The pluses and minuses had the south won the war [Archive]

Death Metal Moe

01-14-2007, 07:30 AM

epo wrote: We have a new board character!  Unfortunately it's not a very good one.My thoughts exactly.  I guess I must have missed this masterpiece last night before the good Capt.  got banned.Again, I'm not offended by his racism.  I don't like it but I'm not offended.  If he had done ANYTHING even MILDLY amusing with it I'd have lauged along for a short time.But when you drop 100-200 year old jokes in a thread and/or just use a racist term out of ANY context, you suck.  Period.  This whole gag wasnt funny and that guy doesn't have the ability to make it funny.

sailor

01-14-2007, 07:55 AM

our dryer died and we may be going there to get a new one.  hope they have a sale coming up!

burrben

01-14-2007, 08:16 AM

DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD f

cougarjake13

01-14-2007, 10:32 AM

burrben wrote: DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD fg

nevnut

01-14-2007, 10:34 AM

cougarjake13 wrote: burrben wrote: DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD fgH-Bomb

A.J.

01-14-2007, 11:28 AM

El Mudo?  Where are you?

hwyengr

01-14-2007, 04:40 PM

Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool.ÿ The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.

cougarjake13

01-15-2007, 04:25 AM

nevnut wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: burrben wrote: DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD fgH-BombI

cougarjake13

01-15-2007, 04:26 AM

hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM  Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool.  The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csa

Sheeplovr

01-15-2007, 04:38 AM

cougarjake13

01-15-2007, 04:48 AM

Sheeplovr wrote: <img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000FZEU0Q.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66540824_.jpg" border="0" width="314" height="314" /> i know theres a book, is that a movie version ???

Cleophus James

01-15-2007, 04:57 AM

cougarjake13 wrote: nevnut wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: burrben wrote: DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD fgH-BombI J

Cleophus James

01-15-2007, 05:02 AM

ESDsucks@life wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: nevnut wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: burrben wrote: DJEvelEd wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: SinA wrote: a bcde...VEL eD fgH-BombI J KKK (sorry had to do again fits thread)

Cleophus James

01-15-2007, 05:06 AM

PS better BRBQ

Stankfoot

01-15-2007, 05:28 AM

Sheeplovr

01-15-2007, 05:38 AM

cougarjake13 wrote: Sheeplovr wrote: <img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000FZEU0Q.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66540824_.jpg" border="0" width="314" height="314" /> i know theres a book, is that a movie version ??? its in the style of a ken burns documentary its really good its like those comics that are like what if superman landed in russia or something like that or a Sliders episode with a alternet universe very belivable and well done

cougarjake13

01-15-2007, 09:52 AM

Sheeplovr wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: Sheeplovr wrote: <img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000FZEU0Q.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V66540824_.jpg" border="0" width="314" height="314" /> i know theres a book, is that a movie version ??? its in the style of a ken burns documentary its really good its like those comics that are like what if superman landed in russia or something like that or a Sliders episode with a alternet universe very belivable and well donecoolany idea where i could find it ???

PigShitIrish

01-15-2007, 10:24 AM

Capt.Spaulding wrote:  Plus: 1. Negros would still know their place. 2. We wouldn't need mexicans for cheap labor. 3. We would still have really big houses (plantations) to live in. Minuses: 1. Um 2. errr. 3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Minuses: Rubes & Hayseeds..................Nothing But Rubes & Hayseeds

Wallower

01-15-2007, 10:27 AM

I've seen it at blockbuster.It's a good concept. The buddays had the director on the show when Earl was in his big "I know someone who can get directors on the show for the buddays" phase. In my opinion it goes on a bit to long, but the advertisements they do inbetween segments are chilling/priceless.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 10:34 AM

cougarjake13 wrote: hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM  Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool.  The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csaRegardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different.  Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism.  I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany.   Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI.  After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse.  The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's.

sailor

01-15-2007, 10:38 AM

EliSnow wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool. The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csaRegardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different. Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism. I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany. Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI. After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse. The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  the csa was supported by the uk?  doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning, so maybe it was just a typo?

cougarjake13

01-15-2007, 10:43 AM

sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool. The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csaRegardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different. Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism. I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany. Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI. After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse. The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  the csa was supported by the uk?  doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning, so maybe it was just a typo? hell it would have made things a lot more interesting

phixion

01-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Regardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different. Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism. I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany. Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI. After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse. The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  the csa was supported by the uk?  doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning, so maybe it was just a typo? the csa was supported by the uk until the US gov't made the war about slavery and not taxes. once they made slavery the main issue of the war that got the uk on their side. so i dont agree with the authors hypothesis. even if the south had won the war, they wouldnt have lasted long. the industrialization of america changed the way the country was, it was no longer rural and agricultural, and the south had no way to industrialize for two reasons, 1 first thing in order to industrialze is an excellent navigation system and the south wasnt known for the ship building, no that was new england. and secondly the heat in the south wouldve made unbearable to work in a factory in the summer. no had the south won the war, the nation wouldnt have lasted very long. plus with egyptian cotton, american cotton was soon found to be obsolete. egyptain cotton was softer and had less seeds, which makes for a better fabric, so american cotton wouldnt have lasted long anyway. and the wasps of the south would never have joined up with germans, maybe they wouldve sold em shit, so lend-lease wouldve worked both ways, but actually affording soldiers, no i couldnt see the south doing that.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 11:07 AM

sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool. The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csaRegardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different. Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism. I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany. Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI. After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse. The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's.  the csa was supported by the uk?  doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning, so maybe it was just a typo? Here's what I mean.  There was some support by UK and France of the south and the south was hoping that the Brits and French would militarily intervene.  That hope ended with the Emancipation Proclamation as Phixion said.  My point was essentially this.  If somehow events were altered such that the Brits and French did intervene prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, maybe the South wins.   If it wins, you would assume that relations between the USA and Great Britain would sour.  When imperial Germany starts its military build-up in the late 1800's challenging  Britain, the USA may have found it within its interests to side with Germany, rather than siding with Great Britain.

ChimneyFish

01-15-2007, 11:26 AM

Hate to break up the serious discussion, but I have a minus.The Comedy Pyramid would never have come into existence.

sailor

01-15-2007, 11:36 AM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: cougarjake13 wrote: hwyengr wrote: Capt.Spaulding wrote:  3. I'm sure there's one here somewhere.  Thoughts? This message was edited by Capt.Spaulding on 1-13-07 @ 10:34 PM Well, for one, it would have reinforced the notion of the viabilty of seccesion from the Union as a political tool. The country would have over the years factioned into even further segmented countries, each continually fighting with each other forever.its possible or maybe it would have just been fractured like germany and korea ... the usa and csaRegardless of whether you'd have several countries or just CSA and USA, the world would be a lot different. Without a combined USA that spans from the east of North America to the west, and all the resources therein, what happens with WWI or the rise of communism and facism. I know at least one counter-history book has suggested that the CSA would be allies of Nazi Germany. Or maybe the USA would have been an ally of imperial Germany prior to WWI. After all, the CSA was supported by Great Britain, so if the south won, presumably the relationship between the USA and Great Britain would have gotten worse. The USA may then have allied with Germany in the arms race between Germany and Britain in the late 1800's - early 1900's. the csa was supported by the uk? doesn't fit with the rest of your reasoning, so maybe it was just a typo? Here's what I mean. There was some support by UK and France of the south and the south was hoping that the Brits and French would militarily intervene. That hope ended with the Emancipation Proclamation as Phixion said. My point was essentially this. If somehow events were altered such that the Brits and French did intervene prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, maybe the South wins. If it wins, you would assume that relations between the USA and Great Britain would sour. When imperial Germany starts its military build-up in the late 1800's challenging Britain, the USA may have found it within its interests to side with Germany, rather than siding with Great Britain. ok, i see what happened.  i misread part of your original post.  i was assuming if the csa won, they would take over the north, not remain independent.  so if the uk was aligned with the csa and they took over, we'd be aligned with the uk after the fact.  yes, if they remained separate i could see how the north would resent the uk's allegiance to the south.

phixion

01-15-2007, 11:38 AM

well eli the what if game can be played til both die. shit what if wolverine was lord of the vampires am i right? <img src="http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiNm6KtF7oQBdT.jzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=1285b2ci6/EXP=1168980454/**http%3A//www.comicsvf.com/scans/vocanc/whatifv2/24.jpg" border="0" width="256" height="400" />but ive got a book in this vein that i bet you would like: empire by orson scott card. ive never really got into anything by card outside of the ender and bean series, (maybe because i think that would spoil my deification of card)  but this book empire is about a would-be new civil war between the blue and red states. i have it but i havent read it yet. im itching to, but im saving it for march when i have to go to florida for my sisters wedding. 

This message was edited by phixion on 1-15-07 @ 3:49 PM

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 11:45 AM

sailor wrote:  ok, i see what happened.  i misread part of your original post.  i was assuming if the csa won, they would take over the north, not remain independent.  so if the uk was aligned with the csa and they took over, we'd be aligned with the uk after the fact.  yes, if they remained separate i could see how the north would resent the uk's allegiance to the south. While there have been theories on what would have happened if the South won the war, I've never seen anyone suggest that the South would have taken over the north.  The North was just too strong.  I think the best that could have happened was the south "winning" to stay a separate country from the U.S.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 12:02 PM

phixion wrote: well eli the what if game can be played til both die. shit what if wolverine had become lord of the vampires am i right? You're right.  The only rules of the "What If" game are that the historical changes have to be somewhat realistic, and could happen.  So we could argue that the South could have won if Britain intervened because it really needed Southern cotton due to some tragic event ruining the cotton the Brits had.  However, Britain had ample stores of cotton, and needed Union grain more, so there was no true incentive for the government to really get involved, although some British citizens and companies supplied the south with materials.  The game doesn't really work if we argue that the South would have won had Superman landed in the South in 1840.I really haven't read to many "what-if" books but here's one I loved:<img src="http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f373/EliSnow/WhatIF.jpg" border="0" width="240" height="240" />Basically, a number of military historians theorize how major military events could have changed very easily, and how such changes would have changed the world.  For instance, here's a couple quick examples from Amazon: What if Hitler had not attacked Russia when he did? He might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, helping it retain its power in Europe. What if D-Day had been a failure? The Soviet Union might have controlled all of Europe. What if Sennacherib had pressed the siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.? Then the nascent, monotheistic Jewish religion might never have taken hold among the people of Judah--and the daughter religions of Christianity and Islam would never have been born. One other example used was the story of how, during the Revolutionary War, Washington was riding by himself near Princeton, NJ.  He came across a British soldier who got the drop on Washington.  Washington fled on horseback, and the soldier refused to shoot Washington in the back. Another example tells how the Washington and American army was surrounded by the Brits in Brooklyn and were only able to escape to Kips Baby Manhattan due to a fog rolling into the area.  If either event happened differently, our nation's history would be much different, and we could be part of Canada.  I've read that there are a couple of follow-ups to this book.   I'll have to check them out.

sailor

01-15-2007, 12:07 PM

EliSnow wrote: phixion wrote: well eli the what if game can be played til both die. shit what if wolverine had become lord of the vampires am i right? You're right. The only rules of the "What If" game are that the historical changes have to be somewhat realistic, and could happen. So we could argue that the South could have won if Britain intervened because it really needed Southern cotton due to some tragic event ruining the cotton the Brits had. However, Britain had ample stores of cotton, and needed Union grain more, so there was no true incentive for the government to really get involved, although some British citizens and companies supplied the south with materials. The game doesn't really work if we argue that the South would have won had Superman landed in the South in 1840.I really haven't read to many "what-if" books but here's one I loved:<img src="http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f373/EliSnow/WhatIF.jpg" border="0" width="240" height="240" />Basically, a number of military historians theorize how major military events could have changed very easily, and how such changes would have changed the world. For instance, here's a couple quick examples from Amazon: What if Hitler had not attacked Russia when he did? He might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, helping it retain its power in Europe. What if D-Day had been a failure? The Soviet Union might have controlled all of Europe. What if Sennacherib had pressed the siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.? Then the nascent, monotheistic Jewish religion might never have taken hold among the people of Judah--and the daughter religions of Christianity and Islam would never have been born. One other example used was the story of how, during the Revolutionary War, Washington was riding by himself near Princeton, NJ. He came across a British soldier who got the drop on Washington. Washington fled on horseback, and the soldier refused to shoot Washington in the back. Another example tells how the Washington and American army was surrounded by the Brits in Brooklyn and were only able to escape to Kips Baby Manhattan due to a fog rolling into the area. If either event happened differently, our nation's history would be much different, and we could be part of Canada. I've read that there are a couple of follow-ups to this book. I'll have to check them out. i loved what if.  my dad has the 2nd one, need to bum that off him.  didn't know of others after that.

ralphbxny

01-15-2007, 12:15 PM

I have to check these books out they sound cool. If the south won the war....we'd all be listening to the Fez and Larry the cable guy show!!

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 12:16 PM

sailor wrote:  i loved what if.  my dad has the 2nd one, need to bum that off him.  didn't know of others after that. I thought I had seen a picture of a Vol. 3, but it looks like it's volume 3 of an audiobook of the first collection.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 12:19 PM

ralphbxny wrote: I have to check these books out they sound cool. If the south won the war....we'd all be listening to the Fez and Larry the cable guy show!!I'm in the North.  I'd be listening to the Ron Bennington show.

sailor

01-15-2007, 12:23 PM

EliSnow wrote: ralphbxny wrote: I have to check these books out they sound cool. If the south won the war....we'd all be listening to the Fez and Larry the cable guy show!!I'm in the North. I'd be listening to the Ron Bennington show. i think ralph was also assuming the south would take over the north.

sailor

01-15-2007, 12:26 PM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: ok, i see what happened. i misread part of your original post. i was assuming if the csa won, they would take over the north, not remain independent. so if the uk was aligned with the csa and they took over, we'd be aligned with the uk after the fact. yes, if they remained separate i could see how the north would resent the uk's allegiance to the south. While there have been theories on what would have happened if the South won the war, I've never seen anyone suggest that the South would have taken over the north. The North was just too strong. I think the best that could have happened was the south "winning" to stay a separate country from the U.S.  i believe the movie c.s.a. cited above works on the premise of the south taking over the north.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-15-2007, 12:29 PM

While Capt. Spaulding is a tool who's gladly banned, this is an interesting topic. Yeah, that's really all I have to say on this. Maybe more later.

booster11373

01-15-2007, 12:30 PM

There is a series of books by Harry Turtledove that tack the premise as it is being discussed above and runs with it, here's the highlightsNorth Loses the civil warNorth loses the second Mexican war when the south annexes parts of Mexico and CubaThe USA does allies with imperial GermanyThe CSA allies with France and EnglandWorld War 1 breaks out and the chips fall as you might think I wont describe any more details for those who might want to read the book but the author follows a path close to what happens after WW1 all the way to WW2 including the holocaust<a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-Few-Remain-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0340715413/sr=8-46/qid=1168896430/ref=sr_1_46/002-8805591-3483218?ie=UTF8&s=books">http://www.amazon.com/How-Few-Remain-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0340715413/sr=8-46/qid=1168896430/ref=sr_1_46/002-8805591-3483218?ie=UTF8&s=books</a>is the start of the series but not necessary to read the whole seriesI would start here<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345405609/ref=pd_cp_b_title/002-8805591-3483218">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345405609/ref=pd_cp_b_title/002-8805591-3483218</a>

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 12:34 PM

sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: ok, i see what happened. i misread part of your original post. i was assuming if the csa won, they would take over the north, not remain independent. so if the uk was aligned with the csa and they took over, we'd be aligned with the uk after the fact. yes, if they remained separate i could see how the north would resent the uk's allegiance to the south. While there have been theories on what would have happened if the South won the war, I've never seen anyone suggest that the South would have taken over the north. The North was just too strong. I think the best that could have happened was the south "winning" to stay a separate country from the U.S.  i believe the movie c.s.a. cited above works on the premise of the south taking over the north. Okay, well I guess there's at least one theory that CSA takes over.  Myself, I think that could never have happened, whereas the south winning some measure of victory say at Gettysburg, forcing the North to accept the secession of the South was somewhat possible.

narc

01-15-2007, 01:20 PM

I don't think the South would have ever had a shot of taking the North.  I think if the South had won, they probably might have eventually rejoined the Union anyway, because I don't think slavery would have lasted even if the South had won. You just can't make as much money with it.Incidentally, if that had happened, I think the South might be further along racially than they were, and maybe there wouldn't have had to be a Civil Rights movement in the 60's. The South has always been more racially integrated than the North, and I think the Reconstruction made a lot of Southern whites feel like they had to hate Blacks and enforce Jim Crow because Reconstruction was like their worst nightmare. I think if they had won, their might have been a more organic growth in racial understanding and you would've seen those boundaries come down.

sailor

01-15-2007, 01:22 PM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: ok, i see what happened. i misread part of your original post. i was assuming if the csa won, they would take over the north, not remain independent. so if the uk was aligned with the csa and they took over, we'd be aligned with the uk after the fact. yes, if they remained separate i could see how the north would resent the uk's allegiance to the south. While there have been theories on what would have happened if the South won the war, I've never seen anyone suggest that the South would have taken over the north. The North was just too strong. I think the best that could have happened was the south "winning" to stay a separate country from the U.S. i believe the movie c.s.a. cited above works on the premise of the south taking over the north. Okay, well I guess there's at least one theory that CSA takes over. Myself, I think that could never have happened, whereas the south winning some measure of victory say at Gettysburg, forcing the North to accept the secession of the South was somewhat possible. i don't have the background in history to put up any compelling counter-arguments, but i don't see how one side wins decisively and then just "agrees to disagree".  i know they tried to go their own way, but once there was fighting i'd have to think it was winner-take-all.  if not, what would be to stop the north from trying a few years don the road?

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 01:37 PM

sailor wrote:  i don't have the background in history to put up any compelling counter-arguments, but i don't see how one side wins decisively and then just "agrees to disagree".  i know they tried to go their own way, but once there was fighting i'd have to think it was winner-take-all.  if not, what would be to stop the north from trying a few years don the road? There have been many wars over the years (more before the 1800's) where there was no winner takes all.  Often these wars aren't about completely obliterating the other side, but accomplishing a specific, limited tasks like getting a certain piece of land.  Remember, war is merely a political tool used to achieve political goals.  As Clausewitz stated, as a result, the tactics used in war should only be those used to achieve the political goals, and not those that would defeat or threaten such goals.  As one huge example, the Revolutionary War did not feature a "winner take all."  It's not like the colonies got to take over Great Britain.  The colonies fought to be their country, and made Great Britain surrender to give them independance.  The colonies could never have defeated Great Britain sufficiently to take it over, and they didn't want that.Another example would be the German-French War in 1870(?) or thereabouts.  After Prussia united Germany by defeating Austria, they took on the French to remain a country and capture land.  They won, but didn't take over France.  As for your last question, usually in this type of war, there may be a treaty signed, etc. but there is nothing really to stop another country from attacking  again, other than the memory of being trounced the first time.  Look at the War of 1812. Yes, there have been numerous wars where the object was to wipe out or take over the other side, but not all of them have been that way, especially when a colony or a portion of one country is fighting for its own independence.

This message was edited by EliSnow on 1-15-07 @ 5:41 PM

sailor

01-15-2007, 01:46 PM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: i don't have the background in history to put up any compelling counter-arguments, but i don't see how one side wins decisively and then just "agrees to disagree". i know they tried to go their own way, but once there was fighting i'd have to think it was winner-take-all. if not, what would be to stop the north from trying a few years don the road? There have been many wars over the years (more before the 1800's) where there was no winner takes all. Often these wars aren't about completely obliterating the other side, but accomplishing a specific, limited tasks like getting a certain piece of land. Remember, war is merely a political tool used to achieve political goals. As Clausewitz stated, as a result, the tactics used in war should only be those used to achieve the political goals, and not those that would defeat or threaten such goals. As one huge example, the Revolutionary War did not feature a "winner take all." It's not like the colonies got to take over Great Britain. The colonies fought to be their country, and made Great Britain surrender to give them independance. The colonies could never have defeated Great Britain sufficiently to take it over, and they didn't want that.Another example would be the German-French was in 1870(?) or thereabouts. After Prussia united Germany by defeating Austria, they took on the French to remain a country and capture land. They won, but didn't take over France. As for your last question, usually in this type of war, there may be a treaty signed, etc. but there is nothing really to stop another country from attacking again, other than the memory of being trounced the first time. Look at the War of 1812. Yes, there have been numerous wars where the object was to wipe out or take over the other side, but not all of them have been that way, especially when a colony or a portion of one country is fighting for its own independence. like i said, i don't have the background to formulate a serious argument here.  i'd say the revolutionary war was different just because of the distance involved.  kinda like iraq, there's no way we'll be taken over no matter how poorly things go there.  as for germany france, that's a much better match.  another part of why i could see the south taking over is that we'd previously been one country (and as far as the north was concerned, weren't we always one country?)  it's not like we attacked canada and lost.  it's more like if staten island tried to secede (militarily) and somehow won victory over the other 4 borroughs.  i could see the city getting back together under the rule of the staten islanders.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 01:54 PM

sailor wrote:  like i said, i don't have the background to formulate a serious argument here.  i'd say the revolutionary war was different just because of the distance involved.  kinda like iraq, there's no way we'll be taken over no matter how poorly things go there.  as for germany france, that's a much better match.  another part of why i could see the south taking over is that we'd previously been one country (and as far as the north was concerned, weren't we always one country?)  it's not like we attacked canada and lost.  it's more like if staten island tried to secede (militarily) and somehow won victory over the other 4 borroughs.  i could see the city getting back together under the rule of the staten islanders. But you're ignoring the South's political goals.  The South wanted to secede and form its own country.  The North was the one that wanted one country.   Plus, it would have been easier to defeat the North sufficiently to make the North agree to grant the South independence.  It would have taken a lot more effort to fully defeat the North and take it over.Another example is WWI.  Germany was defeated and surrendered, but was not taken over/occupied by the allies.  Instead, it was forced to agree to a number of things such as demilitarization and reparations.

sailor

01-15-2007, 01:57 PM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: like i said, i don't have the background to formulate a serious argument here. i'd say the revolutionary war was different just because of the distance involved. kinda like iraq, there's no way we'll be taken over no matter how poorly things go there. as for germany france, that's a much better match. another part of why i could see the south taking over is that we'd previously been one country (and as far as the north was concerned, weren't we always one country?) it's not like we attacked canada and lost. it's more like if staten island tried to secede (militarily) and somehow won victory over the other 4 borroughs. i could see the city getting back together under the rule of the staten islanders. But you're ignoring the South's political goals. The South wanted to secede and form its own country. The North was the one that wanted one country. Plus, it would have been easier to defeat the North sufficiently to make the North agree to grant the South independence. It would have taken a lot more effort to fully defeat the North and take it over.Another example is WWI. Germany was defeated and surrendered, but was not taken over/occupied by the allies. Instead, it was forced to agree to a number of things such as demilitarization and reparations.  but, would the end result of world war two have been different on germany if there weren't so many other countries involved in their defeat?

FezPaul

01-15-2007, 01:58 PM

What does any of this have to do with Sears?

sailor

01-15-2007, 01:59 PM

FezPaul wrote: What does any of this have to do with Sears? mr roebuck was a hick.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 02:01 PM

sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: like i said, i don't have the background to formulate a serious argument here. i'd say the revolutionary war was different just because of the distance involved. kinda like iraq, there's no way we'll be taken over no matter how poorly things go there. as for germany france, that's a much better match. another part of why i could see the south taking over is that we'd previously been one country (and as far as the north was concerned, weren't we always one country?) it's not like we attacked canada and lost. it's more like if staten island tried to secede (militarily) and somehow won victory over the other 4 borroughs. i could see the city getting back together under the rule of the staten islanders. But you're ignoring the South's political goals. The South wanted to secede and form its own country. The North was the one that wanted one country. Plus, it would have been easier to defeat the North sufficiently to make the North agree to grant the South independence. It would have taken a lot more effort to fully defeat the North and take it over.Another example is WWI. Germany was defeated and surrendered, but was not taken over/occupied by the allies. Instead, it was forced to agree to a number of things such as demilitarization and reparations.  but, would the end result of world war two have been different on germany if there weren't so many other countries involved in their defeat? You mean World War I, right?  That's what I was talking about.

sailor

01-15-2007, 02:04 PM

EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: like i said, i don't have the background to formulate a serious argument here. i'd say the revolutionary war was different just because of the distance involved. kinda like iraq, there's no way we'll be taken over no matter how poorly things go there. as for germany france, that's a much better match. another part of why i could see the south taking over is that we'd previously been one country (and as far as the north was concerned, weren't we always one country?) it's not like we attacked canada and lost. it's more like if staten island tried to secede (militarily) and somehow won victory over the other 4 borroughs. i could see the city getting back together under the rule of the staten islanders. But you're ignoring the South's political goals. The South wanted to secede and form its own country. The North was the one that wanted one country. Plus, it would have been easier to defeat the North sufficiently to make the North agree to grant the South independence. It would have taken a lot more effort to fully defeat the North and take it over.Another example is WWI. Germany was defeated and surrendered, but was not taken over/occupied by the allies. Instead, it was forced to agree to a number of things such as demilitarization and reparations. but, would the end result of world war two have been different on germany if there weren't so many other countries involved in their defeat? You mean World War I, right? That's what I was talking about. i was talking about ww2 and how germany was occupied, but not taken over by any power and were allowed to unify down the road.  my stupid speed reading is failing me again, i see.

EliSnow

01-15-2007, 04:26 PM

sailor wrote: EliSnow wrote: sailor wrote: but, would the end result of world war two have been different on germany if there weren't so many other countries involved in their defeat? You mean World War I, right? That's what I was talking about. i was talking about ww2 and how germany was occupied, but not taken over by any power and were allowed to unify down the road.  my stupid speed reading is failing me again, i see. We all fail at speed reading from time to time.  I think the biggest factors in how Germany was treated at the end of WWII was the fact that both USSR and the Western allies were involved in defeating Germany (with the USSR holding Berlin) and the fact that Germany was blamed for WWI, and WWII.  After that, none of the victors wanted Germany (or Japan) to be in a position to restart their "war-mongering" ways.