Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alternative Austro-Prussian War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alternative Austro-Prussian War

    While it may be said that the opening phases of the Austro-Prussian War went exceedingly well for the Prussians, a major mistake by Von Moltke cost them their king, a major battle, & the war. By July 3rd, 1866, the Austrians had pulled back to Koniggratz after a week of being pushed back tactically & strategically by the Prussians. Ludwig Von Benedek pulled back to the Austrian fortress, but decided to deploy his army in front of the Elbe River rather than behind it. With 240,000 men, Benedek decided to lay a trap for the advancing Prussians. Their 1st (85,000 men) & 3rd (35,000 men) Armies were coming down from the NorthWest, but were almost a day’s march ahead of 2nd Army (110,000 men) coming down from the NorthEast. Von Moltke hoped to catch Benedek’s Austrians in a vice, but Benedek held the central position & could concentrate all his forces against one force & then turn on the other.

    The pursing Prussians, who could not see Benedek’s dispositions in the rain & mist, immediately set off after what they believed was a rearguard while the main army retreated across the Elbe. While the Austrian infantry had been punished in their earlier encounters with the Prussians because they were still using rifle muskets against the Prussian Needle rifles, Benedek knew he could bring his superior artillery to bear & tip the scales. Indeed, at 7:45 am, King Wilhelm arrived at the heights of Dub with Moltke & Bismarck to watch the battle unfold. Shortly after, Austrian guns bracketed the position. Prussian luck, which had been so good up to this point in the campaign, failed. Bismarck was killed instantly & the King mortally wounded. The Prussian 1st army, which had begun the advance across the Bystrice River, was shielded from this news. Austrian shells continued to plunge into their ranks & Prince Friedrich Karl, eager for glory, pushed his divisions into the teeth of the Austrian position. Prussian attempts to push artillery up in support were smothered by battery fire from the Austrians. Despite their superiority in artillery, the Austrian troops were slowly being forced back by the Needle rifles of the Prussians. Yet rifles could not stop artillery. Having occupied the key positions of Hradek, Svib Forest, & Masloved, the Austrians proceeded to shoot the poor Prussians to pieces. The Saxons on the left flank held up the Prussian 15th & 16th Divisions while the Austrian III & IV Corps flung back Fransecky’s 7th Division. The supporting 8th & 4th Prussian Divisions were also mauled by the Austrian batteries. By 11am, the Prussian 1st & 3rd Armies were in deep trouble & as they pulled back, Benedek released his cavalry & infantry on the Prussians. While taking tremendous casualties from Needle rifle fire, the Austrians managed to break the Prussians & capture Prince Friedrich Karl & Moltke. With his scouts seeing the advanced elements of 2nd army coming down towards them, Benedek wheeled his army around & prepared to face the Prussians. While bloodied, the Austrians clearly still held the numbers advantage & proceeded to transfer their artillery over to face Crown Prince Fredrick. By 2:30pm, the Prussian 2nd Army began its assaults, but was quickly stymied. A courier from the remnants of 1st & 3rd Armies arrived to inform the Crown Prince he was the King. Fredrick immediately called for a cease-fire.

    In the coming weeks, Prussia’s defeat at Koniggratz would heavily influence events. Austria would walk away the winner, after having beaten Italy to the South & Prussia to the North. All of Bismarck’s plans for bringing together a German unification through Prussia were gone. Fredrick, who had been kept out of key positions by Bismarck because of his Progressive views, changed Prussia from a militaristic state to something much less so. His time spent with Queen Victoria ensured a state that stayed closely tied with England. The liberalism that Prussia went through kept it from becoming involved in the petty European conflicts that arose sometime later.

    Some speculate as to what may have happened had Prussia won & the King & Bismarck had lived. A successful Prussia may have come to grips with France a few years down the road, & if they had won, it may have led to German unification. A unified Germany could have brought Europe to a bloody World War by the beginning of the 20th Century. Who knows what other wars that could have led to……
    The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

  • #2
    Hmmmm, a power vacuum in Central Europe and a Bonapartist France looking to expand its influence. Not a recipe for stability imho. Italy would probably remain divided with the industrialised north prospering whilst the agricultural south rots. A resurgent Habsburg empire would probably not mutate into the 'Dual Monarchy', at least not for a decade or two, leading to increased nationalist unrest amongst the Magyars, Serbs, Czechs, Poles etc. etc. As the Ottoman possessions in the Balkans shrink there would inevitably be clashes between the Habsburg and Romanov empires as each sought to dominate the region (something Bismarck's clever diplomacy managed to avoid, at least in terms of open conflict). In my opinion a Prussian defeat at Sadowa would lead to increased conflict and greater instability on the Continent than occurred historically between then and The Great War. That release of tension in a series of small wars might well be enough to avoid a continent wide war though.
    Signing out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ugh, Bonaparte III as the top man in Europe?

      Makes the way things turned out seem like a Happy Ending indeed!
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • #4
        I can speak on ITaly for sure.
        having been defeaed on land at Custoza (moderate defeat, turned into political panic) and on the sea at Lissa (major defeat).

        Italy would have sued for peace ignominously. Italy was already united and there is no way it would "dis-unite" as Britain (and to lesser, if more visible, extent) was the main sponsor of Italy would strongly support a strong Italy... most probably Italy would have to confirm it's lack of prentense on A-H territory "in" Italy (Sud-Tyrol, Veneto and the Istrian-Dalmatian italian-speaking areas).

        most probabbly Italy would be big time shy of any confrontation to Austria for a LONG while and not fall into the illusion of strenght as it did in the 1880's-1910's.

        most probably Italy would focus its resources on internal development - perhaps really getting it's act together in the south where the north prevented the development - or even de-industrialized in some cases. perhaps Italy woudl focus on its quite poorly engaged colonial ventures in the horn of africa and get them organised better.

        Vento and Sud-Tyrol people would be relieed to knwo they will remain with A-H and not with the corrupted and disorganized Italian monarchy!

        as often in history, it's the bad guys who win. alternate history can make that better.
        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
          Ugh, Bonaparte III as the top man in Europe?

          Makes the way things turned out seem like a Happy Ending indeed!
          I guess the question is, do you think Napoleon III would be the lesser of two evils with 2 world wars breaking out after the failed Franco-Prussian war? That is at least 3 wars that are born directly out of what happens as a result of the Austro-Prussian war. He lives less than 10 years after this war, so I guess the question would have been directed at his son (who lost his life to Zulus sometime afterwards). Without the result of the Austro-Prussian war, do we get:
          Franco-Prussian War?
          World War I?
          Russian Revolution?
          World War II?
          The Cold War?
          Wars of Israel?
          Korean War?
          Vietnam War?

          If the First War doesn't occur, does the Red Revolution start in Russia? Is it successful? If not, does that affect the other "revolutions"? If China doesn't convert, does that mean that North Korea/South Korea don't? With no First World War, is there no 2nd? Does Hitler rise to power without it? With no 2nd, does the British Empire stay in power? Is Israel created? The Butterfly Effect certainly has an interesting impact on World History. I'm sure other wars would have taken their place, but would they have been as devastating & wide-spread? Something to think about anyways.
          The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

          Comment


          • #6
            ww1 is THE pivotal moment of the 20th century. it marks the end of europe and the beginning of the USA, as world's top dog until 2001.

            thus anything that avoids ww1 means the word beeing an european one. hence better (I mean 19th century style europe, not the pinko-commie 20th century one)

            and yeah Nap III was definitely not the top guy then. Briitain was THE power of the 19th century...
            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

            Comment


            • #7
              Interesting thread Hellboy. Here's some more to ponder:

              Its 4 July and the world is stunned by the decisive Austrian victory at Königgrätz. Prince Alexander Gorchakov sees an opportunity, and with the assent of Czar Alexander II, immediately cables Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust suggesting partitioning Prussia. Von Beust is understandably intrigued, and with the assent of Emperor Francis Joseph, agrees to meet with with Gorchakov on 6 July in Lemberg.

              At the hurridly assembled meeting, Gorchakov proposes that Prussia be disassembled. He offers to send a Russian army into East Prussia as quickly as it is assembled to operate in coordination with an Austrian drive from the south. Once Prussia is defeated, Gorchakov proposes that Russia absorb East Prussia with the Oder serving as a boundary. Austria would absorb the remainder of the kingdom, as well as the principalities that supported Prussia in the war. Austria would also be permitted to absorb northeastern Italy up to the line of the Adige River.

              Gorchakov wants a bit more though - his eyes are fixed on the Dardanelles. Gorchakov thus proposes that after the termination of the Prussian conflict, Austria should support a Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire to take place within four years. Rumania and Bulgaria would be absorbed into Russia, as well as European Turkey. To sweeten the pot, Gorchakov proposes that Croatia and Dalmatia be absorbed by Austria, and that Bosnia, Montenegro and Herzogovina be given to the fledgling principality of Serbia, in exchange for Serbia agreeing to follow Russian foreign policy directives.

              At the same time, Gorchakov realizes France won't be happy about a far-more-powerful Austria and that Britain might fight to keep the Russians out of the Dardanelles. To minimize the dangers, he proposes a mutual defense pact between Russia and Austria, which would also include Bavaria and Württemberg (Gorchakov knows that by including Bavaria and Württemberg as signatories, he can prevent Austria from completely unifying Germany - how clever).

              Von Beust takes this all in and is extremely impressed. He hops on the first rail car to Vienna and lays out Gorchakov's proposal to Francis Joseph. The young emperor is flumoxed. It seems to good to be true. Unfortunately, it probably is, however neither Francis Joseph nor von Beust has the stomach to say no.

              So after a few cables between Vienna, St. Petersburg, Munich and Stuttgart to hash out the details, Francis Joseph, Alexander II, King Ludwig II of Bavaria and King Charles I of Württemberg meet in Warsaw on 15 July and sign the Warsaw Pact of 1866. The agreement with respect to the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans is included in a secret codicil and isn't made known to the world.

              By 1867, Prussia is destroyed and partitioned. Northern Italy has been absorbed into Austria. Although Napoleon III considers intervening on behalf of the Italians, the threat of Russian intervention and the recent disaster in Mexico are enough to prevent this from occurring.

              Then, on 19 July 1870, two huge armies, one Austrian and one Russian invade the Balkans, while another Russian army attacks Anatolia. The Ottomans immediately realize they are doomed without foreign assistance and call on Britain and France. Britain sees a grave danger to its Empire if Russia can become a power in the eastern Med and immediately agrees. Napoleon too joins the cause to diminish Austria's power in Central Europe and in hopes of absorbing all territories west of the Rhine.

              The war proceeds well for the Warsaw Pact at first, as the Balkans fall to the advancing armies. However, the Ottomans are stiffened by an Anglo-French Expeditionary Corps, and the Warsaw Pact is defeated near Istanbul by a flanking attack by British and French forces based on the Gallipoli penisula. Meanwhile, a powerful French army has advanced on the Rhine against marginal resistance from Austrian, Bavarian and Württemberger forces. Russia is forced to despatch troops to shore up the front from collapse.

              Seeking to forestall a disasterous long war, in July 1871, the Warsaw Pact makes an offer to the United States - if the US would attack Canada and British possessions in the Caribbean, the US would also be awarded British possessions in the Pacific at the conclusion of the war (in addition to Canada and the Caribbean islands). President Grant is initally vehemently opposed. However, Grant always had a hard time saying no to friends, and powerful friends were pressing for the alliance. For just prior to making the offer, Warsaw Pact agents had bribed Secretary of War William Belknap, Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano and Grant's private Secretary Orville Babcock, to push for war. Grant allows himself to be convinced that such a war might help heal the wounds between the North and the South and goes along. Appealing to manifest destiny Grant and his cronies are able to convince Congress to go along.

              The British are forced to send help to Canada. However, before enough men can be sent to make a decisive impact, three US armies, quickly raised and consisting of battle hardened veterans of the ACW (one army is led by General Sherman, the second by Winfield Scott Hancock and the third by recently reactivated, and long-time friend of the president, General Longstreet), overpower the Canadians in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The Canadians, supported by a newly arrived British Expeditionary Force, manage to hold the line, if very tenuously at first, in New Foundland.

              Meanwhile, an American invasion of Jamaica under the command General Sheridan is thwarted when a powerful British fleet defeats the American Fleet off the small Cuban town of Guantanamo. Rather than being destroyed, the American invasion force escapes to Cuba, where the Spanish authorities detain the army in Guantanamo for the duration.

              After this initial flurry of action, the war settles down into a period of trench warfare. The French are unable to pierce Warsaw Pact defensives just short of the Rhine. Although the Balkans are in the hands of the Warsaw Pact, the Russians and Austrians remain stymied outside of Constantinople. The British are focused on protecting the Dardanelles, preserving its bases in the Caribbean, holding New Foundland in anticipation of a future offensive, although a small force is sent to support the French near the Rhine.

              The deadlock finally gives way in 1872 due to a "revolution." Thanks to investigative reporting by Joseph Pulitzer's newspaper, a huge scandal breaks out over the bribing of Grant's advisors. Grant is immediately impeached, and resigns before he can be tried in the Senate. However, the new president, Schuyler Colfax (who may also have been tied to the Belknap-Delano-Babcock Ring) announces the US will remain in the war, and orders Sherman to initiate a new offensive in New Foundland. The Colfax Offensive bogs down immediately, owing as much to a lack of morale as the stout BEF defenses. Longstreet and Hancock have had enough, march on Washington, and overthrow Colfax. Longstreet and Hancock then announce they will govern by decree until a new election can be held.

              Meanwhile, Sheridan's replacement in command of the Army of the Caribbean, George Armstrong Custer, having been reinforced after the Jamaica fiasco, has his own vision for the country. He marches his army north and for the second time in a decade, the US finds itself embroiled in a civil war.

              The Warsaw Pact views these developments with alarm. They decide on one last roll of the dice to end the war before British reinforcements can arrive from North America. Attacking out of their lines just west of the Rhine, the Warsaw Pact meets initial success before it is stopped at a small town called Belleau Wood by the recently arrived British corps consisting of the Gentlemen Sons and the Light Division. At about the same time, Warsaw Pact forces again fail to take Istanbul.

              In light of these developments, Austria finds itself teetering on the brink of revolution. Francis Joseph is forced to reorganize the empire and unify with Hungary. The Hungarians demand peace driving a wedge between the Warsaw Pact powers. Meanwhile, Russia is also having its troubles. Several assassination attempts against Alexander II are foiled, but dissatisfaction over the war has placed him in further jeopardy. Thus, the Warsaw Pact decides to try and make peace.

              The British, French and Ottomans are happy to oblige. Napoleon, having barely survived the near calamity of the final Warsaw Pact offensive, is content to absorb German territories up to the Rhine. The Ottomans are happy to be still standing and agree to give up Rumania to Russia and Croatia and Dalmatia to Austria in exchange for gold and a mutual defense pact, but hold on to Montengro, Bulgaria and Bosnia Herzogovina (for the time being).

              Britain doesn't ask for anything from the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, it can't wait to disengage fully from Europe. It sees a far greater prize across the Atlantic.

              Last edited by The Ibis; 29 Apr 10, 11:29.

              Comment


              • #8
                Aside from a total lack of understanding of the US, that was somewhat entertaining.
                I think you have my country confused with Caesar's Rome.

                Germany did not take an acre of land or a shilling of reparations, why would Austria go bananas and go all out of destroy Prussia or re-take Italy? They were loosing ground because they were in decline, but re-establishing their influence in Western Germany would have thwarted reunification for generations.

                I doubt that Russia trusted Franz Josef (our ingratitude will know no bounds") or that Sweden would have remained neutral.
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                  Aside from a total lack of understanding of the US, that was somewhat entertaining.
                  I think you have my country confused with Caesar's Rome.
                  I'm glad you enjoyed it. I understand the US of the late 1860s just fine. I needed to bring the US in to make it a world war. I further needed the US to be on the side of the Warsaw Pact for the US to have a material role in the war. It wasn't easy to come up with something.

                  I did consider starting the war between the US and France earlier with a casus belli arising from a massive French intervention in Mexico to support Maximillian's tottering throne. The problem is the war would have had to occur by 1866 since Maximillian was on the ropes by February 1867 and was captured in May and executed in June. I didn't think there was any way to make it work given the date of Sadowa and the time it would have taken for the Warsaw Pact to fully conquer Prussia, and the fact that it would have taken a bit of time to reorient and attack the Ottomans.

                  I also considered writing that Grant became disabled by an old war wound and Colfax became president earlier. Instead, I played off Grant's known weakness for his friends and picked three people close to him who were later implicated in financial scandals in the OTL to act as foils. It just made for a better story to go this route. Obviously there would have been issues with Congress (Grant was already having big troubles with Charles Sumner over the DR), and I could have fleshed it out more with the Northwest Boundary dispute and issues surrounding the Alabama claims, but if I addressed them all, my little story wouldn't have been so little.

                  I would note parenthetically that while Grant often showed poor judgment when it came to his friends, there were times he showed restraint in this regard, such as when he foiled the plot to corner the gold market. But thats here nor there for my little story.

                  Germany did not take an acre of land or a shilling of reparations, why would Austria go bananas and go all out of destroy Prussia or re-take Italy? They were loosing ground because they were in decline, but re-establishing their influence in Western Germany would have thwarted reunification for generations.
                  What "Germany" are you talking about? There was no such unified political entity in 1866, and the Gorchakov deal would prevent it from ever happening. The result of the war and the deal makes Austria (once again) preeminent among the German states, but by including Bavaria and Württemberg as Warsaw Pact members, there is no "German Empire," nor "Germany" as later existed in the OTL.

                  And further, when you say Germany didn't extract an acre of land or a shilling (pfennig?) as a result of the war, remember that it was Prussia, not Germany, that was victorious in the Austro-Prussian War and it was Bismarck who counselled againt any indemnity or land grab. In this scenario, it is Austria that is victorious. Austria didn't harbor any serious ambition to establish a German Empire. As you note, they were having problems of their own. Victory in the war, combined with the Gorchakov deal and the creation of a Warsaw Pact, might help prevent further erosion.

                  Also, keep in mind that it was Austria that participated in the partition of Poland 60 years before and would seek to absorb territories in the Balkans a bit later on in th OTL. So I didn't think it outside the realm to think they might go along with a scheme like I invented.

                  As for Northern Italy, remember that Italy was on Prussia's side during the Austro-Prussian War. Taking a little piece as war prize was typical practice and wouldn't be viewed by anyone as shocking.

                  I doubt that Russia trusted Franz Josef (our ingratitude will know no bounds") or that Sweden would have remained neutral.
                  To the extent Russia didn't trust Austria (keep in mind that Austria's historical ingratitude came after this AT), this scenario (while implausible) is far more beneficial to Russia in the long term and would place Russia in a better strategic position to address any issue that might later arise.

                  Finally, you raise something I didn't consider, which is Sweden. If the Swedes decided to stick there noses in, I don't think they would last long. Sweden of 1866 wasn't Sweden of 1666. And in any case, Finland was part of the Russian Empire and would have served as a base for an invasion. If the Swedes jumped in during the Austro-Prussian War after the formation of the Warsaw Pact, I dont' suspect they would have received international support. If, on the other hand, they joined Britain and France in resisting the Warsaw Pact, perhaps another expeditionary force could have been sent north. However, Britain and France are committed in Turkey, and depending on the timing, Britain would also be committed in Canada. There are only so many expeditionary forces that can be deployed. In any event, it certainly complicates things further.

                  Last edited by The Ibis; 29 Apr 10, 01:20.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    but one thing makes all this impossible ...

                    Von Moltke CANNOT do a mistake!
                    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
                      but one thing makes all this impossible ...

                      Von Moltke CANNOT do a mistake!
                      So if he was a king, would von Motlke be known as Helmuth the Infallible?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
                        So if he was a king, would von Motlke be known as Helmuth the Infallible?
                        Perhaps he would have made Pope?
                        Signing out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
                          I can speak on ITaly for sure.
                          having been defeaed on land at Custoza (moderate defeat, turned into political panic) and on the sea at Lissa (major defeat).

                          Italy would have sued for peace ignominously. Italy was already united and there is no way it would "dis-unite" as Britain (and to lesser, if more visible, extent) was the main sponsor of Italy would strongly support a strong Italy...
                          Hmmmmm, the Risorgimento was still very much 'work in progress' at this time, with Rome not part of the Italian State and the old Kingdom of Naples not assimilated into 'Greater Piedmont' in any meaningful way. Not only was 'Italy' politically unstable (even more so than now!) but its population didn't regard themselves as 'Italian'. Had Rome, under French influence, remained independent then there wouldn't be much to bind the rich industrial north, ruled from Piedmont, to the poor and agricultural south. Given that neither Cavour nor Victor Emmanuel really wanted Naples, but (effectively) had it foisted upon them by the activities of Garibaldi, the possibility of a division in this timeline is strong imho.
                          Signing out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                            Hmmmmm, the Risorgimento was still very much 'work in progress' at this time, with Rome not part of the Italian State and the old Kingdom of Naples not assimilated into 'Greater Piedmont' in any meaningful way. Not only was 'Italy' politically unstable (even more so than now!) but its population didn't regard themselves as 'Italian'. Had Rome, under French influence, remained independent then there wouldn't be much to bind the rich industrial north, ruled from Piedmont, to the poor and agricultural south. Given that neither Cavour nor Victor Emmanuel really wanted Naples, but (effectively) had it foisted upon them by the activities of Garibaldi, the possibility of a division in this timeline is strong imho.
                            possible indeed. but then you would need leaders... not many around. and the army, by 1866 was large and ruthless against lightly armed guerillas and banditry... also, most bourgeois and nobles families of the south found a nice and lucrative modus operandi with the north (they kept their landlord priviledges, etc.)... so I'm not sure any leadership was availabel then.

                            Austria certainly knew that it coudl get into arrangements with the King of Italy, especially when chastised as it was after the defeats of 1866.. and it had little ambitions anymore in Italy except to keep the german-speaking Tyrol and the happy-not-to-be-part-of-Italy-less-a-few-romantic-fools-Ventians...
                            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Ibis View Post

                              What "Germany" are you talking about? There was no such unified political entity in 1866, and the Gorchakov deal would prevent it from ever happening.
                              Opps, that's right, the unification wasn't until 1871

                              Originally posted by The Ibis View Post

                              To the extent Russia didn't trust Austria (keep in mind that Austria's historical ingratitude came after this AT), this scenario (while implausible) is far more beneficial to Russia in the long term and would place Russia in a better strategic position to address any issue that might later arise.
                              No, the ingratitude came in 1853, when Austria was neutral in the Crimean war,and managed to offend nearly everyone.
                              Contrast this with Prussia's neutrality, which was managed in such a way that won it respect. This is not the only reason I think that Russia would have sided with Prussia. Remember that during the Polish insurrection of 1863, when Prussia was one of the only European powers that did not make threatening noises at Russia. In fact, Prussia sent 5 Regiments of Cavalry to the border, not to counter Russia's moves, but to boot back any Polish Partisans that tries to slip across the border.
                              Friendship with the Czar was a hallmark of Bismarck's policies.

                              Sorry if that wreaks a neat scenario, but this sort of thing opens up new possibilities.

                              .
                              Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
                              If, on the other hand, they joined Britain and France in resisting the Warsaw Pact, perhaps another expeditionary force could have been sent north. However, Britain and France are committed in Turkey, and depending on the timing, Britain would also be committed in Canada. There are only so many expeditionary forces that can be deployed. In any event, it certainly complicates things further.

                              You have no idea....
                              I wrote what was supposed to be a unexceptional book about what would have happened if France and Britain had entered the ACW on the Confederate side, and it turned into WW1 in 1863. 230,000 words barely scratched the surface of that timeline.

                              Never again!
                              "Why is the Rum gone?"

                              -Captain Jack

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X