The Confederate flag

[Thundercrack85]

Oh I love me some alternate timelines. I just think you need to approach them as they evolve.

People also need to realize how random nature is. Even if all of Hitler's grandparents were still somehow born exactly the same, and still somehow met, any of them "doing it" at any time that isn't exactly the same as in our timeline means that "our Hitler" won't be born.

There might still be a bastard who changes his name to Hitler (or maybe this time it's written as Hiedler), who has a son named Adolf (a popular name), but genetically speaking, that isn't our Hitler.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Your assumption is that an America with the same head of state at Britain would be less likely to side with Britain against Hitler. I don't understand. Australia, India and Canada sided with Britain, and they didn't wait over two years to make up their minds.

You're assuming a British ruled North America would be in the same position to defeat the Axis powers.

Alot of things had to fall into place to defeat them.

Maybe America's Prime Minister does something to cause Russia to join the Axis powers. Maybe the South hates British rule so much they side with Hitler. Maybe the British America doesn't have the military budget close to FDR's military. Maybe the Manhattan project has spies who cause England to get nuked to the point of surrender.

Like I said, butterfly effect.

EDIT: Nevermind, seems to be the consesus that WW2 might've never happened if the British won the Revolutionary War for a thousand various reasons.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Maybe America's Prime Minister does something to cause Russia to join the Axis powers.

Very doubtful. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were ideologically completely opposed to each other, and taking Russia was always Hitler's main goal. Any truce between them was always going to be temporary. I'd put the odds of Britain/America joining Hitler to battle Stalin as being far more likely than Hitler and Stalin having a long-lasting alliance.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's a little more complex though because you also need to consider the outcome of WW2 without the United States.

Maybe the Axis powers win and the atrocities that happened to Native Americans and blacks is multiplied many times.

No, the Allies still win. The Soviet Union essentially won that war single handedly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No, the Allies still win. The Soviet Union essentially won that war single handedly.

The Soviets fought the lion's share in the West, but the aid contributed by the Western Allies was integral for the war effort. Not to go into that subject, but I see this claim every now and then on the internet.

Without British aid alone the Germans would have taken Moscow. I recall reading that 40% of tanks defending Moscow in 1941 (when the Germans were in the suburbs) were British.

US aid was also integral for the massive counterattack following Stalingrad.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The Soviets fought the lion's share in the West, but the aid contributed by the Western Allies was integral for the war effort. Not to go into that subject, but I see this claim every now and then on the internet.

Without British aid alone the Germans would have taken Moscow. I recall reading that 40% of tanks defending Moscow in 1941 (when the Germans were in the suburbs) were British.

US aid was also integral for the massive counterattack following Stalingrad.

Even without Allied aid, the Soviets would have still won. Sure the Germans probably would have advanced further, but in the end it is still logistically impossible to invade Russia. It's far too large, the climate and terrain is far too difficult, the Russians are willing to destroy their own farms and factories, and don't give a crap about casualties. Eventually the Germans would have caved due to the brutal Russian winter and inability to resupply themselves. The Soviet Union and the United States were the two unbeatable powers of the 1930's and 40's. They would have lost going to war with just one of them. They were dumb enough to go to war with both of them at the same time.

Add in the fact that the Russians played a masterful game of diplomacy to fool the United States and Japan.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I see it differently. Without Western Aid, the Germans overrun Moscow (which they very nearly did with Western Aid), Stalin is on the run. St. Petersburg capitulates. The Germans solidify their control of European Russia while Stalin, assuming he's alive tries to rally the country East of the Volga following catastrophic blows to Soviet morale.

Even more so if the moderate Nazis convince Hitler to set up a provisional fascist Russian state.

The clock is ticking with Von Braun building his rockets, and the atomic weapons project.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

I saw another flag last night and you know what, I kinda like the flag now. That's just the antagonist in me. I've never been a real fan of southern culture and still am not, but I like the flag's rebellious status. I have never and still don't see the flag as a pro-racism/slavery/segregation etc symbol. It's just a banner representing where I'm from and insurgency.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I saw another flag last night and you know what, I kinda like the flag now. That's just the antagonist in me. I've never been a real fan of southern culture and still am not, but I like the flag's rebellious status. I have never and still don't see the flag as a pro-racism/slavery/segregation etc symbol. It's just a banner representing where I'm from and insurgency.

Yeah an insurgency waged against the United States for the state right to continue slavery.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Well, I'm certainly not fighting for slavery and I don't know anyone else who is.

 

[regwec]

ISIS are.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

As a black man growing up in Virginia, I always saw that flag as a symbol of hate. Whenever I saw a house or a car with that flag, I always assumed it was a racist redneck an more often than not, they were indeed rednecks. This arguement that the flag is a symbol of heritage is just like black folk trying to take back the N Word. It's stupid all around and needs to stop. Southern heritage means you are proud your ancestors fought to keep people enslaved. And I seen crap arugements that it was about land and rights that's just crap people use to justify the flag. Also the other arugement that black people fought for the south in the civil war, so that makes it okay. But they ignore the fact that many of those blacks were slaves forced to fight in that war. I personally, don't care if it's taken down or not, but it's stupid that people try to justify ignorance. Just say your a racist redneck and move on.

 

[Golgo-13]

This flag was prominently displayed on the roof of the General Lee on the show the Dukes Of Hazzard.

Yep, and now as an adult since i know what that flag stands for, i can't look at that show the same again.

There are alot of things from the 70' and 80's that i enjoyed as a kid, that now as an adult, i think to myself, wtf..?

Example being:

Yosamite Sam from the Bugs Bunny cartoons using "Cotton-Picker" as an insult, or Pepe La-Pew the Skunk sexually harassing that cat he thinks is a skunk, etc…

 

[hippie_hunter]

I see it differently. Without Western Aid, the Germans overrun Moscow (which they very nearly did with Western Aid), Stalin is on the run. St. Petersburg capitulates. The Germans solidify their control of European Russia while Stalin, assuming he's alive tries to rally the country East of the Volga following catastrophic blows to Soviet morale.

There are some basic things to take into account when doing an invasion as massive as what the Nazis were doing:

1. The climate has to be favorable to the invading forces. Russia's terrain and climate just isn't suited for an invading force. When the Nazis were invading Russia, their oil froze, their men were dying due to the harsh winter, and it was really tough to resupply because it's so vast.

2. You need to be able to resupply your forces easily. The reason why Napoleon and Hitler were able to conquer almost all of Europe was because they kept the land intact. They used the local farms and factories to resupply their forces as opposed to using their home bases for resupply. It's far more efficient. It's also why the Allies created far more damage to Europe than the Nazis did. But when Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia, the Russians turned their strategy against them. They burned their farmlands and destroyed their factories. Without those vital resupply lines, the Nazis ran out of supplies on top of all the other problems they faced. Having to resupply your forces over 1,000 km while the resupply lines are being constantly attacked just doesn't work.

Even more so if the moderate Nazis convince Hitler to set up a provisional fascist Russian state.

Except Hitler wasn't a very good planner. So let's throw that out.

The clock is ticking with Von Braun building his rockets, and the atomic weapons project.

Weapons don't win wars. Strategy and diplomacy do. The atomic bomb did not cause Japan to surrender, what makes you think that atomic bombs would have caused the Russians to surrender when they cared even less about casualties than the Japanese did?

Also, distance hurts a lot back in the 1940's. Rockets were more useful against Britain because the gap between Britain and the coasts of Europe were quite small. Launching rockets from Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc. to Russia is much more difficult because of the vast amounts of terrain where a lot could go wrong.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

A nuclear warhead small enough to put on even a shortrange rocket was years away in 1945, and ICBMs well over a decade away.

The Germans would have had to drop them from bombers and the USSR had complete control of the air by that point. Also, by that point they weren't fighting in Russia anymore. They were fighting in Germany. The Germans would have just been nuking their own country.

 

[regwec]

Not to be that guy, but someone could start a "WWII: What If?" thread.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't see the USSR recovering from losing Moscow and St. Petersburg. At that point they would be in retreat. Without US aid, they would also not be able to pull off the immense counterattack.

The US supplied the Soviet Union with a quarter of a million trucks, thousands of tanks, and more than ten thousand aircraft. Not to mention thousands of pieces of artillery, tens of thousands of jeeps, train cars, and everything else. But the real important one a lot of people overlook are the little things, like millions of boots, belts, socks, food, gas, and fuel.

 

[macattack]

I have no problem with historic sites where battles were fought or some other major historical event.

But a monument or statue glorifies and celebrates people who fought for causes that were wrong.

Again, would it be acceptable to have statues glorifying red coats and King George all over New England?

Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and other Confederate generals were, by all accounts, honorable men. Longstreet even served in Grant's presidential adminstration. This is a special case and if the South wants to honor these men that is their prerogative.

Keep in mind that the flag on display, and thus the flag being contested, is not the actual Confederate flag. It is the battle flag of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It is not the same as flying the actual Confederate flag which has vanished into obscurity. It has different connotations because of that.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and other Confederate generals were, by all accounts, honorable men. Longstreet even served in Grant's presidential adminstration. This is a special case and if the South wants to honor these men that is their prerogative.

Keep in mind that the flag on display, and thus the flag being contested, is not the actual Confederate flag. It is the battle flag of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It is not the same as flying the actual Confederate flag which has vanished into obscurity. It has different connotations because of that.

It's a flag popularized by the Klan and other racist elements.

If it was the actual stars and bars, the notion that it's about heritage would be slightly more credible (still a bad heritage, but at least historically accurate).

There's a reason this flag went up in the 1960's.

 

[regwec]

Wrong thread- weird blip.

 

[macattack]

It's a flag popularized by the Klan and other racist elements.

If it was the actual stars and bars, the notion that it's about heritage would be slightly more credible (still a bad heritage, but at least historically accurate).

There's a reason this flag went up in the 1960's.

I'm not denying that at all. I was commenting on a larger point.

You can say it was the wrong thing to do, but Lincoln and Grant made the decision to give the Confederates the most honorable surrender possible, including them keeping their citizenships. Like it or not, Lee, Longstreet, "Stonewall" Jackson, etc. are Americans. There's a reason why history(which the Union wrote in this case) is much kinder to the Confederate generals than they are to Benedict Arnold.

To demonize them now, 150 years later, is pointless and insulting to their descendants. Same with the flag. Racist elements may have put the flag up but the flag can be flown if people want it to be flown, regardless of it being for pride, heritage, and yes, racist elements. It is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, after all.

Since South Carolina voted to lower Lee's battle flag, that was their call and they did it because the negative connotations (bigotry and racism) trumped the positive. If future legislatures vote to put it back up, that's their call.

Flags can represent what people want them to represent. If people want to fly Lee's flag or have it fly on state grounds, I hope it is for pride and heritage reasons, as those are honorable reasons to fly a flag. Dukes of Hazzard had the flag on the General Lee for this reason, which is why I disagree with the decision to erase the Dukes from availability as much as possible.

I would prefer if Lee's flag were allowed to be flown and be used to represent positive causes rather than it be erased because it was appropriated by a disgraceful cause like the KKK.

 

[regwec]

I have found this thread (or at least the parts of it which adhere to the subject of its title) to be very interesting. I think every nation and every culture has its dark corners, and that they are either suppressed or reassessed with the healing of time. It is interesting to compare sentiments in the American South about the American civil war with sentiments in England towards our civil war, fought more than 200 years earlier. Most people are now ignorant or apathetic about it, but many others still recognize it as the foundation of our modern nation state, and almost all of them are- deep down- partisan Roundheads or Cavaliers. Others, with a more casual appreciation of history, quickly become inflamed when the place of the monarchy is debated, and feelings can run surprisingly deep.

I can now understand why this is such a divisive issue and so important to so many. On balance, however, my hope is that reassessment will be chosen in preference to suppression. The former, at least, keeps the conversation going, and in the end that is what bridges old divisions.

 

[Evelisse]

oh my dear Florida

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories...support-confederate-flag-in-florida-city.html

Police estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with the Civil War-era flag, took part in Sunday's gathering in Ocala. The event was being held to back a decision by Marion County to return the Confederate flag to a display outside its government complex.......

heh, little funny they pointed out mostly trucks and motorcycles

 

[hippie_hunter]

Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and other Confederate generals were, by all accounts, honorable men. Longstreet even served in Grant's presidential adminstration. This is a special case and if the South wants to honor these men that is their prerogative.

Some of the Confederates are worthy of respect, but it still doesn't change what the Confederacy fought for.

Keep in mind that the flag on display, and thus the flag being contested, is not the actual Confederate flag. It is the battle flag of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It is not the same as flying the actual Confederate flag which has vanished into obscurity. It has different connotations because of that.

But the battle flag was partially incorporated into the second and third Confederate flags. The designs of those flags were actually about white supremacy.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, and other Confederate generals were, by all accounts, honorable men. Longstreet even served in Grant's presidential adminstration. This is a special case and if the South wants to honor these men that is their prerogative.

Keep in mind that the flag on display, and thus the flag being contested, is not the actual Confederate flag. It is the battle flag of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. It is not the same as flying the actual Confederate flag which has vanished into obscurity. It has different connotations because of that.

I'm sure there were Nazis who were just good soldiers and not evil degenerates but nobody cares because they fought for the wrong side.

And it doesn't matter if the battle flag isn't considered the historically accurate Confederate flag. It has become synonymous with the confederacy over time.