Euros, lemme ask u

I'm curious, what did/do europeans think about the civil war?

Other urls found in this thread:

madmonarchist.blogspot.com.br/2017/06/final-efforts-at-restoration-in-latin.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

South should have won.

We had our own civil war. We managed to kill commies and thats all that matters. We don't give a fuck about yours.

We thought the south was full of a bunch of filthy racist

>t. a leaf hiding behind eu flag

Dixies cucked & BTFO'd eternally

I assume the whole thing got the same historical revision as all other major historical events eg evil whitey at it again. Also, why do Southeners refer to it as the war of Northern agression?

Not only today, but in the past too, like who did euro media back them root for?

Britain and France both almost entered the war on behalf of the Confederacy

so I suppose their enemies supported the Union?

From a race prospective, i think was good that the North won (the South would have keep importing Africans, thus trasforming dixieland in northen Brazil).

From a politically prospective instead, it would have better for European powers to have two rival federations on North America, neither both strong enough to take over Europe after the world wars

yeah the south should have won. at the time people were divided on it if they had an opinion as Europe had its own things going on with Prussia slowly unifying Germany. from what i understand the Brits and the frogs were pro south due to cotton and business links and the french and allies were fighting in Mexico so good relations with the south were a bonus which pissed of the union because muh monroe doctrine. beyond that some Canadians supported the south and stole a USN steamer which pissed off the UK when the USN entered Canadian waters without permission to get the ship back. Russia emancipated their serfs in 1861 and so they were pro union with the Czar sending good luck letters to Lincoln and Prussia and their allies under Bismarck were pro union due to balance of power reasons and so every major nation in Europe understood who was backing who and there was a loose agreement that no European nation would intervene for risk of heightening European tensions.

>South secedes
>North wouldn't let them

semantic faggotry

>if you call it civil war it means the claim that the CSA was a legit country is false, if you call it "war of northern aggression" it not only doesn't imply the south was still part of the USA, but it makes them the victims

I know the brits discussed the Civil War together with the Taiping Rebellion in China, on whether it was proper to intervene in one or the other or both, since they saw them as similar wars and initially supported the Taiping.

No, North cut off trade with south, south buys supplies from britain and france. Souths runs out of money. GGs

the US civil war from a UK perspective can also be seen from the industrial revolution as we wanted Southern cotton for our mills, the south knew this and that was one reason on why they wanted our direct help rather than just guns and warships. instead of helping the south and risk provoking the Union into attacking Canada we decided to buy Egyptian cotton instead as there was a lot less political baggage and so the south lost their bargaining chips with the British government and with the emancipation proclamation changing the perspective of the war from one over states rights to one about the issue of slavery it would have been a PR nightmare to get further involved (without considering balance of power politics) as the royal navy had spent the past few decades interdicting slave ships as slavery was unpopular so the government would have committed suicide by being seen as supporters of an unpopular and in the eyes of the voters who matter immoral institution

OP is a retarded faggot if he thinks the US is the only country that had a civil war

Ask the English about the Jacobites

what about the french? what was their endgame there?
hmmm no sweetie, you're just a retard

I don't know the first thing about it other than everyone says it was about slavery. That's probably bullshit.

the french wanted Mexico, the south were happy to let them have it and the union didn't want further European colonialism on what they saw as their back garden. Napoleon III also wanted the cotton in the south and was tempted in joining the war. But he didn't want to act without the UK backing him up. the french government were divided on it and the different newspaper reading intellectuals groups were divided about it as slavery was seen as against the values of the french revolution but the union was pissing off the Mill owners and their working man were getting laid off because of the union blockade of the south. the Union did eventually convince the french not to get balls deep in a game that would cost them more than what it was worth, as the war in Mexico drained the economy and going to war with the union would have made it harder for the french to make money from their colonial possessions in the area and as i have said getting involved would have shifted the balance of power in Europe.

true, forgot about Mexico. The French had a friendly emperor there, and if the USA didn't win he'd probably not fall and mexico wouldn't be such a shithole one-party state for 70 years after being an unstable shithole

while the civil war did impact the french in Mexico that war was expensive and even if the french held on I doubt the french puppet emperor would have lasted beyond the Franco Prussian war

>the South would have keep importing Africans
It was kike merchants from New York and Rhode Island that dominated the slave trading business. The Confederate constitution banned the importation of new slaves from abroad.

He was a far better leader than Juarez, and half the country was with him.

If it wasn't for the USA siding with the liberals, he'd at least manage to rule part of the country. Maybe we'd have two mexicos, or at least one not ruled by the worse faction in the country

hell, if Napoleon III had it his way, we might have a new Ecuador-centred Monarchist power shaped just like the Inca empire in South America

madmonarchist.blogspot.com.br/2017/06/final-efforts-at-restoration-in-latin.html

silly american north vs south slapfight

there's more interesting wars to read about in Europe

Which ones? All the mainstream ones have been studied to death already

The commies lost, so the results were positive, even though it was brothers killing brothers

The South should have won. The yanks shit up america time and time again.

The balkanization of America is inevitable anyway and the south will rise again.

the napoleonic and revolutionary wars for definitely, even the Yugoslav wars


but my input
>south should have won

Russia sent 7 navy ships to New York and San-Francisco in 1863 to show that we stand with the North. They had orders to attack South ships that might approach.

I was thinking about the XIXth century only, and these are all mainstream wars everyone knows about already, no need for more threads about it

Honestly when was the last time we had a good Napoleon thread? Theres civil war and dixie threads all the time.

>t
I saw one recently

Fuck off kike, we didn't let you take federal bases.
You attacked Sumter, you made your own bed.

First Post Best Post

Typical cock sucking yankee. Just admit to yourself that the world would be better off had the South won, or, better yet, you fucking YANKS had just let us alone and kept 700,000 white men from dying.

It's basically your Holocaust: historical inaccuracy to the point of victor's justice

cool, cool. gg.
slaves freed, south subversion.

i don't know much, i'm afraid.

Should tried to genocide all blacks after emancipation proclamation like the Nazi had side operations during war.
Lincoln at should have proclaimed that those black would be sent to Liberia in the same law.