smaller population than the US in the 1930s – even with its new Western states. However, you have to bear in mind that the US only has a very short time to win the war – for political and economic reasons. It therefore does not have enough time to mobilise its entire population. Moreover, I am also assuming that the Western states in the US are less than enthusiastic about the war. They may keep many of their boys at home.

You keep talking about oil as though it's the most important thing in the world … Especially since as of 1930 it's only been a significant commodity for the past 20 years. Before that, coal was where it was at.

Oil was a very significant commodity in the 1930s. It was an oil embargo against the Japanese which ultimately led to their seizure of the oil wells of the Dutch East Indies – and to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Oil was especially important in the US - which had the most advanced and oil dependent economy in the world at that time.

Does Saudi Arabia have comparable wealth to western nations? No- because oil doesn't make that much of a difference.

Saudi Arabia has enormous wealth and a standard of living comparable to Western nations. What would Saudi Arabia … or Texas … be like if they didn’t have any oil.

Right. Take a look at what the US Army looked like in 1861. Wasn't much. By year three of the war it's going to be totally unrecognisable.

The second civil war would develop in much the same way. The opposing armies would rapidly grow in size and change in composition (modernise).

Actually I seriously doubt it. While the logistical problems of the 1860s have faded away due to industrialisation and population growth, the problems of the First World War- that the front was so packed with troops that there was no room for manoeuvre- is totally non-existant in North America. The gap between the Appalachians and the sea alone is as wide as the gap from the Channel to Verdun.

Did I say anything about the First World War? No … I didn’t.

This hypothetical war would be unique, but it would have a few similarities to other wars (such as the Russian Civil War and Spanish Civil War).

I dunno. See the quick and effective action taken by the League of Nations over Abyssinia. Ultimately, the international community didn't have the will to stop countries doing as they pleased at this point.

I’m supposing that the League of Nations does not exist (because a United America does not exist). The Great Powers are free to do as they please – unrestrained by any international talking-shop. And so Britain would be free to impose an oil embargo. Britain controlled the oil resources of the Middle East in the 1930s. British influence would ‘encourage’ other countries to fall into line.

[redcoat]

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

Perhaps not, but consider what a drastic change that is. Historically, the United States produced a large amount of oil itself, and imported most of the rest from Mexico. In this timeline, most of the US's domestic oil will now be in the Confederacy. The Confederacy is in a very strong strategic and possibly diplomatic position to cut off Mexican oil exports to the US, and of course in wartime the Confederacy will not sell oil to the US. It's a reality which is much more difficult for the US than the historical one.

I couldn't have put it better.

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

Does Saudi Arabia have comparable wealth to western nations? No- because oil doesn't make that much of a difference.

Saudi Arabia has enormous wealth and a standard of living comparable to Western nations. What would Saudi Arabia … or Texas … be like if they didn’t have any oil.

It would be more accurate to say that SA *had* a standard of living comparable to western nations, thier SoL has declined rapidly along with the other oil states though. Thier education system has taught religion to the exclusion of teh skills needed for a modern economy, which combined with a cultural disdain for work has resulted in their economies being almost exclusively being based on exports with the bulk of the population unemployed and dependent on govt handouts for survival. being unemployed has resulted in the masses spending lots of time in recreational activities with consequences 9mo down the road. The resultant population explosion, combined with a realtively stagnant growth of the oil income has seen per capita income in SA fall from ~$20k in the early 80's to $5k a few years ago. I haven't seen more recent numbers, but it certainly makes clear opec's reasons to drive oil prices up as much as possible.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: redcoat

Does Saudi Arabia have comparable wealth to western nations? No- because oil doesn't make that much of a difference.

Saudi Arabia has enormous wealth and a standard of living comparable to Western nations. What would Saudi Arabia … or Texas … be like if they didn’t have any oil.

It would be more accurate to say that SA *had* a standard of living comparable to western nations, thier SoL has declined rapidly along with the other oil states though. Thier education system has taught religion to the exclusion of teh skills needed for a modern economy, which combined with a cultural disdain for work has resulted in their economies being almost exclusively being based on exports with the bulk of the population unemployed and dependent on govt handouts for survival. being unemployed has resulted in the masses spending lots of time in recreational activities with consequences 9mo down the road. The resultant population explosion, combined with a realtively stagnant growth of the oil income has seen per capita income in SA fall from ~$20k in the early 80's to $5k a few years ago. I haven't seen more recent numbers, but it certainly makes clear opec's reasons to drive oil prices up as much as possible.

The point I was trying to make - in response to golden delicious's original comment - is that oil has made ALL of the difference to the SA economy. The Saudi's would be in deep s**t if they had no oil. Having oil reserves makes a difference.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started.

It's certainly a topic which is ripe with possibility as concerns alternate history. Consider the following possibility:

In the wake of a Confederate victory, there is no American "army of observation" on the Mexican border. No American volunteers in Juarez's army. American diplomatic pressure on France, if that even occurs, has no substance. France does not have to withdraw support from Maximilian and the Conservatives in Mexico. Juarez is eventually defeated, and close ties between the Confederacy and France lead to close ties between the Confederacy and Mexico into the 20th century. No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

The flip side of this is that if Juarez does eventually defeat the French/Conservatives anyway, and the Confederacy had been helping them, Mexico is going to be incredibly hostile to the Confederacy. Another question would be whether or not Mexico has a major revolution around the time it did historically(1910-1920), and what you think the US and Confederate role would be in that. You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.

Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?

For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.

[redcoat]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: redcoat

If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.

So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started.

It's certainly a topic which is ripe with possibility as concerns alternate history. Consider the following possibility:

In the wake of a Confederate victory, there is no American "army of observation" on the Mexican border. No American volunteers in Juarez's army. American diplomatic pressure on France, if that even occurs, has no substance. France does not have to withdraw support from Maximilian and the Conservatives in Mexico. Juarez is eventually defeated, and close ties between the Confederacy and France lead to close ties between the Confederacy and Mexico into the 20th century. No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.

The flip side of this is that if Juarez does eventually defeat the French/Conservatives anyway, and the Confederacy had been helping them, Mexico is going to be incredibly hostile to the Confederacy. Another question would be whether or not Mexico has a major revolution around the time it did historically(1910-1920), and what you think the US and Confederate role would be in that. You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.

Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?

For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.

“You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.”

Yes. You could write several alt histories of Mexico between the 1860s and 1930s! I would prefer something close to what actually happened historically – but that is only my personal taste. I am supposing a Mexican Revolution followed by a ‘Cardenas’ type regime. This would be polls apart ideologically from both the CSA and US governments. It would want to keep ‘Gringo’ (US or CSA) influence within Mexico to a minimum. It would therefore try to keep the two states divided – by bolstering the CSA – indirectly – against the US.

“Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?”

You could go either way. Personally I would like to think that the Confederacy would develop more industrially – although agriculture would remain very important. Moreover, I do not think that the CSA would have colonised Central America or the Caribbean. I think that the CSA would have avoided a conflict with Mexico – and therefore stayed out of Latin America. Moreover, I think that the Caribbean would have largely remained under European control. Cuba would either still be a Spanish possession – or it would have liberated itself after a Castro style rebellion. I am assuming that the Spanish–American War hasn’t taken place – because the US and CSA are weaker and more isolationist than the historical United States.

“For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.”

Yes. I agree. I especially like point (c): “the United States is viewed as the greater threat”

If you use an alt history of Mexico you could have an authoritarian ‘Huerta’ type of regime - or even a quasi-fascist ‘Diaz’ type of regime - in Mexico. Such regimes would have had much more in common with a conservative (presumably segregationist) regime in the CSA – than with the government in the US.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: redcoat

Moreover, I do not think that the CSA would have colonised Central America or the Caribbean. I think that the CSA would have avoided a conflict with Mexico – and therefore stayed out of Latin America. Moreover, I think that the Caribbean would have largely remained under European control. Cuba would either still be a Spanish possession – or it would have liberated itself after a Castro style rebellion. I am assuming that the Spanish–American War hasn’t taken place – because the US and CSA are weaker and more isolationist than the historical United States.

I think that the Confederacy would have been pretty heavily involved in Latin America. It was largely Southerners who conducted all of those filibustering expeditions in Latin America in the 19th century. I assume you've heard of William Walker?

If you use an alt history of Mexico you could have an authoritarian ‘Huerta’ type of regime - or even a quasi-fascist ‘Diaz’ type of regime - in Mexico. Such regimes would have had much more in common with a conservative (presumably segregationist) regime in the CSA – than with the government in the US.

Díaz was sort of an authoritarian technocrat. The US loved him- he was good for business. Huerta tried to be the continuation of that, but never gained support from the US because Wilson was revolted by the murder of Francisco Madero.