stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,480 
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2017 22:14:40 GMT
Probably not long. If the US has already got its hands on some of the weapons and been able to produce them themselves a lot is leaking out. Also money is likely to talk with bribery coming to plan. Mind you the southerns have somewhat limited knowledge of their futuristic 'allies' which is also impacted by the fact the allies are lying to them. As such the exact details, which would seem totally outrageous anyway, could be some time coming out but at least the weaponry and technology the Boers made available to the south are likely to leak out fairly quickly. Especially if being used by other powers in conflict. Well we do know one thing, the books about the future that the Confederacy got their hands on are useless as with the Confederacy still excising means they are no longer valid information source as events are now different than from OTL. In terms of the longer term political developments yes. However details on future technology, location of mineral reserves and other things like that would still be useful. Also details on who would be important in terms of politics, inventions etc up to say ~1890-1900 could well be useful. Some longer term political trends as well, such that Prussia is likely to unite Germany and build it up to a major power both militarily and economically. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,920
Likes: 46,070
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2017 2:53:25 GMT
such that Prussia is likely to unite Germany and build it up to a major power both militarily and economically. Wich would mean for the Confederacy that they might lose a potential ally in the process if the Prussian-France War happens in OTL, also do wonder what the Confederacy about the mess in Mexico. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,480
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2017 12:11:58 GMT
such that Prussia is likely to unite Germany and build it up to a major power both militarily and economically. Wich would mean for the Confederacy that they might lose a potential ally in the process if the Prussian-France War happens in OTL, also do wonder what the Confederacy about the mess in Mexico. If you mean France then possibly that could prompt some advice/equipment being offered to Napoleon III if it looked like such a conflict was still going to occur, which is probably likely. Although I'm not sure what the south's relationship to France would be. There would still be tension over slavery as long as it continued. [IIRC Lee as President is taking steps to remove it but likely to be a long process?] Also southern expansion is most likely to be at Mexican expense. This might be resolved as in Tuttledove's TL 191 by an agreement in which Mexico sells a couple of northern provinces to the CSA to give the latter a Pacific coastline. Unless they do some underhand trade with Britain they have already lost their most important potential ally by aiding the union attack on Britain. A lot depends on how the south's leadership think their future relationships will develop. Will they think they can remain without allies, possibly because of their current technological leadership? Do they think the union will be friendly or revanchist? Those are probably the most important questions. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,920
Likes: 46,070
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2017 13:18:39 GMT
Unless they do some underhand trade with Britain they have already lost their most important potential ally by aiding the union attack on Britain. I think relations between the Union and the Confederacy are more profitable than Confederacy and United Kingdom relations. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,480
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2017 16:15:08 GMT
Unless they do some underhand trade with Britain they have already lost their most important potential ally by aiding the union attack on Britain. I think relations between the Union and the Confederacy are more profitable than Confederacy and United Kingdom relations. Are they? A long while since I've read the book but it was the union that tried to crush the south by force and how confident can it be that, once they think they on a par with the south militarily the union won't try it again. Britain is a much bigger trading partner potentially, between its manufacturing goods and market for southern cotton and while there will be difficulties while slavery lasts Britain isn't a threat to the south's existence. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,920
Likes: 46,070
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2017 16:19:11 GMT
I think relations between the Union and the Confederacy are more profitable than Confederacy and United Kingdom relations. Are they? A long while since I've read the book but it was the union that tried to crush the south by force and how confident can it be that, once they think they on a par with the south militarily the union won't try it again. Britain is a much bigger trading partner potentially, between its manufacturing goods and market for southern cotton and while there will be difficulties while slavery lasts Britain isn't a threat to the south's existence. But the Union with their copied AK-47 will most likely conquer Canada, when that is done they have replace the loses suffered from having the South declaring Independence from the Union. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,480
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2017 16:31:20 GMT
Are they? A long while since I've read the book but it was the union that tried to crush the south by force and how confident can it be that, once they think they on a par with the south militarily the union won't try it again. Britain is a much bigger trading partner potentially, between its manufacturing goods and market for southern cotton and while there will be difficulties while slavery lasts Britain isn't a threat to the south's existence. But the Union with their copied AK-47 will most likely conquer Canada, when that is done they have replace the loses suffered from having the South declaring Independence from the Union. Assuming that happens and their not tied up for long holding down the Canadians and fighting the rest of the British empire why should a victorious union not turn south again? After all its the south they have a claim on, rather than the unprovoked attack on Canada. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,920
Likes: 46,070
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2017 16:42:09 GMT
But the Union with their copied AK-47 will most likely conquer Canada, when that is done they have replace the loses suffered from having the South declaring Independence from the Union. Assuming that happens and their not tied up for long holding down the Canadians and fighting the rest of the British empire why should a victorious union not turn south again? After all its the south they have a claim on, rather than the unprovoked attack on Canada. Well the South can use the time the North is busy fighting in Canada to use their future knowledge to strengthen themselves, so if the North decide to go for round II, the South can be ready. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,480
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2017 22:35:36 GMT
Assuming that happens and their not tied up for long holding down the Canadians and fighting the rest of the British empire why should a victorious union not turn south again? After all its the south they have a claim on, rather than the unprovoked attack on Canada. Well the South can use the time the North is busy fighting in Canada to use their future knowledge to strengthen themselves, so if the North decide to go for round II, the South can be ready. That is true, in the short term at least. It depends on how confident they are they can stay ahead of the US despite the fact the latter will be much larger in population and resources in the longer run. Think they would have been better off not supporting union violent expansion. Both because of the example it sets and because it weakens links with Britain as an ally. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,920
Likes: 46,070
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 10, 2017 2:48:10 GMT
Well the South can use the time the North is busy fighting in Canada to use their future knowledge to strengthen themselves, so if the North decide to go for round II, the South can be ready. That is true, in the short term at least. It depends on how confident they are they can stay ahead of the US despite the fact the latter will be much larger in population and resources in the longer run. Think they would have been better off not supporting union violent expansion. Both because of the example it sets and because it weakens links with Britain as an ally. Well i think Lee being president of the South has something to do with them seeking better relations with the North than the United Kingdom. |
|
