Polonia Restituta (Poland Reborn)

I don't see, why these changes would refrain Bismarck from using the German (Re-) Unification in Prussia's favour. Frankly Prussia with the rest of 'Lesser'* Germany could defeat the Second French Empire long before the UK could manage to field an army (I'm not saying navy) that could match the Germans or French.
I'm all getting the Polish and Lithuanian nationalism, but that does not brush away the strong similar feelings in the German Lands at all.
 
I don't see, why these changes would refrain Bismarck from using the German (Re-) Unification in Prussia's favour. Frankly Prussia with the rest of 'Lesser'* Germany could defeat the Second French Empire long before the UK could manage to field an army (I'm not saying navy) that could match the Germans or French.
I'm all getting the Polish and Lithuanian nationalism, but that does not brush away the strong similar feelings in the German Lands at all.

Navy would be pretty much useless against Prussia (and clearly useless for providing help to the Poles) and one can only imagine a political impact of the French troops marching across Germany with all historic associations .. Bismark may have unification handled to him on a silver plate.

As for nationalism, in OTL military forces of the uprising were, AFAIK, under 40K spread all over Poland and Lithuania. Even putting aside their mostly inadequate training and questionable military competence of the leaders, it was facing between 150 and 200K of the better equipped and led troops (Traugutt retired from the Russian army with a rank of lieutenant-colonel and never held an independent command at wartime). Then it should not be forgotten that more than 60% (in Ukraine 75%) of the insurgents were from a landed background and the peasants in general did not see too many reasons for joining it especially when emancipation reform had been extended to Poland: under it the serfs had been getting more land than just one on which they had been working and in case of Poland there were extra grants from the confiscated lands.
 
I liked the story, needs some refinement. I do have one question: You mentioned Israel exists, that means the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed?
BTW how will Jews be treated in this independent Poland?
 
First, access to the Polish territories from the Baltic coast was possible only through the Prussian and Prussian ports. With Russia obviously not being interested, Prussia pretty much “owned” the coast relevant within context of this discussion.

Second, read carefully: comment about Bismark was made in the context of 1656 proposal. OTOH, in 1863 Bismark signed anti-Polish agreement with Russia (which he did not fully implemented).

Third, even Nappy thought that “God is on the side of the big battalions” (and was the best proof that this principle works even for a military genius) and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was on the Polish side a military genius capable of winning a war against better trained and bigger army.

Four, the British-French projects belonged to the “Palmerstonian” category (see thread about his plans regarding the CW): aka, being made without consulting the needed parties (Prussia and Austria), which were not at all interested in creation of the independent Poland. And, of course, your own statement about uprising being defeated too fast is killing your #3 argument. So you have catch 22 situation (or 1939, whichever you prefer): the help (realistic or not) could materialize only if there is a prolonged resistance and prolonged resistance is not possible without an outside help. As for the help, Austria declared a martial law in the early 1864 and approximately at that time NIII gave up on the idea.

As far as Traugutt and the land reform are involved, no miracles to be expected: he was relying on the foreign intervention and Russian Empire already was in a process of the sweeping land reform and abolition of a serfdom so he was not providing peasants with an extra stimulus. Not to mention that it takes time to make soldier out of a peasant and the time was not there (see #3).

To you your arguments could be enough but you are presumably trying to convince others.
Lithuania was in Russian hands and so it was perfectly possible to land there without Prussia involvement. Russian land reform were implemented 3 month later then in this TL. There wasn't any genius in Spain making Guerrilla, only untrained peasant. And this is the point. Land reform allow you to have peasants on your side and to resist long enought.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm explaining my reasons.
 
Lithuania was in Russian hands and so it was perfectly possible to land there without Prussia involvement.
It's slightly possible, but IIRC, at the time, communications between Russian Poland and Lithuania with the Baltic at the time were hampered by the fact that there were no proper ports in the region other than Riga, which is, IIRC, already well-garrisoned and a hurdle to capture (and even if it isn't, Russian troops will be marching straight to it to try and recapture such an important position so close to their base of power).
Russian land reform were implemented 3 month later then in this TL.
Which just means the peasants will be abandoning the rebellion three months later than IOTL, then.
There wasn't any genius in Spain making Guerrilla, only untrained peasants. And this is the point. Land reform allows you to have peasants on your side and to resist long enough.
Except Spain during the Napoleonic Wars was a much different case than Poland is here. It has direct contact with the Atlantic and Mediterranean, seas that can be properly dominated by the Royal Navy and used as lanes for shipping supplies for the resistance, not to mention that the aggressor, France, is also distracted with numerous ventures across Europe that will limit its ability to fight. Poland is pretty much landlocked, surrounded by three great powers hostile to her and willing to ally themselves to keep her from rising up again, which means only a WWI-like destabilizing scenario is enough to give Polish independence any momentum (and it's unlikely the British and French armies can hit Russia, Prussia, and keep Austria sweet all at the same time, even with the help of the United States. It's just not a fair fight.)
 
Three hostile powers of which only one actively involved, one neutral and the third bribed out.
If Russian troops are distracted, that is a boon for Polish; France, in 1863 had still to venture in Mexico, and it had a garrison obly at Rome.
Plis, there is also the motivation matter; Polish soldiers are more motivated than Russian ones, and given the Land Reform, I bet on the not defection of the peasants.
All in all, the fight is hard but not impossible.
 
Lithuania was in Russian hands and so it was perfectly possible to land there without Prussia involvement. Russian land reform were implemented 3 month later then in this TL. There wasn't any genius in Spain making Guerrilla, only untrained peasant. And this is the point. Land reform allow you to have peasants on your side and to resist long enought.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm explaining my reasons.
To land in the Russian-held ports there would be a need to take them and the Baltic coast was defended much better than the Crimea. Neither. Poland nor Lithuania were Spain so analogy is inapplicable and even with the reform the peasants were not excessively interested. So your reasons look unrelated to the realities of time and place.
 
It's slightly possible, but IIRC, at the time, communications between Russian Poland and Lithuania with the Baltic at the time were hampered by the fact that there were no proper ports in the region other than Riga, which is, IIRC, already well-garrisoned and a hurdle to capture (and even if it isn't, Russian troops will be marching straight to it to try and recapture such an important position so close to their base of power).

Which just means the peasants will be abandoning the rebellion three months later than IOTL, then.

Except Spain during the Napoleonic Wars was a much different case than Poland is here. It has direct contact with the Atlantic and Mediterranean, seas that can be properly dominated by the Royal Navy and used as lanes for shipping supplies for the resistance, not to mention that the aggressor, France, is also distracted with numerous ventures across Europe that will limit its ability to fight. Poland is pretty much landlocked, surrounded by three great powers hostile to her and willing to ally themselves to keep her from rising up again, which means only a WWI-like destabilizing scenario is enough to give Polish independence any momentum.


Well put but you are missing few more important considerations. In the case of Spain the French were brutal foreign oppressors who overthrew the legitimate regime, looted the country and tried to introduce the reforms which majority of the population did not want. In 1863 the Russians were there “forever” and while the landowners and educated classes could consider them as the oppressors (rather funny because, for example, Traugutt participated in the Russian intervention in Hungary and then fought as the Russian officer in the CW; did not make an impressive career but this is not too important) for the peasants the oppressors were these “patriots” and Russian administration was not associated with any noticeable cruelty or oppression. On the Ukrainian and Belorussian territories the Russians were actually not foreigners at all.

Then goes demographics: in Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine the landowners (oppressors) had been foreigners (Poles) and in the last two cases of a different religion as well (so in Ukraine 75% of the insurgents were landowners and in Belorussia majority of the Orthodox peasantry did not join an uprising). Which leaves mostly Russian-owned part of Poland and part of Lithuania as a potential peasant recruiting area and even with the earlier introduction of the land reform (for implementation of which the insurgent government did not have either apparatus or money) the effect would be easily countered by the Russian government which offered land without any need to fight. More than that, the peasants were interested in capturing and delivering to the authorities their rebellious owners because they’d get a confiscated land (Stefan Zeromski hardly can be accused in a shortage of Polish patriotism or Polonophobia but he described such cases in his novels). Pretty much the same goes for the general mobilization: the insurgents did not have a necessary administrative apparatus, facilities and cadres for training and weapons to conduct it. Not that they were truly controlling terrotory of Poland and Lithuania to make such a mobilization declaration more than just a piece of paper.

The next thing is that a wide spread of the uprising was to a noticeable degree self-defeating and based upon illusions. Prussian convention with Russia (including permission to use Prussian railroads to transfer the Russian troops) expanded initial scope of the uprising, which was seemingly good for the insurgents. However, when it was a small scale local uprising Austria was relatively sympathetic but when it spreaded the attitude changed to the openly hostile all the way to introduction of a martial law. The insurgents expected uprising to spread to the Russia proper (“for your and our liberty!”) but this did not happen because the Poles, in general, were not popular in Russia and because the emancipation reform was already going on.

As far as Prussia was involved, there was no interest in getting an independent Polish state (French client) as a neighbor and while Bismark was cautious, he considered France as a future opponent while Russia was a historic ally (against France). Britain on her own was not a significant factor in this equation and France had a long way to march to get troops anywhere close to Poland. Massive naval operation was not practical on the Baltic Sea: during the CW, allied operations on the Baltic did not produce any results besides taking a single unfinished isolated fort. In the case we are talking about there would be a need to land few hundred thousand French (and British) troops with all necessary supplies and equipment against strong Russian and Prussian opposition and with the major ports being well protected. Fat chance.

Now, the fantasies aside, France and Britain in 1863 had been talking about amnesty and developing some kind of an autonomy, aka, even less than Poland had before 1830, and their (and Austrian) efforts were strictly diplomatic. Britain wanted to avert the Franco-Prussian war and to prevent Austria-French alliance so little Nappy, even if he became too aggressive, which was quite unlikely, would be on his own.

In a meantime there are still less than 40K ill trained, inadequately armed and disorganized (there were no structures which would make these separated bands into a true army) insurgents against 150 - 200K of a better armed regular army. The odds 5:1 are much worse than Napoleon was facing at Leipzig (2:1) or the French at Sedan.
 
Last edited:
To land in the Russian-held ports there would be a need to take them and the Baltic coast was defended much better than the Crimea. Neither. Poland nor Lithuania were Spain so analogy is inapplicable and even with the reform the peasants were not excessively interested. So your reasons look unrelated to the realities of time and place.
They were not interested because Russia reform beat the rivolutionary governement by three month in the OTL; And Poland peasnts felt oppressed by the Russian administrator; Land reform would bring even lithuanian one on the side of insurgents; and even well defended Russian ports were ill suited to face the might of combined British and French power; meanwhile you have 40,000 motivated if ill trained and ill equipped(not so much ill organized, thought) facing better armed but poorly motivated, and not so better trained many time bigger army; And, as I said, there was a moment, after the visit of Adam Jerzi Czartoriski in London and in Paris that the intervention seemed a real possibility; so, in the light of that, I think it is in the realm of possibility, and since this is the closer possible PoD to achieve my uchronical goal, and given that, for me plausibility is not the major preoccupation, only the possible consequences, my dear Alexmilian, we have simply to agree we disagree, and I shall keep posting my timeline, you are wellcome to comment on the next developements.
 
They were not interested because Russia reform beat the rivolutionary governement by three month in the OTL; And Poland peasnts felt oppressed by the Russian administrator; Land reform would bring even lithuanian one on the side of insurgents; and even well defended Russian ports were ill suited to face the might of combined British and French power; meanwhile you have 40,000 motivated if ill trained and ill equipped(not so much ill organized, thought) facing better armed but poorly motivated, and not so better trained many time bigger army; And, as I said, there was a moment, after the visit of Adam Jerzi Czartoriski in London and in Paris that the intervention seemed a real possibility; so, in the light of that, I think it is in the realm of possibility, and since this is the closer possible PoD to achieve my uchronical goal, and given that, for me plausibility is not the major preoccupation, only the possible consequences, my dear Alexmilian, we have simply to agree we disagree, and I shall keep posting my timeline, you are wellcome to comment on the next developements.

Nobody is trying to prevent you from posting your fantasies, just don’t expect me to take them seriously or to pay too much attention in the future because, not being closely related to the Planet Earth (on which, among other things, overwhelming numeric and quality odds do matter at war) they can not be contradicted by the known facts and realities of life to which you are not paying any attention. :)
 
Last edited:
Nobody is trying to prevent you from posting your fantasies, just don’t expect me to take them seriously or to pay too much attention in the future because, not being closely related to the Planet Earth (on which, among other things, overwhelming numeric and quality odds do matter at war) they can not be contradicted by the known facts and realities of life to which you are not paying any attention. :)
If I had written "Polish beat Russians, fair and square, alone" that would have been a fantasy; since I did not, and I have clearly explained you why, this are not my fantasies, and you should refrain from calling that this way because that is just plain rude. I pay attention to reality, I said my goal is not plausibility at all cost, not that I do not care for it at all.
 
If I had written "Polish beat Russians, fair and square, alone" that would have been a fantasy; since I did not, and I have clearly explained you why, this are not my fantasies, and you should refrain from calling that this way because that is just plain rude. I pay attention to reality, I said my goal is not plausibility at all cost, not that I do not care for it at all.
Well, you did stated that the overwhelming numeric and quality odds do not matter in war and that the same goes for the Prussian and Austrian National interests. Which means that the known rules do not apply. I have no intention to offend you but how this idea of yours can be discussed in any sensible way based upon the OTL realities? You simply keep answering that any objections do not matter. Where is the interest in discussing <whatever> in such an arrangement?
 
I never said they do not matter, I have said that numbers alone do not win wars; it's a different matter; Prussian interest, as I said was taken care diplomatically on the ground that avoiding problems in the future could not warrant a war with England and France in that moment, while in HL Austrians did not endorse Russian repressions, in 1863, so I can't see why they should go to war to defend Russia. On the other side, we have Napoleon III who strive to make a name for himself, and Catholic public hopinion in France is Pro-Poles (that did matter for Nappy III, a lot) and England, who is absolutly favourable to contain Russian power. I do not say that the Poles can win alone, I say that, anticipating real decisions of six-nine months, they can resist long enought for the intervention to happen, and that the Anglo-French-Polish coalition could win; Objections do matter, but saying: no matter what, this is impossible is not helpful nor interesting; if you have ideas to make the PoD more solid, you would be very wellcome thought.
 
Top