If Russia intervened in the Civil War

[Chomper98]

Unlike Britain and France, Russia generally supported the Union in the American Civil War, and the consequences of what would happen if any major European power intervened on the side of the Confederacy, would have been a bloody World War.

Russia and America, unlike today, were allies, and if Britain or France did enter, then America and Russia would crush them. Britain's army was only 50,000 strong in the 1860s, and it's navy was rivaled by America, who had around 500,000 to 1,500,000 troops(wikipedia). It would infact have been a walkover for America to defeat them. Infact, it would take an entire coalition of all of Europe's great powers(Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and Russia) to defeat America, and of course, Russia would have fought with America.

This is true, as Russia was America's ally, and so it would probably be a quick war if Britain and France did enter.

[Nick22]

Chomper your ideas are completely incoirrect. Remember that during the 1860s transportation was not what it is now. There were no planes, and boats took months to cross the atlantic. there was no panama canal to cut short the trip from the Pacific, russia would literally have to send forces all the way round South america an effort that would have taken many months if not years. Besuides Lincioln worked very hard to see that there was no foreign involvement at all, the confederacy was trying very hard to gain international diplomsatic recognition as its own country, lincoln stressed repeatedly that this was an internal matter and that other countries should butt out.. while Russia was friendly to the north, in the sense that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Russia was rather isolated and was in no position to help us, even if they wanted to.  There would have been no 'walkover for the US, remember that the country was very bitterly divided, its the reason why the Pierce administrations atte,pts to buy Cuba from Spain wennt nowhere, the north did not want another slave state , or several, added to the ledger.in the same way the South didnt want the north to grab canada. since neither was willing to compromise neither side got the expansion it wanted. Lincoln in short told FRance Spain and britrian to mind thier own business and eventually got them to not recognize the confederacy, which was the only way for the South to hold out against the greater strength and size of the North.

[Chomper98]

Chomper your ideas are completely incoirrect. Remember that during the 1860s transportation was not what it is now. There were no planes, and boats took months to cross the atlantic. there was no panama canal to cut short the trip from the Pacific, russia would literally have to send forces all the way round South america an effort that would have taken many months if not years. Besuides Lincioln worked very hard to see that there was no foreign involvement at all, the confederacy was trying very hard to gain international diplomsatic recognition as its own country, lincoln stressed repeatedly that this was an internal matter and that other countries should butt out.. while Russia was friendly to the north, in the sense that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Russia was rather isolated and was in no position to help us, even if they wanted to.  There would have been no 'walkover for the US, remember that the country was very bitterly divided, its the reason why the Pierce administrations atte,pts to buy Cuba from Spain wennt nowhere, the north did not want another slave state , or several, added to the ledger.in the same way the South didnt want the north to grab canada. since neither was willing to compromise neither side got the expansion it wanted. Lincoln in short told FRance Spain and britrian to mind thier own business and eventually got them to not recognize the confederacy, which was the only way for the South to hold out against the greater strength and size of the North.

When I said if Russia intervened, it was only because if Britain or France intervened. I know Russia had a long way to travel, but the Union still had a large, and experienced army and navy, which could have held off a British invasion, and did you read the "IF"? IF! It was if! Did you even read the title? IF! Did you miss that? I am sorry if that seemed to be with malicious intent, but Russia still could have invaded France via crossing through the Baltic Sea and landing in France and Britain, it was still a world power, and helped keep countries out of the war by sending two naval squadrons to American waters. But still, if Britain and France entered, Russia would have stepped in. Yes, transportation was slow, but they still could have helped America by attacking Britain and France in Europe if they entered. I know my history, and I know that Lincoln tried to keep other countries out of the war, but still, it may have gotten ugly if Britain and France recognized the Confederacy. Britain also experienced very few wars since Napoleon, so it would also have experience issues. It would also take months for Britain to send the necessary troops to Canada to intervene, and there were only 20,000 regular troops in Canada and 67,000 militia, so America would still crush Britain in Canada.

[Nick22]

You are assuming evoidence that does not exist.    Wikpedia is not an accurate source, anyone can edit it without reservations. the US was not the world power then it would become at the end of the 19th century, california was seperated by thousands of miles of wilderness from the rest of the cpuntry. Russiua had fought in the crimean wars with Britian during the 1850s and was still smarting from that endevaor. russia aid was not overt ala france during the revoluntionary war- which incidently bankrupted ther monarchy-. russia had no appetite for getting involved in another war, niot if it could help it. the main task for the us was getting the british amd spanish to back off.. had they entered the war would have turnmed out quirte diofferently i tyhink than it did. the north would have likely defeate the south anyway, even with the aid of the british and spanish. bit it would have made it longer, bloodier and likely lead to longswtanding resentment against those countries

[Malte279]

No offense meant Chomper98, but there is kind of a general tone emphasizing the strength of America in most of your history posts that may influence your perception of historical situations. No doubt America had become a major power by the time of the US civil war, but it was throughout the so called Gilded Age that it really became the number one in terms of industrial capacity (according to my figures the American industrial capacity did not exceed that of Great Britain, France, or the combination of (yet to be unified) German states in 1860 while it exceeded that of all three nations combined in 1900).
What you miss out is that it was still "Britania Rules the waves" throughout most of the Victorian Age. The British Navy could have blocked any naval landing in France, but such a naval landing could not have taken place to begin with because the capacity of the Russian navy did not suffice to allow for a landing in enemy territory (a landing by the way that was difficult enough to supply and support just over the British channel but that would have been all but lost with a naval supply route all across the northern and baltic sea). Russia's Colonies in North America (Alaska) were utterly dependent on the supplies provided by foreign traders (mostly British and American), since the own naval capacities didn't allow to support them or even to enforce a Russian ukase (an order by the Tzar that is) of 1821 which tried to prohibit foreign ships in the waters of the Russian colonies (well aware that Russian navy was unable to wage a war with the British at the time). Contrary to what you assume the British Army did have well experienced troups in the 1860s (more at least than America had). Since the Napoleonic Wars Great Britain had fought a number of Wars. These included colonial wars in India and China, but also the Crimean War against Russia in which France, Britain and the Ottoman Emprie had defeated Russia.
The intervention of European powers was the only realistic chance the Confederacy had to in fact gain independence. It is often overlooked however that Great Britain relied not only on Southern Cotton (which could easily be replaced by cotton from Egypt and India) but also on large grain and meat imports from the northern states which made Great Britain more reluctant to intervene than France (Napoleon III. however would not intervene without England). Following the Trent affair (the arrest of two confederate diplomats on board of the British post ship Trent which had been stopped by the USS San Jacinto) in November 1861 there was no more situation in which Britain came as close to intervening and after the passing of the Emancipation proclamation there was nothing short of an American attack on Great Britain that would have dragged Britain into the war. Assuming an intervention however, this in any case would have lifted the blockade of southern ports, since the US navy could not have put up a fight against the British navy while spread out all along the coast. The northern states would have found themselves in a two front war. British troops from Canada in the north (there were some significant troops there even prior to any further transport of troos accross the Atlantic) and the southern troops along the front of the war as we know it.
As for Russia, she demonstrated her support for the North by a fleet visit in 1863, but Russia was not eager to get involved into a large scale war at the time. The memory of having defeated in the Crimean War just a decade earlier was still there and moreover Russia had plenty of inner affairs to deal with. The emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861 had been conducted mostly because otherwise a large scale revolt would have been likely. Moreover Russia was in a kind of constant state of war in the 1860s and early 70s against Khanates in inner Assia on the one hand and against revolts in occupied regions in eastern Europe (Poland in particular) on the other hand. Russia therefore was not eager at the time to get involved into any of the full scale wars fought in Europe at the time, much less in one fought as far away as America. It was for good reason that Russia sold her colonies to America so cheaply in 1867 for in any further looming conflict with Great Britain (conflicts which did not ultimately errupt) Russia would not have been able to hold on to faraway oversea territories.

Do you have an MSN account to chat by the way Chomper98? I think we could have many enjoyable history chats on MSN and there are several other GOF members interested in history on MSN who might join us

[Chomper98]

No offense meant Chomper98, but there is kind of a general tone emphasizing the strength of America in most of your history posts that may influence your perception of historical situations. No doubt America had become a major power by the time of the US civil war, but it was throughout the so called Gilded Age that it really became the number one in terms of industrial capacity (according to my figures the American industrial capacity did not exceed that of Great Britain, France, or the combination of (yet to be unified) German states in 1860 while it exceeded that of all three nations combined in 1900).
What you miss out is that it was still "Britania Rules the waves" throughout most of the Victorian Age. The British Navy could have blocked any naval landing in France, but such a naval landing could not have taken place to begin with because the capacity of the Russian navy did not suffice to allow for a landing in enemy territory (a landing by the way that was difficult enough to supply and support just over the British channel but that would have been all but lost with a naval supply route all across the northern and baltic sea). Russia's Colonies in North America (Alaska) were utterly dependent on the supplies provided by foreign traders (mostly British and American), since the own naval capacities didn't allow to support them or even to enforce a Russian ukase (an order by the Tzar that is) of 1821 which tried to prohibit foreign ships in the waters of the Russian colonies (well aware that Russian navy was unable to wage a war with the British at the time). Contrary to what you assume the British Army did have well experienced troups in the 1860s (more at least than America had). Since the Napoleonic Wars Great Britain had fought a number of Wars. These included colonial wars in India and China, but also the Crimean War against Russia in which France, Britain and the Ottoman Emprie had defeated Russia.
The intervention of European powers was the only realistic chance the Confederacy had to in fact gain independence. It is often overlooked however that Great Britain relied not only on Southern Cotton (which could easily be replaced by cotton from Egypt and India) but also on large grain and meat imports from the northern states which made Great Britain more reluctant to intervene than France (Napoleon III. however would not intervene without England). Following the Trent affair (the arrest of two confederate diplomats on board of the British post ship Trent which had been stopped by the USS San Jacinto) in November 1861 there was no more situation in which Britain came as close to intervening and after the passing of the Emancipation proclamation there was nothing short of an American attack on Great Britain that would have dragged Britain into the war. Assuming an intervention however, this in any case would have lifted the blockade of southern ports, since the US navy could not have put up a fight against the British navy while spread out all along the coast. The northern states would have found themselves in a two front war. British troops from Canada in the north (there were some significant troops there even prior to any further transport of troos accross the Atlantic) and the southern troops along the front of the war as we know it.
As for Russia, she demonstrated her support for the North by a fleet visit in 1863, but Russia was not eager to get involved into a large scale war at the time. The memory of having defeated in the Crimean War just a decade earlier was still there and moreover Russia had plenty of inner affairs to deal with. The emancipation of the Russian serfs in 1861 had been conducted mostly because otherwise a large scale revolt would have been likely. Moreover Russia was in a kind of constant state of war in the 1860s and early 70s against Khanates in inner Assia on the one hand and against revolts in occupied regions in eastern Europe (Poland in particular) on the other hand. Russia therefore was not eager at the time to get involved into any of the full scale wars fought in Europe at the time, much less in one fought as far away as America. It was for good reason that Russia sold her colonies to America so cheaply in 1867 for in any further looming conflict with Great Britain (conflicts which did not ultimately errupt) Russia would not have been able to hold on to faraway oversea territories.

Do you have an MSN account to chat by the way Chomper98? I think we could have many enjoyable history chats on MSN and there are several other GOF members interested in history on MSN who might join us

I know you guys are right in alot of ways, but America still had a strong army and navy, it also outnumbered the british 5-1 in North America. Also, no offense taken, but just because it wasn't as strong as it is today, it was still strong, it also had an experienced army, and also, I made this because I saw this on a history thread, and didn't consider its authenticity, so I am sorry that I was rude.   And to Malte: I don't have a MSN account, but Yahoo. Maybe I'll make one, any one have any interesting topics for history discussion?

[Nick22]

even if america had a strong navy at the time britians navy was the strongest in the world. hads they intervened the blocade that was successful in cutting off southern importa would have been destroyed, however we cannot simplify history. you change one thing, many other things change as well.  If you chsnge X (Foriegn intervention) than Y changes (conditions in the wart) and possibly Z as well (wars outcome).to be a proper student of history you must keep in mind the context o f the time, and not let later events color or shape your thinking. i forgive you Chomper , for your prior comment, you have a passion for history, which shows in your questions. and that is good..

[Chomper98]

even if america had a strong navy at the time britians navy was the strongest in the world. hads they intervened the blocade that was successful in cutting off southern importa would have been destroyed, however we cannot simplify history. you change one thing, many other things change as well.  If you chsnge X (Foriegn intervention) than Y changes (conditions in the wart) and possibly Z as well (wars outcome).to be a proper student of history you must keep in mind the context o f the time, and not let later events color or shape your thinking. i forgive you Chomper , for your prior comment, you have a passion for history, which shows in your questions. and that is good..

Thanks.