US-UK War in the 20s or 30s.

[Iñaki]

You are correct Cal

As I say is not probable but not impossible, in fact as I say in the former post about Plan Red or Plan Gold (the contingencies against Great Britain and France) in OTL was more surely ideas of not having bored without making any plans (at least if you don´t have war make wargames and plans -I suppose a version of that time of the actual wargames of the Naval War College-) that a real probability.

But also it seems that the relations US-british are not as good as we could think as indicated in the post with the article about the little canadian incident of 1921.

So as say ironduke we have opened an ATL different who knows if the scheme of iron is possible and really we have very dangerous crisis that as say Blochead could cause a US-UK war, is not necessary in some determined point a real will to go the war, but well an incident as for example of the soccer war of 1969 and well the improbable is now probable.

Of course the most probable war would be a US-Japan war but who knows? make the scheme of iron and bloch implemented add some bad luck and stupidity for both sides (and unfortunately of bad luck and stupidity that causes war it seems that is possible have a lot sometimes) and well US-UK war could be.

as say Earling "Pride shoots up on both sides and so neither can back down, shots are fired and war is declared. Its not likely, but its probably more likely than either side voluntarilly declaring war on the other"

 

[stevep]

What would either side gain?

Wars, fortunately, do not just happen. If the UK stays out of WW I, that means no unrestricted submarine warfare & no U.S. involvement. No UK & no U.S. means Germany wins. Both countries go on as before.

UK loses & then ATTACKS the UNITED STATES? Huh? What possible reason could there be for it happening?

Every country with a military larger than Battalion size has War Plans that cover every contingency (well, except cross TL Nazis ). I would be shocked if somewhere in the U.S., Canadian, & British files there are not plans for a war with New Zealand, & New Zealand has plans to fight all three of them. Why? Keeps the General Staffs thinking if nothing else. Does that mean a war is actually planned or going to happen. NO!

Contingency plans are just that, contingencies. Figure out worse case, then make it twice as bad, plan to defeat that situation. That's why they are called Defence Plans.

Now a 1920's- 30's U.S./Japan or U.S./China... That my be workable.

The other big problem with the scenario after a German victory in WWI is that this means Germany is not only a big economic and military power but it will still have its fleet and the resources to build more. Under those circumstances you could easily see one hell of a naval race, drawing that before WWI, with Britain, Germany and the US as the contestants. Under those circumstances the only way you will get war between Britain and the US is for some reason the US attacks Britain [and/or Canada]. Otherwise British attention is on the German fleet across the North Sea threatening the home islands and nothing short of a direct attack will change that.

If you want a UK/US war after Germany wins in WWI I think the only way is if Britain and Germany are allies. That gives the naval, military and economic strength for a very tight conflict, possibly with both sides feeling threatened by the other. Still difficult to see as likely.

Otherwise a UK/Japanese war with the US really requires an allied victory in WWI and preferably with some naval conflict, including a Jutland equivalent, but much reduced British losses, human and financial. I have a scenario which has this and also the decline of the US into a popularist dictatorship and a kind of fascism in France. It still stretches things to get a war but one hell of a battle then.

Historically a US/Japanese naval war in the 1920's was not unlikely given the tension between the two. Given the imbalance within the USN at the time, far too much attention on heavy units and little on scouts and the like it was suggested to me that Japan could quite possibly win such a conflict, especially with the US Plan Orange at the time which played into Japanese hands. Suspect that the attack on Pearl harbour was not only a diplomatic disaster for Japan it could have seriously degraded their best chance of military victory.

Steve

 

[Darkest]

I am interested in this for my post-WWI timeline based on a more successful Brusilov Offensive (need to get that link in my sig).

Do you think there is even a remote chance that the UK and Japan will go to war with the US with a socialist pact growing in Eastern Europe, and Russia? Running all the way from middle-Germany to Manchuria?

In such a case, I think that Japan-UK might begin to win against the US, eventually, and the US will have to call on Russia (or Japanese attack Russia first). USSR and US on the same side against the imperialists!

In any case, the USSR of OTL immediately after WWI believed earnestly that the capitalist giants of the US and the UK would go to war according to Marxist-Leninist theories.

It is an interesting scenario!

 

[CalBear]

I am interested in this for my post-WWI timeline based on a more successful Brusilov Offensive (need to get that link in my sig).

Do you think there is even a remote chance that the UK and Japan will go to war with the US with a socialist pact growing in Eastern Europe, and Russia? Running all the way from middle-Germany to Manchuria?

In such a case, I think that Japan-UK might begin to win against the US, eventually, and the US will have to call on Russia (or Japanese attack Russia first). USSR and US on the same side against the imperialists!

In any case, the USSR of OTL immediately after WWI believed earnestly that the capitalist giants of the US and the UK would go to war according to Marxist-Leninist theories.

It is an interesting scenario!

As far as the actual war, Japan had reasons, ranging from U.S. racism against Japanese in the U.S. all the way to National Security conditions that conflict with the U.S.' conditions (both sides needed to control the Pacific at least out to Hawaii as well as the South China & Philippine Sea's to properly defend their possessions & post WW I Mandates (they each had a Marianas Island (Guan & Saipan) for God's sake). It is really hard to come up with any reason that Britian would want to join up for such a war.

There is also the fact that Socialism was, to put it mildly, actively discouraged in both Japan & the U.S., and, although to a much lesser degree, in Britian. If anything, I could see the three countries, along with the rest of the CommonWealth and parts of South America joining up AGAINST the Socialist empire.

As far as winning:

It would depend on the way that win is defined. As was pointed out earlier, the U.S. Navy tended to be light on scouting forces, for some reason cruisers were just generally ignored. Even the proposed 8/8 fleet plan didn't provide for cruisers sufficient to support a large battle fleet. With this as a given, it is possible that American Naval forces COULD be defeated in the Pacific, with a combined British/Japanese force taking Hawaii. I don't think it to be very likely, but it is a possibility. If that is sufficient for a victory, then you could get one, not easily, put perhaps.

If you mean actual defeat of the UNITED STATES as a nation/state forget it. By the 1920's the American manufacturing base was so large, and the population so great, that it would make a practical invasion impossible. 3,000-5,000 miles is a long way to send an army just to watch it get killed. Stupidity on that scale would be the only way you would see the American War Plan for Canada put into effect.

 

[Darkest]

It would be relatively plausible to arrange American-Japanese relations to continue to degrade to a point where the Japanese may launch a pre-emptive attack (their usual strategy) to start a war, or maybe it might happen over just an accident or some such that quickly escalates. This could happen any time from say, 1923 to the 1940s in my book. That's not too far-fetched.

About the UK entering the war: They may not have much to gain, other than attempting to knock the US down a notch, and regain supremacy of the seas. The Royal Navy and the US Navy were extremely hotheaded towards each other at this time.

"We would as soon fight the British as the Germans."

So, let's create more of this feeling...

1918 - The Americans entered the war, but never got more than a few ten thousand on the battlefield before the war ended, due to astounding victories during WWI against the Germans, ending the war a year earlier. The Americans, feeling cheated at committing themselves to the task yet never making an impact, still continue a wartime cooldown. Plans to build powerful new dreadnoughts actually go forward. The British Royal Navy see this as a challenge, and try to put pressure on the issue. The Americans see this as an attempt for the British to maintain naval supremacy. Something of a naval arms race begins to develop.

1919 - An intelligence report reveals that the UK has begun the transfer of eight modern dreadnoughts to Japan, in hopes of solidifying the Allies' position in Japan, so as to keep China secure for further division, and to check further USSR movements into Manchuria (in my ATL, they are better off and expansionist immediately after the war). Pressure is needed to push the USSR into revoking the claims that the previous Russian Empire had. The British-Japanese alliance is pushing hard the issue that the USSR cannot regain their former spheres of influence. Not to mention that the British believed the US might attack Japan at any moment.

The UK was on the verge of doing this. With a stronger navy after the Germans are defeated horribly, with less losses (see my ATL), the Royal Navy might be arrogant enough to try something. If the Americans catch wind of this, you can see foreign relations with the two empires beginning to break apart.

When the eight new, modernized dreadnoughts are shipped to Japanese waters, they immediately begin borrowing designs to aid their own productions.

Now, when some kind of event triggers a war between Japan and the US (pre-emptive or accidental), and the US finds intelligence that the British are moving into defensive positions (but they haven't declared war), maybe the US will jump the gun and go for Plan Red?

The Americans were haughty, and now face two naval fronts. The British suspected American plans and had come up with some intelligent contingencies, and their navy had come out of WWI much better off. Pride might keep them on the path of war, but what happens when Canada claims independence (including Quebec) and something of a small civil war begins between pro-American, pro-British, and pro-independent in lieu of the American-UK war?

If anything, I could see the three countries, along with the rest of the CommonWealth and parts of South America joining up AGAINST the Socialist empire.

Well, if the Socialists play it smooth like the USSR did, tentatively stepping off all hotzones (they needed all the time they could get to recover their economy), I think they could do well. I don't think the USSR will choose a team in the Jap-UK-US war.

If you mean actual defeat of the UNITED STATES as a nation/state forget it.

Calbear, I have learned far too much from you to even attempt an idea of that caliber. The Jap-UK would have a tough time reaching an evil slight victory status against the US.

 

[fhaessig]

Blochead suggested a TL where the Allies lose WW1 (due to the US being neutral), and next, Britain would have war with the US... quite improbable.

Oops; Sorry. I really shouldn't post too late at night.

 

[stevep]

The Americans were haughty, and now face two naval fronts. The British suspected American plans and had come up with some intelligent contingencies, and their navy had come out of WWI much better off. Pride might keep them on the path of war, but what happens when Canada claims independence (including Quebec) and something of a small civil war begins between pro-American, pro-British, and pro-independent in lieu of the American-UK war?

Canada was already independent by this time and I think it was accepted that in the event of a US/UK war Canada would seek to stay neutral. This would be accepted by Britain but the question might be would it be accepted by America? Especially if they were losing the naval war.

Steve

 

[Tyr]

Canada wasn't quite independant but...yeah them going neutral would work, that would be more then accepted by Britain, our objective on that front would have been to just hold the line anyway.

But then the start of any war would be America invading Canada so...

 

[Max Sinister]

Britain still had Newfoundland, however.

 

[Tyr]

Britain still had Newfoundland, however.

Didn't it just rejoin us in the 30s?
33 sounds familiar....Probally just my WW2 history interfereing though.


Still- it is a island...

 

[stevep]

As far as the actual war, Japan had reasons, ranging from U.S. racism against Japanese in the U.S. all the way to National Security conditions that conflict with the U.S.' conditions (both sides needed to control the Pacific at least out to Hawaii as well as the South China & Philippine Sea's to properly defend their possessions & post WW I Mandates (they each had a Marianas Island (Guan & Saipan) for God's sake). It is really hard to come up with any reason that Britian would want to join up for such a war.

I can think of reasons for Britain to support Japan - not sure how likely but they might apply. With the US pushing the naval race and continuing the Anglo-Japanese alliance Britain might feel obliged and in its interests to fight the US with Japan rather than risk facing it alone later. Especially if the cause of the war is unclear or the US strike 1st. [Unlikely but possible and could come from a number of causes]. If the terms of the alliance, which was due to be updated about 1920, are the same as before then unless the US has updated its view on treaties of arbitration Britain would be bound by treaty. You might also see British reasons for hostility to the US in this ATL. The US naval threat just after the war with Germany. Trade and economic differences. Clashes over the post war treaty, especially after a earlier allied victory with minimal US involvement. A dispute over Ireland say. Possible clashes over other matters. [Say a dispute over treatment of nationals. For a confident Britain I could see a much different reaction to our citizens being caught up in a US Guantamino type operation]. Or possibly vice versa although probably less likely. there could be a lot of things that might increase tension and ill-feeling between the two countries and under the wrong conditions push them, over the edge.

There is also the fact that Socialism was, to put it mildly, actively discouraged in both Japan & the U.S., and, although to a much lesser degree, in Britian. If anything, I could see the three countries, along with the rest of the CommonWealth and parts of South America joining up AGAINST the Socialist empire.

I agree there. Especially for Britain and Japan, such a large bloc, especially if it descended into anti-democratic nature would be very threatening.[/quote]

As far as winning:

It would depend on the way that win is defined. As was pointed out earlier, the U.S. Navy tended to be light on scouting forces, for some reason cruisers were just generally ignored. Even the proposed 8/8 fleet plan didn't provide for cruisers sufficient to support a large battle fleet. With this as a given, it is possible that American Naval forces COULD be defeated in the Pacific, with a combined British/Japanese force taking Hawaii. I don't think it to be very likely, but it is a possibility. If that is sufficient for a victory, then you could get one, not easily, put perhaps.

Presuming a larger and more powerful RN having learnt lessons from a Jutland equivalent coupled with a USN too late to enter a shorter war then the odds in a purely naval conflict would definitely be on the allied side. It wouldn't be easy for either power but in early/mid 20's especially the USN while it might threaten Britain's Caribbean possessions would face serious overstretch. Also it might be eager to met the RN, unlike most opponents in recent history and that could get very bloody very quickly.

If you mean actual defeat of the UNITED STATES as a nation/state forget it. By the 1920's the American manufacturing base was so large, and the population so great, that it would make a practical invasion impossible. 3,000-5,000 miles is a long way to send an army just to watch it get killed. Stupidity on that scale would be the only way you would see the American War Plan for Canada put into effect.

This is far more unlikely but is still possible. The war would probably be very nasty however. I think it could only be triggered by a US decision to invade Canada and the allies coming to the Canadians aid. Working on the basis that while the US has a raw industrial advantage the allies will have population and expertise from WWI. Also a US attack on Canada, presuming not too greatly different a world could well have nasty effects on neutrals, especially the most important neutral in the world. If it was poorly led the US

 

[stevep]

Sorry, last post gotb truncated somehow. The last paragraph in full should be.

This is far more unlikely but is still possible. The war would probably be very nasty however. I think it could only be triggered by a US decision to invade Canada and the allies coming to the Canadians aid. Working on the basis that while the US has a raw industrial advantage the allies will have population and expertise from WWI. Also a US attack on Canada, presuming not too greatly different a world could well have nasty effects on neutrals, especially the most important neutral in the world. If it was poorly led the US could build up a hell of an alliance against it, for various reasons perhaps.

Steve

 

[Max Sinister]

Didn't it just rejoin us in the 30s?
33 sounds familiar....Probally just my WW2 history interfereing though.

Still- it is a island...

No, my source says it was March 31st 1949.

 

[Tyr]

No, my source says it was March 31st 1949.

Well that source is wrong.
It was definatly part of Britain during WW2.

 

[Max Sinister]

But that's what I meant. I had thought you meant that Newfoundland became Canadian in ~1930. In 1949, it became *Canadian*.

 

[Iñaki]

Depending in what year could be this possible war UK-US we would see giant battleships battles because with all these tensions and diferent situation: no treaty of Washington in 1922, so if for example the war happens in from 1928, we would see not only the battleships scrapped in OTL by the Treaty also new constructions.

Surely, although possibily could be the war where the first important use in combat of carriers in battles, it would be the war of the battleships.

Some interesting information about possible constructions in a World without Washington Treaty could be seen in the page of Admiral Furushista fleet http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/furamain.htm (the page is centered in an alternate World War II in the sea but makes mention that in this world the Washington Treaty is only implemented in 1926 and not in 1922, so there are some interesting articles about different kind of warships that could be built in a World without Washington Treaty), for example http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/owari_f.htm about the Tosa/Owari class in the japanese also the page remind us that withouth Washington Treaty the Akagi and Kaga had been battleships and not carriers.
Also for example the United States would have for example the Lexigton class of battlecruisers http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/lexing_f.htm
And to the Royal Navy remember for example that in a world without Washington Treaty the Hood Class had had more members apart of the Hodd of OTL http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/stvinc_f.htm

It would in the naval segment of the war the war of the "Leviathans"

 

[MarkA]

Prior to an during WWI relations between the US and Britain were friendly and cooperative. Presume WWI ended early but surely not before say 1916, then this leaves six years to the Washington Treaty of 1922 to have the relationship completely breakdown. After all, the treaty was principally designed to limit Japanese naval ambitions and to curb unnecessary military expenditure by Britain and the US. The two powers colluded towards this end by sharing sensitive intelligence information and trumping all Japanese moves to gain an advantage no matter how small.

It was not just Canada who objected to a renewal of the UK Japan alliance, both New Zealand and primarily Australia were adament that it should not be renewed. Faced with the unanimous objections of the Dominions the UK had no choice. Even if some alternate British government had recklesly chosen to ignore these objections, the civil service and the navy would work behind the scenes to change policy. Not to mention the press and popular opinion and most MPs all of whom regarded the Empire as Britain in partnership with the Dominions. As Collingwood said, 'these people are as British as us and our common sense of freedom and kinship must never be diminished.'

Even the establishment all the way up to the palace shared the same views. In the 1930s Baldwin would not make a decision of the abdication crisis until he had first consulted the PMs of all the Dominions and got their agreements on the course of action to be followed.

To have Britain follow a diplomatic course that would lead to a possible war with the US would mean that not only some rouge government would be installed in London but all the Empire's leaders would suddenly lose all their political sense simultaneously. This seems highly unlikely. Throw into the mix the fact that the vast majority of US intellectuals and leaders as well as opinion makers were pro-British and echoed Kiplings desire to have a partnership between John Bull and Brother Johnathon, then the shift in attitudes and beliefs among both the British leadership and population and their American counterparts is vanishingly small.

 

[dittomitto2445]

so they lose a war with a large country and france is probly in a shitty condition most likely isolated and instead of making a closer realtionship with the us they will fight them this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard

 

[Iñaki]

Correct, but in this case we are having an scenario that more or less is similar than in OTL only that in your ATL the war has ended 2 years before but could be we could imagine a possible scenario where the Alliance could be possible:

example: at the beginning of the thread it was said that this conflict could happen in a World where Germany won the World War I.

So let´s say that in this ATL Russian has surrendered to Germany while the tsar is in the throne: this could be let´s make that Hindenburg and Ludendorff could convince Falkenhayn of making the giant movement to isolate the russian troops in Poland in 1915, in OTL Falkenhayn prefered a more conventional approach and not he great style manouver of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, this causes a total collapse of all the russian front, in fact the russian army has been isolated in a great pocket in Poland, with the destruction of this pocket it is the end for Russia, the germans advance in 1915 and 1916 conquering territories in Russia, effectively because the fears of possible revolution and the failure of allied offensives to try to relieve the russians, the russians sign the peace with the germans in early 1916, the war in the west is at the end a victory with all the reinforces from german troops send to the west in 1916. France signs an armistice.

What happens with Russia?, is no doubt that now Russia is in peace with Germany, the diplomats has made a moderate peace with Russia: only the Baltic States and Poland receives independence under the protectorate of Germany, because the need of Germany to make neutral Russia before the last offensive in the west.
After the end of the war Russia seeks new places to compensate the losses in the western Europe and Germany is very interested in to help the russians in seek new horizons in the Far East, this naturally means Manchuria and possibily new tensions against Great Britain (we have to remember that the kaiser and the tsar have personally more points in common of how govern a country that the democratic Great Britain).

This new possible alliance (naturally we could see that is an alliance of convenience, the germans not want a situation of anarchy in Russia and the Russians and tsar want to expand Russia in Far East to compensate the losses and germans have a lot of reasons to support Russia in this case: to equilibrate the power of Great Britain in Asia and to make some kind of revenge against the japanese that occupied his chinese and oceanic colonies) makes of Far East a place with a lot of tensions.

Great Britain realizes this new situation, and the alliance with Japan shows his necessity, naturally you are correct about the dominions but it seems that in this case the tensions was caused in an important part by the japanese emigration, so Japan needs Great Britain against a possible new revival of Russia in Far East helped by the germans and Great Britain needs of the japanese fleet to stop the russians if they begin to make another time the Great Game in Asia.
If the japanese agree that the problem of inmigration has to be satisfactorily solved in favour of the dominions (and well for the japanese is more important to gain supports in this new situation of things in the Far East) clearly the Dominions could see that in this new situation with a german-russian alliance is necessary a new attitude, naturally the japanese and british could make concessions to the Dominions to make this more easy to continue this alliance.

And the United States well as I say a war is not probable but possible, it is clear that for United States the japanese-british renewal alliance is more annoying that the new German-Russia alliance, at the end the russians can not match the american fleet but the japanese yes, naturally the americans could understand that this new situation makes not more possibiltiy a revival of the alliance.

But it is an annoying situation for the americans and well another time although not probable the situation of tension could create some kind of incident that makes fire the first shoots by accident causing a possible UK-US war. (In this case although the situation in Europe is favourable to Germany, the situation in the Pacific is totally different: the germans have not more interest in the Far East and not fleet (so not possible incidents of the kind of Samoa in 1889 or Manila bay in 1898) while the americans could have incidents with the japanese or and the british).

Naturall y this is as I say possible although not too much probable.

 

[Iñaki]

Originally posted by dittomitto2445
so they lose a war with a large country and france is probly in a shitty condition most likely isolated and instead of making a closer realtionship with the us they will fight them this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard

First of all could be a large array of possible scenarios about a possible victory of Germany in World War I (as my former post indicates one possible)

Second well not necessarily losing Great Britain, you has to think that in a situation where France is in desarray surely the Great Britain could occupy by security some french colonies to administrate, apart of this respect to Great Britain possibily the germans although has won effectively the World War I the situation with Great Britain is more a draw.

In fact surely the loser is France, Great Britain has a situation of draw with Germany (one thing is not winning a war another is losing, is possible the draw, in this case between Great Britain and Germany).

Third as I say I realize is not probable but I think is possible.

and respect to "this is the stupidest thing i have ever heard" well:

1. A man that wants to murdered a politician fails sometimes, he decides to not make more attempts, the politician decides to continue the visit, when the ends the visit he decides to return, but his driver mistaken and makes by another route, in that moment in these street in concret the assasin is buying a piece of bread and has decided to let to think in kil the politician but now he finds this because the driver has mistaken the route in that determined time and determined place and because he has decided to buy a sandwich, he shots the politician and this falls dead.
This will cause a war, a war for a sandwich

As say Wikipedia

" After Čabrinović's bomb missed the Archduke's car, five other conspirators, including Gavrilo Princip, failed to get an opportunity to attack because of the heavy crowds and the high speed of the Archdukes' car. To avoid capture, Čabrinović swallowed a cyanide pill and jumped into the nearby river, but was hauled out and detained by police. It was beginning to look like the assassination would fail.
However, Franz Ferdinand decided to go to the hospital and visit the victims of Čabrinović's failed bombing attempt. In order to avoid the city centre, General Oskar Potiorek decided that the royal car should travel straight along the Appel Quay to the Sarajevo Hospital. However, Potiorek forgot to inform the driver, Franz Urban, about this decision. On the way to the hospital, Urban took a right turn into Gebet Street.
Gavrilo Princip had gone into Moritz Schiller's cafe for a sandwich, having apparently given up, when he spotted Ferdinand's car as it drove past, having taken the wrong turn. After realizing the mistake, the driver put his foot on the brake, and began to back up. In doing so he moved slowly past the waiting Gavrilo Princip. Gavrilo Princip stepped forward, drew his gun, and at a distance of about five feet, fired several times into the car. Franz Ferdinand was hit in the neck and Sophie in the abdomen. Sophie, who was later found to be with child at the time of her death, died instantly. Ferdinand, who in disbelief of her death insisted that she wake up, fainted within five minutes and died soon after"

This is truly stupid: in fact the war was provoked because the murder want to eat a sandwich.

One of the most stupidiest things that one has heard, unfortunately it existed and caused the World War I of OTL.

-Other of the most stupidiest things of OTL (well stupid although very dramatic) a madman get govern a civilizated nation, against all the initial probabilities he manages to get elected, to destroy his adversaries, to begin a World War II against a coalition that surely could defeat him, against all probabilities he manages to defeat one of the most powerful armies of Europe, and makes one of the most stupid things when he is at war with Great Britain he declares the war against Soviet Union and after the United States, he also converts all Europe in an industrial genocide machine against all the races that he considered inferiors.

Madman: Hitler, get the power and the control of all Europe in one of the most stupid, luckily and improbable chain of events (and also lost the war because one of the most stupid chain of decisions)

-One of the most stupid strategies made by a man considered as a military genius: making a campaign against a big nation without making the sufficient suply and logistic chain , alienate the possible allies making one of the most proudest attitudes against possible allies, make one of the worst strategies made by him and making in all the campaign a series of nonsense decisions that provoked that the possibility to destroy the enemy army escaped ever, in fact making decisions that it seeemed that this man possesed by a total different person.

Genius making one of the most stupid decisions: Napoleon.
Campaign: Russia 1812.
Nations alienated by the decissions of Bonaparte: Swede and Turkey (plus the possible polish support in Lithuania)
Oportunities lost inexplicabily making some of the most stupidiest decissions of the military history of the world: Smolensk, Borodino, Moscow and some others.

OTL has one of the most stupidiest decisions and chain of events that one can heard and is real.