Gnostical_turpitude
So I know this is something you two and Darkling have hashed out months before.
Yep. sad
obsessive gits all.
So here is my bothersome question:
If the Federals did go to war with Britain over the Trent Affair, would there be anyone that would come in to the fray on the same side as the Federals?
France’s international standing has been damaged by the Trent affair, not as much as Britain’s certainly, but damaged none the less. One of the Confederate Commissioners being bound for Paris. They were in complete agreement with the British on the diplomatic moves to recover the detainees and obtain redress. If the British had gone to war and approached the French about their participation it is likely they would have agreed. However, they may not have made that much of a material contribution. It should be noted that the French were the winners in the Trent affair. Their diplomatic objectives were to recover the commissioners and to restrain the actions of the Federal American and Royal Navies on the high seas. They succeeded brilliantly.
Prussia and the North German states were completely in support of the British diplomatic position as contemporaneous diplomatic notes show. They were friendly with both potential belligerent nations and would have been disappointed if they had gone to war. They had no reason to support one side over the other.
The Spanish have been looking over their shoulders as the USA eyeing Cuba for some time. They would like the USA split and weakened. They are unlikely to be willing to go to war to achieve this aim.
Italy has just finished its wars of unification. They have trouble with the neighbours they don’t want trouble with the British as well.
Brazil has been unhappy about the expansionist activities of the USA and their navy for some time and it is a slave state like the CSA wants to be. It may well get involved in a war if Britain and France are already engaged.
The Ottomans and the Austrians have the Russians and German states to worry about. The Danes have similar problems to worry about.
The Confederation Helvetica are not only neutral but land locked.
The Greeks? No navy. The Latin Americans? Only Chile and Argentina have a means of force projection and they are both in Britain’s pocket.
The Scandinavians, Portugal and the Netherlands? Frankly I have no idea.
Morocco, pro-USA but what can they do?
The Chinese have many problems and the USA is just one of them. The kings of Bangkok and Thonburi are caught between the French and the British. They want the USA to help them.
The Shogun? He say bugger off foreigners!
The Zulus are busy and not too well blessed with modern firearms anyway.
The Maori would love to help bashing the British unfortunately force projection is just not their thing.
Which leaves? Mexico and Russia
Russia is friendly with the USA and completely distrusts British motives. However, she has many other problems to deal with including internal unrest, lots of recently freed serfs, building a new navy and recovering form the Crimean war. So she may be supportive of the USA but there is no way she is going to go back up against the British, and possibly the French in 1862.
Mexico, well the legitimate government and its supporters anyway, support the USA but have absolutely no resources they could offer to help her. Mexican land owners on the other hand might well have an interest in supporting the CSA and/or the French.
I'll admit I'm biased and want there to be a way the Federals would prevail over both the Confederates and the British, but I also admit with a Trent Affair POD, that doesn't look too likely.
Two points to make here. First, the reason I wrote this thread was to try to look at ways to even things up a bit because in black and white terms the USA is in for a major league arse kicking. It has taken me a long time to realise things are no always black and white and I have been thinking about ways of greying up the situation for some time. Second, you really have to work at it to get a Trent POD that starts a war without all the significant politicians on both sides going completely mad. You really, really have to work at it to get a war which escalates and continues rather than peters out with American cries of “sorry sorry big mistake!” and a British response along the lines of “OK give us back the commissioners then and by the way how many Enfields did you say you wanted to duff up the Confederates – we have just made a special production run and have LOTS spare at very reasonable prices.
Shadow Knight:
In any situation where the UK might have to deploy significant assets from Europe to NA my general rule is this: "When the Royal Navy is away, the European powers will play." So the question becomes for me is what will the European powers do if a good chunk of the RN is away fighting the US in NA (and defending against commerce raiders, etc.).
You may want to rethink this?
1) The RN is not away
some of the RN is away. The RN had over a thousand ships in 1863 and you can bet they will build a good few more if they go to war.
2) The European powers stand to gain far more by the dissolution of the USA than they do playing RISK at home. Even just selling materiel to a desparate an beleagured USA is profitable. Think how much more profitable it is to sell stuff to an unblockaded CSA.
3) I keep saying this and quite a few people are not appreciating it. The USA has to keep up the blockade or the neutrals will recognise the CSA. If the USA sends out more than a tiny handful of raiders to cruise. It is an admission they have lost not one but two wars. Very few raiders would be able to escape a physically close blockade anyway.
