User:LordAlb/sandbox
Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
[edit]Royal Navy | |
---|---|
Active | 1793–1815 |
Country | ![]() |
Allegiance | ![]() |
Branch | Navy |
Role | Naval warfare |
Engagements | |
Commanders | |
First Lord of the Admiralty |
|
First Naval Lord |
|
Notable commanders |
The Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars was instrumental to the success of the Coalition against the First French Empire. Until the Peninsular War, it was the primary weapon of the United Kingdom's war effort against Napoleon, with significant naval victories ensuring British naval and economic supremacy. The Royal Navy ferried allied armies to otherwise inaccessible theatres of war, notably the Armée des Émigrés during the Quiberon campaign and ferried Ottoman armies to where they were needed during the French invasion of Egypt and Syria. The British Army was also ferried to the West Indies for the Caribbean campaign. It also supplied allied armies during their campaigns and provided direct military support during sieges of coastal towns and cities (notably the Siege of Genoa and the Siege of Acre).
Britain's position as the financial backer of the Coalition meant that British naval supremacy was essential to the survival of the Allied war effort, and the British took extensive efforts to maintain it. When Spain allied with France in 1795, this presented a threat to British naval supremacy, and their combined fleets, if amassed near the English Channel, could present a legitimate invasion threat. British naval victories at Cape St. Vincent, Cape Finisterre and Trafalgar neutralised this threat. The creation of the Second League of Armed Neutrality provoked concerns from the British who believed (perhaps rightfully) that French domination of the European mainland would cause the comparatively large navy of Denmark–Norway to fall into French hands, presenting a new naval threat. At the First and Second Battles of Copenhagen, the British seized or destroyed the entire Danish fleet, but Denmark's status as a neutral country made the attacks highly controversial. Even King George III disapproved of the actions taken by own navy. The government and it's supporters in Parliament, including William Wilberforce, defended the actions against Denmark as necessary for British defence. Denmark–Norway allied with France in response to these attacks, but the main threat of the Danish Navy had been neutralised, with the Danish war effort against Britain being carried out via gunboats rather than the more powerful ships of the line which constituted the main threat to Britain. the Treaty of Tilsit, in which the Russian Empire allied with France, also posed a new, but not as serious, naval threat to Britain. The resulting Anglo-Russian War was of a much smaller scale than Britain's wars against Denmark, Spain and France and was mostly limited to minor naval actions and diplomatic incidents. Admiral James Saumarez carried out a campaign in the Baltic in which individual ships of the British Baltic Fleet captured Russian ships to disrupt their war effort against Sweden during the Finnish War. Russia's commitment to the alliance with Napoleon proved lukewarm, and no major battles were directly fought between Britain and Russia during the conflict, although it was planned that the British would ferry a field army under Sir John Moore to fight alongside the Swedes, but disagreements between the British and Swedish governments led to Moore being ordered home.
Tenets and Tropes of the Lost Cause Myth
[edit]The myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy is varied and offers a range of pro-Confederate historical perspectives on the American Civil War. Not all of these notions are consistent with each other and adherents to the Lost Cause may believe some and not believe others, depending on preference or biases related to other historical events. The main idea of the Lost Cause is that the Confederacy did not fight to preserve the institution of slavery, but fought for "states rights".
Some of the other outstanding beliefs and ideas of the myth are:
- That the cause of the Confederate States of America was noble, righteous, and comparable to that of the Patriots of the American Revolutionary War.
- That the Confederacy was a sovereign nation fighting for its independence.
- That the planter class of the Antebellum South was a noble caste of society that adhered to a strict code of honour based on chivalry and paternalism. Adherents of this trope claim that the "Southern gentlemen" had inherited this tradition from the nobility of Europe, particularly the Cavaliers of the English Civil War.
- That American slavery was a comparatively benign and benevolent institution.
- That Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant who violated the Constitution of the United States and the civil liberties of Americans on numerous occasions, and that he was not as strongly anti-slavery as often depicted.
- That Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in practice, and was purely a political move to placate abolitionists and dissuade Britain or France from intervening in the war.
- That tens of thousands of free black men enlisted in the Confederate army as soldiers and saw frequent action.
- That the Confederate military leadership, especially Generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, were near-flawless military geniuses comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte.
- That Confederate General James Longstreet was a traitor to the South and bore sole responsibility for the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg.
- That the Union Army (especially the part of the army under the command of William Tecumseh Sherman) was guilty of numerous war crimes, including mass rape, looting, murder and the illegal confiscation of Southern property.
- That the Confederate defeat in the war was due to the superior industrial and population capacity of the North, not due to the failures of the Confederate leadership or the competence of the North.
- That Ulysses S. Grant was not a great general, and that he only defeated Lee due to "overwhelming numbers and resources". Grant's high casualty figures in the Overland Campaign, as well as his alcoholism, are often cited as evidence of this.
- That the recruitment of Native Americans such as Stand Watie to the Confederate cause was based entirely on altruism, and that a Confederate victory may have ended the American Indian Wars.
Assessments of Coalition Generals
[edit]Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2661/e2661478e40d895aa7645b7f539e7d27c6290f9a" alt=""
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington was the most prominent British general of the Napoleonic Wars and is considered one of the greatest strategic battlefield commanders in history. He is known for leading the coalition armies in the Peninsular War and for being the leading Allied general who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo.
Wellington is best remembered as a primarily defensive general. Although some of his greatest victories were in offensive battles (notably Salamanca and Vitoria), he was undoubtedly a master of defensive tactics and strategy. A signature tactic of his was reverse slope defence, in which he would position much of his army behind a gentle slope or ridge to cover them from artillery and conceal his numbers and movements, exploiting the overconfidence of his enemies. There are many examples of Wellington using this tactic successfully, including the Battle of Vimeiro and the Battle of Bussaco. During the third Portuguese campaign, Wellington conducted a defensive scorched earth strategy which starved the army of Marshal André Masséna as it pushed through the country, while Wellington pulled back to an exceptionally strong defensive position at the Lines of Torres Vedras, a series of redoubts and fortresses around Lisbon which had been under construction for over a year. In the ensuing standoff, Masséna's supply lines were overstretched and frequently attacked by Portuguese partisans, while Wellington's were secure thanks to British naval superiority. This strategy of applying scorched earth tactics to one's own territory was later replicated on a much larger scale during the French invasion of Russia. Although the campaign in Portugal contained no decisive, dramatic, war-winning victories, Wellington's strategy was genius by design and extremely adaptable. Masséna, regarded as one of Napoleon's best generals, never held senior command again.
Wellington was one of the first Allied generals to successfully command a large multinational army. His army in Iberia was made up of British, Portuguese and Spanish troops, and also contained volunteers from French-occupied states in Central Europe, with Charles von Alten and the Prince of Orange serving as prominent generals. The Spanish, British and Portuguese armies were all relatively inexperienced, but the British army was far better trained and equipped by comparison, and Wellington made sure that the Portuguese and Spanish troops under his command adhered to the same standards. Wellington also received considerable support from Spanish and Portuguese guerrillas, who harassed the French in the countryside and provided vital intelligence to Wellington's army; this in turn made him less reliant on cavalry for reconnaissance. Wellington imposed strict standards of discipline, punishing looters with flogging, but it was difficult for him to maintain this standard, and looting among the rank and file proved a persistent problem in his campaigns. Wellington also did not rely on an extensive staff system and preferred to give orders in person where possible. This meant he was constantly close to the front, heightening his popularity with the men, but it also meant that he relied heavily on his divisional and corps commanders in larger battles. Some of these, such as Rowland Hill, Thomas Picton and John Le Marchant, were exceptionally talented, while others, such as The Earl of Uxbridge and Lord Dalhousie, were less so.
Wellington's most famous victory is the Battle of Waterloo, where he brilliantly defended a strong position of his own choosing, giving the Prussians under Field Marshal von Blücher time to come to his aid, where the two armies inflicted Napoleon's final defeat. Using his signature reverse slope tactic, Wellington kept much of his army out of the range of the French artillery. His troops successfully held a crucial farmhouse on his right wing and, recognising that the attack was a feint to weaken his centre, he stayed perfectly still, forcing Napoleon to use more drastic methods to weaken his line. After successfully holding off French attacks for several hours, notably countering a poorly executed cavalry charge led by Marshal Michel Ney with excellent use of infantry squares, the Prussians began to arrive on Napoleon's right flank, stretching his forces further and taking his headquarters at Plancenoit. The death blow was dealt to Napoleon's army when, in an attempt to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat, he ordered his hitherto undefeated Imperial Guard to march forward and break Wellington's severely weakened line, but after several rounds of devastating volley fire, the Guard wavered and retreated, causing the whole French army to retreat in disarray. It was Wellington's last battle and, although he would have broken if not for the arrival of the Prussians, it was the victory with which he would forever be associated. He retired from active command in 1818.
The Duke of Wellington inflicted more defeats on the French Imperial Army than any other general of the Napoleonic Wars. He held a five-star rank in the armies of eight countries (see Batons of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington).
Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/328cf/328cf4eaa83145275aa6995386213fc95ec03d29" alt=""
Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen was a prominent Austrian Field Marshal who was one of the best generals of the Napoleonic Wars. The son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor and the brother of Emperor Francis I of Austria, he is best remembered for defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Aspern-Essling in 1809. This was Napoleon's first major defeat since becoming Emperor of the French, his first major defeat in Europe and his first battlefield defeat in ten years, with his most recent defeat before that point being at the Siege of Acre in 1799.
Charles commanded the Coalition forces during the Rhine campaign of 1796, which saw invading French armies pushed out of Germany via a string of victories against French armies of equal or greater size than his own. Unfortunately, his campaign would prove strategically fruitless, as Napoleon was simultaneously carrying out his Italian campaign which ultimately removed Austria from the conflict. Charles himself was sent to Italy to negotiate the Austrian surrender. He then commanded Austrian armies during the War of the Second Coalition, winning more victories at the Battle of Ostrach and the First Battle of Zurich, although these were undone by General Moreau's victory at the Battle of Hohenlinden. Charles was dreadfully underused in the years that followed, with his main army in Italy being avoided by Napoleon in the War of the Third Coalition, when his talents could have presented a better threat to Napoleon at Ulm and Austerlitz.
In 1806, Charles was made Commander-in-Chief of the army by his brother, the Emperor. During his tenure, he reformed the Austrian Army and, taking inspiration from Napoleon's corps system, he too reorganised his army into "Korps", being the first Allied general to imitate Napoleon in this way. The rest of the armies of Europe, notably Russia, would follow in Austria's footsteps and develop their own corps systems. He developed new tactics and strategies based on the concept of a "nation at arms", reforming the Austrian Army to be more compatible with the masses of conscripts that would inevitably be raised in the event of another war with France. Notably, he developed the "battalion mass" formation, an infantry formation in which an entire battalion would form a closely packed column, effectively a huge mass of men, before advancing. In theory, this was a bad formation, as it was extremely vulnerable to artillery, could not make use of most of its men, and had limited firepower, but it was well suited for inexperienced conscripts, as it did not require much complex manoeuvring to switch formation from mass to line. The battalion mass could also counter cavalry effectively with the same effect as an infantry square, as soldiers at the edge of the formation could simply close up, fix bayonets and turn outward. Again, this was well suited for conscripts, as the square formation required training, discipline and speed, while the battalion mass only required a minimal amount of discipline.
Charles wrote many treatises on military leadership, including on the role and responsibilities of a chief-of-staff and on the purpose of fielding large armies. He described himself as a cautious general, but it can be argued that he was simply extremely observant of the needs of his army, rather than cautious. He initiated the War of the Fifth Coalition with a surprise invasion of Bavaria, which caught Napoleon off guard for a moment and led to quick successes, although Napoleon did manage to push him out of Germany. His victory over Napoleon at Aspern-Essling is an example of a great, if costly, victory of deception. Charles positioned his entire army out of Napoleon's sight and behind the Danube River, misleading Napoleon about the size of his army and trapping him against the river. Charles then made use of his superior numbers, attacking the French with his entire force, while floating obstacles down river to prevent the rest of the French army from crossing. Napoleon retreated the next day. Charles was heavily criticized for not following up on his victory and pursuing Napoleon, but he had suffered over 25,000 casualties, even more than Napoleon, and his army was in no condition to pursue. Napoleon was able to bounce back from the defeat and inflicted an equally costly defeat on Charles at the Battle of Wagram six weeks later. Although it's strategic consequences were short lived, Charles' victory at Aspern-Essling had demonstrated his talents and the vulnerability of Napoleon; it also led to the death of Marshal Jean Lannes, one of Napoleon's most able commanders. Charles has been described as the only general who beat Napoleon "in a fair fight", as other generals who defeated him later, such as Kutuzov, Schwarzenberg, Blücher and Wellington, did so with vast superiority in numbers or in a much better strategic position.
Regrettably, Charles did not see active command again after 1809, with the role of commander-in-chief going to Schwarzenberg when Austria joined the Sixth Coalition in 1813.
Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8698a/8698aedb974e06581380d9cdcdc8071984bbe795" alt=""
Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, Prince of Wahlstatt, was a Prussian Generalfeldmarschall who served as the leading Prussian general during the War of the Sixth Coalition and the War of the Seventh Coalition. Blücher had served in the Seven Years' War and the War of the Fourth Coalition before this. He is best known for commanding the Army of Silesia during the German campaign of 1813 and the Campaign in north-east France in 1814, during which time he played a key role in the Battle of Leipzig and defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Laon. He also played a major role in the Waterloo campaign, delivering a decisive flanking manoeuvre at the Battle of Waterloo which relieved pressure on Wellington's line and caused the French army to fall into disarray.
Blücher's strategies and tactics was defined by extreme aggression, almost to the point of recklessness. He had a reputation for being a vulgar personality, even to the point of frustrating Frederick the Great during his early career, when he was just a junior officer. This agression was more useful than reckless, however, as it meant that Blücher's armies would move at speeds which not even Napoleon could predict at times. His arrival at the Battle of Leipzig was much sooner than Napoleon had expected, and may have helped to turn the tide of the battle in the Allies' favour. Blücher's aggression made him extremely valuable to the Coalition, although he often had to be reigned in by both his staff officers and the commander-in-chief, Prince Schwarzenberg. In the campaign in France, Blücher made the mistake of spreading his army out, opening it up to defeat in detail. Napoleon swiftly took advantage of this, defeating each of his corps in quick succession before defeating Blücher's army (which was now much smaller) at the Battle of Vauchamps. This series of battles became known as the Six Days' Campaign, and is regarded as one of the Emperor's greatest campaigns. Blücher showed unusual caution for the rest of the French campaign. He won an impressive defensive victory against Napoleon at Laon, but did not pursue Napoleon, having been misled about the size of his army.
During the Waterloo campaign, the 72-year-old Field Marshal showed a great amount of personal bravery and honour, leading a mass cavalry charge in person at the Battle of Ligny, although he was shot from his horse and nearly captured by the French in the process. It is fortunate, then, that Blücher's staff officers were also capable commanders in their own right and could take command in the event that Blücher found himself wishing to lead his army from the front. If Blücher had had subordinate officers who were any less talented, he may be remembered as more reckless than brave. When his staff officers expressed scepticism in Wellington's ability to hold the ground at Waterloo, Blücher ignored them, believing that it would be a blight on his honour to not help Wellington. This was consistent with his behaviour at Leipzig. Blücher's arrival at the battle on Napoleon's right flank undoubtedly saved Wellington's army, which was at the point of breaking. The specific way in which Blücher had arrived was also beneficial to Wellington, as he had extended his line to connect it with Wellington's extreme left, allowing for easy coordination between the two armies. The Prussians, with their usual speed and ferocity, quickly took the farmhouse of Plancenoit, which Napoleon had previously used as his headquarters. Rumours of complete encirclement spread through the French ranks and, after Wellington defeated the Imperial Guard, they broke ranks and fled, causing a complete victory for the Allies. The combination of Blücher's aggression and speed with Wellington's caution and expert defensive tactics had made Waterloo one of the greatest Allied victories of the Napoleonic Wars.
Tsar Alexander I of Russia
[edit]data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1aa6/c1aa673658b5eb6dda76e0692b3a01d7204d3b75" alt=""
Alexander I was Emperor of Russia following the assassination of his father, Paul I, and was one of the most prominent leaders during the Napoleonic Wars. Initially an enemy of Napoleon, he became an ally of the French Emperor following the Treaties of Tilsit in 1807, only to join the coalition again as a result of the French invasion of Russia in 1812. As a result of Russian victories during the conflict, he also became Grand Duke of Finland in 1809 and King of Poland from 1814.
Alexander was much younger than Napoleon, and much more eager for glory in battle. It was with this mindset that he forced the allied Austrian and Russian armies under General Mikhail Kutuzov to turn around from their strategic retreat and face Napoleon, even though he was in a strong defensive position. This led to the disaster at the Battle of Austerlitz, which is both one of Napoleon's greatest victories, and one of Alexander's greatest blunders, one from which it seems that he never learned.
Alexander took a relatively hands off approach to the 1812 campaign, in which Napoleon invaded Russia, leaving command in the hands of the much more competent generals Barclay de Tolly and Pyotr Bagration. However, Barclay and Bagration fiercely disagreed about the kind of strategy they should adopt. Barclay had adopted a policy of attrition warfare, applying a scorched earth strategy as he retreated and depriving Napoleon of Russian loot, which he needed to maintain his campaign. Bagration believed that the Russian Army should have taken a more offensive approach. It did not help that the two most senior Russian generals were not ethnically Russian, and were now actively destroying Russian lands. Alexander, from Saint Petersburg, attempted to counter the unpopularity of Barclay and Bagration by giving overall command to Kutuzov, whom he promoted to Field Marshal and sent to the front. Kutuzov was more popular with the Russian people, and had recently won great victories against the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War, helping to recover some of his reputation from the Emperor's debacle at Austerlitz. However, Kutuzov agreed that Barclay's strategy had been most effective, and continued it. Alexander's intervention, perhaps fortunately, had had little affect on the Russian strategy. The Russians suffered a bloody defeat at the Battle of Borodino, but it was equally bloody for the French, and failed to be decisive. When Napoleon arrived in Moscow, to find it burning and empty, he sent a message to Alexander, hoping that the Tsar would concede after the holy city had been taken. Alexander did not respond and the result was that Napoleon waited too long to retreat and suffered one of the most humiliating strategic failures of his career. It was probably the only time Alexander had an objectively positive effect on the coalition war effort.
After Napoleon's retreat from Russia, neutral countries across Europe, notably Sweden, Prussia and Austria, declared war on France, beginning the War of the Sixth Coalition. Alexander, now eager for battle, decided to take overall command of the Allied armies, with the title of Supreme Commander. In practice, the Austrian Prince of Schwarzenberg was the actual commander-in-chief, while other generals held command of their own armies, but Alexander still had to approve of his plans. Alexander was present at the battles of Dresden, Leipzig, Arcis-sur-Aube and Paris, although his role was minimal. Despite this, when the Allies achieved victory, the Tsar seemed convinced that he was a military genius on par with Napoleon, and that it had been his brilliant strategy that saved Europe. The Austrian foreign minister, Klemens von Metternich, described him as "the biggest baby I have ever met", and there was a reason for it. Alexander's childish behaviour at the Congress of Vienna helped to taint what could have been a new era for Europe; he sacrificed the independence of Poland and made numerous empty, but worrying, threats of war with the other powers, forcing them to accede to his demands.
Alexander may not have been the worst general of the Napoleonic Wars, but he was the most prominent bad general. His immaturity and his desperate need to be seen as equal to Napoleon caused several strategic setbacks for the Allies, and he was more than willing to throw his allies under the bus if he could ingratiate his own ego. He was never trusted by his allies, whether it was Napoleon or his fellow Coalition monarchs.
Corps of the Grande Armée
[edit]Coalition Wars Infoboxes
[edit]War of the Second Coalition | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the French Revolutionary Wars | |||||||
Left to right, top to bottom: Battle of the Pyramids, Battle of the Nile, Battle of Marengo, Battle of Hohenlinden | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
|
| ||||||
|
War of the Third Coalition | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||||||||
Left to Right, Top to Bottom: Battle of Ulm, Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Austerlitz | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
|
War of the Fourth Coalition | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||||
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
|
![]() | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Peninsular War | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||||||
Left to Right, Top to Bottom: Dos de Mayo Uprising, Battle of Bailén, Battle of Somosierra, Battle of Corunna, Battle of Salamanca, Battle of Vitoria | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
|
| ||||||
|
War of the Fifth Coalition | |||
---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||
Left to right, top to bottom: Battle of Eckmühl, Battle of Ratisbon, Battle of Aspern-Essling, Battle of Wagram | |||
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
|
French Invasion of Russia | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
|
War of the Sixth Coalition | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||||||||
Left to Right, Top to Bottom: Battle of Dresden, Battle of the Katzbach, Battle of Leipzig, Battle of Laon, Battle of Arcis-sur-Aube, Battle of Paris | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||
|
War of the Seventh Coalition | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of the Napoleonic Wars | |||||||
Left to Right, Top to Bottom: Battle of Quatre Bras, Battle of Ligny, Battle of Waterloo | |||||||
| |||||||
Belligerents | |||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() | ||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||
| |||||||
|
World War I Infobox
[edit]World War I | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allied Powers![]() ![]() |
Central Powers![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
|
World War II Infobox
[edit]World War II | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allied Powers The "Big Four" ![]() ![]() Allies before 1940 Allies after 1940 Allies after 1941 |
Axis Powers Main Axis Powers
![]() Other Axis Powers | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cold War | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() Other Western Bloc countries |
![]() Other Eastern Bloc countries | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
|
Second Cold War Infobox
[edit]Second Cold War | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
![]() |
![]() | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
|