Replies

It’s worth remembering that the world *almost* went to total war during the U.S. Civil War.

That’s why Hindenberg was in the U.S. observing the war, in case Britain decided to enter on the side of the Confederates (they did not...only because Egypt...now known for Egyptian cotton, had its first successful cotton crop in time for the UK to have an alternative supplier of thread for London’s textile mills).

Likewise, the Russians were considering mobilizing an Army for an invasion via Siberia/Alaska, and the French *did* invade Mexico but in what surprised Europe...the French were soundly routed by the Mexican Army on the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo).

By the end of the U.S. Civil War, Europe had seen France routed by what they had once considered an inferior Mexican Army, and they saw the U.S. fielding the world’s largest, most powerful navy of iron clads, submarines, crocodiles (semi-submergibles), and electrically-detonated naval mines, plus the world’s largest, most powerful Armies (with multi-fire weapons such as Gatling Guns), as well as the only combat air force of any sort with a fleet of observation balloons.

It’s from their observation (and in the case of France, unsuccessful intervention) of the U.S. Civil War that Europe drew for its military and political changes during the WW1 buildup.

Not quite correct. Britain would never enter the war on the side of the CSA. Any British government who did would have fell within the week. The British public, the electorate, was overwhelmingly anti-slavery, probably more so than public opinion in the North. The British government would make weak moves to indicate they might, but no Prime Minister would ever have pulled the trigger. The only thing that could have brought British intervention would have been a extremely stupid move on Lincoln's part, as the Trent affair shows, he wasn't going to.

The French intervention in Mexico was not defeated at the Cinco de Mayo. Yes the French were defeated at this battle, but the dusted themselves off in Veracruz, reinforced their army and then marched off to capture Mexico City and chased Juarez over the Rio Grande. France was however stuck with a guerrilla war on their hands, but eventually pulled out for two reasons. One, the North won the Civil War and was massing troops on the Rio Grande. They did not want to fight the United States. Two, the tensions with Prussia were heating up in Europe, and they needed all their troops back in France. So they washed their hands of Maximilian and left him to his fate.

That’s why Hindenberg was in the U.S. observing the war

If you mean Paul von Hindenburg, the WWI general and Hitler pawn, I think you may be confused. He was commissioned as a looie in 1866.

Likewise, the Russians were considering mobilizing an Army for an invasion via Siberia/Alaska

May have had a little bit of a logistics issue there, some decades before the Trans-Siberian Railroad and all that. LOL

the French *did* invade Mexico but in what surprised Europe...the French were soundly routed by the Mexican Army on the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo).

Yup. They lost that battle in 1862, but it was only a temporary setback in their conquest of Mexico.

France routed by what they had once considered an inferior Mexican Army

France was never routed in Mexico. They got tired and went home, much like the USA in Vietnam. Largely because of deteriorating conditions in Europe vis-s-vis Prussia. But even more so because USA moved troops to border in TX in 1865 and hinted very strongly they'd like to see the French leave.

The French pulled out in 1866, leaving Maximilian in power over most of Mexico. Like the S. Vietnam government, he couldn't stand on his own, however.

I've read a great deal about European consideration of intervention in the WBTS, and I don't think any of the parties were ever particularly keen on the idea.

BTW, I particularly like your notion of observation balloons constituting a combat air force!

Balloons were first used for this purpose, BTW, in 1794.