Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#271

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ironcurtain wrote: post #200

Why do you call it a civil war? In a civil war two parties fight for dominance over the country - England’s and Russian’s civil wars, more than two hundred years apart, are great example. In that war, South did not want to dominate North but secede. It seems calling the conflict “a Civil war” just follows Northern narrative.

I upvoted because it's an interesting point: but I think your definition of 'civil war' is just wrong. It's people in a single nation/people group fighting to resolve differences. Limiting it to exclude things like secession is an unnatural split that doesn't have any obvious benefits. Like, some people end up fighting because 'their' side is being attacked, they don't wish for dominance but only survival ... you'd be deciding for each individual person if it was a civil war or not.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#272

Post by berdario »

throwaway290 wrote: post #105
berdario wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us…

There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war? I also want to know more conditions under which Stalin (who really handled foreign policy then?) offered to send troops to Europe, considering USSR was sort of fighting Japan at the same time. I'm sure UK and France could corroborate and provide more details, if this of…

> There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war?

This is not about "friendship pact", this is about non-aggression pact.

Was Poland not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declarat...

Was France not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement#Consequences

> Never mind that this protection buffer would not have been needed if Germany did not expand its invasion... which it did thanks to USSR siding with it. Dubious twist of logic.

Good questions/points, but we're judging decisions made at the time with the hindsight of decades after the war. I don't think it was clear to anyone who would've joined the war, which sides would've won, and the likelihood of such events.

Every country, depending on the circumstances, was probably trying to do what's best for them. Either avoiding war, or exploiting the messy situation by expanding their territory by annexing small part of neighboring states.

In fact, after seeing what happened to Poland, I think that every party in such agreements realized that they could provide, at best, temporary respite and delay confrontation (but that's not a weird isolated phenomenon: circumstances changes, and that provides ammunition to arguments that old agreements are not valid anymore).

It's not as much to enable other countries' war, but rather to delay one's own involvement in one war.

In fact, the USSR state budget was dedicated to defense for only about ~5%. A confrontation with Nazi Germany at the time would've been disastrous. But in the extra couple of years since, it increased to > 40%

https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-military-spending/

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#273

Post by throwaway290 »

berdario wrote: post #272
throwaway290 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war? I also want to know more conditions under which Stalin (who really handled foreign policy then?) offered to send troops to Europe, considering USSR was sort of fighting Japan at the same time. I'm sure UK and France could corroborate and provide more details, if this of…

> There were valid reasons to not be friendly to USSR. Does this justify USSR entering friendship pact with Germany, thus enabling it to start the war? This is not about "friendship pact", this is about non-aggression pact. Was Poland not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declarat... Was France not justified in entering a non-aggression pact…

> Was Poland not justified in entering a non-aggression pact with Germany?

Did they also devise secret protocols dividing the world into spheres of influence, which were subsequently expanded with clauses that had "friendship" in their titles?

> we're judging decisions made at the time with the hindsight of decades after the war

This is exactly what allows us to see objectively what was happening.

It's always easy to say "we didn't mean it, we were playing 3D chess" (like Trump apologists) right afterwards.

However, we can judge based on the actions, which were:

1) sign a non-agression pact with Nazi Germany

2) almost immediately after, jointly with Nazi Germany invade and divide a country

3) extend the pact with a further "friendship" treaty, dividing Europe*

4) further discuss joining Axis**

Where do you think things were really headed?

> I don't think it was clear to anyone who would've joined the war, which sides would've won, and the likelihood of such events.

> Every country, depending on the circumstances, was probably trying to do what's best for them

You're quick to rob all countries and their leaders of moral baselines. There was documented massive surprise (including Western communists) and outrage worldwide when USSR signed the pact. I think the pact at the time was somewhat of a blow to general morale, a sign that another major player takes the world as a zero-sum dog eat dog arena that you allude to.

It seems feasible Stalin/Molotov would've joined Axis if it's "better" for USSR. And furthermore what was going on in USSR under Stalin (ethical cleanses, mass murder) is not too different from what Hitler did, USSR and Nazi Germany are fairly similar in many regards.

But I don't think this is somehow just an instance of how every normal country disregards ethics in the name of own profit. For one, USSR was geopolitically differently situated compared to small countries within immediate vicinity of Germany. It had immense territory. It was actively forging agreements and trade with Germany at the time.

I'm happy USSR ultimately didn't get to win the initial war and divide the world alongside Axis.

> It's not as much to enable other countries' war, but rather to delay one's own involvement in one war.

USSR invaded Poland as soon as Germany did. You're right, this is not enabling other countries' war. This is actually joining the war, and not on the side of the good guys.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Boundary_and_Fri...

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Molot...

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#274

Post by dhosek »

umeshunni wrote: post #23
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #13

After the war I'm sure they took note. The US Army of the North was then the largest army in the world. That had to be concerning. Second place? The US Army of the South.

Looks like the troop strength was 200-600K on each side. I'm not sure that would have been the largest army in the world. source: https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/facts.htm#:~:text=In%20July%201... .

It wouldn't be. Russia had a larger army. Only if you consider both sides a single army do they outnumber the Russian forces.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#275

Post by rnk »

caublestone wrote: post #181
berdario wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Bolshevik’s set this in stone towards the end of the civil war... I'm not sure about the events that you're referring to. The Treaty of Riga was in 1921, the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was signed in 1921 as well, the USSR was only declared in 1922, and the UK recognized it in 1924, the same year in which Lenin died. In fact, related to the Trade Agreement he complained: > The British government has handed us…

Russia and the US became very friendly during WW2 as well. Stalin and Roosevelt had a solid relationship while Stalin and Churchill did not. Churchill did not like Stalin for various reasons. But Roosevelt was the glue. Unfortunately, US elections at the time stipulated that the Vice President was chosen by the Democrat electorate and there was a coup to replace Roosevelts first pick (a guy friendly to the ussr) with…

Truman's presidency doesn't seem so terrible from today's viewpoint, look at the work he did to help rebuild western europe after the war. Making note that he had not enriched himself while president does not serve to make you or your arguments better appreciated.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#276

Post by rnk »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #71
dylan604 wrote: post #68

I'd be interested in how the world would/might react to an American civil war today ? Would we see America's "enemies" sending arms to the side of their choice to fight a proxy war on American soil? Would a side accept that aide? Would America's "allies" sit out or pick sides? Would those sides align with the sides "enemies" would choose?

I think the world would collectively shit its pants. The world's largest economy and military suddenly splintering while in control of several thousand nuclear weapons? It would seem like Armageddon.

The us is far from the USSR - yet the USSR had so many nukes, the world treated them with kid gloves, for good or bad. Maybe after we in the US finish killing each other over imaginary grievances (is Tom Hanks really a pedophile who kills kids for their hormones, I can't believe I live in a country where anyone considers such idiocy) what will be left of the cities and rural areas.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#277

Post by p_l »

scheme271 wrote: post #106
edgyquant wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Vietnam showed that conscripting armies of that size was not an efficient way to fight a modern war. You want people, volunteers, who want to be in the army. Also technology. We’re close to that point in, like in Roman history, where the income of entire villages was only enough to field one Calvary soldier (knight.) Not that we’re going towards feudalism but history has a cycle of armies going from a small f…

During the early republic, only the richest could equipment themselves but my understanding is that the Marian reforms changed this by professionalizing the army and having the general of a legion supply the soldiers with their weapons. Also, the thing about a village supporting one cavalry soldier seems off. The roman army focused on infantry with cavalry being supplied by allied forces.

Roman cavalry is often forgotten, but a considerable portion of social class all the way back to Roman Republic and I think pre-republic kingdom was existence of a class wealthy enough to fight as cavalry.

They were of course small compared to infantry legions, and as the Republic and later Empire expanded they frequently hired auxiliaries, especially from a more cavalry focused groups.

Re: What did British officers think of the American civil war as it was happening?

#278

Post by scheme271 »

p_l wrote: post #277
scheme271 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the early republic, only the richest could equipment themselves but my understanding is that the Marian reforms changed this by professionalizing the army and having the general of a legion supply the soldiers with their weapons. Also, the thing about a village supporting one cavalry soldier seems off. The roman army focused on infantry with cavalry being supplied by allied forces.

Roman cavalry is often forgotten, but a considerable portion of social class all the way back to Roman Republic and I think pre-republic kingdom was existence of a class wealthy enough to fight as cavalry. They were of course small compared to infantry legions, and as the Republic and later Empire expanded they frequently hired auxiliaries, especially from a more cavalry focused groups.

Sure, equites were an established social class but didn't that devolve to just a class without the training on horseback by the late republic and certainly by imperial rome. It seems like it made more sense for the imperial army to have auxilia handle cavalry, missile troops, and other functions.
Post reply on HN