The British Empire

[Velociryx]

Oh how true....'twas the evil Brits then, that dashed the Glorious Russian Revolution.....if not for them, *imagine* what a Communist Paradise we could all be living in!

-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

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.

I'm with Boris. I fail to see how you can predict a stalemate much less one with a slight disfavor for the Germans considering that they had just knocked the Russians out of the war and the blockade you were refering to had no signifigant effect on the outcome of the war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
the Russian revolution had emerged before, think 1905

.

yeah, after a defeat in war (by britains ally, Japan ) and even then the revolution was defeated.

and had it won, it certainly wouldnt have been both socialist and democratic. Not in a country where the proletariat was such a tiny minority - it would have been one or the other (or possibly neither)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
communism

Stalin

beer or whiskey???

[Spiffor]

DD :

Even thought the Germans (+ Austrians) had a huge military advantage over Russia and were winning on the East Front, Russia's fastfall is first and foremost explained the revolution, which was due to internal problems, even though it was sparked by the war.
Saying that "the Germans had just knocked the Russians out of the war" is a gross exaggeration. The German military is far from being the only, even the main reason of such an outknocking.

The blockade had a significant effect on the Germans' morale. It provoked many shortages in Germany, from common consuption goods (what in Civ3 would be called "luxuries" ) to food. Germany had dire food problems by the end of the war, and the troops were far more demoralized than the French ones.
Besides, the revolts within the French military were mostly due to organisational problems (bad distribution of rations, lack of sleep, assholish officers), and they have been solved by adressing those problems, while the repression was very mild. I forgot if there were 19 or 47 executed. The morale of French troops became correctly steady again after the revolts, while the German morale was still tanking.

Besides, the Anglo-French alliance had the upper hand on Tank technology. Along as the boost of manpower that came with the Yanks, the Tanks made the western victory possible. And both are nearly equal factors when explaining the German humiliation.

[mrmitchell]

Setting aside the question of whether or not the British had a right to an empire in the first place (for the record, I don't think they did), or whether or not imperialism is wrong (IMO, it is), was the presence of the British positive or negative, overall, in terms of the development/"civilization" of regions such as Africa, India, Australia/NZ, US, Canada, etc.?

Whaddya think?

I think Britian had right to Empire--nations will be nations, and if one can conquer the world, more power to 'em! (Though if they are an evil rogue state or an evil unrogue state we'd do best to try to stop them. )

However, as for the development, look at it this way--were it not for the British kickstart in all of its colonies, they might still have their natural cultures, or they might be flaming heaps of rubble (exaggeration on the horizon, sir! ). A "nation incubator" is a very good idea in that most of the nations it frees will grow to be ripe, old, harmonious states.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DD :

Even thought the Germans (+ Austrians) had a huge military advantage over Russia and were winning on the East Front, Russia's fastfall is first and foremost explained the revolution, which was due to internal problems, even though it was sparked by the war.
Saying that "the Germans had just knocked the Russians out of the war" is a gross exaggeration. The German military is far from being the only, even the main reason of such an outknocking.

The blockade had a significant effect on the Germans' morale. It provoked many shortages in Germany, from common consuption goods (what in Civ3 would be called "luxuries" ) to food. Germany had dire food problems by the end of the war, and the troops were far more demoralized than the French ones.
Besides, the revolts within the French military were mostly due to organisational problems (bad distribution of rations, lack of sleep, assholish officers), and they have been solved by adressing those problems, while the repression was very mild. I forgot if there were 19 or 47 executed. The morale of French troops became correctly steady again after the revolts, while the German morale was still tanking.

Besides, the Anglo-French alliance had the upper hand on Tank technology. Along as the boost of manpower that came with the Yanks, the Tanks made the western victory possible. And both are nearly equal factors when explaining the German humiliation.

the mutiny was probably due to casualties. Every nations army went through some kind of collapse when casualties as a percentage of troops reached a certain level - in 1917 france had reached the level Italy did at the time of Caporetto (interestingly the Confederacy reached that level in 1864 - and promptly proceeded to collapse)

The French army was able to recover because the british army essentially relieved them in 1917 - taking a large portion of the front, and conducting all offensive operations.

That the US was unimportant to the allied victory is often based on the debilated state of the German army by the end of the spring offensive in 1918, even before large numbers of US troops were involved. However it seems unlikely Ludendorff would have launched the spring offensive if not for the need to knock France out of the war before the Americans arrived. Instead the Germans would likely have shifted to a defensive posture, and demobilized troops returned from the Russian front, to beef up their economy and fight the effects of blockade. Whether tank technology could have proven decisive in those circumstances is not clear, AFAIK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even thought the Germans (+ Austrians) had a huge military advantage over Russia and were winning on the East Front, Russia's fastfall is first and foremost explained the revolution, which was due to internal problems, even though it was sparked by the war.

Yes... however, even with the new tactics leading to huge gains by the Russians, after a while, the gains slowed and even stopped. In the end, without a second revolution, I'm sure there would have resulted a stalemate, with German forces well within Russia.

it seems unlikely Ludendorff would have launched the spring offensive if not for the need to knock France out of the war before the Americans arrived.

Very true. The main goal was to destroy the French before the fresh and plentiful American arrived. The arriving Americans also had a morale boost on the French and British troops in the area. The Americans brought some new hope to the line. That the allied forces would have superior numbers and maybe that would end this damned war.

I also believe that the arrival of the American stablized French troops... which mutinied probably because of the casulties and the deplorable conditions (especially in their sub-standard trenches).

[Boris Godunov]

Another factor to consider is to what extent would the German command have ravaged the newly acquired eastern lands to feed the Western army. Granted, it had probably been ravaged already by the Russians, but I bet the German leadership would have been willing to squeeze it to the max to provide any boost it could to its forces.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The French army was able to recover because the british army essentially relieved them in 1917 - taking a large portion of the front, and conducting all offensive operations.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know about that

Instead the Germans would likely have shifted to a defensive posture, and demobilized troops returned from the Russian front, to beef up their economy and fight the effects of blockade. Whether tank technology could have proven decisive in those circumstances is not clear, AFAIK.

That's why I think WW1 without the Yanks would have been a stalemate in the West, rather than a victory. Everybody would have been fed up with the war shortly after 1918 anyways IMHO, probably in 1920 or so. The tactical advantage of the Anglo-French would have been useful in pressing Germany to make more concessions during the peace deals, but nothing like the Versailles humiliation of course. Heck, I'm not even sure Germany would have given back Alsace in such a stalemate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes... however, even with the new tactics leading to huge gains by the Russians, after a while, the gains slowed and even stopped. In the end, without a second revolution, I'm sure there would have resulted a stalemate, with German forces well within Russia.

I don't doubt the Russians would have lost even without a revolution. But the quickness of the fall is clearly explained by the revolutions. Had only military factors been in play, Russia would have hold quite a few more years.

[Velociryx]

Hold on?! Hold on!? How dare you! Russia had the Germans right where they wanted them! They were all set to mop up the floor with the pitifully equipped German army (Russian equipment of the era was vastly superior, you see), and then, just for grins, dismantle the Anglo/French armies before heading back home!

-=Vel=-

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Thanks for the info, I didn't know about that

i got it from Keegan, a Brit historian.

[Solly]

I'd call him a footie manager.

[Az]