The qestion is had Jackson lived and Gettysburg was a Southern victory, was Lee aware of the fact that the British may have invaded from Canada as well as from Florida. Jackson was aware of Florida's vulnerablity, he was stationed there and acually had a large hand in surveyin it after the Spanish. But if the United States had lost at Gettysburg, the next task would have been for Lee and Jackson to defend the entire nation against the British.
@mischief30m Considering the British helped the confederates and that the dixies would have had no real chance of taking over the union, the most likely outcome would be of an independant dixie that would be allied with the British so that the US would be to preoccupied with them to threaten Canada or the British Carrabian territory, and at the same time the US would not be likely to starte a war on 2 fronts and the Atlantic against a stronger nation.
See, the main problem with this whole documentary is that they actually believe the driving force of the South in the War was Slavery, and, as any educated person can tell you, the Civil War is much more complex. Truth be told, had the South won and for whatever reason gone against their creed and annexed the north, the country would have fallen apart because of a weak, decentralized government that the South favored. It would be a mess, and incapable of doing anything listed in this video.
@metternichful, I am not taking about 1860, I am talking 30, 40 or more years in the future. The south would also develope industry and would compete with northern goods. The south having a better climate for growing and heavy industry would have put the north at a disadvantage for over a century. Many of the elites plans would be stymied by a sectionalist south, no civil rights movement, no women's right movement and no socialism. We would have been better off if the south had won.
@unclefixer wow, what a disgusting view. "no civil rights movement, no women's right movement... We would have been better off if the south had won." you would like that wouldn't you? a south run by rich white men while the women stayed in the kitchen and the darkies in the factories and the plantations.
Unclefixer. I agree with you but the south fired the first shot. It wasn't exactly food either. It was more beneficial for the south to trade with England and Spain until president Lincoln taxed all exports from the south. Taxation without representation. It was a fight for freedom the same thing we fought the Brits for just a few years earlier.
@polske322 if you read the actual historical record, the Civil War was not over slavery. That was what they told the Yankees to get them to go out and get killed in an illegal war. the Civil War was . like all wars ,was over money, power and control. The yankee industrialist , knew that while the north , had industry, they lacked the ability to produce the food necessary to feed the mass populations, they knew they would have in a few decades. They invaded the south to get its food.
I'm afraid not. By 1860, the North was outproducing the South in every single foodstuff with the exception of pork and rice. Unless the north had a rapacious appetite for carnitas con arroz sasonado, the argument that the north wanted to appropriate southern food production is ridiculous. Moreover, Southern firebrands intent on war touched it off when they abandoned peaceful secession in favor of gunfire. Secession sentiment was the direct outcome over slavery issues.
This movie is bullshit, the Confederacy was more concerned with Economic and Cultural Independence from the Union...who was overstepping it's bounds(Just like it is now) and spitting on States rights.
The States rights vs slavery argument is this in a nutshell. Jack suspects that his girlfriend is going to leave him for Chuck. Out of fear of losing her to Chuck, he ambushes Chuck who kicks his butt and takes the girl. Hereafter, Jack will claim Chuck was a bully who made unwelcome advances on the girl which he stood up to against overwhelming odds in the spirit of freedom blah blah blah. It was Slavery all along. Or failure to enforce fugitive slave laws. Guess what? Same thing.
@easmachine The fugitive slave laws were in the constitution, which was passed unanimously by all states, north and south. By not returning escaped slaves, Mass, New York, and Penn were violating the constituion.
@branman864 True. Bur are you saying that all the states you mentioned were wrong?That is why the Underground Railroad was...Underground. The sheer number of fugitive slave laws were always forced by Southern Planter mouthpieces in congress.. They wanted States Rights to maintain a system of slavery-but wanted Federal recognition of the institution through the fugitive slave acts. Therefore the moral good of helping a person escape slavery became a felony.
@easmachine Its not a moral good to not return them unless their master(s) is(are) abusive. Jefferson Davis's brother was older than him by at least a decade and a father figure to him. He was in the war of 1812 and key in helping Missisipi become a state. At the missisipi constitutional convention he proposed a law punishing abusive masters, which was shot down. He made a big impression on davis's views of slavery as did jeffersons own slave and friend.
@branman864 I see in your defence of slavery a disregard for the role of God as lord and master of each man and concept of God creating people with free will.-Paul was a false apostle. Jesus said that he came to set the captive free- and you are approving a system that enslaved a fetus in the womb of it's mother to life as chattel property. I cannot reason with unreasonable people or debate the indefensible with people who have no moral compass. Good day sir.
@easmachine Hahahaha "defender of slavery" typical slander from the PC. I am not a "defender of slavery" rather i tell the truth about slavery. Slavery has been propagandized, I would by like one of the many people who opposed it but knew the truth. Theres a difference between telling the truth about what slavery was like and defending the system of slavery.
@branman864 Well, if you aren't defending slavery, you are certainly in a long line of Confederate apologists who claim that Slavery was NOT the main reason for Secession.The protection of Slavery as an Institution was the backbone of every argument they could muster without saying it. The proof is in the pudding and in their Constitution, that not only protected Slavery, but Eliminated the ability of states to outlaw it ensuring generations of Children born into slavery.
@easmachine You wanna play the constitution game? Ok. Where in the United States Constitution at the time did it counter slavery in a major way? The CSA constitution prohibited the importation of slaves internationally as well as the US, so you cant use that one.
@branman864 You are an eager student, I'll give you that. Your problem is trying to defend the indefensible The CSA looks worse in every way when compared to the USA AND they had no regard for Human Rights. I hope there's a hell for them all to burn in. FYI The importation of Slaves from Africa had already been prohibited for 50+ years in the USA, so what does that mean that the CSA prohibited the importation of more?. It meant there would be a stable market for their own chattel.
This is pure liberal bullshit, saying "if the South won their independence, then the world would be a bastion of racist hatred and slavery."
That is the ultimate hatred and perversion of truth, because you can't have slavery if you have a freedom across the fricking state-border-- along with Chinese coolies and Irish blighters pouring in like rain, ready to work like dogs for next to nothing!
@GirgoLoons86 I can't really say who should have won because I'm not psychic, and for all i know if the South one we might somehow have become even more uberliberal, but I support the values embraced by the South at the time more than those of the North.
@crazychrisva As a European, I find your comment stupid and insulting. Fat American trash at its best (by the way, learn to spell, dumb American fuck).
I'm not for or against CSA or USA; but some facts most choose to remain ignorant of and that's fine with me; let 'em remain ignorant; to think that the southern states broke away because of slavery is utterly naive at best; Lincoln told the southern states to come back and no repercussions would occur, period! It never was about slaves; northerners were the worst of racists; after the south was conquered, and the true USA dissolved why didn't northern states stop segregation in the south?
Coon Chicken Inn: we proudly sell African-American food. LOL! Also they are portrayed as (still) slaves & ridiculed like they are cartoon characters. Imagine the CSA in th Great Depression, more xenophobic & less concerned on the welfare of its own working WHITE class. They proudly sided with the Nazis to save them, then made Nazis turn against I-talians & Jap (anese)s. & finally, communist USSR are portrayed as "Satan Major", alike WWI when the CSA took over Turkey & annexed oil-rich Arabia. +
Also I sense there won't be other cultures or religions or languages allowed other than White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christian-English speaking southern based American. No concept of diversity, multiculturalism or tolerance will be allowed, because it's against the CSA's racial domination ideology. Imagine No French spoken in Louisiana or Canada, unless Quebec is like an internment camp by the CSA insisting these people need to ("pardon my french, speak white") or be suspected of disloyality. +
So the CSA conquered the entire western hemisphere, due to fear of Latin Americans "invade" Texas or the southwest. Interestingly, I wonder if Texas was a republic again or some sort of union. The ethnic segregatory system of Hispanics/Latinos vs. Anglos/Whites (because Mexicans are "brown" or "mestizo") also was felt in Cal. & all over the western US way until the 1960's. In the CSA, Latinos remained illiterate in English, unlike the so-called world langauge we have today studied globally. +
You can copy and paste your Satanic lie all over the comment page. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. It makes you a fucking asshole. Your Satanic lies are going to start a second civil war.
The congress had passed an export tariff 80% and the only ones forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
@gallant1able This is bullshit. The nullification crisis occured in 1830 and not in 1861. Nor were the southern states "the wealthiest states in the Union". Travelers entering Virginia in the 1850s noticed immediately a general impoverishment coupled with ostentation, and a complete lack of infrastructure, or the signs of investment and growth obvious even in Maryland and especially in Pennsylvania.
@gallant1able No reputable historian, not even conservatives such as Charles Johnson (A History of the American People) nor Winston Churchill would agree that the Civil War was caused by "tariffs".
The tariffs of 1830 (not 1861) were passed by Congress and by constitutional means, in debates and in votes in the House and Senate in which the South was fully represented. The problem was that as is the case today, the South saw no sense in the infrastructure improvements that the tariffs funded because it was not interested in the mobility of free labor, whereas Northern employers were.
It is a Satanic lie that the Civil War was not about slavery. The cause of Secession was the Republican victory of 1860, which was caused by the split between Southerners advocating Secesh and other Southerners (such as Sam Houston) who advocated Union but slavery's preservation. The Republicans were committed to keeping slavery out of the far West whereas the South wanted it to spread to all new states where they could send enough thugs to intimidate Free Soil men.
The South also wanted to expand slavery by conquest to the new republics of Latin America that had ended it upon gaining freedom from Spain. The South was proto-Fascist, with a forced military draft and suspension of habeas corpus throughout the Civil War, unlike Lincoln's suspension, which was restricted to a rail corridor through Maryland, Constitutional, and which lasted for less than a year.
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only ones forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
HAHAHA, This would never ever happen, How would hillbillies take over mexico and South America, those fucks would be to busy fucking there cousins and drinking moonshine
This shouldn't have been made believing the war was about slavery :/ in reality it would have ended once machines developed to the point where more profit could be made by using them. The war was about states rights, even in the North that is what it was about. It's a cool mockumentary, but not very realistic.
@polske322 Actually, slavery was a big part of this. Go look up the Articles of Secession. There were elite politicians standing up and openly admitting the reason they wanted to secede was to keep slavery.
@evergreenstater But the Articles of Secession prove that there were many who felt that slavery would be abolished and for that reason, wanted to secede. The slavery issue did play a part. Go look it up.
@Unkraut1960 Actually, it is. Go look it up in the Articles of Secession. Nowadays people lie about it, but still, slavery was a major issue. Not the only issue, but a major one.
@polske322, I watcherd it & I lovbed it. Spike Lee was a genious of irony in thisd mockcumentary. Having actual Civil War experts being featured is a plus indeed.
@polske322 slavery being abolished was an incentive made by the north to get more recruits to their army [blacks] and to get civil unrest in the south [black treason [even though they werent citizens].
@polske322 Have you ever read the constitution of the confederacy? It is a lot like the US constitution except it includes slavery (cannot be abolished).There is no Confederacy without the Permanent institution of Slavery. How could even a mockumentary reasonably be made without this perspective?
@polske322 So when Big Planters became small planters in economic hard times or market cycles, they would do what? Turn their former workers into their competition? History tells the tale. After reconstruction they colluded with the government to create which kept unemployed men on the plantation through chain gangs. Why do you think the Southerners wanted to expand west? For the climate? No, they wanted more land to spread the religion of free labor and manifest destiny.
@easmachine I'm talking long term, i.e. when it no longer required multiple people to work the land, and many Southerners were also against slavery, the main point of the war was states rights vs. federal power. Also, you write with an air of arrogance, like I'm aggressively trying to insult you, I'm not, this is simply a difference of opinion and should be treated as such.
@polske322 What you call arrogance is more exasperation. Here is the Slavery vs States Rights argument. from Present day southerners who want to wave their flags in my face and say heritage not hate.. It's like "Jack" who ambushes his girlfriends co-worker on suspicion that she will leave him for the other guy. Turns out the co-worker is Chuck"the ice man" Liddell and "Jack" gets crushed. Jack hereafter but claims he only attacked chuck for making unwelcome advances on his woman.After the fact
@easmachine But I'm from Mass not the South, and even back then the South was more concerned with self-government than slavery, I agree in no way with slavery but I truly believe the South wasn't aggressively trying to maintain that so much as aggressively trying to enforce their right to self governance.
@polske322 " They were more concerned with self-goverment, you ignore the fact that the "they" were the wealthy Slaveholding and landholding elite that counted on Slavery the way we count on air to continue their prosperity. In other words, They were so dependent on it, that there was no economic base, no white privilege no raison d'etre without it..It seems so apparent to me that I suspect you're intentionally ignoring the obvious.
@easmachine But the entirety of the South wasn't the land holders, like anywhere else the rich were the minority. Also, just because they owned slaves, doesn't mean that was what they were fighting over, yes it did play into it but it wasn't the major factor that caused secession because slavery wasn't even immediately threatened, Abraham Lincoln cared more about preserving the union than freeing the slaves.
@polske322 Then and now,the rich who DO have a vested interest in maintaining a large voteless second class source of cheap labor, were able to pull poor whites into a war in which they had no vested interest under the guise of states rights. Listen to their rhetoric about apartheid and Jim Crow-States Rights. States Rights and Secession also were used during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson decades earlier, but he called it treason. If there was no slavery, would there have been a civil war?
No on realy know how it could have turned out check out the timeline in the link below, its very detailed and shows how good the CSA could have turned out.
hahaha pay for all destruction?What right DO YOU have to destroy it in the first place!I Iraq was a normal middle country till u freakin americans come in motivated by ur brainwashed theories...now they have all destroyed and they live in tents...how will u pay for that?with money?u ignorant...
@Pwnagener If by normal middle eastern country, you mean a shithole, then yes, you're right. And you are extremely ignorant, and possibly brainwashed yourself, if you think the U.S. hasn't done any good in the region.
Oh wait, I bet you think Iraq was a happy place where women weren't stoned to death and treated barely better than a slave, where the children were happy and had gumdrop smiles. You dumbass.
I think its funny that the director beleives that the C.S.A. would have turned into a world power like the U.S.A., it was capitolism that made the U.S. a super power and the conferates who were slave owners wouldn't have fed in to the economy! and the leaders of eache state would have had theire state become its own entity and would have porbably fought each other afterwards!
Maybe you ought to post when the European countries abolished slavery. Not just in their countries but when they abolished slavery in their Colonies. Hmmm, well after the USA abolished it. This is ridiculous.
Hey moron, if the CSA had won slavery would have been done away with anyway. Gen. Robert E. Lee was an ABOLITIONIST! Who becomes president after a war? The head General. Therefor no matter who would have one slavery was going to be done away with.
CSA taking over MEXICO??? why on earth would they do that in the first place? Just as what REALLY happened, AFTER the US civil war (with the UNION victory) , the US told France regarding MAXIMILIAN to stop all actions in Mexico.. Most US citizens now don't know that England/Spain and France came to mexico by force cause of debts. The Spanish/english left, France stayed. By the end of the US war, Mexico was in occupation by France. this "CSA" muckumentary doesn't even talk or imply that.
I could only watch half of this clip. Contrary to one speaker, there were black slave owners and white slaves in the South, too bad these people only want to attack the Old South without learning the facts outside of reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin".
First of all.The African Americans wouldve made a resistance against the south and wouldve made a war.the north wouldve helped.the US was ment to be united.
This whole series is trash that further re-incites a negative attitude towards the South. I am from the Minnesota by the way of Kentucky and find this offensive.
what the hell look at it they call the south racist look at what they are doing right now you dooshbag yankees go get a job like you aint got nothin else better to do. Yall got damn problems... and dont drag God into this he created you
what the hell look at it they call the south racist look at what they are doing right now you dooshbag yankees go get a job like you aint got nothin else better to do. Yall got damn problems...
Absolutely no way could the South win. The North outgunned the South in every respect and would have taken the western territories without breaking a sweat. The Confederacy would have been surrounded and vastly outnumbered. How about no Civil Way -- price tag: no independence from the UK.
@FreeTexas100 Tell us which of the western territories the South could have taken and held onto. I didn't mention that the North had resources it didn't even use. That's from a southern historian, Shelby Foote, used by Ken Burns in his documentary.
America was build by white mans whit guns. Thats that. Fo centuries there were nativa americans there but they dint achieve enything no - complex political or social sys. no technological advance living as sauvages from the beginign of time .Sam goes for most of the africal tribes .
@screamingdean5 For this, you should read Harry Turtledove's Great War series. Terrific fictional history. I refer to it as history. Really winds people up.
@generalwbush Yes much more reasonable then this film. This time line has little or no change, while Turtledove uses a much more logical idea (for the most part). While this film has the same, for the most part, same people and same actions taken as in our time line.
@dave19941000 Let's say for a moment, Germany still lost World War One and the Germany suffered the Treaty of Versailles, Germany would have come back with Hitler and the Nazis and conquered Europe without the U.S. supporting Britain with lend lease and the like. And without the American military there would not have been an invasion of France or Italy.
@screamingdean5 The Uk and former colonies, along with the free french forces, had the man power and weponds capability to fight on the western front, and a good general or two would make up for Patton and his basic stratigies that relied on numbers. The eastern front was devastating, so the western onewould have eventualy been weakened to the point where it would be easy to push them back. In the end, the US fough Japan, thatès where things would be different.
@dave19941000 Even from before the U.S ACTIVELY got involved in the war, Britian depended on help from us heavily. They would not have lasted 1940 without U.S. help and FDR's genius plan called Lend Lease. Don't forget the billions of dollars the Soviets got from the U.S.! Britain and Russia couldn't have survived the German Wehrmacht without the United States. Both Britain and the Soviet Union begged and demanded help from the U.S.! Why do you Europeans keep forgetting that?!
@screamingdean5 I'm not European, I'm Canadian. Now, I'm not saying the US didn't help before you got involved, but the Germans where fighting a losing battle with the Soviets and the Britiah, so without assistance from the US it would have likely become a stailmate war of attrition, and both the UK/Former Colonies and the Soviet Union out numbered Germany in everything. The war would have been longer, but it's in Asia that things would be different, not Europe.
@dave19941000 Hmm? Germany was actually winning on all fronts. In fact, it took almost a year of US being in the war before we were able to do anything to stop the German onslaught. And the Germans didn't suffer a major defeat on the Eastern Front until the winter of 1942-43 at Stalingrad. You also forgot about Italy and the Axis minors like Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, and Hungary. And there's no way Britain could have pulled off a successful invasion of either France or Italy without US help.
@screamingdean5 I'm not saying the UK could have invaded, but victory was still possible. The Axis was also having trouble within because all countries they invaded and occupied had underground resisstance, the destroyer of armies. There was also a problem of coordination between the powers. The Italiens where no military threat to anyone, and my country could probably have taken it on 1 on 1 and come out vicotrious if it wans't for german forces stationed in Italy.
@dave19941000 Britain would have folded without US help. You Canadians were giving all the help to the war you could, but without America it wouldn't have been enough. Sooner or later Germany would have conquered the USSR. The USSR demanded and got billions of aid from the US without which they could not have continued. Germany came up with new weapons, but they had run out of time. Without the US bombing them everyday, they'd have had the time to use their superior stuff and make it work.
@screamingdean5 Even if they had won, they would hav eventualy fallen from within, as Germany didn't have the man power to sucsesfuly occupy all of Europe for a prolong period of time. Even if Britain fell the Commonwealth (which includes Indea) would continue to build up a military that the Axis could not reach effectivly. The Germans would eventualy reach the Japanies, and everyone thinks that they would most lickly start fighting. That would weaken both, making invasion and victory possible.
@dave19941000 If you mean that Germany would have fallen eventually, then you're right. But it would have been a long time. Germany would have found all the Germanic looking people they had conquered and took them in. There would have also been plenty of Quislings and Vichy French types to do most of the work for them. As for Japan, India was on their target list. Let's say for the moment that India didn't fall to Japan. How loyal do think India would have been to Britain? Ever heard of Gandhi?
@screamingdean5 The Japanies would, although not fighting with US, only have 10% of the oil it was importing at the begining of our version of WW2, because 90% was US oil. Eventualy the Japanies army, navy and air force would literaly stop from lack of fuel, and Indea, although "cheap", does have the resourses to be a strong power and in a war would probably be able to hold it's own until the oil ran out or the japanies army ran out of men. Indea's army is well trained, just as all commenwealths
Is this on netflix?
iPandarize 1 week ago
The darky commercial was honestly funny. no lie. But yes it is an actual toothpaste still kinda sold like that i think.
lilblake90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It fucking scary when I see the Darkie toothpaste commercial, because Darkie toothpaste is actually real, only that it's been renamed Darlie.
liquidsnakeckw 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What if Yugoslavi survived and become dominative military force in europe and west asia ?>???
g0r4n8t 2 months ago
Comment removed
Nemisish 2 months ago
Whay are they showing Candian troops in black and white???
GerrettJihad 2 months ago
i REMEMBER BUYING THIS MOVIE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, i DIDNT LIKE IT THEN, BUT NOW I AM CHUKLING??
GerrettJihad 2 months ago
The qestion is had Jackson lived and Gettysburg was a Southern victory, was Lee aware of the fact that the British may have invaded from Canada as well as from Florida. Jackson was aware of Florida's vulnerablity, he was stationed there and acually had a large hand in surveyin it after the Spanish. But if the United States had lost at Gettysburg, the next task would have been for Lee and Jackson to defend the entire nation against the British.
mischief30m 2 months ago
@mischief30m Considering the British helped the confederates and that the dixies would have had no real chance of taking over the union, the most likely outcome would be of an independant dixie that would be allied with the British so that the US would be to preoccupied with them to threaten Canada or the British Carrabian territory, and at the same time the US would not be likely to starte a war on 2 fronts and the Atlantic against a stronger nation.
dave19941000 6 days ago
See, the main problem with this whole documentary is that they actually believe the driving force of the South in the War was Slavery, and, as any educated person can tell you, the Civil War is much more complex. Truth be told, had the South won and for whatever reason gone against their creed and annexed the north, the country would have fallen apart because of a weak, decentralized government that the South favored. It would be a mess, and incapable of doing anything listed in this video.
ludicrus32 3 months ago
for a shine thats jigaboo bright? oh l'rdy
dizzleblackizzle 3 months ago
@metternichful, I am not taking about 1860, I am talking 30, 40 or more years in the future. The south would also develope industry and would compete with northern goods. The south having a better climate for growing and heavy industry would have put the north at a disadvantage for over a century. Many of the elites plans would be stymied by a sectionalist south, no civil rights movement, no women's right movement and no socialism. We would have been better off if the south had won.
unclefixer 3 months ago
@unclefixer wow, what a disgusting view. "no civil rights movement, no women's right movement... We would have been better off if the south had won." you would like that wouldn't you? a south run by rich white men while the women stayed in the kitchen and the darkies in the factories and the plantations.
bh5496 3 months ago
Unclefixer. I agree with you but the south fired the first shot. It wasn't exactly food either. It was more beneficial for the south to trade with England and Spain until president Lincoln taxed all exports from the south. Taxation without representation. It was a fight for freedom the same thing we fought the Brits for just a few years earlier.
jabossier 3 months ago
I could live in such a world. More like heaven.
channelasatourian 3 months ago
"The headmaster forced me to eat a chitlin....I though I was going to die!"
LOL!!!
zooeyhall 3 months ago
@polske322 if you read the actual historical record, the Civil War was not over slavery. That was what they told the Yankees to get them to go out and get killed in an illegal war. the Civil War was . like all wars ,was over money, power and control. The yankee industrialist , knew that while the north , had industry, they lacked the ability to produce the food necessary to feed the mass populations, they knew they would have in a few decades. They invaded the south to get its food.
unclefixer 3 months ago
@unclefixer ,
I'm afraid not. By 1860, the North was outproducing the South in every single foodstuff with the exception of pork and rice. Unless the north had a rapacious appetite for carnitas con arroz sasonado, the argument that the north wanted to appropriate southern food production is ridiculous. Moreover, Southern firebrands intent on war touched it off when they abandoned peaceful secession in favor of gunfire. Secession sentiment was the direct outcome over slavery issues.
metternichful 3 months ago
if this was real why no northen resistance movments or the american resistance or something!
BandoilerrMiDGeT750 3 months ago
This movie is bullshit, the Confederacy was more concerned with Economic and Cultural Independence from the Union...who was overstepping it's bounds(Just like it is now) and spitting on States rights.
haloless0320 3 months ago
The States rights vs slavery argument is this in a nutshell. Jack suspects that his girlfriend is going to leave him for Chuck. Out of fear of losing her to Chuck, he ambushes Chuck who kicks his butt and takes the girl. Hereafter, Jack will claim Chuck was a bully who made unwelcome advances on the girl which he stood up to against overwhelming odds in the spirit of freedom blah blah blah. It was Slavery all along. Or failure to enforce fugitive slave laws. Guess what? Same thing.
easmachine 3 months ago
@easmachine The fugitive slave laws were in the constitution, which was passed unanimously by all states, north and south. By not returning escaped slaves, Mass, New York, and Penn were violating the constituion.
branman864 3 months ago
@branman864 True. Bur are you saying that all the states you mentioned were wrong?That is why the Underground Railroad was...Underground. The sheer number of fugitive slave laws were always forced by Southern Planter mouthpieces in congress.. They wanted States Rights to maintain a system of slavery-but wanted Federal recognition of the institution through the fugitive slave acts. Therefore the moral good of helping a person escape slavery became a felony.
easmachine 3 months ago
@easmachine Its not a moral good to not return them unless their master(s) is(are) abusive. Jefferson Davis's brother was older than him by at least a decade and a father figure to him. He was in the war of 1812 and key in helping Missisipi become a state. At the missisipi constitutional convention he proposed a law punishing abusive masters, which was shot down. He made a big impression on davis's views of slavery as did jeffersons own slave and friend.
branman864 3 months ago
@easmachine Paul returned a slave to his master i nthe new testament.
branman864 3 months ago
@branman864 I see in your defence of slavery a disregard for the role of God as lord and master of each man and concept of God creating people with free will.-Paul was a false apostle. Jesus said that he came to set the captive free- and you are approving a system that enslaved a fetus in the womb of it's mother to life as chattel property. I cannot reason with unreasonable people or debate the indefensible with people who have no moral compass. Good day sir.
easmachine 2 months ago
@easmachine Hahahaha "defender of slavery" typical slander from the PC. I am not a "defender of slavery" rather i tell the truth about slavery. Slavery has been propagandized, I would by like one of the many people who opposed it but knew the truth. Theres a difference between telling the truth about what slavery was like and defending the system of slavery.
branman864 2 months ago
@branman864 Well, if you aren't defending slavery, you are certainly in a long line of Confederate apologists who claim that Slavery was NOT the main reason for Secession.The protection of Slavery as an Institution was the backbone of every argument they could muster without saying it. The proof is in the pudding and in their Constitution, that not only protected Slavery, but Eliminated the ability of states to outlaw it ensuring generations of Children born into slavery.
easmachine 2 months ago
@easmachine You wanna play the constitution game? Ok. Where in the United States Constitution at the time did it counter slavery in a major way? The CSA constitution prohibited the importation of slaves internationally as well as the US, so you cant use that one.
branman864 2 months ago
@branman864 You are an eager student, I'll give you that. Your problem is trying to defend the indefensible The CSA looks worse in every way when compared to the USA AND they had no regard for Human Rights. I hope there's a hell for them all to burn in. FYI The importation of Slaves from Africa had already been prohibited for 50+ years in the USA, so what does that mean that the CSA prohibited the importation of more?. It meant there would be a stable market for their own chattel.
easmachine 2 months ago
I WANT THE SHACKLE!!!
Sereniama 4 months ago
@GirgoLoons86
Gee, did Kuwait deserve to win against Iraq?
OF COURSE THEY DID!
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
This is pure liberal bullshit, saying "if the South won their independence, then the world would be a bastion of racist hatred and slavery."
That is the ultimate hatred and perversion of truth, because you can't have slavery if you have a freedom across the fricking state-border-- along with Chinese coolies and Irish blighters pouring in like rain, ready to work like dogs for next to nothing!
Along with the Italians and other Europeans.
Slaves also produce less than free labor.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
@GirgoLoons86 I can't really say who should have won because I'm not psychic, and for all i know if the South one we might somehow have become even more uberliberal, but I support the values embraced by the South at the time more than those of the North.
polske322 4 months ago
im southern and this is fucking funny as hell
CardShark989 4 months ago
@CardShark989
About as funny as Nazi propaganda saying that Jews will take over the world if Hitler lost.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
What language was that? English?????
borgduck 4 months ago
gotta get the ( ) SCHACKLE! I lol'f
gathalion7 4 months ago
this is kinda sterotypical
suspicioususer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Americans are so stupid!!!!!!!!!!
Jdina666 5 months ago
I love that 1940's film its so retarded i laughed a bit..
jb10626 5 months ago
These CSMC troops are either going to have a great time, or a trible time in Africa.
Jakethesnake1281 5 months ago
I agree, but its intresting to see how diffrent things would be.
Jakethesnake1281 5 months ago
what crap :O
ZombieSlayer1210 5 months ago
Godawful crap.
vonbach111 5 months ago
As a Virginian, I find this stupid and insulting. Euro trash at it's best.
crazychrisva 5 months ago
@crazychrisva As a European, I find your comment stupid and insulting. Fat American trash at its best (by the way, learn to spell, dumb American fuck).
FFulmenTheFinnish 3 months ago
@FFulmenTheFinnish go brush your teeth, and clean all the white cake shit from your uncircumcised stinky small dick.
Fusionfreakdrummer 3 months ago
@FFulmenTheFinnish My spelling was fine, dumb Finnish fuck. Oh, by the way, you're a cunt.
crazychrisva 2 months ago
he brushin his teeth like a boss lol
MELiaraFTW 5 months ago 11
@MELiaraFTW JIGABOO BRIGHT
XxGavinRMxX 2 months ago
The commercials are just amazing. Hilarious and disturbing at the same time lol
SuperDuperSentinel 6 months ago
@2:10,
Wasn't this how Mexico was run unofficially anyways until pretty recently?
MegaAstrodude 6 months ago
THIS IS HILARIOUS!
MausTanker 6 months ago 8
Interesting concept to work in a documentary. It has been the subject of many sci fi novels.
biokant 6 months ago
"Gleamin' Yo' Teefus?" "Jigaboo bright"? AW HELL YEA
ferrarist101 6 months ago
I'm not for or against CSA or USA; but some facts most choose to remain ignorant of and that's fine with me; let 'em remain ignorant; to think that the southern states broke away because of slavery is utterly naive at best; Lincoln told the southern states to come back and no repercussions would occur, period! It never was about slaves; northerners were the worst of racists; after the south was conquered, and the true USA dissolved why didn't northern states stop segregation in the south?
gallant1able 6 months ago
Coon Chicken Inn: we proudly sell African-American food. LOL! Also they are portrayed as (still) slaves & ridiculed like they are cartoon characters. Imagine the CSA in th Great Depression, more xenophobic & less concerned on the welfare of its own working WHITE class. They proudly sided with the Nazis to save them, then made Nazis turn against I-talians & Jap (anese)s. & finally, communist USSR are portrayed as "Satan Major", alike WWI when the CSA took over Turkey & annexed oil-rich Arabia. +
demikede1 6 months ago
Also I sense there won't be other cultures or religions or languages allowed other than White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christian-English speaking southern based American. No concept of diversity, multiculturalism or tolerance will be allowed, because it's against the CSA's racial domination ideology. Imagine No French spoken in Louisiana or Canada, unless Quebec is like an internment camp by the CSA insisting these people need to ("pardon my french, speak white") or be suspected of disloyality. +
demikede1 6 months ago
So the CSA conquered the entire western hemisphere, due to fear of Latin Americans "invade" Texas or the southwest. Interestingly, I wonder if Texas was a republic again or some sort of union. The ethnic segregatory system of Hispanics/Latinos vs. Anglos/Whites (because Mexicans are "brown" or "mestizo") also was felt in Cal. & all over the western US way until the 1960's. In the CSA, Latinos remained illiterate in English, unlike the so-called world langauge we have today studied globally. +
demikede1 6 months ago
You can copy and paste your Satanic lie all over the comment page. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. It makes you a fucking asshole. Your Satanic lies are going to start a second civil war.
spinoza1111 6 months ago
this show is awsome!!!
TheAustnod 6 months ago
The congress had passed an export tariff 80% and the only ones forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
gallant1able 6 months ago
@gallant1able This is bullshit. The nullification crisis occured in 1830 and not in 1861. Nor were the southern states "the wealthiest states in the Union". Travelers entering Virginia in the 1850s noticed immediately a general impoverishment coupled with ostentation, and a complete lack of infrastructure, or the signs of investment and growth obvious even in Maryland and especially in Pennsylvania.
spinoza1111 6 months ago
@gallant1able No reputable historian, not even conservatives such as Charles Johnson (A History of the American People) nor Winston Churchill would agree that the Civil War was caused by "tariffs".
spinoza1111 6 months ago
The tariffs of 1830 (not 1861) were passed by Congress and by constitutional means, in debates and in votes in the House and Senate in which the South was fully represented. The problem was that as is the case today, the South saw no sense in the infrastructure improvements that the tariffs funded because it was not interested in the mobility of free labor, whereas Northern employers were.
spinoza1111 6 months ago
It is a Satanic lie that the Civil War was not about slavery. The cause of Secession was the Republican victory of 1860, which was caused by the split between Southerners advocating Secesh and other Southerners (such as Sam Houston) who advocated Union but slavery's preservation. The Republicans were committed to keeping slavery out of the far West whereas the South wanted it to spread to all new states where they could send enough thugs to intimidate Free Soil men.
spinoza1111 6 months ago
The South also wanted to expand slavery by conquest to the new republics of Latin America that had ended it upon gaining freedom from Spain. The South was proto-Fascist, with a forced military draft and suspension of habeas corpus throughout the Civil War, unlike Lincoln's suspension, which was restricted to a rail corridor through Maryland, Constitutional, and which lasted for less than a year.
spinoza1111 6 months ago
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only ones forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
gallant1able 6 months ago
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war. And, the British found another exporter to buy from, INDIA!
gallant1able 6 months ago
The congress had passed an export tariff and the only forced to comply with it were basically the southern states since they exported so much including cotton; that's why they seceded; the northerner business elite had forced it on the southerners to break their hold on commerce. The southern states were the wealthiest states in the union. Louisiana was the wealthiest state prior to the war.
gallant1able 6 months ago
Dude this is some trippy stuff, for a second I thought it was an actual documentary lol
MrEricviveros 6 months ago
Just go to Wikipedia and look at the the South Carolina Dec of Independence. Attack on institution of slavery was a cause.
RovingCounter 6 months ago
From the South Carlolina Declaration of Independence (below)
RovingCounter 6 months ago
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
RovingCounter 6 months ago
HAHAHA, This would never ever happen, How would hillbillies take over mexico and South America, those fucks would be to busy fucking there cousins and drinking moonshine
riedude 6 months ago
@riedude ah, a tipical yank who stereo types his fellow americans....Jerk.
SargeSouth 6 months ago
@riedude niggers are the real cuzz fuckers ...the black bastards don't have a clue who they are related to ...
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
Funny, the various state declarations of independence mentioned slavery as a cause.
RovingCounter 6 months ago
@RovingCounter funny no they did not ..
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
slavery was used as a ruse to start a war by northern industerilists.
mtbikerak 6 months ago
I'm glad the South did not win. As an African-American, I would never fight for the Confederacy.
evergreenstater 6 months ago
your tax rate is over 50%. Go slave go. Dont forget to go green now Yall regrettably godless Yankees.
TheArtbell 7 months ago
@TheArtbell Fuck you southern trash!!!
lonedove1981 6 months ago
@lonedove1981 fuck you nigger lover
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
@Unkraut1960 Cool comeback, dork!
lonedove1981 6 months ago
@lonedove1981 fuck you nigger ...is that better son of a black bitch ?
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
@Unkraut1960 Sorry dork but I'm not Black!!!
lonedove1981 6 months ago
This shouldn't have been made believing the war was about slavery :/ in reality it would have ended once machines developed to the point where more profit could be made by using them. The war was about states rights, even in the North that is what it was about. It's a cool mockumentary, but not very realistic.
polske322 7 months ago 9
@polske322 Actually, slavery was a big part of this. Go look up the Articles of Secession. There were elite politicians standing up and openly admitting the reason they wanted to secede was to keep slavery.
evergreenstater 6 months ago
@evergreenstater And there were Souther politicians that were anti slavery as well...
polske322 6 months ago
@evergreenstater But the Articles of Secession prove that there were many who felt that slavery would be abolished and for that reason, wanted to secede. The slavery issue did play a part. Go look it up.
evergreenstater 6 months ago
@evergreenstater it was not even close to being the issue ..
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
@Unkraut1960 Actually, it is. Go look it up in the Articles of Secession. Nowadays people lie about it, but still, slavery was a major issue. Not the only issue, but a major one.
evergreenstater 6 months ago
@evergreenstater no it was not ...it was a minor at best issue ...
Unkraut1960 6 months ago
@polske322, I watcherd it & I lovbed it. Spike Lee was a genious of irony in thisd mockcumentary. Having actual Civil War experts being featured is a plus indeed.
Wolfen443 5 months ago
@polske322 slavery being abolished was an incentive made by the north to get more recruits to their army [blacks] and to get civil unrest in the south [black treason [even though they werent citizens].
prjerry7 5 months ago
@prjerry7 Yeah I know, but it's not what started the war, and until 100 years later nobody thought that was the importance of it.
polske322 5 months ago
@polske322 You are so correct
1ordequis 4 months ago
@polske322 Have you ever read the constitution of the confederacy? It is a lot like the US constitution except it includes slavery (cannot be abolished).There is no Confederacy without the Permanent institution of Slavery. How could even a mockumentary reasonably be made without this perspective?
easmachine 4 months ago
@easmachine That was an IMMEDIATE fear, but slavery would not persist when it was not economically beneficial to house and feed slaves
polske322 4 months ago
@polske322 So when Big Planters became small planters in economic hard times or market cycles, they would do what? Turn their former workers into their competition? History tells the tale. After reconstruction they colluded with the government to create which kept unemployed men on the plantation through chain gangs. Why do you think the Southerners wanted to expand west? For the climate? No, they wanted more land to spread the religion of free labor and manifest destiny.
easmachine 3 months ago
@easmachine I'm talking long term, i.e. when it no longer required multiple people to work the land, and many Southerners were also against slavery, the main point of the war was states rights vs. federal power. Also, you write with an air of arrogance, like I'm aggressively trying to insult you, I'm not, this is simply a difference of opinion and should be treated as such.
polske322 3 months ago
@polske322 What you call arrogance is more exasperation. Here is the Slavery vs States Rights argument. from Present day southerners who want to wave their flags in my face and say heritage not hate.. It's like "Jack" who ambushes his girlfriends co-worker on suspicion that she will leave him for the other guy. Turns out the co-worker is Chuck"the ice man" Liddell and "Jack" gets crushed. Jack hereafter but claims he only attacked chuck for making unwelcome advances on his woman.After the fact
easmachine 3 months ago
@easmachine But I'm from Mass not the South, and even back then the South was more concerned with self-government than slavery, I agree in no way with slavery but I truly believe the South wasn't aggressively trying to maintain that so much as aggressively trying to enforce their right to self governance.
polske322 3 months ago
@polske322 " They were more concerned with self-goverment, you ignore the fact that the "they" were the wealthy Slaveholding and landholding elite that counted on Slavery the way we count on air to continue their prosperity. In other words, They were so dependent on it, that there was no economic base, no white privilege no raison d'etre without it..It seems so apparent to me that I suspect you're intentionally ignoring the obvious.
easmachine 3 months ago
@easmachine But the entirety of the South wasn't the land holders, like anywhere else the rich were the minority. Also, just because they owned slaves, doesn't mean that was what they were fighting over, yes it did play into it but it wasn't the major factor that caused secession because slavery wasn't even immediately threatened, Abraham Lincoln cared more about preserving the union than freeing the slaves.
polske322 3 months ago
@polske322 Then and now,the rich who DO have a vested interest in maintaining a large voteless second class source of cheap labor, were able to pull poor whites into a war in which they had no vested interest under the guise of states rights. Listen to their rhetoric about apartheid and Jim Crow-States Rights. States Rights and Secession also were used during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson decades earlier, but he called it treason. If there was no slavery, would there have been a civil war?
easmachine 3 months ago
Go to google and type in "the Balck and the Gray, and then click on the alternate histroy timeline from Roberts Alternate History Place
confederatesoldier10 7 months ago
No on realy know how it could have turned out check out the timeline in the link below, its very detailed and shows how good the CSA could have turned out.
confederatesoldier10 7 months ago
thank god this evil country was destroyed before they won independance
Chutneybhai 8 months ago
@Chutneybhai US government is evil..
iSlash96 7 months ago
@Chutneybhai Amen brother.
Wizdome1 7 months ago
these commericals are really funny
r61425 8 months ago
damn, i love these commericals, id watch runaway all the time
Hawkins1117 8 months ago
This sounds like how the Mirror Universe might have gotten started. And the commercials are wild.
WestVirginiaRebel 9 months ago
This is totally fucked up haha
mrceebees14 9 months ago
3:34 to 3:37
Couldn't stop laughing.
mrceebees14 9 months ago
the shackle LOL!!
goldhippie 10 months ago
hahaha pay for all destruction?What right DO YOU have to destroy it in the first place!I Iraq was a normal middle country till u freakin americans come in motivated by ur brainwashed theories...now they have all destroyed and they live in tents...how will u pay for that?with money?u ignorant...
Pwnagener 10 months ago
@Pwnagener If by normal middle eastern country, you mean a shithole, then yes, you're right. And you are extremely ignorant, and possibly brainwashed yourself, if you think the U.S. hasn't done any good in the region.
Oh wait, I bet you think Iraq was a happy place where women weren't stoned to death and treated barely better than a slave, where the children were happy and had gumdrop smiles. You dumbass.
IGotMonkeysInMyGrill 9 months ago
The means may be diferent but the US still tries to control the world.
AbuAvital 10 months ago
@AbuAvital ya thats what we do... we conquer every country we defeat in war... its not like we leave and pay for all their destruction...
ignorance goes both ways
MrMeineNamen 10 months ago
I think its funny that the director beleives that the C.S.A. would have turned into a world power like the U.S.A., it was capitolism that made the U.S. a super power and the conferates who were slave owners wouldn't have fed in to the economy! and the leaders of eache state would have had theire state become its own entity and would have porbably fought each other afterwards!
TheDarthjango 10 months ago
"For the shine that's JIGABOO BRIGHT!"
I don't know if that's racist or not, but I think it's funny.
PaPeRo154 10 months ago
This is bullshit.
AlabamaSoldier 11 months ago
Maybe you ought to post when the European countries abolished slavery. Not just in their countries but when they abolished slavery in their Colonies. Hmmm, well after the USA abolished it. This is ridiculous.
ThePackers123 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey moron, if the CSA had won slavery would have been done away with anyway. Gen. Robert E. Lee was an ABOLITIONIST! Who becomes president after a war? The head General. Therefor no matter who would have one slavery was going to be done away with.
LGGATEWOOD 1 year ago
CSA taking over MEXICO??? why on earth would they do that in the first place? Just as what REALLY happened, AFTER the US civil war (with the UNION victory) , the US told France regarding MAXIMILIAN to stop all actions in Mexico.. Most US citizens now don't know that England/Spain and France came to mexico by force cause of debts. The Spanish/english left, France stayed. By the end of the US war, Mexico was in occupation by France. this "CSA" muckumentary doesn't even talk or imply that.
mxferro 1 year ago
I could only watch half of this clip. Contrary to one speaker, there were black slave owners and white slaves in the South, too bad these people only want to attack the Old South without learning the facts outside of reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin".
dseindc 1 year ago
Darkeh! For a shiiiiine that's Jigaboo bright! Roflmao
gamehero77 1 year ago
i get the satire, but the idea of this global ignorance, just angers me to no end
TheLokiFace 1 year ago
Stoopid Americans!!!! anybody taking this seriously probably thinks Johnny Depp really IS a pirate!!
NPA1001 1 year ago
First of all.The African Americans wouldve made a resistance against the south and wouldve made a war.the north wouldve helped.the US was ment to be united.
commando2224 1 year ago
This whole series is trash that further re-incites a negative attitude towards the South. I am from the Minnesota by the way of Kentucky and find this offensive.
neubauer 1 year ago
aw dats racist
MrTrollslayer1996 1 year ago
at first i thought the shackle was going to be some weird shock collar.
CWScott24 1 year ago
Hey! Is that Dom DeLuise?
josephfrancisneri 1 year ago
Jigaboo?
Sturmdude 1 year ago
The adds are the best part! xD
XxxSakura101 1 year ago
Jigaboo Bright!!!!
csrtitus 1 year ago
this whole thing is offensive to America both north and south
496gonfishin 1 year ago
what the hell look at it they call the south racist look at what they are doing right now you dooshbag yankees go get a job like you aint got nothin else better to do. Yall got damn problems... and dont drag God into this he created you
COLESTOCKDALE 1 year ago
what the hell look at it they call the south racist look at what they are doing right now you dooshbag yankees go get a job like you aint got nothin else better to do. Yall got damn problems...
COLESTOCKDALE 1 year ago
"Look for that wiiiiiide mouth coon near you" LMAO
TheSkyMightFall325 1 year ago
Am I the only guy that gets this?
wanker4761 1 year ago
Absolutely no way could the South win. The North outgunned the South in every respect and would have taken the western territories without breaking a sweat. The Confederacy would have been surrounded and vastly outnumbered. How about no Civil Way -- price tag: no independence from the UK.
ZenPapageno 1 year ago
@ZenPapageno Texas held
they never lost a battle and whooped the yankees everytime
the south would have won if it wasnt for Lincoln using cowardly tactics
FreeTexas100 1 year ago
@FreeTexas100 Tell us which of the western territories the South could have taken and held onto. I didn't mention that the North had resources it didn't even use. That's from a southern historian, Shelby Foote, used by Ken Burns in his documentary.
ZenPapageno 1 year ago
America was build by white mans whit guns. Thats that. Fo centuries there were nativa americans there but they dint achieve enything no - complex political or social sys. no technological advance living as sauvages from the beginign of time .Sam goes for most of the africal tribes .
BGSlopy 1 year ago
Gotta get that shackle
Zorn27 1 year ago
I'm curious to see what happened in Europe during World War One and World War Two.
screamingdean5 1 year ago 28
@screamingdean5
MOTHER RUSSIA EMBRACES YOU!
RouserTheRebel 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 For this, you should read Harry Turtledove's Great War series. Terrific fictional history. I refer to it as history. Really winds people up.
generalwbush 1 year ago
@generalwbush Yes much more reasonable then this film. This time line has little or no change, while Turtledove uses a much more logical idea (for the most part). While this film has the same, for the most part, same people and same actions taken as in our time line.
candr 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 Imperial Germany had won the first world war and there would probably
would not have been a second one since the second was a direct result of the mistreating
of Germany in Versailles.
svartekaptenen 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 Probably no change for WW1, and WW2 would have lasted longer but with more or less the same results most lickly.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Let's say for a moment, Germany still lost World War One and the Germany suffered the Treaty of Versailles, Germany would have come back with Hitler and the Nazis and conquered Europe without the U.S. supporting Britain with lend lease and the like. And without the American military there would not have been an invasion of France or Italy.
screamingdean5 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 The Uk and former colonies, along with the free french forces, had the man power and weponds capability to fight on the western front, and a good general or two would make up for Patton and his basic stratigies that relied on numbers. The eastern front was devastating, so the western onewould have eventualy been weakened to the point where it would be easy to push them back. In the end, the US fough Japan, thatès where things would be different.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Even from before the U.S ACTIVELY got involved in the war, Britian depended on help from us heavily. They would not have lasted 1940 without U.S. help and FDR's genius plan called Lend Lease. Don't forget the billions of dollars the Soviets got from the U.S.! Britain and Russia couldn't have survived the German Wehrmacht without the United States. Both Britain and the Soviet Union begged and demanded help from the U.S.! Why do you Europeans keep forgetting that?!
screamingdean5 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 I'm not European, I'm Canadian. Now, I'm not saying the US didn't help before you got involved, but the Germans where fighting a losing battle with the Soviets and the Britiah, so without assistance from the US it would have likely become a stailmate war of attrition, and both the UK/Former Colonies and the Soviet Union out numbered Germany in everything. The war would have been longer, but it's in Asia that things would be different, not Europe.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Hmm? Germany was actually winning on all fronts. In fact, it took almost a year of US being in the war before we were able to do anything to stop the German onslaught. And the Germans didn't suffer a major defeat on the Eastern Front until the winter of 1942-43 at Stalingrad. You also forgot about Italy and the Axis minors like Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, and Hungary. And there's no way Britain could have pulled off a successful invasion of either France or Italy without US help.
screamingdean5 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 I'm not saying the UK could have invaded, but victory was still possible. The Axis was also having trouble within because all countries they invaded and occupied had underground resisstance, the destroyer of armies. There was also a problem of coordination between the powers. The Italiens where no military threat to anyone, and my country could probably have taken it on 1 on 1 and come out vicotrious if it wans't for german forces stationed in Italy.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 Britain would have folded without US help. You Canadians were giving all the help to the war you could, but without America it wouldn't have been enough. Sooner or later Germany would have conquered the USSR. The USSR demanded and got billions of aid from the US without which they could not have continued. Germany came up with new weapons, but they had run out of time. Without the US bombing them everyday, they'd have had the time to use their superior stuff and make it work.
screamingdean5 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 Even if they had won, they would hav eventualy fallen from within, as Germany didn't have the man power to sucsesfuly occupy all of Europe for a prolong period of time. Even if Britain fell the Commonwealth (which includes Indea) would continue to build up a military that the Axis could not reach effectivly. The Germans would eventualy reach the Japanies, and everyone thinks that they would most lickly start fighting. That would weaken both, making invasion and victory possible.
dave19941000 1 year ago
@dave19941000 If you mean that Germany would have fallen eventually, then you're right. But it would have been a long time. Germany would have found all the Germanic looking people they had conquered and took them in. There would have also been plenty of Quislings and Vichy French types to do most of the work for them. As for Japan, India was on their target list. Let's say for the moment that India didn't fall to Japan. How loyal do think India would have been to Britain? Ever heard of Gandhi?
screamingdean5 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 The Japanies would, although not fighting with US, only have 10% of the oil it was importing at the begining of our version of WW2, because 90% was US oil. Eventualy the Japanies army, navy and air force would literaly stop from lack of fuel, and Indea, although "cheap", does have the resourses to be a strong power and in a war would probably be able to hold it's own until the oil ran out or the japanies army ran out of men. Indea's army is well trained, just as all commenwealths
dave19941000 1 year ago
@screamingdean5 i've seen this, the c.s.a told hitler to use the jews as slaves rather kill them.
scerndrew 11 months ago