[perennate]

I don't think Confederacy ever cared to control all of U.S.

So this analogy might work better if Confederacy was the one who won, and Union retreated to Cuba.

Today, Cuba happens to be a highly desirable location (strategically, or for resources, or etc.). So Confederates, who now control continental U.S., want to maintain their claim on it.

Meanwhile, nowadays a majority of the people in USA (a government which controls only Cuba) consider themselves Cubans, and almost no one in USA cares about regaining control of continental U.S.

But Confederates feel that, if USA renounces control of continental U.S., it would be a step towards USA independence, which would further weaken Confederate claim over Cuba. So they pressure USA to keep referring to themselves as "USA" instead of "Cuba". Additionally, they think that the "one America" stance depends to some extent on USA retaining continental U.S. in its official borders. (But in reality, no USA citizens, aka Cubans, care about these borders continuing to include continental U.S.)

[platinumrad]

The KMT were the losers, like the Confederacy, but the CCP were the rebels, like the Confederacy. At the end of the day, both sought to control all of China, so I don't think it matters which side is which in this analogy.

I almost feel like control of Taiwan is more a matter of national pride for the PRC than geopolitics at this point. Yes, the PRC would love to get the USA out of the South China Sea, but there are already American forces in Japan that aren't leaving anytime soon. Yes, the PRC would love to add Taiwan to its territory, but it should be mostly happy enough just to continue building economic ties. However, both the government and the people see possession of Taiwan as unfinished business and this is what I think drives their dramatic reactions in cases like this Apple incident, which is what I was trying to illustrate with the analogy.