randomkeith
Banned
I agree far better to loose Alaska then just a cold nasty hunk of rock then anything of strategic value to the British
So what if the Crimean Campaign succeeds in the beginning? I believe some parts of the Allied Army dittered and the advantage was lost? What is Sevastopel was taken right at the beginning?
Those minor territories included the fortress of Izmail (which the Russians had long fought for and whose storming by Suvorov in 1790 is referred to in one of Russia's national anthems) and gave Russia access to the Danube. Keeping those but giving up on Alaska would actually be in the tsar's advantage.
Well, from their, they can perhaps overwhelm the Crimean penisula in its entirety.... and once in the hands of a navally superior power, it would be very hard t otake back.So what if the Crimean Campaign succeeds in the beginning? I believe some parts of the Allied Army dittered and the advantage was lost? What is Sevastopel was taken right at the beginning?
Then Kinburn is next....
I think you might need something a bit more concrete, old boy. Some American politician like Seward in the ACW, who rants and rails against Canada during the Crimean War, making the Canadians and British nervy, would probably be a good start.
We might also US hostility to Britain, with them having a somewht stronger psotion in the Pacific in all likelihood. I'd consider a British Hawaii a distinct possibility. Thus, an eventual Canadian Hawaii.
Well yes.. I meant minor in terms of size. As to it being to the tsars advantage...
So I would envision the Crimea, Oddesa and OTL Georgia in allied hands by the time Alexander II ascends the throne, as a BCS.
Ponting ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0712636536 ) has a good account of the 1855 strategy meetings held after Sebastapol fell. The British wanted to move in Georgia (combined with simultaneous offensives in the Baltic and supporting a Swedish invasion of Finland), while the French had very different ideas...
Such as???Ponting ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0712636536 ) has a good account of the 1855 strategy meetings held after Sebastapol fell. The British wanted to move in Georgia (combined with simultaneous offensives in the Baltic and supporting a Swedish invasion of Finland), while the French had very different ideas...
We can happily state it has taken its rightful place between the Operation Sea-Lion and Uber-Switzerland scenarios![]()
You mean Liechenstein right(as I can't see any other nation being considered "puny" compared to SwizerlandSoon, Swiss smash puny nations.
The British had invaded Kamchatka in the Crimean war (anyone know anything more about that?) and 'threatened' Alaska. It was an ongoing thing to block Russian influence in the North Pacific and a major reason why Russia sold it to America. The Brits never really wanted the North P for themselves, too far away and not enough in it, but they definitely didn't want Russia the main power there either so America came out the winner.
I wasn't implying that Russia cared more about AlaskaWell if we're talking about importance rather than size, notice that Russia actually sold Alaska, while southern Bessarabia it tried (and managed) to get back. So I'd argue he cared more for the strip of Danubian riverside that for the big chunk of ice.
Georgia? I wouldn't think so, the Russians did reasonably well in the Caucasus and they'd sue for peace before the situation becomes that bad.
Ooh, tell me more!
Oh, there are others. It's just that there are other, not so puny, states in between Switzerland and Luxemburg. Or Monaco.You mean Liechenstein right(as I can't see any other nation being considered "puny" compared to Swizerland)?Makes me wonder if anyone would even notice/care if the Swiss were to annex it....