Plausibility and likely effects of a European war over Poland during the US Civil War?

So, I was reminded recently of the Russians hinting at intervening on the side of the Union during the US Civil War. From what I read, the Russians were stringing the US along so they could keep a large chunk of their fleet in NYC and Baltimore, thus keeping it in warm-water ports in case a war over Poland broke out in the winter.

I know that there was unrest in Russian Poland at the time, but I am not clear how likely a war breaking out over this would've been. I assume the UK would have opposed Russia, but I'm not really clear how the other powers would've lined up either. Anyone with more knowledge of the period have some thoughts on this, or on how much (if at all) a European war breaking out in, say, 1862 would have affected the course of the US Civil War?
 
I don't see Poland triggering general European War. There's no state with the willingness and ability to intervene on behalf of Polish rebels.
 

kernals12

Banned
The Russians just got spanked in Crimea so the last thing they want is another war, Prussia is too weak, and I don't see why the Austrians would care.
 
Without some very favorable variables (such as Kaiser Wilhelm I of Prussia being assassinated in 1861 and Napoleon III being more bold or bowing more to the public spirit instead of embarking his army on a Mexican adventure), i don't think the Polish January Uprising of 1863 could have succeeded, or escalated into a diplomatic crisis.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
A general European war occurring concurrently to the US civil war is an interesting prospect though.

Maybe you could have some military and diplomatic interchange in this situation.

Where Union and confederate observers and spies try to gain knowledge and such from the Europeans and diplomats vie to convincing warring European powers to back one or the other.
 
You know, this is making me think a little... had the Mexican Liberals not defeated the Conservatives in the Reform War of 1857-60, the French would not have militarily intervened in the country. More men and resources would be available to them back in Europe. With no "Mexican ulcer", would Napoleon III have chosen to direct his diplomatic ventures elsewhere, such as Poland?
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
For there to be a war over Poland you need one of the three - Russia, Austria and Prussia - to go against at least one of the other two.
Otherwise the principle of "don't touch shit - it stinks" applies.
 
You know, this is making me think a little... had the Mexican Liberals not defeated the Conservatives in the Reform War of 1857-60, the French would not have militarily intervened in the country. More men and resources would be available to them back in Europe. With no "Mexican ulcer", would Napoleon III have chosen to direct his diplomatic ventures elsewhere, such as Poland?
But how? France has no meaningful ability to intervene in Poland without Prussian or Austrian cooperation, which is not going to come.
 
Non of partitioners could play 'Polish Card', because it could easily backlash against them. So in this hypothetical "Polish War" Prussia, Austria and Russia would be on the same side.
 
But how? France has no meaningful ability to intervene in Poland without Prussian or Austrian cooperation, which is not going to come.
Which would require a second PoD, such as Wilhelm I being assassinated before his coronation in 1861 and succeeded by his more liberal son, Frederick III. No Bismarck, as a result, and the Prussians may end up less willing to take a pro-Russian stance in the Polish Uprising.
But again, my knowlege on this context is limited...
 

Toraach

Banned
Which would require a second PoD, such as Wilhelm I being assassinated before his coronation in 1861 and succeeded by his more liberal son, Frederick III. No Bismarck, as a result, and the Prussians may end up less willing to take a pro-Russian stance in the Polish Uprising.
But again, my knowlege on this context is limited...
Frederic III wasn't a liberal as now this words is understand. He was also a german nationalist, who saw the german interests first, or in this case the interests of Prussia (as not united Germany yet), and this interests was clearly anti-polish. He just wasn't that funny as his son was, and he thought highly about the parliamentary system.

And for Germany, Austria and Russia was in their best own interest not to play of polish card.
 
Which would require a second PoD, such as Wilhelm I being assassinated before his coronation in 1861 and succeeded by his more liberal son, Frederick III. No Bismarck, as a result, and the Prussians may end up less willing to take a pro-Russian stance in the Polish Uprising.
But again, my knowlege on this context is limited...
Prussians supporting Polish uprising in Russian Poland make as much sense as Russians supporting Polish uprising in Posen.
 
Frederic III wasn't a liberal as now this words is understand. He was also a german nationalist, who saw the german interests first, or in this case the interests of Prussia (as not united Germany yet), and this interests was clearly anti-polish. He just wasn't that funny as his son was, and he thought highly about the parliamentary system.

And for Germany, Austria and Russia was in their best own interest not to play of polish card.
Prussians supporting Polish uprising in Russian Poland make as much sense as Russians supporting Polish uprising in Posen.
Doomed it is, then.
 
Top