History questions not worth their own thread II

[ParkCungHee]

I'm looking for a German Encirclement in France in the autumn of 1944, that would be large enough to send a division to help close up, and is not the Falaise Pocket (doesn't fit the time frame) any ideas?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nevermind, figured it out.

 

[Quackers]

So during the American civil war CSA diplomats urged European governments to give them diplomatic recognition. Even Lee's raids were partly motivated to achieve this.

Why was gaining recognition so important?

 

[say1988]

First step to European intervention, since the US said that they would declare war on anyone who recognised the CSA, and even if they didn't, it was still the first step to foreign intervention.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's the primary reason. An (admittedly very remote) secondary reason is that the Union's claim that the Confederacy is an illegitimate state was an important factor in holding the loyalty of the border states.

 

[Quackers]

What would be the probable effects of British intervention? *I know it is unlikely, even amongst manchester cotton manufactorers*.

I'm thinking a Royal Navy strike against the Union blockade.

 

[LightSpectra]

What would be the probable effects of British intervention? *I know it is unlikely, even amongst manchester cotton manufactorers*.

I'm thinking a Royal Navy strike against the Union blockade.

The British had very little stake in the matter, so probably not even that much. It was really the French that wanted to intervene, due to American non-intervention in the Franco-Mexican war being guaranteed if the Confederacy won the Civil War. I think Napoleon III had some interest in actually landing troops in the Eastern Theater but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[say1988]

What would be the probable effects of British intervention? *I know it is unlikely, even amongst manchester cotton manufactorers*.

I'm thinking a Royal Navy strike against the Union blockade.

It really depends when, why, and how.

The earlier, the better as far as the British and Confederacy would be concerned. If they could preempt the military buildup and actively intervened while the Confederacy was doing relatively well (say, before Antietam), it would probably force Lincoln to the table pretty quickly.
Later on, while the British likely had the forces to make a decisive difference, they were committed all around the world, and would face famine and skyrocketing food prices at home, not to mention the political problems with backing slavery (as of the Emancipation Proclomation).

Though Canada would almost certainly fall in any war (troop numbers never hit 20,000 and most Canadians supported the Union). If the Americans got to Halifax, it could severely weaken any blockade and coastal raids, losing that key port.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's also likely that with diplomatic recognition, the Confederacy would ask the European powers to mediate an agreement between them and the union.

 

[say1988]

Pretty likely, since they would have taken that from day 1. And that was the British plan if they were to do anything, but that requires the Union to agree to it and not follow through with the war threat. Don't know how likely that would be.

 

[Dachs]

Good offices were always more likely - and arguably more dangerous - than actual armed force.

 

[LightSpectra]

Why is it that Stalin kept Lavrentiy Beria in his inner circle after it became apparent that the later raped Stalin's daughter?

 

[Tee Kay]

Why is it that Stalin kept Lavrentiy Beria in his inner circle after it became apparent that the later raped Stalin's daughter?

Wait, wait, wait, what???

 

[bombshoo]

Maybe Lavrentiy Beria would just have been a difficult person to oust. He had a lot of connections with some various dangerous men in the Soviet Union. Sure, Stalin may have been able to oust and kill him, but without getting poisoned himself? I mean if your head of security is against you, who do you have protecting you?

But yeah, I never heard the rape story. I know he was charged with raping many women, and Stalin probably knew about this habit if it was as bad as I'm led to believe, but I never heard he raped Stalin's daughter. Where did you read this? The most recently dated biography I have read on Stalin is from the 1990s and it didn't mention it, so I'm curious when this came out.

 

[Shibbyman]

Any one know any good books on the Crisis of the Third Century specifically focusing on the Gallic Empire or Romanitas vs regional identities (please no Gallophile histories if possible).

 

[Tee Kay]

Daaaaaaaaaaccccchhhhsssss

 

[Lord Baal]

Why is it that Stalin kept Lavrentiy Beria in his inner circle after it became apparent that the later raped Stalin's daughter?

I don't know where you're getting this from. Beria raped a lot of women and girls and showed a very unhealthy interest in the daughters of several Party members, but even a predator like him was surely not stupid enough to rape Stalin's daughter while Stalin lived. Stalin did once fly into a panic after discovering that Svetlana had been alone with Beria in his home, but it's doubtful anything untoward happened. Even given Beria's power, there's no way Stalin wouldn't have skinned him alive, personally, if he'd raped Svetlana.

 

[Dachs]

Any one know any good books on the Crisis of the Third Century specifically focusing on the Gallic Empire or Romanitas vs regional identities (please no Gallophile histories if possible).

Not many good and recent ones! Michael Grant did a very short overview monograph a couple of decades ago (confusing titled something like Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire), but it probably won't tell you anything you don't already know. There should be a lot of useful relevant - and up-to-date! - information in Alaric Watson's biography of Aurelianus, but since it's chiefly about, well, other stuff, it's obviously less than ideal for your purposes. I know that Pat Southern, noted historian of the Roman military, has written a monograph on the Roman Empire 'from Severus to Constantine', which definitely covers the relevant period and almost certainly the themes you're looking for, but I haven't read it and can't tell you much else about it. Might go have a look-see sometime today.

Hope that helps.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't know where you're getting this from. Beria raped a lot of women and girls and showed a very unhealthy interest in the daughters of several Party members, but even a predator like him was surely not stupid enough to rape Stalin's daughter while Stalin lived. Stalin did once fly into a panic after discovering that Svetlana had been alone with Beria in his home, but it's doubtful anything untoward happened. Even given Beria's power, there's no way Stalin wouldn't have skinned him alive, personally, if he'd raped Svetlana.

Oh okay, I assumed that the only reason Svetlana was at Beria's residence was because Beria had attempted to have his way with her. The source I was reading could've been a bit more clear on that.

Thanks.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Maybe Lavrentiy Beria would just have been a difficult person to oust. He had a lot of connections with some various dangerous men in the Soviet Union. Sure, Stalin may have been able to oust and kill him, but without getting poisoned himself? I mean if your head of security is against you, who do you have protecting you?

Men occupying Beria's office had historically had very short life spans after occupying that office.