Quotein 1862 Charles Joseph Minard created a much-praised infographic depicting Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T7jMcstxY0
I knew Napoleon's Russia campaign was a disaster, but this really shows how bad it was!
Typhus, Russians and Cossacks ... Oh My!
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 05, 2019, 04:50:05 PM
I knew Napoleon's Russia campaign was a disaster, but this really shows how bad it was!
My apologies, but any history student wouldn't need that much explaining to describe Napoleon's failed attack. Russia's best defense was General Winter and Napoleon's failure to equip his troops for what any local peasant could have told him what was to come.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 06:32:04 AM
My apologies, but any history student wouldn't need that much explaining to describe Napoleon's failed attack. Russia's best defense was General Winter and Napoleon's failure to equip his troops for what any local peasant could have told him what was to come.
Like the Union at Bull Run ... it was supposed to be a short war ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 09:08:33 AM
Like the Union at Bull Run ... it was supposed to be a short war ;-(
No. Bull Run/First Manassas was not a weather event. I could go on about it but the simple fact is that General Winter was not involved there.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 10:14:05 AM
No. Bull Run/First Manassas was not a weather event. I could go on about it but the simple fact is that General Winter was not involved there.
Missed the point. The Confederacy thought it would be a short war also. Hitler thought he would have Stalin beat (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad occupied) by new year 1942. But he got a late start in June 1941 ... and the Soviets turned out to be tougher when in the corner, than he expected. Maybe something to do with the Nazis immediately exterminating civilians, and starving millions of Soviet POWs to death (they never got to any POW camps usually). Napoleon never won the hearts and minds either, only the Russian upper class was pro-French culture.
As the war continued, more Union/Confederate soldiers died from disease than from enemy fire. Weather did have its effect.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2019, 11:39:31 AM
Missed the point. The Confederacy thought it would be a short war also. Hitler thought he would have Stalin beat (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad occupied) by new year 1942. But he got a late start in June 1941 ... and the Soviets turned out to be tougher when in the corner, than he expected. Maybe something to do with the Nazis immediately exterminating civilians, and starving millions of Soviet POWs to death (they never got to any POW camps usually). Napoleon never won the hearts and minds either, only the Russian upper class was pro-French culture.
As the war continued, more Union/Confederate soldiers died from disease than from enemy fire. Weather did have its effect.
Damn. Lost the reply due to a computer hiccup.
Ok, the 2nd try is never as good, but here goes...
In the US Civil War, the 1st battle at Bull Run was a warm and sunny day. Ladies and gentlemen turned out to watch. Yes, the soldiers were hot in their wollen uniforms but it was about what they were accustomed too. Men wern't fallinbg over dead from exposure.
Napoleon's army faced different circumstances. They were under-clothed for the temperatures in Russia. They fell over dead on the way to Moscow and on the way back. In fact, General Winter was so cruel on the way back that soldiers could slice off a bit of horseflesh. The horses were so frozen they neither felt it nor bled. Until enough was sliced off that they died.
General Winter doesn't matter?
Learning nothing from Napoleon, Hitler flung his troops against Stalingrad equally ill-equipped. Soldiers fell over dead and stayed in their last position until Spring. Their equipment failed due to the oil in the engines freezing. Metal parts actually just snapped.
What was that you joking about "General Winter" again?
I'm an old hippie anti-war war expert.
Hey, I DID an irony...
Wars usually last longer than planned, except for the 7 Day Israeli war.
That was infact a great info graphic.
The Illustrious Dead by Stephan Talty ... shows how typhus was the principle destroyer of pre-modern armies. Napoleon's army in Palestine had to cope with regular plague ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 10:14:05 AM
No. Bull Run/First Manassas was not a weather event. I could go on about it but the simple fact is that General Winter was not involved there.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 07, 2019, 10:14:05 AM
No. Bull Run/First Manassas was not a weather event. I could go on about it but the simple fact is that General Winter was not involved there.
I took my son to Manassas, Virginia as part of a Civil War learning tour. We were in Manassas 3 days short of the 130th anniversary of the battle in July, 1991. Conditions that day mimicked those of the day of the battle. The temperatures were in the upper 90's and the humidity was even worse. We were wearing shorts and t-shirts and carrying a camera and we were fucking dying even though we were walking on the carefully maintained walkways that the Parks Service had installed. While we sat on a bench looking out at Henry Hill and sucking down big bottles of water I told him to consider what it would have been like to have been wearing a wool uniform, carrying a musket, ammo and bayonet under similar weather conditions. Moreover, McDowell's plan of attack called for starting the troops early in the morning so that by the time the actually got engaged with serious confederate forces they had been marching through the growing heat for five to six hours. They were not trained for it. They were not conditioned for it.
Lincoln, in response to McDowell's correct observation that his troops were too green to launch an offensive made one of the stupidest remarks of his life. "You are green, it is true. But they are green also. You are all green together." Yet only one side was being asked to conduct a long approach march in blistering conditions while the other side sat on their asses waiting for them.
When the Federals crested the hill and found Jackson's Brigade waiting for them while Johnston's troops arrived as reinforcements from Chinn Ridge slightly to the rear of their right flank it was all too much. They used whatever energy they had left running for their lives.
But B. is correct. The rebels did not pursue because they were too disorganized to mount a pursuit but more because both sides expected one big battle and they had just won it. They thought the war was over. They didn't have to pursue.
They were wrong.
Quote from: Minimalist on April 09, 2019, 06:36:05 PM
I took my son to Manassas, Virginia as part of a Civil War learning tour. We were in Manassas 3 days short of the 130th anniversary of the battle in July, 1991. Conditions that day mimicked those of the day of the battle. The temperatures were in the upper 90's and the humidity was even worse. We were wearing shorts and t-shirts and carrying a camera and we were fucking dying even though we were walking on the carefully maintained walkways that the Parks Service had installed. While we sat on a bench looking out at Henry Hill and sucking down big bottles of water I told him to consider what it would have been like to have been wearing a wool uniform, carrying a musket, ammo and bayonet under similar weather conditions. Moreover, McDowell's plan of attack called for starting the troops early in the morning so that by the time the actually got engaged with serious confederate forces they had been marching through the growing heat for five to six hours. They were not trained for it. They were not conditioned for it.
Lincoln, in response to McDowell's correct observation that his troops were too green to launch an offensive made one of the stupidest remarks of his life. "You are green, it is true. But they are green also. You are all green together." Yet only one side was being asked to conduct a long approach march in blistering conditions while the other side sat on their asses waiting for them.
When the Federals crested the hill and found Jackson's Brigade waiting for them while Johnston's troops arrived as reinforcements from Chinn Ridge slightly to the rear of their right flank it was all too much. They used whatever energy they had left running for their lives.
But B. is correct. The rebels did not pursue because they were too disorganized to mount a pursuit but more because both sides expected one big battle and they had just won it. They thought the war was over. They didn't have to pursue.
They were wrong.
That is a rather good description of the battle. Union troops did indeed have to march to chosen Confederate defensive positions under difficult physical conditions.
But though the Union soldiers fled the battlefield, the losses were about even on both sides.
McDowell’s 28,400 men suffered 480 killed, 1,000 wounded, and 1,200 missing, for a total loss of 2,680 casualties, approximately 9.5 percent. Beauregard and Johnston’s combined force of 30,800 had 390 killed, 1,600 wounded, and about a dozen missing, a total of approximately 2,000 or about 6.5 percent. You might note that most of the difference was "missing". A lot of the 90 day Union soldiers just went home,
I will object slightly to your interpretation of "You are green, it is true. But they are green also. You are all green together." Lincoln was correct about the soldiers. None had faced enemy fire (though some had been in the US/Mexican War). But his point was that new soldiers thrown into battle were not prepared for the reality of death. I will say that the Confederates had better generals and line officers; they had a military tradition. The Union armies had mostly politicians forming units at first (though some were talented and become experienced quickly.
If you are interested in "alternative history", consider the idea that Lee accepted the Union Command. The war would have been over in a few months. Just acknowledging his skill...
Both sides approached the war thinking it would "glorious" and brave and all that crap. That battle did change some opinions of war. Photography had an affect too. Pictures of soldiers blown apart was a shock to both sides. That may seem strange to us now, but it was a new realization then.
Civilians turning out to watch the battle shows that. And they hampered the military operations on the field. The battle was altogether a stupid mess.
I could go on, but I await discussion...
Cavebear ... excellent observations on Bull Run. The Confederates I think, already noted then, that the Union artillery was better than theirs. Yes, Robert E Lee is more guilty than most, for putting Virginia loyalty over US loyalty. That and Arlington National Cemetery, can never be erased.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2019, 05:12:51 AM
Cavebear ... excellent observations on Bull Run. The Confederates I think, already noted then, that the Union artillery was better than theirs. Yes, Robert E Lee is more guilty than most, for putting Virginia loyalty over US loyalty. That and Arlington National Cemetery, can never be erased.
Yeah, the Union side sufferred from having less best top generals. And some of their best died early. But it never was a matter of "best generals" though the Confederates had them, it was a matter of organizing materiel, food, and weaponry.. The Western Front produced the better generals for the Union.
But it is also worth noting the Union railroads, industrialization, and manufacturing capacity. The Confederates never really stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Union was sending "excess troops" out west to fight the Indians because they had too many to feed in Virginia. Logistics became so crowded on the rails...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 14, 2019, 07:01:03 AM
Yeah, the Union side sufferred from having less best top generals. And some of their best died early. But it never was a matter of "best generals" though the Confederates had them, it was a matter of organizing materiel, food, and weaponry.. The Western Front produced the better generals for the Union.
But it is also worth noting the Union railroads, industrialization, and manufacturing capacity. The Confederates never really stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Union was sending "excess troops" out west to fight the Indians because they had too many to feed in Virginia. Logistics became so crowded on the rails...
The Confederates were counting on British or French intervention. Hence the Trent affair and the raider CSS Alabama. But it was the Russians who kept the British from intervening. France already had its hands full in Mexico. After the war, it was easy to simply order the French out of Mexico. Dooming Emperor Maximilian (Austrian head of French occupied Mexico).
QuoteBut his point was that new soldiers thrown into battle were not prepared for the reality of death.
That may have been what he meant but it only enhances the point that he was a rank amateur with a one-dimensional view of the issue . McDowell got an inkling of what his troops were like on the march to Centreville. The performance of his 90 day wonders - another reason why Lincoln urged him to hurry - should have warned him of the inherent problems of making that long flank march on the Confederate left. But the alternative would have been a frontal attack into prepared positions. The sad fact is that McDowell did not think much of his army with its elected officers, political generals and volunteers with one eye on the calendar counting down to their discharge day. I rather imagine that McDowell would have agreed with Wellington's comment about his army from the Waterloo campaign: "I don't know what they'll do to the enemy but by god, they frighten me."
I certainly agree about the civilians getting in the way especially as the roads sucked although at least the mud should have dried by July. But both sides were infected with an almost embarrassing sense of bravado so the party atmosphere is not that much of a surprise. To be sure many of the officers had experience from the Mexican War but certainly not the rank and file.
As for Lee? Lee's genius was enhanced because of the odds he faced. He spent the first year of the war doing nothing of much significance. When he got his chance at command he excelled but McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker did not demonstrate much ability in opposition. I don't know if Lee's genius would have been appreciated in the north or allowed to blossom. He was, after all, a southerner and a slave owner.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 14, 2019, 07:01:03 AM
Yeah, the Union side sufferred from having less best top generals. And some of their best died early.
To be fair, I've heard arguments that Albert Johnston could have proved an equal partner to Lee in the western theater had he lived--an unfalsifiable position to be sure.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2019, 09:55:45 AM
Hence the Trent affair
Prince Albert rose from his death bed to help smooth that over
http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/russiaglobal/items/show/267
There were Russian warships on a friendly visit to the US East and West coasts. This amity led to the purchase of Alaska after the war.
QuoteTo be fair, I've heard arguments that Albert Johnston could have proved an equal partner to Lee in the western theater had he lived--an unfalsifiable position to be sure.
Jefferson Davis lamented the death of A. S. Johnston at Shiloh himself. He regarded him as the south's strongest pillar. To be fair, in the East he had the quarrelsome and prickly Beauregard and Joseph Johnston who had not done much to stop McClellan's advance up the Peninsula. I suppose McClellan was his own personal Stop Sign and Johnston did not have to do much.
But when Lee took command he displayed an aggressiveness which was lacking in Johnston. Although he lost most of the battles of The Seven Days he kept attacking and scared the shit out of McClellan so badly that he packed it in and sailed back to Washington. I don't know if he would have gotten that chance in command of the Union Army. After bursting onto the scene and saving Richmond Lee had carte blanche from Davis.
I'm not sure that even Lee could have done much with the hodge-podge that constituted the Union Army in 1861. But it is a great discussion topic, C/B.
Quote from: Minimalist on April 15, 2019, 02:36:50 AM
To be fair, in the East he had the quarrelsome and prickly Beauregard and Joseph Johnston who had not done much to stop McClellan's advance up the Peninsula.
Fortunately, Davis felt the same way at Atlanta and threw away the last chance of the Union loosing the war by replacing Johnston with John Hood.
Quote from: Poison Tree on April 16, 2019, 02:26:10 AM
Fortunately, Davis felt the same way at Atlanta and threw away the last chance of the Union loosing the war by replacing Johnston with John Hood.
Albert Sydney Johnston vs Joseph Johnston. Both Confederate generals, not the same guy. It was Albert being talked about originally.
Albert was dead two years before Atlanta so there isn't much danger of confusing the two. The south had some shitty generals, too. Hood and Braxton Bragg leap instantly to mind.
Quote from: Minimalist on April 16, 2019, 02:11:14 PM
Albert was dead two years before Atlanta so there isn't much danger of confusing the two. The south had some shitty generals, too. Hood and Braxton Bragg leap instantly to mind.
Helps to add the first name with the last name.
Quote from: Baruch on April 16, 2019, 02:20:22 PM
Helps to add the first name with the last name.
I'm sorry if my two comments were unclear. I'd assumed that the shift from Albert Johnston to Joseph Johnston would be inferred by my quoting and responding to a sentence containing the name "Joseph Johnston".
Quote from: Minimalist on April 16, 2019, 02:11:14 PM
The south had some shitty generals, too.
I think that one of the major successes--if that's the right word--of the Lost Cause narrative has been to focus all the attention on Lee/Army of Northern Virginia, obscuring a lot of poor strategy and execution by the Confederates elsewhere and given people the misapprehension that the Confederates were always "this close" to winning. It is my position that the Confederates could have never won the war; But the Union could have lost it. The obvious culprit is ( pro-war) George McClellan and the (anti-war) Democrats winning the 1864 election. This would have required flipping New York (1%) Pennsylvania and Connecticut (2.8%) [doable so far] New Hampshire (5.2%) Ohio (6.8%) and Indiana (7%) [much bigger tasks]. I think that this would have required more than the Atlanta campaign simply dragging on like Richmond/Petersburg. Maybe if Sterling Price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%27s_Raid) was still a threat and Jubal Early retained the Shenandoah. Even then the Union would have had a strong position from which to dictate peace terms. Maybe you have to go all the way back to an alternate outcome at Chattanooga (or Gettysburg).
I suppose now is as good a time as any to apologize to Unbeliever for the way this thread got hijacked.
Yes, the South eventually would have lost, provided that the British Empire didn't intervene. Instead the Brits worked with Rothschild and BoE until 1913, to move the US from Constitutional money to that of the gold standard of the British Empire, and the restoration of a Central Bank that the US had tried twice and rejected. By 1945, with the relationship between Churchill and Truman (FDR being too independent to be completely useable by Churchill) ... the takeover of the US was complete. The British takeover (including Five Eyes) being somewhat reversed, by the Suez Crisis, where Eisenhower betrayed the British, French and Israelis.
Lee's mistake was in not listening to Longstreet at Gettysburg. Had he swung around to the south and got between Meade and Washington he would have forced the Army of the Potomac to attack him. It should have been obvious to everyone at that point that the defensive firepower of CW weaponry was such that frontal attacks were doomed. The AoP was still in piss poor shape after the twin disasters of Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville and all Lee achieved with his attacks on the 2d and 3d days at Gettysburg was to put the ANV in roughly the same predicament but without the north's resources to recover.
Quote from: Baruch on April 14, 2019, 09:55:45 AM
The Confederates were counting on British or French intervention. Hence the Trent affair and the raider CSS Alabama. But it was the Russians who kept the British from intervening. France already had its hands full in Mexico. After the war, it was easy to simply order the French out of Mexico. Dooming Emperor Maximilian (Austrian head of French occupied Mexico).
Of course the Confederates had the desire to get European recognition. That was what worked in the Revolution. But things had changed. In 1860, Europe had a lot of trade with the US. Some for cotton in the South, but more manufactured goods from the North. And Britain had outlawed slavery.
For ethical and trade reasons, Europe was never going to recognize the Confederates. And it probably didn't even MATTER that, by the end of the war, that Europe recognized that the Union had the strongest army in the world at the time...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 09:43:37 AM
Of course the Confederates had the desire to get European recognition. That was what worked in the Revolution. But things had changed. In 1860, Europe had a lot of trade with the US. Some for cotton in the South, but more manufactured goods from the North. And Britain had outlawed slavery.
For ethical and trade reasons, Europe was never going to recognize the Confederates. And it probably didn't even MATTER that, by the end of the war, that Europe recognized that the Union had the strongest army in the world at the time...
Correct ... but British Imperial policy was to take down the US, from 1776 until 1913. Then they had our nuts in a spanner (britishism).
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 10:44:42 AM
Correct ... but British Imperial policy was to take down the US, from 1776 until 1913. Then they had our nuts in a spanner (britishism).
1. I know what a "spanner" is.
2. Didn't you say you were from Canada?
3. And they would have, except that they were engaged in 1776 in the first actual WW with the French. It WAS all over the world... We colonists got lucky. If not for the French, we here would be sort of a big Canada.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 11:01:19 AM
1. I know what a "spanner" is.
2. Didn't you say you were from Canada?
3. And they would have, except that they were engaged in 1776 in the first actual WW with the French. It WAS all over the world... We colonists got lucky. If not for the French, we here would be sort of a big Canada.
Correct about French intervention (also Spain and Denmark). You are a little off. Not Canadian, Texan. "Spanner" doesn't fit the metaphor but it sounds good. Poetic license. What we call the French & Indian War ... aka Seven Years War in Europe happened two decades earlier. Unless you want to count the War of the Spanish Succession as the first major coalition war that involved Britain and France.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 11:08:25 AM
Correct about French intervention (also Spain and Denmark). You are a little off. Not Canadian, Texan. "Spanner" doesn't fit the metaphor but it sounds good. Poetic license. What we call the French & Indian War ... aka Seven Years War in Europe happened two decades earlier. Unless you want to count the War of the Spanish Succession as the first major coalition war that involved Britain and France.
Huh, I really thought you mentioned being Canadian once. Must have someone else...
You specifically mentioned "Then they had our nuts in a spanner (britishism)" which is indeed very British but also Canadian in some places.
I know about the 7 years War/French and Indian War. It's where Washington got his colonial rank. But there was a larger one later. Read this and weep at your ignorance...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1778%E2%80%931783)
Yes, France had multiple reasons for fighting the British Empire, some as far away as India (where they lost). Otherwise the main lingua franca of India would be French, not English.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 02:44:30 PM
Yes, France had multiple reasons for fighting the British Empire, some as far away as India (where they lost). Otherwise the main lingua franca of India would be French, not English.
It wasn't that the French (half my ancestors) lost the first real WW, it is that is was fought world-wide... That's like saying WWII never happened because the Germans lost.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 02:49:30 PM
It wasn't that the French (half my ancestors) lost the first real WW, it is that is was fought world-wide... That's like saying WWII never happened because the Germans lost.
Alternative history fantasy is just a circle jerk (if you have allies).
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 03:00:16 PM
Alternative history fantasy is just a circle jerk (if you have allies).
Just out of curiosity, WHY do you think the French had a massive navy in a Caribbeans available for sending to Yorktown to trap the British army there and the British didn't have one to drive them away?
I LOVE alternative history. But this isn't one of them.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 03:07:55 PM
Just out of curiosity, WHY do you think the French had a massive navy in a Caribbeans available for sending to Yorktown to trap the British army there and the British didn't have one to drive them away?
I LOVE alternative history. But this isn't one of them.
ooh, ooh ... guy from Car 54 Where Are You .
My recollection is that the British are generally very good, covering the French fleet, wherever they may be. The British Empire was big, and so the French could sail for many targets. The British had to defend all of them simultaneously. This is why is was critical in the Napoleonic wars, for the British Navy to keep the French fleets in port. Once DeGrasse was on the high seas, he was like the Bismarck. And even in WW II, it took a long time at sea to get from point A to point B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Joseph_Paul_de_Grasse
The British fleet in the area, must have lost track of him, or were unable to concentrate sufficient forces to unblock the Chesapeake. Under optimum conditions the French usually lost to the British. The llmitations of the time, and luck, worked for the French that time. Not as well later in the war.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 03:15:22 PM
ooh, ooh ... guy from Car 54 Where Are You .
My recollection is that the British are generally very good, covering the French fleet, wherever they may be. The British Empire was big, and so the French could sail for many targets. The British had to defend all of them simultaneously. This is why is was critical in the Napoleonic wars, for the British Navy to keep the French fleets in port. Once DeGrasse was on the high seas, he was like the Bismarck. And even in WW II, it took a long time at sea to get from point A to point B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Joseph_Paul_de_Grasse
The British fleet in the area, must have lost track of him, or were unable to concentrate sufficient forces to unblock the Chesapeake. Under optimum conditions the French usually lost to the British. The llmitations of the time, and luck, worked for the French that time. Not as well later in the war.
I actually agree with you on some points. But that's what makes it a World War. Too many sites to protect all at once and a failure on one side to see the strategy of the other. I didn't say the French were winning OR had a better navy, just that they saw a good opportunity and took it in the Chesapeake Bay to help the Americans catch the Cornwallis army in a corner (after the serious blunders he made in the Carolinas, I might add).
Yes. And the whole Yorktown operation was an opportunistic combined-arms battle, that was very close. The British navy was ready to attack again, 2 days after Cornwallis surrendered. If Washington hadn't been provided with French siege guns by the French fleet, Cornwallis could have held out longer.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 03:26:20 PM
Yes. And the whole Yorktown operation was an opportunistic combined-arms battle, that was very close. The British navy was ready to attack again, 2 days after Cornwallis surrendered. If Washington hadn't been provided with French siege guns by the French fleet, Cornwallis could have held out longer.
The French navy under Compte de Grasse defeated the British navy under Thomas Graves in the lower Chesapeake. Graves left the scene in defeat.
Are you SURE you want to keep losing this discussion, or do you have an alternative British history book tucked under your pillow?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
The French navy under Compte de Grasse defeated the British navy under Thomas Graves in the lower Chesapeake. Graves left the scene in defeat.
Are you SURE you want to keep losing this discussion, or do you have an alternative British history book tucked under your pillow?
So you are saying ... the British won are Yorktown? I don't see we are different, the facts are the facts. If the British were better coordinated with the right resources in the right places, DeGrasse would have lost, and the French reinforcements/artillery would have gone to the bottom.
Quote from: Baruch on April 18, 2019, 03:43:18 PM
So you are saying ... the British won are Yorktown? I don't see we are different, the facts are the facts. If the British were better coordinated with the right resources in the right places, DeGrasse would have lost, and the French reinforcements/artillery would have gone to the bottom.
No. Yes. IF... If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...
IF Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, you would be Deutsch sprechen. IF Ceasar hadn't crossed the Rubicon, etc etc, etc.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 18, 2019, 03:52:10 PM
No. Yes. IF... If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...
IF Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, you would be Deutsch sprechen. IF Ceasar hadn't crossed the Rubicon, etc etc, etc.
I thought you wanted to talk alternative history here at this time. Have you have your nap?