The British Empire

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Serb owes everyone here an apology and three months of not mentioning Mother Russia.

We'd be lucky to get 3 days, Sprayber.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Tolls
Cruddy:
Nigeria may have kept its borders, but not without bloodshed...Biafra.

Oh s**t. As sick as it sounds I completely forgot about that. A big apology from me.

[Demerzel]

I think the idea that only the British Empire is responsible for the problems in the middle east is highly flawed. The problems in that area of the world have existed for millenia.

The area is a strategic crossroad between east and west and thus been fought over many many times. Also factor in the crusades and yes the British Empire making a hash of the Palestine state/Israel issue.

Yus we f*cked up but no more than anyone else in that land it would seem.

[Japher]

I think the idea that only the British Empire is responsible for the problems in the middle east is highly flawed. The problems in that area of the world have existed for millenia.

But, no one wants to blame themselves. The problem is obviously the faults of the tribes that exist there... Thus, we should be blaming Abraham, right?

---

It seems that Imperialism has existed for many many years, not just with the Brithish empire. There seems to be a passing of the torch that occurs every so often. Is this a natural even, in so far that it is the nature of man, or is this some kind of cycle that can be stopped?

[chequita guevara]

Rue Britania

Long may she wane!

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Who's talking about WW2? I'm talking about WW1, you silly person. You and your Frenchie friends alone never had a chance against the German and Austrian might. The war would be over in 1915.

You mean, by the time the Brits actively entered the conflict ?

Without the US, the most likely outcome of WW1 would have been a stalemate in the West (maybe in slight disfavour of the Germans because their army was even more demoralized than the western ones), and a crushing of Austria-Hungary + Russia.

Without the Brits, the war would have been won by Germany, but France would have put up a serious fight, and the territory loss for France wouldn't have been too terrible. Actually, France would have lost because of inferior navy and too high mobility of German troops on sea.

[Cruddy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by Spiffor

... Actually, France would have lost because of inferior navy and too high mobility of German troops on sea.

I never realised they could walk on water.

[Ecthy]

at least you all agree that Germans have always been superior by nature. that's good.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by Spiffor
Without the US, the most likely outcome of WW1 would have been a stalemate in the West (maybe in slight disfavour of the Germans because their army was even more demoralized than the western ones), and a crushing of Austria-Hungary + Russia.

That doesn't make sense. Even with U.S. involvement, Russia was defeated. So where do you get the crushing of Austria-Hungary from?

As for the West--demoralization was rampant on the Brit/French side as well. Many historians have speculated that without the U.S. reinforcements, the exhausted Anglo-Franco armies wouldn't have been able to put up too much of a fight. Germany's last big push of the war might have been effective in this light. It could at least have forced a far more favorable peace for her than what actually occured.

[Spiffor]

The US involvement actually made possible the allied offensive of 1918, as well as the Tanks.
The German army was demoralized, but unlike the French / British army, it was starving as well. Civilian Germany was unable to follow because of the embargo and the resulting shortages, and as such couldn't supply the army satisfactorily.

Had the US not been involved, the Western stalemate would have been as such in slight disfavour of Germany, nothing like the Versailles humiliation indeed.

- Had Britain not been involved, the Sea mastery of Germany would have made it win the war, because France had a miserable navy compared to the British or German ones, and most of France's resources were involved in supplying the ground troops. But the French prowess on land would have made the French defeat not as terrible as the 1870 or the 1940 ones. The preparation to war, and the willingness of killing Krauts was at its highest in WW1.

[lord of the mark]

geez, you guys cant make connections

serbs threadjacking ought to at least suggest to you why the british empire was a good thing, a very good thing.

Do you really think that it the brits had not gone into India, or had gotten out at any time from 1815 to 1914, india would have been independent


India would have suffered the same fate as every other stan from the Caspian to the Pamirs - it would have become part of the Russian empire. As would Istanbul as well. And that empire might very well have survived, and perhaps dominated the globe. Imagine a world ruled by the iron fist of czarism. (not to mention the bigotry)

damned fine job, Brits. damned fine job.

[Ecthy]

and if the revolution had taken place in a bigger and mor einfluential Russia - socialism would have worked and the world be a peaceful, socially equal place

[Ecthy]

communism

Stalin

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
and if the revolution had taken place in a bigger and mor einfluential Russia - socialism would have worked and the world be a peaceful, socially equal place

for socialism to have worked - IE to have remained marxist, and not leninist - it would have had to have been a much more industrialized Russia.

In any case i cant see a revolution in russia in this timeline - since theres no world war 1, or at any rate a very different one. OTOH there might have been a marxist revolution somewhere else in europe, maybe Germany, but it would probably have been snuffed out by Czarist troops, after the model of 1848.

[Ecthy]

the Russian revolution had emerged before, think 1905

apart from that, low industrialization degree does hinder socialist efforts.