Indeed....
Ah newbies....
Indeed....
Ah newbies....
Indeed... Ah, double-posting...
Indeed....
Ah newbies....
Indeed....
Ah newbies....
I find that the most interesting thing about this. A Brit victory isn't usually considered in that light, from anything I've seen. (Not to say I've seen a great deal...)The British winning ARW is most likely to increase the chance of a French revolution, unless it is a very early and decisive victory.
Actually, not. Wilson succeeded in splitting the difference. It's been said either of the 2 other options, a war of exhaustion & a "reboot" peace where everybody goes back to their prewar borders & shuts up, or a crushing treaty, on the model of the Partition of Poland, would have been better for subsequent history than what arose OTL, which only postponed the issue & directly led to WW2.if they defeated in a bleeding contest on the battlefield we have a TL very much like the OTL WWI, although it will probably be over a year or two earlier (the American resources can be utilised from the start and will have to wait until April 1917).
Without Wilson or other American "moderators" the Versailles treaty is likley to be at least as harsh as in OTL - so we have WWII starting all over again.
*sighs*
British win American Revolution -> No French economic crash & example of anti-royalist revolutionaries -> No French Revolution -> No Napoleonic Wars -> No Congress of Vienna -> No German nationalism -> No Franco-Prussian War -> No WW1 -> No WW2.
I'm not a butterfly fundamentalist like some here, but please![]()
Pictures of what a world without an ARW, or a British victory in it, would look like include Turtledove&Dreyfuss' The Two Georges and Chris Carrier Wars. Without the French Revolution disrupting the world system there most probably wouldn't be ANY world wars as we understand the term, not total wars based on ideology.