American Civil War what if

The Trent Affair leads to Anglo French intervention on the side of CSA. While the Russians side with the US. How would this effect the war?

The CSA would win, as the Russians did not have the navies to ship troops or supplies over. Even if Russia is big, they simply would not be in the war.

Provolution said:

The CSA would win, as the Russians did not have the navies to ship troops or supplies over. Even if Russia is big, they simply would not be in the war.

Click to expand...

Let's mix things up a bit and suppose that simultaneously the Austro-Prussian War broke out a few years earlier than historical, and Russia & the German Confederation allied against Austria (Russia given the incentive of allying so that they will have a means to ultimately attack France -- Russia scratches the GC's back, then Germany returns the favor). So, now after crushing Austria, the Russians are given free passage through Prussia, where they can strike France on their home soil. Meanwhile, the Germans aren't going to standby and let Russia take the spoils, so they attack in tandem - effectively launching the Franco-Prussian War well ahead of schedule, while also uniting the German Empire in the process (which is now going to be Großdeutschland, as the realms of Austria have succumbed).

Now, France and therefore Britain have serious pressures coming in from across the Rhine, and must divert a number their forces away from aiding the CSA. Meanwhile, the Czar approves funding to build the Trans-Siberian Railway ahead of schedule... and the USA plans to pick up Russian divisions from the Russian Far East with it's own ships, and disembark them at Seattle, San Francisco, L.A., etc... attacking the CSA's weak western flank. Now, the Western & CSA Allies are in quite a fix.

Your move...

Not only Russia but also Prussia supported the US. A world war then would be interesting...

Adler

Lotus, I would tie that with the wars in Germany: So Austria (Bismarck would not start a war in that moment with Austria, in contrast he would do everything to make it a Federal War) and Prussia and Russia together with the USA against Denmark, France, CSA and Britain.

Adler

But the problem was that Russia in 1861 was being reformed intensively and involved in its domestic political problems.

Britain and France would have to carefully balance how much aid they sent to the CSA, else they risk losing the campaign in France a la 1940. However, they can't really afford to let the CSA go under, either (otherwise the USA would reconsolidate and come over to Europe and it would be 1917-18 all over again... Russians lose interest and revolt in a hard fight away from home, Austria becoming destabilized, Germany alone can't take all the pressure).

Maybe it would all depend on how well the USN & USMC were able to perform in the NW Atlantic? The only real naval power the 'Moscow-Vienna-Berlin-Washington Axis' have that could fight/interfere with the operations of the French and British Royal navies in the NW Atlantic (supply line to the CSA) would be the USA's navy. Not sure they alone would stand much of a chance, though. It would basically be 3 navies (GBR, FRA, CSA) against 1.

So, the sea lanes to the CSA will probably be kept open. And more than troops, the CSA really just needs supplies and weapons, and they could probably stay alive for a very long time, especially with the their Allies' dominance of the sea - then the CSA's ports wouldn't be cut off like they historically were, effectively suffocating the country and grinding it's economy to a halt. Anyway, whoever wins in Europe, will afterwards determine who wins in America.

Probably Germany/Austria/Russia will win, and conquer France. I don't know how it's all going to end, but please just tell me Germany isn't going to get bored with looking at the British Isles and do a surprise attack on their ally Russia & launch Barbarossa several generations ahead of schedule. Next thing you know, it would be another USA/GBR/RUS vs. GER gangbang, and we've already seen that movie.

Not likely, the US would not go over the Atlantic. They still had the American continent to conquer. This scenario is too far fetched for my taste.

What could be the interesting case, would be France backing up CSA alone, that would be an even fight.

Interesting. I think then that if any European side were to get involved, all European sides would be involved, and thus their influence on land would be negated. The USA would have to go on the defensive navally speaking, but really, the CSA couldn't hold out against the Union's land forces, and British Canada's defense forces would be a joke against the fully mobilized United States army.

People don't seem to realize that the USA was hardly at the breaking point during the Civil War; they were using much less than they might have used to grind down the Confederacy, whereas the CSA was desperately trying to stem the tide by scraping up soldiers wherever they could. A United States of the 1860s could probably obliterate any and all armies on the North American continent combined if they needed to.

They would probably lose any naval war against the British, but shelling Boston or NYC would just infuriate the US populace.

North King said:

People don't seem to realize that the USA was hardly at the breaking point during the Civil War.

Click to expand...

Actually by 1863, the Union was in political turmoil over Confederate victories. The turmoil culminated with the Confederate invasion of the North when anti-war mobs basically took over New York City for a short time. Congress was demanding negotiations with the CSA. There is not a historian that won't agree that Confederacy was winning the war until Vicksburg and Gettysburg.

Bugfatty300 said:

Actually by 1863, the Union was in political turmoil over Confederate victories. The turmoil culminated with the Confederate invasion of the North when anti-war mobs basically took over New York City for a short time. Congress was demanding negotiations with the CSA. There is not a historian that won't agree that Confederacy was winning the war until Vicksburg and Gettysburg.

Click to expand...

The Confederacy penetrated as far as Southern Pennsylvania. Look at a map, that's not particularly far. If you add in British support, then it becomes a nationalist struggle; no one would set down their weapons during that.

North King said:

The Confederacy penetrated as far as Southern Pennsylvania. Look at a map.

Click to expand...

They never meant to penetrate far. The effect was psychological.

The Tet Offensive didn't gain much ground either but practically destroyed public support for the Vietnam War in the US. The same deal with the Confederate invasion of the North.

The Confederacy was taking the war to Union soil (years after the great US army should have crushed them) and it had a massive psychological effect on the North and people lost faith in the US government. Only a rapid string of Union victories turned this sentiment and saved the Union cause.

Of course this is basic US Civil War history.

Of course basic Civil War history also shows us that the Confederates were only really successful on their home ground, and basic Civil War history shows their invasion of the North ended in Gettysburg. Yeah, that's some offensive capability there.

With respect the South's ability to win the war was no small thing to dismiss. Their capacity to prolong an invasion of the North may not have been great but that was but one way for them to win the conflict. The prolonged sieges of Petersburg and Atlanta (along with the extensive casualties in the east) for example had a very damaging effect on Lincoln's re-election campaign. Had Atlanta not fallen it is quite likely that he would have lost to McCellan and that could well have brought a truce and an end to the conflict.

For the South to win all they had to do was to force the Northern population to loose heart and no longer support the fighting. The North had to occupy the southern states, smash their armies and bring war right into people's backyards in order to crush the rebellion, a much harder task.

privatehudson said:

Had Atlanta not fallen it is quite likely that he would have lost to McCellan and that could well have brought a truce and an end to the conflict.

Click to expand...

I must disagree. Before Atlanta, I believe it was a very narrow election, with the ability to go either way. Atlanta made it completely certain. And even if McClellan had won, it would not have ended the war. McClellan ran as a war candidate in the primaries (the reason he was running was he thought he was a better military strategist than Lincoln), but at the nominating convention, the Copperheads took control of the platform; he ended up as a war candidate running on a peace platform. Given how easy it is for politicians to ignore their own platforms, I doubt he would have paid attention to his.

McClellan was still incompetent, but at this point there was no way the South would win the war.

For the South to win all they had to do was to force the Northern population to loose heart and no longer support the fighting. The North had to occupy the southern states, smash their armies and bring war right into people's backyards in order to crush the rebellion, a much harder task.

Click to expand...

Very true, but gaining foreign support would not be the way to go about making the North give up.

North King said:

Of course basic Civil War history also shows us that the Confederates were only really successful on their home ground, and basic Civil War history shows their invasion of the North ended in Gettysburg. Yeah, that's some offensive capability there.

Click to expand...

As I said before the effect of the invasions were meant to be psychological and they did have a dramatic effect on the psyche of the North.

Again, the Confederates weren't even looking to move far past Gettysburg.

Bugfatty300 said:

As I said before the effect of the invasions were meant to be psychological and they did have a dramatic effect on the psyche of the North.

Again, the Confederates weren't even looking to move far past Gettysburg.

Click to expand...

I somehow doubt they were intending to get defeated...

North King said:

I somehow doubt they were intending to get defeated...

Click to expand...

Defeat or not. The psychological effect was still there. Northern fence sitters realized the South was far from being defeated and that the war was far from over and this stiffened the anti-war movements.

Bugfatty300 said:

Defeat or not. The psychological effect was still there. Northern fence sitters realized the South was far from being defeated and that the war was far from over and this stiffened the anti-war movements.

Click to expand...

Yet the North managed to keep on fighting for the next two years, all the way to the South's defeat. I'm not seeing this supposed psychological victory, sorry. Regardless of what the South planned, they quite obviously failed.

North King said:

Yet the North managed to keep on fighting for the next two years, all the way to the South's defeat. I'm not seeing this supposed psychological victory, sorry. Regardless of what the South planned, they quite obviously failed.

Click to expand...

Uh yeah, I know what happened. I was referring to your comment that the North was never close to breaking. That was untrue as during the summer of 1863 there were large movements in the North to negotiate end the war. With the addition of foreign intervention this could have led to CSA independence.

And BTW, I never stated it was a victory for the South in any shape or fashion. It had even more of a negative effect on the ANV than it did the North.