American Civil War Questions

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I know Britain and France was thinking about intervening on the side of the South, but how about Prussa and Russia and Austria-Hungary? Was they watching it also?

[Azog 150]

I think Russia was leaning towards the Union. However, even if they did wish to intervene- they lacked the navy to effectively launch an expedition that far abroad. Plus, if they wanted to support the North and Britain or France did intervene, they would have had to contend with their navies which wasn't going to happen.

[Dzhon]

Austria and Prussia sent observers, but they were irrelevant as far as intervention goes because both were weak naval powers.

Russia was solidly pro-Northern.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Were the Military Observers impressed? I hear they called the Americans "amateurs".

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Russians were openly supportive of the North. AFAIK the British and French didn't want to get involved, but sat there watching America hurt itself. The British were also thinking of trying to broker a peace between the North and South, but after the North started winning, they abandoned that idea.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Russians were openly supportive of the North. AFAIK the British and French didn't want to get involved, but sat there watching America hurt itself. The British were also thinking of trying to broker a peace between the North and South, but after the North started winning, they abandoned that idea.

The British government would have loved to see the US split into two nations, especially so it could exploit the southern raw materials (cotton) and benefit from them. However, most of the British population could not fathom supporting a pro-slavery nation. Especially since citizens had become staunch pro-northernors after reading Uncle Tom's Cabin. While the government would have liked to see the South win and gain independence, they were not willing to do it unless they were sure the South could win, and had to still overcome the anti-slavery barrier in Britain.

[Pelopidas]

You know I'm still surprised about it. I think especially at the start with many confederate victories and union's troops without strong leadership and good quality would gave a strong possibility for south being victorious aided by Europeans.
The south showed it possessed both quality and the ability to win battles. It would nonetheless suffer from a war of attrition, but with British or French actively entering the war on their side, i think the odds of the table would have a great chance in turning.
I don't view the slave matter as something politicians couldn't surpuss in the great scheme of affairs of serving their interests. Even if the confederacy had won independence i believe slavery would be abolished in the long run, the time of automation and the use of machines would have ensured of it. Not to mention the relative very low number of southerners actually possessing slaves. I think south eventually would catch up with the rest of the western world.
So it still puzzles me in a way.

[Dzhon]

I couldn't say for sure, not having read any of their accounts. It might be worthwhile to look at some primary sources from the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 or he Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to see if any "lessons" of the ACW were applied.

I was surprised to discover so many references to the ACW in a 1920s Soviet textbook, "Strategy," penned by Alexander Svechin, a tsarist-trained staff officer who later joined the Red Army.

[konny]

Prussia was solid pro-Union too. Austria was more pro-Confederate.

I don't know if the European observers were anyhow "impressed" by the fighting in America. The Prussian General Staff made several detailed descriptions of the ACW battles and used that as teaching material - what doesn't mean much, they made these for every battle of that periode. I think Jackson's Shenandoah campaign was very much praised in European military schools; at least that's what I have read in an American book on the ACW.

In return American obersvers also were present in the later European wars. I rember to have read that McClellan was running around in the Prussian HQ during the War of 1866, and others were named for the 1870/71 War.

[gsoxx]

In return American obersvers also were present in the later European wars. I rember to have read that McClellan was running around in the Prussian HQ during the War of 1866, and others were named for the 1870/71 War.

Sheridan was around at the Franco-Prussian war. Here is what he wrote: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Sedan.html
I especially like this part:

"While the troops were passing, Count Bismarck had the kindness to point out to me the different organizations, giving scraps of their history and also speaking concerning the qualifications of the different generals commanding them. When the review was over we went to the Count's house and there, for the first time in my life, I tasted kirschwasser, a very strong liquor distilled from cherries. Not knowing anything about the stuff, I had to depend on Bismarck's recommendation, and he proclaiming it fine I took quite a generous drink, which nearly strangled me and brought on a violent fit of coughing. The Chancellor said, however, that this was in no way due to the liquor, but to my own inexperience, and I was bound to believe the distinguished statesman, for he proved his words by swallowing a goodly dose with an undisturbed and even beaming expression of countenance, demonstrating his assertion so forcibly that I forthwith set out with Bismarck-Bohlen to lay in a supply for myself."

[konny]

*lol* I can just say "Welcome to Germany Mr. Sheridan": Of course, drinking the Kirschwasser was as painful to Bismarck as it was to Sherdian, but it is a German masculine habit prenting not to be affected by such 'blind-makers'. That stuff is awfull, and I imagine the 19th Century variation of it was even closer to pure alcohol than the contemporay one is.

[Nik]

Were the Military Observers impressed? I hear they called the Americans "amateurs".

The most often cited is from von Moltke, claiming he called the american armies "amateurs chasing each other in the woods", but no official record or even primary sources has ever been found.
Otherwise, a lot of foreign observers openly voiced their low opinion of american armies on the beginning of the war in 1861, citing poor discipline, bad organisation and a neglected artillery arm as the lowpoints of the american call to arms. The assessments started to rise from 1862 onwards and reaching top praise at battles like gettysburg etc.
This comes as no surprise, as the tiny regular army (with what, 15-20000 men) had to play the core of not one but two armies. Even the majority of the west pointers had seldom experience above regimental or even company level, leaving both sides with a badly trained volunteer army lead either by overtaxed regular officers or inexperienced appointed civilian officers.
I've found some references to the role of observers in "The Blessed Place of Freedom: Europeans in Civil War America" by Mahin.

As for british or french intervention, in my opinion that became a political non-feasibility after the proclamation of emancipation, as both france and england had abolished slavery and actively fought the practice in their terretories, often complaining about slave ships flying american colors to evade capture.

[Farnan]

Interesting as Von Moltke was in Prussia at the time...

[Dr. Croccer]

Von Moltke was dismissive of the conflict and especially criticised the inability of the Union to launch a fast and succesful invasion of the South. He seems to have learned from the conflict in the sense that his own wars were ended in a matter of weeks through rapid action and decentralisation.

[Farnan]

Von Moltke was dismissive of the conflict and especially criticised the inability of the Union to launch a fast and succesful invasion of the South. He seems to have learned from the conflict in the sense that his own wars were ended in a matter of weeks through rapid action and decentralisation.

Well a major difference is that Prussia started with a large army, while the Union had a tiny army and it was mostly out west. Mobilizing forces took too long and it took time to create a logistics force.

[hellheaven1987]

Well a major difference is that Prussia started with a large army, while the Union had a tiny army and it was mostly out west. Mobilizing forces took too long and it took time to create a logistics force.

Hm, my impression is that Union had no systematically mobilization at that time, or, did not even have that system at all, hence it took them very long time to actually mobilize; same thing happened on Nationalist China during WWII too, except Nationalist China never able to mobilize their manpower since their major recruit ground was under Japanese's control.

[Farnan]

Hm, my impression is that Union had no systematically mobilization at that time, or, did not even have that system at all, hence it took them very long time to actually mobilize; same thing happened on Nationalist China during WWII too, except Nationalist China never able to mobilize their manpower since their major recruit ground was under Japanese's control.

Yep. It wasn't ready for the war at the beginning. We had the militias but forming them into soldiers takes time.

[Dr. Croccer]

Well a major difference is that Prussia started with a large army, while the Union had a tiny army and it was mostly out west. Mobilizing forces took too long and it took time to create a logistics force.

I believe one his main issues was the fact that, in his opinion, the Union didn't properly use the technical assets it had, especially railroads, to gain mobility and overwhelm the Confederacy, which lead to static situations. He also noted the poor command, in the sense that many American generals still acted in Napoleonic terms and acted poorly when the war became more of a front war. He based his own strategies on trying to solve these issues.

[Farnan]

I believe one his main issues was the fact that, in his opinion, the Union didn't properly use the technical assets it had, especially railroads, to gain mobility and overwhelm the Confederacy, which lead to static situations. He also noted the poor command, in the sense that many American generals still acted in Napoleonic terms and acted poorly when the war became more of a front war. He based his own strategies on trying to solve these issues.

That is true.

The issue however was again it was a civil war. And even worse the best generals went South, except for Grant who went west. Due to the rapid expansion of the force officers were sent to lead commands they weren't ready for and politicians chose generals.

By 1864 however the Union Army was an efficient war machine.

[Dr. Croccer]

The issue however was again it was a civil war.

Not really. It wasan't a civil war in the sense of the Russian one. Southern states declared their independence quite early on and the US declared war after a while on their own incentive. It was more a conventional war than the Russian Civil War, as during the latter there were no real clear states. The Soviets ''controlled'' a great deal of Muscovy and White Armies sprung up on its frontiers and advanced and retreated depending on the situation, not to mention the foreign intervention.

And even worse the best generals went South, except for Grant who went west. Due to the rapid expansion of the force officers were sent to lead commands they weren't ready for and politicians chose generals.

Whilst Southern generals were very experienced and intelligent, they were no more prepared for a major war between Western countries. Lee threw men at a massive Union artillery concentration at Malvern Hill, which meant a phyrric victory. Jackson wasn't any nicer. These were the same as many WWI commanders: Old, veterans who weren't used to the new kind of warfare. They tried to win battles by throwing men at defensive positions, and viewed those who dared not to do so as traitors.

Not to mention the fact that the South had it's share of bad generals: Floyd, Pemberton, Bragg and Hood in the West were hardly more competent than the the Union generals McDowell, McClellan, Hooker and Burnside in the East.

By 1864 however the Union Army was an efficient war machine.

I think this had more to do with the Confederacy being increasingly economically, industrially and militarily weaker, than Union ''efficiency''.