The Kingdom of Hanover, following Salic Law, ceased being in union with the UK when Victoria ascended the throne.
Russia obtained Primorye from China in 1858 as a result of the Aigun treaty.
Confederacy Wins and Europe Never Changes
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
The Kingdom of Hanover, following Salic Law, ceased being in union with the UK when Victoria ascended the throne.
Russia obtained Primorye from China in 1858 as a result of the Aigun treaty.
The US would have been totally incapable of aiding Russia's industrialisation. Much of our own industrialisation was funded by British and French investors. The US didn't become a net creditor nation until WWI. In 1913, the British had investments in the US worth more than a $1 billion (1913 dollars), and the French around $300 million. The French would have had a bigger presence had they not spent the past 30 years funding railroad construction and industrialisation in Russia.
I am also curious how Russia would be discredited if the South wins. It didn't send troops to the North, it didn't send money to the North or effect the war in any way. It isn't like the Russians sent 2 corps of Cossacks to the Union. So how is it discredited?
The US had plenty of money to invest. It invested abroad OTL. You don't have to be a net creditor to invest abroad. The US was not Mexico or Guatamala!
If the CSA wins, it's quite possible that the US starts falling apart at the seams; the Pacific states could become independent for instance, and once this starts the other powers might start jumping in on the rotting carcass; Britain could take northern Maine and the northern Plains states, if Maximilian wins in Mexico he could try to win back New Mexico (possibly dividing it with the CSA); New England might break away, maybe Colorado and the central Plains, and we could see the plans for an independent Free City of New York come to fruition...
With French backing for an independent CSA, it becomes a nice buffer state between the USA, which is now weaker and unable to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, and losing Texas also gets rid of a large part of the border with Mexico.
But the Union is divided, and maybe with French assistance, the CSA could slowly modernize. And remember, Brazil is in this alliance too, and maybe Argentina. And maybe either Japan or China to contain Russia, but I'm a bit iffy on the last two.
Yeah, I kinda messed up on that. But Russia was still going for influence in Manchuria and Mongolia by the late 1800s. Okay, maybe not discredited is the right word. But they would be scared off of future involvement in North America, as both Britain and France are supporting the victorious CSA. Besides, they're already busy in Central Asia and the Balkans against the Persians and Turks.
As for the Salic Law issue, wouldn't they still be relatively close to the UK anyways? Besides, they were kind of closer to Prussia than Austria and if Prussia didn't want a threat on the northwest it would be a wise decision for a Hanoverian-Prussian rapprochement. If I am not mistaken, they were also allies against France in the 1870 war.
I agree, the British Pacific fleet might have a thing or too to say about a Russian force. I mean if we are assuming a declaration of war, the Russians are confined to port.
Neither party has any viable way of projecting their political influence, much less perceived power in support of the other in the face of each others most likely perceived enemies....
At best they offer each other kind words and moral support but that's about it....There is nothing they cAN REALLY DO FOR EACH OTHER.
for the US they have a keener interests in keeping the cordial relationship that is now starting to bud between itself and the UK for economic reasons. They need British capital....
Also. while the "peculiar institution" that pervades the southern states persists...any thought of alliance in any form is anathema to British politicians, unless the North does something that appears overtly threatening. and deliberate on the part of US government policy. politically and economically the north is more aligned with Britain even if a budding junior competitor, but that's still far in the future. If anything this is likely to further the British hold on northern industries as Br. capital finds it more politically palatable to invest there than in the south. That does not mean there won't be investment in the south obviously where the economic dividend is apparent Br/French and all other European investment will follow in a private way...
Only the French would consider the possibility, but only out of necessity if they were to commit to supporting the Mexican venture. Which of necessity means no Franco-Prussian war as the French interest is diverted elsewhere
a kind of proxy war could end up being fought in Mexico if Nappy III is sufficiently committed to it, but I'm not certain that he would be....It was a huge financial drain for no real benefit. but French investment in Confederate reconstruction could be encouraged as a prid pro quo for Confederate support in propping up Maximilian. the whole venture might still fail of course as the US would then more actively aid the Juaristas..
Its difficult though to see either US successor state being interested in continuing their war by proxy after exhausting themselves on their own fields of battle
Spain at this time hasn't abolished slavery as yet....so while the relationship is not likely to be warm and rosy, it should be somewhat civil at least, unless the confederates keep pushing the Cuba button... because on their own it will never happen for them. Either by purchase or by invasion. okay never might be a bit strong...but well the probability is very low. unless Spain somehow gets bound up in the European alliance system.
In the immediate term I would not see either state seeking an immediate alliance partner but rather continuing the previous Unified American policy of isolationism where the Europeans are concerned. Private interests though will almost certainly establish themselves.
Depends on who else the Brits are fighting as the RN might be fighting closer to Europe. If it is say fighting Prussia and Russia along with the US which would no doubt have a much bigger navy than OTL than it very well might not have the ships to spare. In any case if the US is fighting the UK , Canada is gone. It doesn't need Russian help to take Canada. It is just over the border and has a small fraction of the US population. Any support from GB has to travel 3,000 miles. US support is just over the border.
1. Like I said, thats silly. Maximillians empire is still an overall budget drain and the man himself was a terrible puppet. All he has to do is piss off Nappy to the point where he just leaves him to be devoured by the rebels (who are going to win once the French leave, the guy had very little support among the Mexican population).
2. Thats still nothing compared to the three most indusrially productive nations on earth, plus a nation with enough people for them to arm with that industrial capacity. Oh and don't forget the British Empires vast manpower reserves. The thing is here is that Brazil, the CSA, and even Japan and China would never compensate for the sheer scale of an advantage the Anglo-Russo-North German-American Aliance. Leaving aside how if Brazil is on part of an alliance Argentina will almost certainly join the opposing alliance (the two countries have a longstanding feud), and China is just a dead weight.
Not nearly enough. A US/UK/Prussian/Russian alliance would be damn near unstoppable. You could thrown in the Ottoman Empire and it wouldn't matter. France would be aligned with two or three lesser great powers (Austria, Ottoman Empire and MAYBE the CSA) and a couple of minor ones against 4 clearly great powers. If the US is allied with the UK it doesn't have to worry about enforcing the Monroe Doctraine as the UK is doing that. The CSA is so far behind that it would take more money than France could possibly invest to catch up.
No it can't...not with the technology available. by the 1860's Alaska is a drain on the Tsar's personal finances. out of pride he will keep it going as long as possible, but it is basically an economic appendage of the HBC at this point in any case. If he doesn't unload it to the Americans... the Brits and Canadians will eventually make him an offer that he can't refuse. Diplomatically Britain does have far more to offer so expect him to draw it out until he gets the political concessions he wants... Which by the mid to late 1870's Britain may well be willing to give.
US industrialization was reliant on foreign capital in this period, they can't afford to finance anyone else's
You DO realize the US had the 2nd largest industrial economy in the world at the time, don't you? Money would not be a problem.
katchen
Banned
If the Confederates win their independence, it will be because the British recognized them, probably as a result of Maryland successfully seceding from the Union and isolating Washington DC, forcing the Union Capital to move to New York in December 1860 before Lincoln is even inaugurated. With Maryland, Delaware and even New Jersey seceding from the Union (due to the influence of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad on the New Jersey State Legislature--and re-legalizing slavery in order to join the Confederacy to do so). and the Union battle lines not only on the Delaware but also on the Palisades of the Hudson River, by mid 1861, Congress adopts William Seward's "anaconda strategy" of economic sanctions and blockade, rather than massive mobilization. This means sanctions against the United Kingdom and France for recognizing the Confederacy and skews the US economy toward America's stalwart allies, Prussia and the German Zollverein and Russia.
This policy also puts the United States on a path of expansion to compensate for the loss of the South. A particular priority is cotton growing land that can be grown with free (read Chinese) contract labor. A transcontinental railroad running from Council Bulffs IA diagonally through Kansas to Trinidad, Colorado Territory (or using the Cimarron Cutoff through the Staked Plains to Albaquerque, south to Las Cruces and west to Yuma and Los Angeles before going to Sacramento and San Francisco so that Central Valley cotton can reach New England mills. Santo Domingo's admission to the Union becomes a priority too since it's sugar cane replaces Louisiana's.
If the US is recognizing seceding regions in response to Great Britain doing so, that can cut two ways. The US does go to war against France over it's intervention in Mexico--and annexes Mexico. This contains the Confederacy, which is a British ally and client state.
When the Metis' rebel in 1870, the US under William Seward is there to help them. The Canadian prairies are too far for the British to defend and the British finally prairie Canada and the West Coast of Hudson's Bay to the US--which now has a common border in Alaska with Russia---and a chance at a telegraph line and possible rail line to Europe via Alaska and Siberia. As the Confederacy settles into a stable relationship with Britain, the US-Russia-Germany entente is on it's way.
This policy also puts the United States on a path of expansion to compensate for the loss of the South. A particular priority is cotton growing land that can be grown with free (read Chinese) contract labor. A transcontinental railroad running from Council Bulffs IA diagonally through Kansas to Trinidad, Colorado Territory (or using the Cimarron Cutoff through the Staked Plains to Albaquerque, south to Las Cruces and west to Yuma and Los Angeles before going to Sacramento and San Francisco so that Central Valley cotton can reach New England mills. Santo Domingo's admission to the Union becomes a priority too since it's sugar cane replaces Louisiana's.
If the US is recognizing seceding regions in response to Great Britain doing so, that can cut two ways. The US does go to war against France over it's intervention in Mexico--and annexes Mexico. This contains the Confederacy, which is a British ally and client state.
When the Metis' rebel in 1870, the US under William Seward is there to help them. The Canadian prairies are too far for the British to defend and the British finally prairie Canada and the West Coast of Hudson's Bay to the US--which now has a common border in Alaska with Russia---and a chance at a telegraph line and possible rail line to Europe via Alaska and Siberia. As the Confederacy settles into a stable relationship with Britain, the US-Russia-Germany entente is on it's way.
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
And we have the Britain-French-Austrian-Ottoman alliance. In this case, Italy might be with the Germans, as always. Spain might also be allied to Germany, whether by a Hohenzollern king on the throne, or US support of Spain against Confederate imperialism in the Caribbean. As always, Portugal is allied to Great Britain. Now, Great Britain might just support Sweden against Russia.
US investment was largely in its own capital projects and industrialisation but would have been a shadow of itself without the investment from the British and French capital. while you did get individual investments abroad...largely in the Caribbean and Central America...but it was a pittance compared to the accumulated wealth available in Europe. not even a drop in the bucket. as they say.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
A US/British Empire/Prussian/Russian alliance would be hilariously more powerful than THE REST OF THE WORLD, and that is not a joke Russia the United States and the British Empire are 3 of the 4 largest nations on the planet and the 3 largest by land are. Prussia is the most economically effective nation on the planet and its general are some the best in the late 1800s.
Think of what those generals along with all the great US/UK/ and to lesser extent Russian generals in command of armies as large as they needed full supplied by 90% of the worlds industrial base.
This would be a world hegemony, you could add the turks. You could add the chinese you could add anyone you want and in a straight up fight they will all lose.