Civil War & Ukraine War Article on Parallels/Anglo-French Intervention ACW

[Agent23]

Torching New York, Philadelphia, and Boston - while painful - probably isn't enough to force an American capitulation.

They'd need to start torching Great Lakes cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay, and Milwaukee or something important in the interior a ship can't get to like Indianapolis.

We are stubborn bastards who don't like to lose.

And the British were imperialist bastards who liked to win back then.

Their army would also be quite well seasoned after the Crimean War and a number of huge colonial adventures and the Napoleonic shenanigans.

Also, is there a way to send naval assets to the great lakes?

I think you have a bunch of navigable rivers in North America.

 

[bintananth]

Also, is there a way to send naval assets to the great lakes?

From the Atlantic without using an American owned canal - assuming it would even fit - or disassembling it to get it over a waterfall in the 1860s?

No.

You'd have to build it on one of the Great Lakes in Canada and Candians back then were very pro-Union to the tune of ~40,000 volunteers.

I think you have a bunch of navigable rivers in North America.

That we do. They also have lots of waterfalls.

 

[Agent23]

From the Atlantic without using an American owned canal - assuming it would even fit - or disassembling it to get it over a waterfall in the 1860s?

No.

You'd have to build it on one of the Great Lakes in Canada and Candians back then were very pro-Union to the tune of ~40,000 volunteers.


That we do. They also have lots of waterfalls.

Canada is Anglo-French property, though.

What about the other way round?

Most relevant Imdustry according to what you said and what I assumed isin the great lakes area, would it be possible to get there from, say, Hudson Bay or that other bay that is to the South-East and looks like it connects to one of those lakes through a river?

 

[ATP]

I don’t know why you keep saying Russia is dead/extinct it still exists maybe Russia is led by post Soviets or not but Russian culture is still around.


I know Americans like to chest beat and brag about things that can’t be proven but 2 things first off in those times many Europeans also had all citizens have weapons in their homes they still got conquered sometimes, also the confederates had a lot of men like that yet the industrial north still occupied them. Next the Europeans won’t occupy the north they’d just burn down New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. That would mean that the north would lose its industrial advantages against the south and couldn’t win.

No,it is dead.Russians in 1917 were honourable soldiers who would rather die then break their world,farmers loving their land,and merchants who knew how to made bussines.
Soviets killed best ,and turned rest into shit.And keep them as shit for next 70 years.

Now - their officers would break their world if kgb say so,merchants are mafia who are uneble to do normal bussines,and almost all run from land,and those who remain work only enough to survive.

They are not russians,not even parody of russians.
Old Russia was our enemy,but,al least,we could respect them.
when i see postsoviet,i could not even hate it,only feel urge to empty my stomach.

We ould be the same - but,we were treated less harshly,only for 44 years,and we had Catholic Church.That is why poles still exist,and russians not.

But,you must forgive @Agent23 his delusions.All average bulgars need to belive in Holy Russia,even if it is long dead,and never was Holy,just like every average poles must belive in Holy USA.I belived,when i was young.
Now,i knew better.

 

[King Arts]

No,it is dead.Russians in 1917 were honourable soldiers who would rather die then break their world,farmers loving their land,and merchants who knew how to made bussines.
Soviets killed best ,and turned rest into shit.And keep them as shit for next 70 years.

Now - their officers would break their world if kgb say so,merchants are mafia who are uneble to do normal bussines,and almost all run from land,and those who remain work only enough to survive.

They are not russians,not even parody of russians.
Old Russia was our enemy,but,al least,we could respect them.
when i see postsoviet,i could not even hate it,only feel urge to empty my stomach.

We ould be the same - but,we were treated less harshly,only for 44 years,and we had Catholic Church.That is why poles still exist,and russians not.

But,you must forgive @Agent23 his delusions.All average bulgars need to belive in Holy Russia,even if it is long dead,and never was Holy,just like every average poles must belive in Holy USA.I belived,when i was young.
Now,i knew better.

LOL come on man if there are still Jews after 2000 years of oppression in Christian and Muslim lands, and there are still Native American tribes after the Americans were done with them. There are still Russians in Russia.

 

[bintananth]

Canada is Anglo-French property, though.

What about the other way round?

Most relevant Imdustry according to what you said and what I assumed isin the great lakes area, would it be possible to get there from, say, Hudson Bay or that other bay that is to the South-East and looks like it connects to one of those lakes through a river?

Hudson's Bay to the Great Lakes would have meant navigating the Arctic and then traversing several hundred miles of wilderness before you even get to the US-Canada border. The other one you mentioned is the St. Lawrence River and is how the Great Lakes drain into the Atlantic.

Europeans don't understand or truly grasp just how large the US and Canada are.
New York to Los Angeles by plane is almost 900mi longer than London to Moscow.

 

[ATP]

LOL come on man if there are still Jews after 2000 years of oppression in Christian and Muslim lands, and there are still Native American tribes after the Americans were done with them. There are still Russians in Russia.

Jews - nobody opressed them like soviets their victims.In fact,for most of time they were not opressed,and muslims before 1948 never opressed them.
When Spain exiled them,they had 6 monts to sell their property,and take money.When soviet exiled somebody,they had half of hour to pack some of their belongings,but no more then they could take.

Eastern shore tribes,like Potohawanks,were wiped out.Other - survived remnants in reservats.
So,maybe there is 5-1% of postsoviet population which could be considered at least partially as russians,but no more then indians in USA.

And,they would never rule again,just like indians would never rule again their lands.

 

[Agent23]

Hudson's Bay to the Great Lakes would have meant navigating the Arctic and then traversing several hundred miles of wilderness before you even get to the US-Canada border. The other one you mentioned is the St. Lawrence River and is how the Great Lakes drain into the Atlantic.

Europeans don't understand or truly grasp just how large the US and Canada are.
New York to Los Angeles by plane is almost 900mi longer than London to Moscow.

Is this St. Lawrence river navigable?

 

[bintananth]

Is this St. Lawrence river navigable?

Yes, it is.

However, if you want to get a ship from Europe to somewhere west of Lake Ontario using it you have to get it past this:

EDIT: If a European sailor wishes to make a port call in Wheeling, WV they theoretically can ... by sailing through parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio before they even get to West Virginia.

 

[Agent23]

Yes, it is.

However, if you want to get a ship from Europe to somewhere west of Lake Ontario using it you have to get it past this:

EDIT: If a European sailor wishes to make a port call in Wheeling, WV they theoretically can ... by sailing through parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio before they even get to West Virginia.

Sounds like navigable rivers are something Yurup beats you at.

We at least do not have waterfalls.

 

[bintananth]

Sounds like navigable rivers are something Yurup beats you at.

We at least do not have waterfalls.

Maybe ...

Bulgaria - where you say you're from - is actually smaller than Ohio and only slightly larger than Virginia. The Indianapolis metro area I live in is about half the size of Belgium in terms of area.

Texas is larger than France.

 

[Agent23]

Maybe ...

Bulgaria - where you say you're from - is actually smaller than Ohio and only slightly larger than Virginia. The Indianapolis metro area I live in is about half the size of Belgium in terms of area.

Texas is larger than France.

And a bunch of medieval dudes with longboats could criss-cross all of Yurup and trade, pillage and enslave all over:

 

[bintananth]

And a bunch of medieval dudes with longboats could criss-cross all of Yurup and trade, pillage and enslave all over:

Yes, they did do that.

The equivalent of Sophia, Bulgaria to London, England by car is only half of NY to LA and can be done by car by an American who only leaves an Interstate Highway to buy gas and/or use a toilet.

 

[Atarlost]

The thing about the Brits is that on land they fight to the last Prussian. They didn't want to fight the US in 1812 because they saw what happened in the peninsular campaign and they remembered the Revolutionary War. They don't have a big continental army that can occupy an area larger than Napoleon's empire at its greatest extent while absorbing losses from fighting partisans. And that's when they had their army as big as it ever got from just getting done fighting Napoleon.

During the Civil War they didn't have that army. Fighting a land war in North America would have required mobilizing like they hadn't since Napoleon and their navy was obsolete.

The 1860s are also technologically a really bad decade for trans-oceanic warfare. The mid-size armored warships haven't emerged. The small ones are too unseaworthy to use other than defensively. The big ones are still too few to send away from home unless you want to trust your historical enemies who have their own fleets.

 

[History Learner]

That article is completely wrong.

During the US Civil War the North basically told every European country that openly siding with the Confederacy is an Act of War and will turn our internal squabble into a worldwide conflict if you insist.

Russia isn't going that far and Ukraine does have open and official foreign support.

And yet, 40% of the lead and 60% of the gunpowder Confederate forces used to kill Union soldiers was British in origin. The famous CSS Alabama was from a British shipyard, among others. France provided the six million Franc value Erlanger Loan to the Confederates for use in purchasing war materials in Europe.

 

[History Learner]

Lessons From the U.S. Civil War Show Why Ukraine Can't Win

This actually reminds me of an old article the Econimist, while I still read that rag and before it degenerated totally thanks to muh inclusivity, had reprinted from the end of the US Civil War, they were shedding as much crocodile tears and salivating for the South as the MSM is shedding and salivating for Ukraine right now.

History does not repeat, but it often rhymes.

Broadly, I agree.

Just like the Confederacy, Ukraine is facing a materially superior foe, who both outnumbers and outproduces them, which makes any prolonged war of attrition a simple matter of math that isn't in their favor. This leaves them, just like it left the Confederates, with two options to achieve victory, which can be attempted in tandem:

A) Seek to inflict casualties sufficient to break the political will of their opponent. In this, we see further parallels; Lee's offensives in 1862-1862, in tandem with the Army of Tennessee's Heartland Offensive in 1862 particularly, were meant to degrade Northern morale but also seek to engender outside intervention by the Anglo-French. Ukraine's offensives since September can be viewed in the same light, in terms of seeking to trigger the collapse in political support for Putin's government.

B) As aforementioned, the Ukrainians can, just like the Confederates attempted to, achieve foreign intervention. The recent Polish missile crisis was a pretty clear effort by the Ukrainians to bring NATO in the conflict and thus shift the strategic situation into their favor.

Now, whether either of this can be achieved by Ukraine I'm skeptical of. Russian political will seems to have stayed steady and foreign intervention, as American and NATO officials have made clear many times, is a non-starter for the nuclear weapons aspect alone. Yet, the Ukrainians continue to try because it's probably their best hope.

 

[Agent23]

Yes, they did do that.

The equivalent of Sophia, Bulgaria to London, England by car is only half of NY to LA and can be done by car by an American who only leaves an Interstate Highway to buy gas and/or use a toilet.

Yeah, but the USA has been a single Federal jurisdiction since the Civil War, Europe has not, also most of the stuff between LA and NY is basically flat terrain.

There are a lot of megalomaniac projects to interconnect Europe better so one can go from Finland to Sicily by highway, but we have lots of mountains and, compared to our size, water obstacles to deal with.

And do not forget that 30 years ago half the continent was in a Cold War with the other half and we have nice obstacles like the Swiss who are neutral in anything.

Comparing Europe to the USA is comparing apples and oranges.

And we still have better rail transport than you do.

 

[bintananth]

And we still have better rail transport than you do.

Rail transport in the US is almost exclusively used for freight outside of urban areas because the Interstates, US numbered highways, and state highways can get you to practically any town in the lower 48 on a paved route which does not require paying a toll to use.

The main reason the US still has passenger rail is because finding a parking space in a densly packed urban area is an exercise of "this will be expensive and suck".

 

[Atarlost]

B) As aforementioned, the Ukrainians can, just like the Confederates attempted to, achieve foreign intervention. The recent Polish missile crisis was a pretty clear effort by the Ukrainians to bring NATO in the conflict and thus shift the strategic situation into their favor.

There was no advanced weapon Europe could offer the CSA. The arms innovation was going on mostly in the Union. England was ahead on large ironclads, but giving them to the CSA would have been even more impossible than sending them to wage war directly on the Union. They were still building up minimum force numbers after La Gloire made their entire capital fleet obsolete.

This contrasts with the situation in Ukraine. NATO, not Russia has the technological advantage and is sending equipment that has been producing lopsided casualty rates in Ukraine's favor. As long as NATO is willing to keep providing that, direct intervention isn't necessary for Ukraine to win.

 

[ATP]

Broadly, I agree.

Just like the Confederacy, Ukraine is facing a materially superior foe, who both outnumbers and outproduces them, which makes any prolonged war of attrition a simple matter of math that isn't in their favor. This leaves them, just like it left the Confederates, with two options to achieve victory, which can be attempted in tandem:

A) Seek to inflict casualties sufficient to break the political will of their opponent. In this, we see further parallels; Lee's offensives in 1862-1862, in tandem with the Army of Tennessee's Heartland Offensive in 1862 particularly, were meant to degrade Northern morale but also seek to engender outside intervention by the Anglo-French. Ukraine's offensives since September can be viewed in the same light, in terms of seeking to trigger the collapse in political support for Putin's government.

B) As aforementioned, the Ukrainians can, just like the Confederates attempted to, achieve foreign intervention. The recent Polish missile crisis was a pretty clear effort by the Ukrainians to bring NATO in the conflict and thus shift the strategic situation into their favor.

Now, whether either of this can be achieved by Ukraine I'm skeptical of. Russian political will seems to have stayed steady and foreign intervention, as American and NATO officials have made clear many times, is a non-starter for the nuclear weapons aspect alone. Yet, the Ukrainians continue to try because it's probably their best hope.

Nope.USA in 1863 was arleady economical power.Postsoviets are unable to produce tanks without help,and their economy is like Belgium.
And,they do not attacked postsoviet territory yet - only retaken ukrainian soil.You would be right,if they really go for Moscov.
Like Confererates for Waschington.

Putin do not have political support - but kgb mafia.They would keep him if victory would be possible/USA still want deal,not Ukraine victory/,or kill him and replace with another kgb colonel.
Who would be supported by idiots in USA as "liberal",and do exactly the same what putin is doing.

So - long live comrade colonel.

P.S postsoviet declared,that they would genocide Ukraine,and tried it on captured territories - so,ukrainian do not have other choice then fight.
It is always better to die with rifle in hands,then tortured to death.
I always wonder,why so many idiots surrendered to soviets.