If Britain sent troops to aid the Confederacy

would they of won the Civil War?

Other urls found in this thread:

voltairenet.org/article169488.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

continue: A British invasion launched from Canada, would certainty overwhelm the Union (forcing the Union to fight 2 fronts)?

It would have been a catastrophic mess for sure. European involvement would have meant another European country joining in, hell, maybe the first world war could have started. But I'm sure the Union would have had much tougher time winning the rebellion.

agreed, like if Britain invaded the Union from Canada

Would have been pretty disastrous for their general strategy. Probably would have forced them to come to terms (which is what the South was trying to accomplish the whole time).

The amount of ships the Union would have to contend with would have been the real nightmare. Of course invading from Canada creates that extra front, so that would have completely thrown them off. The British economy around this time is pretty strong too so aiding the Confederacy would obviously bolster the armies as a whole. All in all, the U.S would be a lot different than it is today.

what a pointless question, there was no way britain was going to intervene in the US civil war

might as well ask if the south could have won if they had nukes

When Britain was discussing doing just this in parliament, Russia mobilized their army and threatened that any British involvement would involve them too. They ended up deciding it wasn't worth it and backing down.

The British were already building most of the confederate navy, and if the Royal Navy were to get involved the Union sea power would probably be neutralized by the British and the north would have lost their biggest advantage. The north's will to fight in the civil war was so low that the Democratic party, running on a fuck this war platform, was competitive on the popular vote with Lincoln in the next election despite the Democratic states not participating. This was after the Battle of Gettysburg.

It is debatable whether foreign involvement would have increased the north's will to fight.

It would have been a true world war 50 years earlier.

They were considering it. It would have been par for the course with British perfidiousness and interventionism to make sure the rest of the world stays weaker and at odds.

Their strategy with regards to mainland Europe was always to ensure a large power didn't happen and they were probably already feeling a little wary about the United States spreading all over N America.

Although they considered it as an option, it would purely have been to hobble the United States. The British public viewed the Confederacy very unfavorably.

You're a fucking moron

My post was partly facetious if you didn't catch that. But the British did have a policy of deterring a major European continental power from happening, as that was a doomsday scenario for their own autonomy. Feel free to construct your refutation in more than a couple of words faggot.

Russia would've aided Lincoln if Britain intervened.

Why would the British have sided with a state advocating slavery, when the British had just banned it from the rest of the world?

ACTUALLY

The Trent affair was when confederates tried to travel to London to have the British recognize the confederacy as a state. If the Brits did, then the American blockade would be illegal, and the british would have to break it.

A land invasion wouldn't have been necessary. Blowing the fuck out of the Union Navy would've been sufficient direct military aid.

Nah, cletus, them wood of draw and go into overtime. And then the maple fucking leafs wood of won it.

This. The British could bombard New York and Boston. the American economy would tumble like a stone.

It's such a good alt history setting.

To weaken the USA, their largest competitor in steel. War isn't about morals, it's about interests.

I can however imagine Britain stating the CSA will only get help if they begin the process of ending slavery.

It would likely become this:

>USA, Russia, Prussia
vs
>CSA, Britain, France

Who wins?

This was the deciding factor iirc. The Prime Minister at the time came to the conclusion that they could not recognise a state that still practised slavery, so stayed out.

Britain and France.

Navies > Armies.

>The British could bombard New York
New York had a very extensive network of coastal fortifications built after the war of 1812, no Navy of the time would be able to get close enough to bombard it directly.

Hard to say. USA became independent due to France. France of mid-19 century was autistic British semi-puppet, but Northern states became much stronger than rebellions.
Population of Canada was miserable to invade. Britain had dominant influence in Mexica, but Latinas were bad warriors and it was hard to deliver them to front.

This, the Russians and Prussians had huge armies but lacked the naval strength to transport them to the US without getting intercepted and torn to ribbons by the British and French fleets. Even if they'd somehow survived the crossing relatively intact, their supply lines wouldn't.

They could zerg rush France in Europe and make them sign a peace treaty though.

Britain was not that interested.
France was, however it didn't want to act without Britain.

Meanwhile Russia stationed two fleets in Union ports.

France would not commit out of legitimate fear of being fucking raped.

It couldn't possibly become like this.

France wouldn't enter a war with Prussia and Russia cause they would get rekt
And Prussia and Russia wouldn't enter a war with the British over something happening in America

Russia definitely would, hell they were actually planning on doing just that if Britain got involved, with Alexander II sending a fleet to New York as a warning.

This.

It would have been a clusterfuck.
WW1 on American soil.
Russia, Prussia and the Union
vs.
Britain, France and the CSA
Mexico would likely have gotten involved too. And the European front would have eventually involved Turkey.

It would have been the Crimean, Mexican-American and US civil war all rolled into one.

I wish we had finished the job in 1812 and ended the Amerifats.

Would the Civil War turning into a global conflict have discouraged World War I from happening, or would it have merely changed some of the circumstances?

Sorry if I sound stupid but why would russia intervene?

Russia absolutely hated Britain for the shit they pulled in the Crimean war and they were competing against each other in the Great Game in the Asian continent.

>There are still people who would advocate against the elimination of the northern people

russia and great britain were strategic rivals, think about russia and the us in the 20th century, same thing

thank you

The rivalry between Britian and Russia in the 19th century was constantly close to boiling over.

With Germany still not unified the only powers who were strong enough to oppose Britain were Russia itself and the USA. Russia naturally sought to cooperate with the US to try to contain British power.

Had the Union been defeated by Britain allied CSA, Russia would have been completely isolated diplomatically.

The alliance ended up being more advantageous for the US than for Russia, with Russia being willing to sell Alaska to the USA in order to prevent the British from seizing it.

Okay. Let's say Britain announces they're going to fight with the south.

What can russia do?

They have no real navy, The British can easily destroy what they do have. They do not share a land border with Britain, either. Where are they gonna inavde from? Alaska?

The Russians would probably just shout and call the British imperialists.

Russia was also recovering from the crimean war too. They were in no mood for a naval beat down from Britain?

voltairenet.org/article169488.html

The US gave moral support to Russia during the Crimea. I have just learned there is nothing ironic or reductive to suggest, as an American, that Russia deserves Constantinople.

>What can russia do?
Take India you cock gobbler.

No they can't. The Russian Empire and India were separated by Afghanistan.

Conquer France. With a little help from Prussia, of course. ;)

Literally impossible.

Transporting troops and equipment across land over such a distance *and* then negotiating the crossing of the Hindu Kush would be far, far more difficult than England's simple ferrying of supplies and men between the Empire's outposts.

>would they of won the Civil War
>they of won
WELL HOTDAMN BILLYBOB HYUK HYUK HYK

>babby never heard about the Great Game
Britain literally spent 70 years fearing the Russians invading India.

You utter moron. Neither annexed Afghanistan. They shared no border.

You also can't move an entire army through the steppes.

>No they can't. The Russian Empire and India were separated by Bukkhara and Khiva
:^)

France was the biggest instigator for intervention on behalf of the CSA. Had the French wrapped up their invasion of Mexico quickly as they had planned, it is probable that those troops would have ended up marching north.

Russian intervention in the war would have likely seen a war in mainland Europe with a Russian invasion of France. Possibly with cooperation from Prussia. This could have cut off Britain from its chief source of strength in mainland Europe.

>Neither annexed Afghanistan
That was settled only in 1907 with the emergence of Anglo-Russian Entente. Russia could've annexed Afghanistan the same they did Bukhara, Kokand and Khiva, but they didn't even need to, they only had to promise them some hefty bounty for participating in the war on the Russian side.

>You also can't move an entire army through the steppes
Why the fuck not? Russia did exactly that when conquering the central Asian khanates. And considering Prussia would likely join the war on American side as well, there would be hardly any threat to the Russians from the west.

Napoleon III, for all his faults wasn't stupid.

Britain can tell France to not join the war, as it risks sparking war in mainland europe. Napoleon III will understand, and send guns and equipment instead.

>Why the fuck not? Russia did exactly that when conquering the central Asian khanates
Warfare had changed since then. they're not just moving menwith muskets, they're moving men with Gatling guns and artillery.

Furthermore, once they get into North india, imagine trying to supply them. there was 0 infrastructure in the Central steppes. seriously, there were barely any roads.

> And considering Prussia would likely join the war on American side as well, there would be hardly any threat to the Russians from the west.

Do you actually think britain would launch a naval invasion into Russia? are you 12? real life isn't Vic.

>Warfare had changed since then
Both American civil war and the annexation of Bukhara happened in the 1860s you fucking retard.

>Do you actually think britain would launch a naval invasion into Russia?
Not Britain. Prussians. But they wouldn't do it if they were allies.

>Gatling guns
>Russia in the 1860s
Are you literally retarded

>annexing Bukahra
>Comparable to invading the Raj

Do you have brain damage? invading a subcontinent with the largest density of epople on earth isn't the same as Invading a low population central steppe territory.

>Not Britain. Prussians. But they wouldn't do it if they were allies.

How can the Prussians Help the Union? They can't get to the US because the British would control the North Seas.

What would Prussia have to gain by joining? They can barely help.

I was pushing it there, but they did exist in small quantities.

Then what "steppes" were you talking about you tard? The steppes were between Bukhara and western Russia, there are no steppes between Bukhara and India.

>What would Prussia have to gain by joining?
Skullfuck France and annex Alsace-Lorraine.

Retarded faggot probably confused Bukhara with Kazan or some shit.

>France was, however it didn't want to act without Britain.

They were also much too weak and had no ability to ship sufficient troops for the task. They couldn't even get their side to win the Civil War in MEXICO, what makes anyone think they'd be able to do shit in a war an order of magnitude larger with much more competent opposition?

I've addressed this here:
If There was a chance Prussia would join, Napoleon III wouldn't. he'd instead send equipment and weapons.

The Western steppes to pass through Kazakhstan to reach Afghanistan.

ya know tho two images would actually be okay if they didnt have fucking cat ears thus becoming otaku pandering garbage

There was no Kazakhstan back then, and obviously Russians had no problem passing those steppes when reaching the central Asian khanatas in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

>Napoleon III, for all his faults wasn't stupid.

>Britain can tell France to not join the war

Except for the fact that the war was Napoleon's idea, he's the one who proposed it to the British Cabinet. It would be inconceivable for France to stay out of the war.

>There was no Kazakhstan back then
You know I was referring to the region of Kazakhstan.

>and obviously Russians had no problem passing those steppes when reaching the central Asian khanatas in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Because in those 100 years between, roads and highways were built. it was wilderness and tribal villages in the 1860's.

Not really. Even Americans didn't fully implement them until the late 1860s, much less Russians.

What 100 years? What are you even babbling about? They were conquering those areas literally in THE SAME DECADE as when the ACW happened.

I meant the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s, not the 20th century.

Then the British Cabinet will have to tell him to grow up, because the war's fucked if France joins. If he's mature he'll understand.

If he doesn't, The British will tell the South to reject French support, explaining it would allow Prussia and Russia to occupy France and ruin the war. The Southerners will understand if napoleon won't.

Ah, my mistake.

> Russians had no problem passing those steppes when reaching the central Asian khanatas in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Obviously they can move through, but huge Military operations that would be needed to invade India are on a totally different level. Also remember there are mountains in North India too. Don't want to get caught in those with supply line's moving through the stan's in the winter. It would put so much strain on supply lines that the operation would be too expensive.

>Ah, my mistake.
You know you wouldn't make this mistake if you actually read that in context.

yes yes, i'm dumb etc, lets get back on context.

I always assumed Russia would try to ally with the Pashtuns rather than trying to conquer Afghanistan, in order to also spark unrest around the Khyber pass and general Peshawar area to secure the invasion routes for the Russians. Once they reach Pakistan it's pretty much game over for the Brits, hence why Britain tried their hardest to ensure nobody else gets to Afghanistan.

Tribals aren't the problem. It's moving an army large enough to occupy a subcontinent of 100 million people through the stan's. They'll pass through deserts, freezing cold plains and more. Imagine the supply lines trying to feed that army. They'd starve before they see a union jack.

Not true at all. This isn't the 15th century we're talking about.

French involvement is necessarry to make it seem like a European intervention, rather than a machiavellian British Imperial move. Besides, the UK had rather weak land forces and the alliance was dependent on the French supplying that deficit.

Besides, France and the UK were allies. Prussia and Russia could just attack them anyway. You think they would refrain just because it was technically against the rules? The UK would be obliged to join in. Russia was already preparing for war, they had a causus belli in the Polish rebellion (1), they even sent their entire fleet to northern ports in full expectation that their home ports would be blockaded. (2)


1>In mid-July 1863, French Foreign Minister Droun de Lhuys was offering London the joint occupation of Poland by means of invasion.
2>The Russian admirals had also been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies.

You say that, but there really was no development in the far south. Roads are probably the best the Russians will have.

Just trying to calculate the size of an army needed to occupy the Indian Subcontinent is insane. Basically the entire Russian Army moving through Kashmir.

But for the sake of the discussion, let's say you're right, Russia somehow occupies India.

The Brits keep moving with the Rebels, from both the North and South. Eventually the Union would flat out collapse. Once Washington and New York have been taken, the Americans will have no choice but to request peace.

The South will now be independent, and the US will probably be giving Britain shit tons of cash, and probably territory in the west as well.

Why would Russia continue the war past this point? They've failed in their objective of defending the union.

They don't have to occupy India. They just need to provide enough of a distraction to instigate another Sepoy rebellion.

>it seem like a European intervention, rather than a machiavellian British Imperial move.
Who cares? France, Britain's only real ally on the continent won't.

>Besides, the UK had rather weak land forces and the alliance was dependent on the French supplying that deficit.
Of course, but the British only need to break the Union blockade to help the south hold its own, and then hold a comparitively smaller front with the Americans in the North. The British can then blockade the union, and the union will choke under pressure.

>Prussia and Russia could just attack them anyway.
The Reason the Franco Prussian war wasn't like ww1 was because the French couldn't mobiluze quick.

In this Scenario, Napoleon has an early warning before the British intervention and can fortify the border against a prussian attack. That will probably be enough to dissuade them.

Furthermore, Prussia would be an international pariah for attacking france unprovoked.

>2>The Russian admirals had also been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies
The Russian Navy was a joke.

Are they gonna reach the East Coast by going by argentina? By the time they arrive, the Brits will have turned the yank fleet into scrap.

World War I 50 years early. Literally everybody back in Europe knew the US was going to be a major power in the future, and that the CSA was fighting an uphill battle. If a literal superpower like Britain threw their weight behind the Southern cause other powers would have gotten involved to try and keep the balance of power.

How? Are they gonna arm them?

If so, why weren't they already doing this before they were at war with Britain? You don't need to be at war with a state to fund and equip rebels.

seriously, why can't japan draw proper furries instead of this catgirl crap

Not him but literally read any book about the Great Game.

>Are they gonna reach the East Coast by going by argentina? By the time they arrive, the Brits will have turned the yank fleet into scrap.

The Russians got there IRL. To prevent it the Brits would have to preemptively ambush the fleet before it left the Baltic, giving Prussia and Russia all the CBs they'd ever dreamed of. Besides, they would be under US naval command, who weren't idiots, and supported by ironclads.

bingo!

Okay, the Brits let the russians go to the east coast.

They still win as long as they concentrate the navy.

The fight is basically a lion vs a dog and cat.

The British had the rule of 2, meaning they had twice the navy of the next 2 powers combined, and better quality ships too. Some union ships werevstill wooden.

So educate me then. Your reply implies you know why the Russians couldn't already start a rebellion.

actually they were pretty gung-ho about it, but prince Albert got in the way (good ol Al).

>Some union ships werevstill wooden.

As were all the Royal Navy frigates that could make it into the shallow waters off the US coast. The US also had the only serious navy in the Great Lakes, bye bye Canada.

>They still win as long as they concentrate the navy.They still win as long as they concentrate the navy.

Impossible, they still have an empire to defend, which requires certain commitments even in peacetime. The confederates were able to do considerable damage with their commerce raiders, and they only had a limited number of them.

Not to mention the Russo-American alliance already formulated a unified command structure. Can you imagine the French and British and possibly Spanish admirals agreeing in any timely fashion to coordinate operations? It took France to basically cease to exist as a country for that to happen the last time.

>As were all the Royal Navy frigates that could make it into the shallow waters off the US coast.
In shallow waters, both are using frigates. The British maintain their numerical advantage. Outside shallow waters, they control the west atlantic thanks to their huge, industrialised navy

>Impossible, they still have an empire to defend, which requires certain commitments even in peacetime
The atlantic fleet will do. That's still enough, and most atlantic territories like South Africa are hardly at risk. The British Pacific fleet also can take on the Russian pacific fleet with ease.

I won't deny the war would put massive strain on the royal navy, but its still a viable operation.

>n shallow waters, both are using frigates.

In shallow waters, the US are using the Monitor class. They also have protected industries and lines of supply. Factories that cannot export to Britain will be converted to war production, something that would be politically unfeasible while there was still a market to export to. The blockade also provides a de facto trade barrier which helps the growing US industry.

The Russian and US fleets were going to disperse and raid British commerce. Without the opportunity for a decisive battle, the British would be forced into a protracted struggle, devastating to the economy and totally counter to their actual interests in the conflict, which was the resumption of trade.

This. You can visit some of the old forts from that era. Seeing those massive fortifications and the giant fucking artillery emplacements, the whole British navy combined couldn't get near New York.

Fun fact, a surprise attack on New York was the actual British plan for this scenario. Just imagine, it would have been Pearl Harbor before there ever was a Pearl Harbor. History would be changed irrevocably.

>The heart of the British strategy in case of war was “overwhelming naval strength based on a few select fortresses,” especially Bermuda and Halifax (in today’s Nova Scotia). (Bourne 208) British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston dispatched a powerful squadron of eight ships of the line and thirteen frigates and corvettes under Admiral Milne to the western Atlantic, and wanted to use the Great Eastern, the largest ship in the world, as a troop transport. London even considered ways to foment secession in Maine. Bombarding and burning both Boston and New York was actively considered as a contingency; it was concluded that the reduction of Boston would be very difficult because of the channels and forts; New York was seen as more vulnerable, especially to a surprise attack. An Admiralty hydrographer saw New York City as “the true heart of [US] commerce, — the centre of …maritime resources; to strike her would be to paralyse all the limbs.” (Bourne 240)

Fair enough, though let me object to

>which was the resumption of trade
The British didn't care about getting southern exports. They found it in other places at slightly worse prices, but it wasn't devastating to the British economy.

The main reason for a British intervention would be to weaken the influence of one of their fastest growing competitors in steel, the US. A Southern victory would diminish the US' status as a power and damage its ability to take action in the affairs of the caribbean and central america, while also giving Britain a close ally in the region who are still weak enough to do as Britain tells them.

A British backed Southern victory would've been anazing for the UK, if it somehow happened.

I honestly would love a videogame of a British-American war in the early 1900's.

The Suez Canal wasn't completed until 1869, meaning all imports from India had to travel up the Atlantic. It's perfectly feasible to disrupt this trade route sailing under flags of convenience and embarking from various friendly and neutral ports (Liberia, for example). That's what the Confederates did and they didn't even have a navy, let alone two.

Why are you telling me this?

You made a passing reference to the Indian cotton replacing American trade, but I've pointed out a fatal weakness in that supply route. Great Britain is an island nation, it must import everything it needs to survive, trade is life.

Even getting there was a problem; numerous Russian army expiditions met their end in the wilds of central asia - be it due to famine, weather or tribes. The sheer logistics to do this were almost unfeasable.

Also the Brits were hysterica about the Russians invading via the North East. The spy game was ferocious - no way that Russian intel could coax up such a revolt