How did the World React to the American Civil War? (Short Animated Documentary)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- When discussing the American Civil War very few people ever talk about how the rest of the world felt about it? So how did they react? To find out, watch this short and simple animated history documentary.
/ histmattersyt
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=4973164
Merch: teespring.com/stores/history-...
A special thanks to all of these Patrons below, without whom the show wouldn't be possible:
Southside Mitch
Franco La Bruna
Richard Wolfe
Ian Jensen
kevinh
Can’t Think Of A Name
David archaeologist
Tim Stumbaugh
אורי פרקש
Kevin Sanders
James Nile
Robert Brockway
Kevin Phoenix
Mickey Landen
Ian Smith
Brian Giordano
KNSTRKTVST
Chase Labiste
sharpie660
jdk
Brian Hamilton
Andreas Mosand
Connor Glaze
Rod D. Martin
Blah Blah Blah
Qi Xiao
D. Mahlik
Dexter_McAaron
Nathan Perlman
Paul Franche
Joseph Reinsch
Paul McGee
SirAlpaka
anon
Ainar Garipov
Curt Helmerich
Porkmeister
Juan Castillo
Wolf
Chris Fatta
Alexander Washofsky
Dragan
Joel Cromwell
Mantodea
Jack Mcbeth
Adam Stalter
John Bisges
Andrew Niedbala
John Garcia
Jeremy
Burt Clothier
Ryan Haber
Andrew Patane
Bernardo Santos
Scott O'Donnell
Riley davidson
Yick Chung
SkyEye
Chris Hall
Danny Anstess
Syagrius Beans
Jane Sumpter
William Hilton
Scott P
ScottishTrekkie
Tristan Kreller
Warren Rudkin
Heytun
Käs
Jack River
Justin Pearson
Mik Scheper
Perry Gagne
Chris Dolan
Robert Woodward
Tim Lane
Clay Carroll
Christopher Godfrey
Magdalena Reinberg-Leibel
Zachary Oertel
Vance Christiaanse
Joseph Kerckhoff
Phil Simmons
Henry Rabung
Super Bee 426
Joshua A Bishop
Kim Huett
Neil Jones
Joooooshhhhhh
Alen
Raymond He
Gregory Priebe
Michael Wagner
Joker 54
Vilelmus_veliki
Eddie
Richard W Quarles
Craig Cunningham
Chach
I'm Not In The Description
MrBanana
William Wold
Liam Gilleece
Ciege Engine
Alteredcorgi
Ellen Teapot
Mark Ploegstra
bas mensink
Matt Reed
Kinfe85
Blake Dryad
Anthony McCann
JAY ALAN EDELMAN
David Chaid
Jeffrey Schneider
Layne Nielsen
Kevin Stolz
Luke Robinson
Matthew O'Connor
Brian McKinley
Jack Nelson
James Bisonette Fan #1
Colm Byrne
Sethars
Canadian Pats
Haydn Noble
James
Thomas Wang
Spencer Smith
Chrisaztec
Colm Boyle
HelloAgainThere
Phillip Gathright
TooMuchWaterYouDie
Josh Cornelius
Arthur Hosey Jr.
Gerald Armstrong
Tailsdoll
Harley Raptopoulos
Matthew Hogan
SmythProductions
Björn Wittmann
Gabriel Lunde
Eóghan Ó'nia
Piotr Wojnowski
Dennis the Cat
Steve Bonds
StukaJi86
Dakota Brunell
Serius_Loyola
Alan Romero
Konstantin Bredyuk
Christine Purvis
Richard Manklow
João Santos
Richard Hartzell
Donald Weaver
Pierre Le Mouel
Bumble Jones
mohd
Peter Konieczny
Steve Noworyta
Seth Reeves
Mr Sandman
Imperial Pony
Ben L
Erik Carlsson
Confederates: "You need our cotton!"
Ottomans: "But do you really?"
Actually no
Britain: Don't overplay your hand with me Sunny Jim. Currently we dislike Russia, that means we're totally cool with having a weak Ottoman puppet we can control, oops silly me. I mean we have found new respect and co-operation with the great Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. They are a sufficient replacement.
Ottomans: *gets bankrupt less than 15 years later*
And India!
@@jevinliu4658 as well as Russia
Union: For reunification and freedom!
Confederate: For state independence and slavery!
France: *lmao mexico is free land*
Prusians: LMAO Elsass-Lothringen is FREE LAND
Because Y'know, very capable and trained soldiers and officials were incapacitated, death or lost in the French Intervention on Mexico, and the French army still on reorganization after that.
It still is. You just need to be more violent than the cartels.
BUT WE WON VIVA MEXICOOOOOOO
ll'ammaooo
Fun fact: both the union and the confederates agreed that the only possible mediator of the war was Dom Pedro II of Brazil.
He'd make sense as an arbitrator. Anti-slavery ruler of a country that was nevertheless the only significant other slaveholding country in the world. Union would say "The Emperor of Brazil hates slavery" while the Confederates would say "No one supports slavery more than the Brazilians"
@@pattersong6637 Good explanation for why both sides wanted him as mediator.
Pedro II: _Chega de Saudade's into the room_
Patter Song: What? The only other slave holding state? Idk what history you study. Many more countries used slavery at that time and countries today still use it. Must not be aware of blacks using slavery in Africa.
@@letsgobrandon7297 he specified that it was the only other significant country that owned slaves, so countries in Africa wouldn't really be included.
Interesting fact: The emperor of Brazil, Dom Pedro 2, was one of the names idealized to mediate the conflict in a possible ceasefire that would unify the country into one again. Lincoln even mentioned that he preferred Dom Pedro 2 to broker a peace agreement, as he trusted him more than any other European monarch or diplomat.
I don´t remember in which stete people actually voted him to be the USA president lmao. Dom Pedro was a good Emperor and man :D
I did not know this, so a good fact for me to know being Brazilian. Although given Lincoln's staunch preference for not negotiating the terms of peace until an unconditional surrender, Dom Pedro was probably never at risk of actually having to leave Rio.
That's surprising, considering that Brazil was a country where slavery was common and rampant. I'd wager Brazil would side with the confederacy because of the slavery issue. That said, Pedro was an abolitionist, which may explain why Lincoln trusted him.
@@juannieves8642 I believe it was in New york after he paid a visit there
Brazilians when they don't mention Pedro the Second for a zeptosecond
The European reaction to the civil war being "not impressed with the quality of war" is the most European thing I've ever heard, thanks for that.
"Call that a war?"
I hadn't heard of that, but at least one Prussian officer, count Ferdinand von Zeppelin, became very excited over some of the new technologies being put to use in the US civil war (he got to fly in a tethered hot air balloon).
@@Mnnvint I can imagine, but the fact that new toys were put to use in the war doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy or tactics were on the same level. But this, considering American history up until that point, is understandable.
@@andrewholdaway2729 nah, you read too much into this my dude. my comment was solely referring to the 'achievement' that the old world was the most efficient at killing people.
@@Mnnvint von Zeppelin? the same count who was friend of Carlos Alban? the inventor of the iron frame for ballons that gifted his patent to his friend before his demise in the Naval battle of Panama in the thousand years war? that one?
“How can this benefit me?” -every world leader ever
I also like how most of these countries "supported" the union but did not care at all to actually send real aid. That would've been cool seeing foreign volunteers arriving in the Union occupied New Orleans
@@Spongebrain97 I actually think it's probably better for the Union that they didn't. The South tried to frame the North as barely American anymore due to immigration and as overstepping the constitution.
Allowing a European army to kill Americans would've been a great propaganda coup for the Confederates.
@@walsh9080 true but in the later stages of the war the confederate's days were numbered after the Union controlled the Mississippi so propaganda might have just been fluff. The propaganda might have impacted Union civilians with there being foreign soldiers but ehh there tons of Irish and German immigrants already in the Union army
Stalin: How can this benefit *us*
Trump: «What can i do today that will benefit me?»
Don't forget San Marino offering an Alliance to support the Union and they also sent Lincoln a sweet letter, and giving him honorary citizenship.
Lincoln's response was: "Although your dominion is small, your State is nevertheless one of the most honored, in all history. It has by its experience demonstrated the truth, so full of encouragement to the friends of Humanity, that Government founded on Republican principles is capable of being so administered as to be secure and enduring."
I love this.
Guys I think he was right
Based san marino
Never once heard this!!! Fascinating stuff...
@@BloodWoof100% Based
"How can this benefit me?"
Best summary of politics ever.
For real.
@@Justin-pe9cl Just as we see in the Ukraine. Now
Well, yeah
That’s the point, you’re representing or dominating your nation and thus that comes first
@@Rowlph8888 ummmmmmm not exactly but kinda
@@kousand9917 ummm, yes, exactly like that. You honestly think that the US is trying to help Ukraine, don't be naïve;they are attempting a proxy war, which they are losing, and causing misery around the world by ensuring Higher fuel and food prices;All to try to convince the US public that Putin is to blame for inflation, When it has nothing tto do with him. The US political elite exclusively and entirely to blame for the inflation, with the ridiculous money printing, Corruption and irresponsible spending.
Then US President, ratifies a policy to send Weapons to the Ukraine.Then the Ukrainian president continues to fight a war, with said weapons, that he is "absolutely certain" to eventually lose. Using heavier artillery against the aggressor, inevitably means, said aggressor will use heavyier artillery in order to win this war, wreckiing the country to the point of total impoverishment. When one nation is so hopelessly outmatched by another, their president, if he is responsible, will surrender,and try to negotiate good conditions for the aftermath (e.g. the French did it, When the Prussians outmatched them in the Franco-Prussian War, years ago). When Putin does eventually win, the easterna Part of the country will be wrecked and he will be more liikely to impose harsher Settlement conditions
The world: "Oh no... Anyways-"
B-but. That was my joke! *cries like a little bitch*
Time-traveling white South Africans:
"Allow me to introduce myself. We have AK-47s to give to the Confederacy."
I see you in every new video
Man the Europeans really want that Southern cotton even if the South had slaves
@@Discosaturn FN FALs*
US Civil War : *Happen*
Mexico : Finally some peace...
France : *Bonjour*
Underrated comment!
"hello there" in French
Mexico’s biggest danger has always been foreign interference.
I'm laughing at this way too damn hard.
*Mexico* (Unsheathes Weapon) : Ahh.. Veo que ah elegido muerte!
There was one significant reaction missing from the Canadian perspective- the British army and navy quietly pulled out of the colony, realizing they could never hope to defend it in the event of another War-of-1812-like invasion. This led to a push to unify the colonies into a single political unit a few years later, along
with its own military
Somewhat true. Canada got its independence a couple months after the US bought Alaska from Russia. The British realized they couldn't easily send troops easily to Western Canada to defend it, so they said: "lol you're on your own now. Good luck."
@@maxpowr90 i could totally believe that
@@maxpowr90 I guess that’s why Newfoundland didn’t join until 1948. They were the closest to Britain!
The US basically lost interest in Canada and looked west instead of north, believing that the land available for the taking was more valuable than land they would have to fight for. Canada was mostly thought of as an icy wasteland, as Alaska was even when we got it. There never was interest in acquiring Canada after the War of 1812, and even the interest in that war is exaggerated, if you just look at our half-assed efforts to acquire it in that war.
@@RRaquello Well, they still had to fight for the land to the West, it's just the people they were taking the land from were horribly outnumbered and outgunned.
Fun fact: Lincoln offered Garibaldi, unifier of Italy and various South American countries, a command in the war, but since Garibaldi deemed the President’s attitude toward slavery too soft he refused
And yet Garibaldi had no trouble fighting for slaveholders in Southern Brazil
@@vulpes7079the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
@@chidubemmoCant be an idealist in that case...
It is FAR more complicated than that. Lincoln wanted to go harder on slave owners, he writes about this in his diary, but fearing the backlash from northern slave owners at the time, and this causing the union to lose the war, he instead had to play the longer political game. and wait for the right time. Lincoln's presidency is one of truly hard decisions, ones that weighed heavily on him all the way up until his death.
GARIBALDI UNIFIER OF SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES?
That's a stretch. He was a pirate for profit in the South. His ass was kicked by the Argentine-Uruguayan alliance too.
“Amateurs” -Chinese Ambassador
I mean, it's true
Meanwhile in China: A Qing army outnumber the Anglo-French forces 10-1 in the 2nd Opium War and still lose
Edit: I misunderstood the comment, thought the Chinese ambassador was taking the same line as the Prussians.
China: Only 1 civil war? Amateurs.
Meanwhile in China:
“Who the fuck is sieging Fujian?!”
“Apparently the brother of Jesus Christ”
*”W H A T!?”*
First time ? --China
Fun fact: you forgot the king of Siam (Thailand) offered to support the Union by sending war elephants - Lincoln declined the offer though.
I am sure, the mid-19th century rifles and artillery were enough to kill all of those elephants.
It would have made amazing memes.
Think of the memes
why did he refuse tho?
elephants can be sent to scare enemy troops, and after the battle, the elephant corpses could be used for food, leather, and ivory.
@@belalabusultan5911 Because Asian elephants in the United States would be inordinately costly to care for and all die immediately anyways.
Two things of note:
The British also produced a large amount of guns for the confederacy as did France. Making British Enfield rifles a common sight in the ranks of the confederate army.
As for Austria I find their subtle support of the confederacy as somewhat ironic since they were the largest supporter of the Union by amount of material, Austrian Lorenz rifles being imported to the US and making a common occurrence and was widely considered by soldiers in the field to be superior to the Springfield model 1855 and 1861. With Chamberlain (of 20th Maine fame) declaring it to be one of the best rifles he had ever used.
What's even more interesting on the topic of your second point is that the 20th ME never even *used* the Lorenz, that's how good its reputation was. The Enfield contracts that the British had with the Confederates were larger and more profitable than the US contracts, and so often to fill those US contracts they'd get the slightly lesser quality guns and just send those to the US, which led to a funny case where the Enfield was unpopular with Federal troops due to their "unreliability", and also the fact that they weren't American-made. Comparing the unreliability of *their* Enfields to the reliability of the *Confederate* Enfields was a head scratcher at first I bet lol
0:03 "Amateurs" - Chinese Ambassador.
Given the scale of all the Chinese Civil Wars... yeah, pretty accurate.
Some guy: “I’m the brother of Jesus Christ!”
*20-30 million perish*
*Civil war disrupts the cotton market*
Ottomans: Business is boomin'
@@eemil.894 and its a F-22
*stonks*
Foreigners-men not born in America-also fought for the South. The largest group was the Irish, followed by Germans, British, French, Poles, and Canadians. Texas also contributed Mexican troops. It is not certain how many foreigners fought for the Confederacy, but the number seems to be in the tens of thousands. High, but not nearly as high as the Union figure. Foreigners tended to fight in infantry regiments rather than cavalry or artillery.
The Irony was that at the time the Ottoman Empire was one of the countries that used slavery the most. It was a relatively different kind of slavery than the United States, but the Turks were still treating other people as objects, whereas all Europeans and even some Americans wanted to stop. A worse kind of people than the Turks?
@@lucerohatake3578 eh what? europe was still super racist. germany held other people in zoos until the first world war, so shut your dumbass rhetoric
Prussia: They suck at war
Idk why that is so funny to me
Prussia good at war who knew
Prussia a while later: NO, NO SHOTGUNS, NOOOOOOO!
Prussia was pretty good at war. At least more than other Germans at the time.
@@TheGoukaruma I mean it helps if your army has a state attached to it...
@@TheGoukaruma Prussia/Germany was excelent at war. Their diplomacy after Bismarck was.... not so great.
Fun Fact: the man who composed the music for "O Canada" fought for the Union army during the war, attaining the rank of lieutenant.
I'm kinda surprised he didn't mention Arthur Lyon Fremantle, the British Army officer who caught wind of the Civil War and traveled to the US as a war tourist, going up through Texas and slowly making his way as far as New York before heading back to England.
That sounds like a assassin creed plot
@@JP_CrimsonLincoln also got to play assassins creed after the war ended, just he wasn’t the assassin😂
@@slayer1577 I'm trying to imagine someone who would think that was funny, and the image isn't good.
Fremantle was present, observing Union troops at Gettysburg.
@@isoldamare you trying to imply that anyone that makes jokes about Lincoln’s assassination is a racist or something?
Civil war: starts
Ottoman Empire: it's like printing my own money
Britain: hey it's like they're printing money
France: so anyway i started blasting
Confederacy: Cotton blocked.
Ottomans: WOOOOOOOOOO!! YEAH BABY! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT WOOOOO!
@@nilsjonsson1133 Its Free real estate.
-the sultan, probably
Just minus the inflation
I love how genuine success in history is always portrayed by a happy leader galloping across a daisy field
The embodiment of bliss
You don’t do that?
@Cowboy Tanaka Nice username, b0ss
Every nation capital has a Daisy field on standby for such an occasion
Welp Maximillian was eventually executed by the Mexicans so not so much success there
*Literally anything happens somewhere in the world*
Britain: *Think of the money!*
Not all Europeans looked down on the Civil War strategy and tactics. The Prussians were very impressed with Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign as well as both sides ability to transport troops via rail. Also they took good notes on all of the Unions new weapons. They later used many of these " lessons learned" 5 years later in the Franco Prussian War, which they won in 7 weeks.
"Many thousands of Canadians went south to fight against the confederacy" - You mean the opening scenes of X-Men Origins: Wolverine were historically accurate?
You thought they weren’t?!
Did you not know about Hugh Jackman's heroic contributions to end slavery in the US? What were you taught in school!?
Wolverine and Sabertooth helped Abe Lincoln hunt vampires in the South too. Logan dipped his claws in molten silver to cut up vampires better.
@@LedosKell wait a minute I thought silver only work on werewolf ?
@@bondrewdthelordofdawn3744 In the ALVH movie silver burns all creatures who have rejected God, as silver is what Judas received for betraying Jesus. Which is why Lincoln's weapon is an axe with a silver-coated edge that also has a single-shot musket with a silver ball rigged into the handle.
They play around with vampire and monster tropes in the movie and book. Vampires can't kill other vampires, sunlight irritates their eyes and overall weakens them but doesn't outright burn them, their teeth can shift at will between regular teeth, enlarged canines, and full carnivore shark jaws.
Ottomans: "Cotton Eye Joe? More like Cotton Eye Mehmed"
I have no idea why but this comment made me laugh hysterically
Where did you come from where did you go?
Where did you come from Cotton-eye Joe?
If it weren’t for you I’d be married,
I’d be married a long time ago.
Sa
Named a spider in my shower cotton eye joe because
Where dide he come from where did he go
Güzel yorum
“...not even Austria.”
Ouch. Bad luck Austria.
3:15 It should be noted that Russia was hoping to curb British power, and saw a strong United States as a viable counterweight against the British Empire. Russia at this point, and the other European powers (excluding maybe France and Britain) were so convinced of their superiority over the United States that they were treating it like a piece to be moved around the board of a greater game, a notion that would gradually dissolve over the next 50 years.
Seemingly none of these powers truly understood the massive economic, and therefore diplomatic, sway the United States could already exert over them. The U.S. was already supplying an irreplaceable amount of grain and other food crops to France and Britain, ironically making taking the Union side more economically beneficial for the U.K. and France than the south's proclaimed "king cotton" could ever hope to achieve.
CSA: "Our Cotton trade is blockaded!"
Ottomans: *STONKS*
Stickity Stonks
@@jameskpolkastronomyhistory5984 Compare 1930s Nazi Germany Vs 2020s Communist China IN YOUR NEXT VIDEO Project before it's too late
@@matpk Why Would You Want Me To Do That?
Free real cotton estate boiiiiiii
America: breaks into civil war
Most of Europe: Oh no! Anyways...
France: So anyways, I started attacking Mexico
Ottomans: I was business man...doing business
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
One of the best stories of the Civil War is about a Canadian lady who joined the Union army in 61. Behind Rebel Lines, great little book.
Sarah Edmonds, master of disguise. There needs to be a movie about her; she wrote an autobiography.
For those wanting to learn more about this, I recommend "Empire of Cotton" by Sven Beckert. It's basically a history of cotton, and it has interesting stuff about how the disruption of the cotton supply chain impacted the rest of the world.
Perhaps the greatest irony about slavery that the British learned, is that it's not only cheaper, but workers work harder, if you just pay them badly and make workers think they are free and deserve nothing more. Education and religion is key in placating a population.
USA: "Why didn't you help us?!?!"
Literally every other country: *"I was a businessman, doing business"*
The US neither wanted nor needed help.
As long as no one gave the rebels ships or cannons, there was only one possible way the war could end.
Also, the US very much knew Europe in general doesn't like their values like republicanism and democracy. So the Civil War was not only a fight to preserve the Union but also to keep the torch of liberty alive, in a world where most of the world are under some authoritarian rule...
**Looks at how the US are very much helping the world, doing the job of NATO almost independently** Guess 'Murica is different.
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 I'm sure the Native Americans really appreciated that liberty.
@@SixteenJacobsCreams oh they sure did
Confederacy: *gets blockaded*
The Ottomans: and thats when the big bucks start rolling in
Apparently making a meme gets a massive comment war
Not just folding money - Not-employing-slaves money!
@@NineWorldsFromDrew Ottomans had slavery. They just used them as sex slaves. :D
Fun Fact of the Day
@@shorewall actually I think they stopped slavery before America did
@@shorewall lies
One of the interesting things is that because of the French incursion into Mexico, when the Franco-Prussian war broke out five years later, the US, though remaining officially neutral, was decidedly friendly to Prussia. This goes against everything we might expect because of what happened in the 20th Century. General Sheridan, who had been sent to the Mexican border at the end of the Civil War as a threat, to make sure the French got out, was sent to Europe at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian war to serve as an official observer with the Prussian troops and became very friendly with the leadership of the Prussian army, to the point where he was invited as an honored guest at the crowning of the first Kaiser at Versailles at the end of the war. After returning to the US and becoming the commanding general of the US Army, Sheridan instituted, on the Prussian model, a US War College and our first general staff organization, and even Prussian style pickelhauber helmets were briefly worn at West Point, replacing the French-style Kepis that were worn almost universally by US Forces during the Civil War.
France bitched out cause of the US?
@@Rokiriko Out of Mexico, yes. I mean, they were on their way out anyway but Sheridan was sent down just to help persuade them to leave without unnecessary delays.
Fun fact: Canada's race for nationhood accelerated after the civil war ended. The end of the war left thousands of battle hardened Irish ex union soldiers looking northward as a way to strike at GB through its colonies in NA. Canada became a nation in 1867, two years after Lee's surrender. Canada recruited 37,000 regulars and almost a half a million in reserves by 1869, just in case the US wanted to repeat 1812.
At least from a US perspective, the sale of Alaska in 1867 was the catalyst to the British granting Canada nationhood.
@@maxpowr90 That was already in the process of happening before the US bought Alaska, in fact I remember reading that the Russians first came to the UK & Canada and offered it to them, but Canada said no cause it was trying to convince the rest of the colonies to get on board. And then the Russians sold it to the US.
@@rajkaranvirk7525
Uh, no.
The Russians would have never sold the Alaska to the British Empire or any part of it (Canada was a self governing dominion part of the empire). That is because the sale of Alaska was because of the Crimean war, and they were imperial rivals (look up the great game).
Canada was still apart of the British Empire post 1867, why do people post false information.
Self governing does not mean independent, especially if you don’t have control over foreign policy.
@@graceneilitz7661 No, they would’ve sold it. Because the reasoning was we’re going to lose it anyway in the event of war, may as well sell it for profit to the British. Plus the Russians were a threat largely in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe. Britain and Russia never viewed each other as encroaching on each other in North America. They were not rivals in that area. And it is true, they first came to Canada and Canada said no. Then they went to the US.
European Observers in 1864: "These jokers are sending en masse attacks with little support against fortified enemy positions? How Brutal!"
Europeans 50 years later : :(
Americans: First time? Here let us help out now that Russia is busy with their own Civil War.
@@garybrown2039 best thing is, when the americans arrived, they didnt listen at all to what the generals of europe had learned so they just charged in recklessly like its 1914 all over again.
@@gufosufo337 with shotguns right? Not saying they were smart about it but still.
@@garybrown2039
ah yes, american flamethrower except it humane.
@@garybrown2039 of course, its america.
Mexico: phew that civil war was rough now time to focus on ourselves.
France: bonjour.
Unfortunately, it didn't end well for the French either, when Don Benito Juarez, the greatest Mexican who ever lived, turned up.
@@theemirofjaffa2266 not soo great, had you heard of the Mclane Ocampo treaty?
@@theemirofjaffa2266 did you just call Benito Juárez, the same dude who tried to sell northern Mexico SEVERAL TIMES the greatest Mexican who ever lived?
I dunno, that doesn't sound too bad to me.
@@enakuen1 sell land is the same reason why mexicans hate to Antonio López de Santa Anna
I like how the newspaper has the Chinese Ambassador quoted as saying "Amateurs" LOL
"How can this benefit me?" - The motto of every politician since forever.
Fun fact: Siam offered volunteers for the war, but Lincoln refused them, how would you like to see an elephant charging at you?
I think it was mostly a practical concern since ignoring how large of a target they are and you could probably nail one with a rifled cannon, having elephants and their handers/additional soldiers marching across the US from West to East in an entirely foreign environment would probably dampen any chance of it happening.
The Republican Elephant?!
@@richyhu2042 they would be a hell of a mascot though
elephants stopped being useful in warfare when gunpowder was introduced as elephants would get scared easily, go mad and run over whoever was in their way
That'd be epic, in Northern Virginia, the Confederate army flees from elephant attacks
"...even Austria."
Don't get smug, Austria. The only reason you're still in their club is because your parents put in a pool.
I died when I saw that face XD
@@russelljackson2818: I actually laughed out loud at that moment!
@@spk1121 When was this in the video?
@@JasonH2105 0:23
@@HelloWorld-dx1wi Thank you.
The huge bumper crops of cotton in the early 1860's cannot be underestimated. That fact alone kept the textile mills in GB going with no drop in production.
You never hear of the Lancashire cotton famine?
I often wondered about this topic without doing any research. Thank you for this little vid.
*Fun fact* : One of the reasons why the prussians won the franco-prussian war is because they sent observers to the American civil war and learned that there are two technologies that can change the tide of the war : trains and telegraphs. Armed with this knowledge, General Moltke mobilized its troops using these technologies. as a result, not only did the prussian troops moved faster to meet the french at their borders, he also managed to get many more men than the french did. this was one of the early examples of mechanized infantry deployment in history
It's always fascinating to think of things that seem obvious now (use trains to mobilize more efficiently!) always had to be learned in earnest at some point.
True but the Prussians already had their railroads built. And they were already abreast of the new telegraph technology.
Small nitpick: Mechanized infantry would mean riding into the battle itself on an armored train, as mechanized infantry uses armored vehicles to deploy into battle (IFVs for example). Using trains to deploy infantry is simply a form of logistics.
I find it interesting that communications such as the telegraphs was one of the main key on beating the Franks. Which in later decades, efficient radio communications was used by Nazi Germany to beat the French
I don't think would take them going to the US to decide that trains would help the war effort.There were trains all over Europe, before the USA developed them
USA has civil war:
France: Austria! Mexico's open!
Mexico: haha we won a battle! Let's make it a our national day!
Oh shit they're back...
;à
think about if shit got real and Austria+ France would have joined the war that would have ment a way earlier world war 2 with britain joining also south, maybe even prussia against ottoman + russia
France and Austria: Looks like Mexicos back on the menu!
@@hyperm8 it’s NOT our national day. America has advertised 5 de Mayo as México’s national day for some reason, but our national day is actually September 16th.
I've often wondered about this, and you've made it quite clear. I enjoy watching these brief history lessons of yours.
As someone who recently discovered your channel, I find your delivery and animation just god damned hilarious, yet I'm still learning.
I feel like it's if xkcd was British did history instead.
Fun Fact: Spain didn´t react because they were fighting a war in the caribbean against the dominicans.
They lost that war though.
Like the French, the Spanish used the Civil War as an opportunity to flout the Monroe Doctrine, by taking over the Dominican Republic. And like the French, once the Civil War was coming to a close and the U.S. could turn its attention to foreign affairs, the Spanish decided that they didn't want to risk war with the U.S., and left.
Fun Fact: No
@@angusyang5917 America (some years after the war): "Nice property you got there Spain."
Spain also was kind of a joke superpower at that point.
USA: *Splits in two, and start killing each other*
Europe: "I smell money..."
Aka the other way around with the USA and Europe with WW2.
@@WhiteRhino27200we the tanks were morally right on both
@@WhiteRhino27200 Europe:(starts fighting each other)
USA: I smell money
Europe: did you just hold a grudge?!
Eur🔯pe
WW2 happened: Ah I smell money from miles away!
*Instantly become the global superpower while inventing atomic bombs at the same time.*
i just thought i would say i love these videos i learn so much. and the animations keep me engaged and they stick in my head.
"The reaction was of initial surprise and then of how can it benefit me?"
*Literally every war ever*
France’s and Austria’s reaction to the war:
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
As for the Trent affair I would say
“You were right about one thing master, the negotiations were short”
Britain seeing how much more profitable the Trent affair could be compared to the xyz affair: **Now this is Podracing**
From the Ottoman perspective, "this is where the fun begins".
"A Nation has no friends. Only interests." Charles de Gaulle.
It's actually Lord Palmerston that said that. Everyone else like de Gaulle or Kissinger was just referencing Palmerston's quip.
except Serbia and Russia i guess
- Gandhi
"If we put a sentence in quotation marks and put a name next to it then it will seem like we're smart" - Sun Tzu
Yeah except that the interests of the currently incumbent asshole hardly ever align with those of the majority of the country's population.
@Stephen Jenkins Well that isn't really true. The Tito-Stalin split during the Cold war was rather a personal split. As soon as Stalin died, relations became rather friendly again. Also it should be noted that neither Tito was a Serb, nor Stalin a Russian and that neither the Serbs in Yugoslavia, nor Russians in Soviet Union were the leading nations at the time of the split and that in fact many tens of thousands of pro-Soviet Serbs were killed in Yugoslavia, as well as many, MANY hundreds of thousands of pro-Yugoslav Russians (and other people in USSR and Eastern Bloc) were killed.
As for the 90's, it's somewhat true that Yeltsin and his apparatchiks sold usout, but then again Yeltsin was an American man. Although Russia in 90's was basically a US puppet, it's today widely thought that it is indeed the bombing of Serbia in '99 that again strained relations between Russia and the West, which led to the fall of Yeltsin and rise of Putin, who became prime minister just two months after the bombing ended. And with Putin.....well yeah, we Serbs have a pretty good relations.
And yes, there were some other times when Serbo-Russian relations were strained, like in 1880's and between WW1 and WW2, but the truth is that......well, without fearsome Russian efforts Serbia and perhaps even we Serbs ourselves wouldn't even exist today! I mean we fought so many wars for each other. I mean there has even been a time when Serbs from Montenegro declared war on Japan during 1905 Russo-Japanese war and actually fought besides Russians! The relations between our countries have been so much interlinked that if we were allies and friends neither the histories of Russia and Serbia nor the history of the entire world would be the same today!
The ending is basically the answer to every 'what was [insert country] reaction to [insert war] question'
Great content as always!
I had an amazing friendship with Tsar Alexander II, indeed...good times.
And Karl Marx
@@OtherM112594 that's a myth
WAIT I REMMEBER THIS ACCOUNT being lincoln
Didn't know the owner of the Wayne enterprises personally knew the fucking tsar lmao
I just noticed that you and the batman have very similar chins, Mr Wayne... Interesting
"Not even Austria"
-Ouch, that's embarrassing. XD
For americans and austrians ;)
@@Ajunta Yeah alot of European Nations at the time heavily underestimated how powerful America actually was, but we weren't as Technologiclly advanced and not as well trained, so you could say we weren't a great power at the time but we are today.
@@locomotivesteam9334 so that wasn't an underestimation? The video literally said that European people sent over were pretty let down on because of how behind USA was.
@@kv4648 Usa wasn't far behind Europe, they just didn't see Usa as a major player before they even knew about the Us technology.
@@locomotivesteam9334 The Americans only really led the industrial and scientific revolution from mid-late 1870's, which is way after the Civil War.
Absolutely love the new thumbnails lmao
Love the pithy, succinct commentary with such a brilliant sense of humor! 😂
The US has a civil war*
France: *Hippity hoppity Mexico is now my property*
Except that the French failed big time
@@ernestogastelum9123 This was never an extremely serious buisness to France I think they simply no wanted it to become one. The french expedition was of 60 000 men compared to 160 000 in Algeria and 1 600 000 during the war of 1870. It suffered no major defeat during the expedition. Not a bright decade for french army thow...
@@ernestogastelum9123 They actually didn't fail. what really happened was thusly: They beat the ever loving crap out of the Mexican army, and it actually (they way I understand it) had different factions with in it. Many of whom could not agree as they all wanted to come in power IF they could usurp from Maximilian. Problem was. The Mexicans were wholly, on the wrong end of the fighting. BUT - with Lincoln dead, the civil war ended and all that nonsense - President Johnson was feeling the pressure to reunite the country - and one of his ideas was to basically invade mexico and kick restore it to the Mexicans (on paper anyways) as a way of "bringing the band back together".
He was hoping such a conflict would help unify the country again.
France heard about this, realized they were probably serious, and noped right the hell on out of there. Same with Austria.
That left max alone BUT he and his armies would probably have been fine, IF some of his officers had not gotten scared and betrayed the new empire. Their whole intent was to give the mexican generals what they want, in exchange for Max's safety. However... the Mexican army generals - lied - (GASP!)
They killed Maximillian and just about every senior officer and official that worked for him. And unfortunately.. as hindsight is 20/20 - the citizens of Mexico would probably have been much better off under the empire than the warlord- I mean 'elected' officials that took over later. (I say that last part while comparing the education and other reforms Emperor Max had instituted during his short reign, compared to the absolutely bass-ackwards approach many of the future Mexican politicians lead the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries)
As soon as the US Civil War ended, the US backed Mexican rebels to kick out France
@@chaosXP3RT The only victory they ever achieved against the French was Puebla at the very start of the war. What happened when the US Civil War ended is that the US politically pressured the French into leaving and the Rebels then defeated the now unsupported Mexican Imperial army.
The “not even Austria” sounded so salty, i love it
it true though
I mean the Austria of back then was a much more powerful state when compared to today.
@@RedAequus yeah, but even back then Austria was already a joke compared to the other Great Powers
@@mithea6946 And then there was Italy, who was a joke compared to Austria
@@jevinliu4658 it didnt even have Rome yet. Pathetic
Thats great stuff! I love your shorts. Happy people on daisy fields - had a nice giggle.
I love visual jokes, and that "all in all" is the best one I've seen in a long time!
I read this as, "How the world is reacting the the American Civil War," and thought, oh shit, it's started.
soon: "How the world is reacting to the new Independant States of Greatest Britain and Statey McStateface"
@@bobmcbob49 sooner:"How is the CCP *censored*?"
@@bobmcbob49 Oldest Britain is the Greatest Britain.
@@adamlee2550 nope, they didn't claim the name so they don't get to be Greatest Britain.
Greatest Britain is now about 10 square miles in backwoods Vermont
To many McDonald's for something like that to actually happen...
TLDR: Everyone disliked the CSA.
Surprise, people were against the ones dedicated to continuing slavery
Whats everyone got against the Canadian Standards Association?
I mean, when choosing between one hundred dollars or two hundred, most will choose the latter
@Luís Andrade Yes, like America could even hope to compete with any European power at the time in terms of military.
Europe had abolished slavery so supporting a country that allows slavery would be hypocritical
The subtleness of your humor never ceases to amaze me, the All in All (literally) HILARIOUS! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
One other thing to keep in mind, somewhere between 1/4 - 1/3 of Britain's food crops were imported from the Union, meaning siding with the CSA would have meant potentially starving.
It doesn’t mean starving, it would mean they would have to import from elsewhere at greater cost.
"It will be over by Christmas" - Lincoln lmao I love these hidden jokes
Where?
@@grahamturner2640 I didn't see it either :/
@@grahamturner2640 5 seconds in on the Newspaper
@@tristankreller5830 5 seconds in on the Newspaper
@@grahamturner2640 0:05 on the newspaper
So except for the Americans everyone else was just like, meh might intervene or maybe not
Britain were the only country that came even close to joining
It just seemed like it would turn into a whole _thing._
@@styxscorpion4541 France also wanted to join in but they weren’t if the British wasn’t
@@bradleywilliams3121 yeah but Britain came the closest of any country but how close they came was not very much they thought it would be over fast and thought the confederancy would win at first so they didn't even come that close
There were diplomatic talks between the confederacy and Britain, but that's it.
Everyone's reaction was "how could this benefit me?
That sounds like me playing PDX games
Fairly apt way of describing it. "Surprise, followed by self interest."
off topic but I just love how the animation style has stayed the same but the quality has improved quite a bit! It's really nice
And the topics got a lot better as well
I love the "reactions of countries"
"How can this benefit me?"
The new slogan of planet Earth.
@Crow Jackson
indeed
Since literally the dawn of time.
Not exactly a NEW slogan
If I don't look out for my own benefit, who else will do it?
New? That’s been the slogan of humanity ever since Moonwatcher discovered how to murder warthogs!
"Amateurs"-Chinese Ambassador on the news paper got me laughing
You got a new subscriber! Love your videos
Fun fact: After the war, some confederates immigrated to Brazil, mainly because slavery was still legal here.
They founded a city here in the state of São Paulo, the city name is Americana and they still hold confederate festivals to this day in this city.
Well, that sounds... peculiar. Does anybody in Brazil have any objections to that tradition? Or is it kinda like the "Argentina is Nazi land" joke?
That's actually pretty interesting man! Just one of those hidden sections of history not well known of! I was shocked to learn of the Welsh in Argentina. Remember hearing a story about the Falklands when some Welsh Guards were taking some Argentinian POW's back to the mainland and then discovered some of the conscripts were of Welsh decent.
..... To be honest though it was probably just a Welsh Lads excuse to have a scrape with the English so..
@@theultimategamer8537 99% of people doesn't know and the 1% left (like me) don't care
Actually it's not something offensive, they dress up in confederate clothing and listen to american music and stuff, it's not something praising slavery or anything.
It's pretty harmless.
@@JackRabbit002 Yeah, south america is very big and diverse, another example could be the fact that Japanese migration was huge here in Brazil and in Peru.
Peru even had a famous president back in the 90s of japanese descent, Fujimori.
@@canisjay Oh that's cool I was aware of Brazil and Japanese emigration to the West Coast of the United States back in the mid 1800's wasn't aware of Peru though! See that's information that would go unnoticed me growing up in the U.K like
Prussia after seeing how the Union fought: "my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
Prussian Observer of the American Civil War: "This Civil War is barbaric and outdated. They have nothing like our Dreyse Needle Gun."
Americans: "Hey, have you heard of the Spencer carbine? Perhaps the 3-Inch Ordinance Rifle?"
@@chaosXP3RT
It wasn't the quality of the weapons that appalled European observers, it was the outdated tactics on display. The American Civil War was fought with Napoleonic tactics with troops armed with rifles that were accurate at 200 yards being marched within 50 yards of one another. Both sides attempted to use cavalry on the battlefield like it was Austerlitz... Swiftly abandoned when they saw their cavalrymen annihilated by rifle volleys. It was a bloodbath and the natural result of two massive armies being recruited and given a few weeks training at best and led mostly by men whose knowledge of war came from tapestries depicting the Revolution.
@@DomWeasel It's important to note that the American military was still relatively new at the time. It's hardly a fair comparison.
@@justinb864
Nearly a hundred years old at that point and that doesn't count all the generations of Americans who had served in Britain's colonial forces since the colonies were first settled, like George Washington.
The problem was that the US Navy and marines received a lot of funding and experienced plenty of action.
Meanwhile, besides the Mexican-American War, the US Army's combat experience was pretty much just genocide after genocide against the native peoples who rarely possessed firearms. It's hard to develop a competent military when your favourite enemy are people who can barely fight back and you outnumber massively.
That was why Lincoln was terrified of the South gaining British or French recognition because even a small force of European regulars would have made mincemeat out of his hastily conscripted army. That was why he put out the Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam because by making the war firmly about abolishing slavery, two anti-slavery empires weren't going to join the slavers.
Funny how the imperial powers ended slavery peacefully and the republic had to have a civil war to decide the issue. Doesn't make sense on paper.
@@DomWeasel you are so lost its unbelievable
Great stuff as always.
I love how you talked about how this war interacted with other countrys its not somthing I've seen often
"How can this benefit me?"
Damn I can't believe you managed to fit all of human history into one sentence.
Why else would someone do something?
Oh fuck i've been humaning wrong
Actually Europe did pay attention militarily. This was the first time railroads were used to a large extent to move troops and supplies. The Prussians learned from this and used railroads to a large extent in the Franco-Prussian war. The Monitor-Merrimack battle was very worrying to Europe because it showed that wooden-hulled ships were now obsolete and all nations had to rebuild their navies.
And the Union had an extensive telegraph network. I think the Europeans felt it was a small-scale conflict and not a big deal, their wars were much larger scale.
@@hardassteel Its funny that basically europe gets to decide that itself is important and no one else matters.
Nah... the video has things more or less right. There's a common myth in US culture that the US Civil war was on the cutting edge of tactics/equipment. When in actuality it was pretty backwards compared to what was going on in Europe at the time.
@@Sphere723 No. It was mainly the large scale battles they Europeans had, not necessarily the technology.
@@hardassteel There's a lot of myths in American culture surrounding this topic.
The Monitor-Merrimack battle of 1862 is a perfect example. Many Americans are taught that it was a revolution in naval history and design. But the French had built the Gloire in 1859 and the British the Warrior in 1860. Both of which were far superior, large ocean going ironclads. The American coastal ironclads were poor imitations of what was being done in Europe.
The same sort of thing for the land war. In the Second Schleswig War which occurred at the exact same time, the Prussian army was uniformly outfitted with the breach loading, bolt action, (early) cartridge firing, Dreyse needle gun which is the lineage of rifle which would dominate the next 100 years of infantry warfare. The percussion cap muzzle-loaders ubiquitous in the US Civil War were behind the times.
These are just two examples, but overall this theme holds true. The US Civil War was fought in an old-fashioned way with old-fashioned weapons. The cutting edge of military development was very much in Europe, not North America.
Lots of info I didn’t know. Thanks!
It's amazing that in 100 years the USA went from a backwater that European powers stopped caring about, to the biggest industrial and military power the world had ever seen.
Probably because Europe got destroyed in multiple successive devastating wars with one another while the US was kinda chilling
A great book you might want to look into is "The MIlitary Legacy of the Civil War" by Jay Luvaas. It explores this topic using first sources from Europe. While the overall historic impression is that the European powers thought the American armies were "meh," there were a lot of European observers embedded in the American armies and they sent back a lot of technical reviews, including that the Americans were getting discipline out of conscripts that the Europeans would only expect from professional troops. America light cavalry tactics were also a source of debate among the Europeans... and while they didn't necessarily buy into them at the time, they were the norm around the world by the time of the 1st World War.
In general, the war forced the Union Army to adapt much faster than most European ones, which due to the Congress of Vienna, didn’t really have to worry about wars with the same level of risk; as such, European armies fell behind, sticking with tactics that the Union had already abandoned half way through conflict all the way until WWI; they still marched men in lines and conducted volley fire and and bayonet charges, while those were abandoned by the union in favor of squad based tactics and trench warfare
@@eazy8579 It wasn't just the Union - Grant's reputation as a "butcher" was heavily built on the impression that he was responsible for repeated and ineffective "over-the-top" assaults on Confederate trenches that were manned by far inferior late-war Confederate units, but that still managed to maul the Union assault waves. Grant was much more effective in maneuver.
Cavalry tactics were a point of contention amongst the Europeans regarding their use in North America. There are two schools of thought:
1) The Americans don’t have the guts or brains for real cavalry warfare because they don’t use their cavalry to complete their victories and ride down their retreating enemies. This was how cavalry in Europe was always used, as a nail in the coffin measure at the climax of a battle. The US cavalry never got used like this for various reasons, mostly, they either got viciously mauled in the opening stages of major battles and were ineffective at the close of the battle or the battles ended at nightfall and no one can maneuver cavalry at night and come morning the defeated enemy, while retreating, was still more than able to chew up an attempted unsupported cavalry pursuit. Part of this was also just how resilient the USA and CSA corps systems were and how tough their men were in general. The days of sweeping a fleeing enemy from the field were ended, the American Civil War proved it.
2) The American continent is not viable for European style cavalry. America was a much less developed and far more wooded arena, which makes mass cavalry forces a waste of resources. Therefore, mounted infantry (which is really what American cavalry became), was the order of the day just due to necessity of keeping to predictable lines of movement so that they could maneuver to and hold vital strategic points that their infantry and artillery could arrive at and then take over the battle.
"Americans" are all people who live on the American Continent, not just in the united states
@@revolucion-socialista So? Given the context, it's obvious that they're talking about the armed forces of the USA and CSA, not all armed forces in North and South America.
US: "Civil War begins"
France eyeing Mexico: It's free real estate.
yup
Valió madres
And then the Union won and pressured the French into leaving. Somehow, Mexicans are still convinced to this day that they're the ones who defeated the French (rather than the United States pressure) even though the only battle they won was in 1862 and the French withdrew in 1866.
@@LeHappiste The US only gave weapons and food, the mexicans were the ones that fought the french and prevent them to reach the south of your country, they never involved in any battle of our war
@@danethancoronaperez8216 My point is that the French weren't defeated on the battlefield. They withdrew undefeated because the US threatened to enter the war against them.
The “all in All” graphic was sublime! 😂
I LOVED the "King Cotton" graphic!......Hilarious!
Fun little anecdote about Mexico and the Confederacy:
At one point during the Civil War, the Confederacy sended a diplomat to Mexico, where the diplomat meet Mexico's president, Benito Juarez. When they met, the diplomat demanded Mexico to allow Confederate troops to enter Mexico and that if Mexico refused, that the Confederacy would send "100,000 ambassadors to negotiate". Now, its pretty obvious that Mexico's president was pretty insulted by the demand, so he sended the diplomat to jail to "cool off" and so that he may had time to think about "how to properly conduct a diplomatic mission". So there is that. There is also a version of the story where i heard the diplomat got arrested for getting drunk and starting a brawl in a mexican bar. So there is that as well.
Both were probrably right. No sober person would threat a president to invade his country with "100,000 ambassador to negotiate", to me it sounds more like what a drunken man would say.
The confederacy had plans to expand American territory over Mexico and the Caribbean islands, if they won, so I'm not surprised that Mexico wasn't completely stupid about the affair.
Benito Juarez was liberal and anti-slavery, so I doubt he'd have wanted to help the Confederacy in any way.
@@boazjamesmiller6387 who said he would? No, the CSA had wanted Mexican support, in the short term, after which they would have turned against Mexico. Benito was no fool.
Nobody liked the CSA! Benito Juarez was friends with Lincoln, he was a liberal, the first presiden of indigenous american origin, and an antislaver like most of the civilized world. If it wasn't for the French invasion he'd have supported the north.
Actually the South did have one overseas ally. Victoria was a (nominal) British colony in southern Australia with full self government. The only thing the British had partial control of was foreign policy, but everything else was controlled by the Victorian government, even defence. At the time Victoria was probably the richest place in the world due to huge gold deposits and a booming economy. When the commerce raider CSS Shenandoah needed a refit, it sailed into Melbourne and berthed at a government owned dock. They were allowed to conduct public tours of the ship, which raised a lot of money for the Confederate war effort. Officers were invited to balls all over the city while the crew were treated to a country vacation on the government owned railways.
When the refit and resupply was over, CSS Shenandoah sailed out to sea and once they were in international waters, a number of "stowaways" emerged and volunteered as crew. The Victorian government almost certainly knew about this, but allowing the confederates to openly recruit in Melbourne was a bit too blatant, even for them. Anyway the ship sunk dozens more northern ships in the months that followed and was the last Confederate unit to surrender. After the war, the Union sued the British government for compensation for all the ships the Shenandoah sank after it was refitted in Melbourne. The Brits pointed out that they had no control over Victoria as it was self governing. However the international court ruled against the British and forced them to pay money to the USA. Britain sent the bill to Victoria, although they never quite got around to paying it.
As a Victorian I never knew about this
@@skazka3789 It's a great story, but as the Confederates are rightfully seen as the "bad guys" in the American Civil War, Australians play down the involvement of their biggest city at the time in helping the Shenandoah. I suspect if it was a USS ship, the story would be widely celebrated.
Leave it to racist-ass Australia to support the Confederates lmao
@@nuraby_9228 I don't need to say that the American Civil War was about dozens of things and racism/slavery wasn't the biggest issue until the last year of the war. But by branding an entire nation with a negative term, doesn't that make you racist yourself?
What is your source? I am from Melbourne so very interested in this.
"How can this benefit me?" Was, is, and always will be the question for every country's relationship with others.
Superb....high quality information....😀
ArmchairHistor: Who u?
History Matter: I'm you but less more generalized
*I'm you but I also make videos on other than Germany in WW2
@@la34632 I've never heard a more accurate description of this channel
@Luís Andrade i enjoy both so.....whats your deal
@Luís Andrade i dont care what you think
i think both are talented historians
fail
Mexico after the Civil War begins: I'm Free!
France: More like... under new management!
Mexico can't catch a break
@@MPHJackson7 indeed
Spain and Portugal: E
We got three invasions during the XIX century, two by the french and there were invasion threts from Spain and Britain that blocked the sail port of Veracruz for months.
Mexico: yay France left I'm free!
Mexico: I don't think so
also Mexico: hold up
That excellent summary "how can this benefit me" could be applied to so many wars throughout history.
An interesting video. Thank you.
'Amateurs' - Chinese Ambassador. 0:04
lmfao
The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom frowns upon your shenanigans
@Warlightor 1, 4 year civil war VS idk how many civil wars over 1000s of years.
*America has a civil war*
Ottoman Empire: Time to bring me my money
America is a continent, not a country
Can't wait for part 2.
Sounds like a pretty standard response to any historical event. Everyone wants one event to be special in history but history just marches on, and people keep being people.