What is the most that Britain and France could do in the American Civil War without technically entering the war? Also, if it is less, what is the most they could do without changing the results significantly?
They could recognise the south as a beligerent allowing it to buy weapons and equipment on the european markets. As long as they don't recognise it as a country they should be within their legal rights.
simpily helping break the blockade will help the south alot with giving them much needed war supplies so they won't be as under equipped & under gunnedwhich seems kinda pointless with the Union blockade going on. If the two don't put ships at sea (to break the blockade) and boots on the ground (to help the south), simple recognition isn't going to accomplish much...
Wouldn't boots on the ground pretty much guarantee victory for the south though?which seems kinda pointless with the Union blockade going on. If the two don't put ships at sea (to break the blockade) and boots on the ground (to help the south), simple recognition isn't going to accomplish much...
which seems kinda pointless with the Union blockade going on. If the two don't put ships at sea (to break the blockade) and boots on the ground (to help the south), simple recognition isn't going to accomplish much...
They could recognise the south as a beligerent allowing it to buy weapons and equipment on the european markets.
simpily helping break the blockade will help the south alot with giving them much needed war supplies so they won't be as under equipped & under gunned
could the UK & CS begin trying to set up a supply/trade route through northern Mexico? If so do you think that would have the CS put more focus on the trans-mississippi theater of the warBreaking the blockade would require going to war with the US. The OP required less than them actually going to war with the US.
British and French recognition would be a tremendous boon to the Confederacy even without any military intervention at all. The massive upswing in the Confederacy's diplomatic credibility would allow the South to float loans on foreign bond markets with much greater success than IOTL and would allow the South to avoid much of the fiscal chaos that engulfed it IOTL.
British and French recognition would be a tremendous boon to the Confederacy even without any military intervention at all. The massive upswing in the Confederacy's diplomatic credibility would allow the South to float loans on foreign bond markets with much greater success than IOTL and would allow the South to avoid much of the fiscal chaos that engulfed it IOTL.
still, if the south can't actually get supplies in, does having money make all that much difference? You might get more blockade runners making the attempt, and a number of them would get through, but with the Union blockade in place, the south is hurting... and they're still outnumbered and outgunned by the Union...
True, but the major impact of a stronger Confederate currency is not so much in any increase to purchase supplies abroad as within the Confederacy itself. The simple fact that, with British and French recognition, the Confederate currency would be backed by more secure loans from British and French banks would give the Southern people more confidence in their own currency and thereby strengthen the overall fiscal condition of the South and the morale of its people, both in the field and on the home front. Inflation, which was one of the major causes of the defeat of the South, would be much less ITTL than it was IOTL.
something i've always wondered, what if Britain stayed out but France & Spain joined the CSA in the ACW? Would they have the naval power to defeat the US navy?