What Is The World Like If 'The Shot Heard Round The World' Is Never Fired?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The distinction I make is that food and medicine preserve life,

Which allows the UK to keep more of its soldiers alive, and ... well you can see where I'm going with this.

[David Floyd]

I do, which is precisely my point - regardless of secondary effects, the primary purpose of food is to sustain life. What one does with that life is out of our control, but that does not make selling food immoral. It would have been better if we sold to Germany too, though.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I do, which is precisely my point - regardless of secondary effects, the primary purpose of food is to sustain life. What one does with that life is out of our control, but that does not make selling food immoral. It would have been better if we sold to Germany too, though.

David, I don't know where you get this idea that we were not selling stuff to Germany. We were. In fact, one of the primary reasons for us to stay out so long was that Britain kept on stopping American Ships that were bound for Holland(but held Goods for German agents in the Netherlands).

When we gripped about it, Britain cited a Precedent America had set during the Civil War, in which the USN had stopped British ships heading for Matamoros because we knew dang well the goods on board were heading straight into Confedereate hands.

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't think you can accurately predict what was going to happen to Russia before 1920 if there hadn't been a war. It's not just that other European nations were investing in Russian industry, they were actually building their own industries in Russia. Czarist Russia lacked the quantities of educated engineers and businessmen needed to exploit its own resources, and the mentality of the upper classes actively discouraged young men with the capability of obtaining such an education from doing so. Russia was still psychologically stuck in a bygone age.

Compounding the lack of interest by the educated classes was the monumental corruption of the Czarist government. You may have heard that when Russia mobilized only half of the infantry troops at the front had rifles. This wasn't due to industrial inadequacy. The government had paid for an adequate number of weapons, but the money went into the pockets of various Romanovs. There is nothing to indicate that this condition would have changed, the Duma was too weak to do anything about it. Of course it is also possible that if the people became increasingly disgusted with the lame Duma and the idiot Czar ther sould have been political unrest. In the short turn that would hve weakened the Russian military.

The only things that I know would have changed for the better with regards to the Russian army if the war had been delayed a few years is that the fortifications in Poland would have been completed and more heavy artillery would have been added at the corps level. These events might have made some difference, except, well, we're talking about Czar Nicky's army aren't we?

[GeneralTacticus]

Actually, I think there were army reforms of some kind in Russia due to be finished in 1917. I don't know what they actually were, but they scared the Germans enough that some of them thought they should launch a pre-emptive attack on them.

With regards to the Russian Revolution and the Hapsburg Empire, just because they did fall apart doesn't mean it was inevitable. WWI could have been averted at almost any stage - if the Austrians hadn't attacked the Serbians, if the Russians hadn't attacked the Austrians, if the Germans hadn't attacked the Russians. Anyway, the Revolution occurred largely because of all the shortages in Russia created by the war. Without the war, there would have been no revolution. And the war did not have to happen - while almost any kind of incident could potentially escalate to war, it could still be averted.

[Dr Strangelove]

The main reforms I mentioned - finish the border forts and upgrade the artillery. What wasn't addressed was the pilfering of army funds by the Grand Duke, Czar Nicky's uncle.

Europe wanted a war very badly. It was too deeply ingrained in the culture. I have some old books and etc, of my Grandmother's that date back to before the war. You really wouldn't believe the stuff they fed their kids then. She had a coloring book owned by her little brother. It had pictures of soldiers in uniform from various nations. Each picture was accompanied by a short ditty about military virtues and some vague references to how they represented exemplary national "traits" of their homelands. The history books in her collection, discussing what was then "recent" history, were so blatantly racist and chauvinistic they seemed more like books the Nazis would have used. Yet remember that these were American books. The nations of Europe had much stronger military traditions and were utterly unapologetic about them. By the second decade of the twentieth century the peoples of Europe really could hardly wait to send off their handsome young men dressed in their dashing uniforms if only for the opportunity to have a really grand parade.

[chequita guevara]

If you haven't studied the situation in Russia prior to the war, then yes, you can say there wouldn't have been a revolution. This is a long way of saying you don't know what you are talking about. From 1912 on unrest was growing in Russia. There were many strikes in 1913 and 1914. Byt mid-1914, Russia was in a pre-revolutionary situation, and had there been no war, it is very likely a revolution would have occurred in the next year or so. It may or may not have been successful, but it was in the cards. Frankly, the war only set back the work of the Bolsheviks by a year, since by late 1915, strikes had reached pre-war levels again.

GeneralTacitus, there would never be a bourgeois revolution in Russia. Although the bourgeousie had allied with the revolution in 1905, they quickly turned against it when the saw the workers were prepared to go all the way, and not limit themselves to simple bourgeois demands. They quickly resumed their loyalty to the Czar and maintained that loyalty even after his abdication.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets.

But there was prevention of that as well, especially when the aim was to starve the members.

And che... without a war, the revolution wouldn't have been as successful at all. But yeah, there would have been an uprising (whether it would have reached full-fledged revolution is open to debate).

[chequita guevara]

Wars are not the only triggers of revolutions, however, it is almost always a catastrophe that triggers one. It is generally the state's inability to cope with a catastrophy that leads to the delegitimisation of its authority and destabilization. Sometimes this is a war, such as in Russia in 1905 and gernaally in Europe from 1917 to 1926. In Nicaragua it was an Earthquake. In Chicago it was the Great Fire. In the gernal uprisings in Europe in 1848 it was a famine followed by an economic failure.

Russia was headed towards economic trouble in 1914, and while the war accelerated these problems greatly, there is almost always a sure of loyalty and patriotism when war starts, which bought the country some breathing space. Obviously not enough, as the country wasn't capable of maintaining food production with ten million peasants on the front lines.

[GeneralTacticus]

In Chicago it was the Great Fire. In the gernal uprisings in Europe in 1848 it was a famine followed by an economic failure.

There was a revolution in Chicago? What general uprisings in Europe?

OK Che, about the Russian Revolution. You are right in a sense, I have not done in-depth research on this, however I am not just talking out of my arse.

The 1905 Revolution started off mainly as a peaceful demonstration led by Father Gapon to the Winter Palace. Soldiers opened fire on them and naturally this pissed the people off. There were a great many strikes throughout Russia, along with numerous assassinations (I'm not sure who was killed though). The pressure from this forced the Czar to dismiss numerous ministers and appointed Count Witte as Prime Minister. He made peace with Japan, allowing Russia's more loyal troops to return home and put down the uprisings - there was a general strike in St. Petersburg and an armed insurrection in Moscow during 1905. These were crushed. Although the Revolution failed, Russia nown had a parliament (the Duma).

In 1914, while Russia did have economic difficulties, the Bolsheviks in particular were having great problems. The party was relatively small, with only 5-10 thousand members, and was full of police informers. Nicholas II had apparently regained his popular support. Although there were many social divisions and political and economic troubles, revolution was certainly not inevitable. The war set it off.

The March Revolution (which ousted the czar), consisted of a series of strikes, riots and defections by the garrison of Petrograd. It culminated in the Czar abdicating. The Romanov Dynasty ended when the Czar's brother refused to accept the crown. The Bolshevic Revolution was only able to take place because of the March Revolution. Without it Lenein would have stayed in Switzerland, with most of the other Bolshevik leaders also in exile. Moreover, the Provisional Government very weak when faced with revolution. It had the same problems that destroyed czarism, while at the same time it didn't have the capacity to repress the Bolsheviks. If Lenin had tried to set off a Revolution with Nicholas II still in power, he might well have been executed. One other factor that helped the Bolsheviks was General Kornilov. He was appointed C in C of the Russian army by Kerensky, with orders to restore army discipline. He wanted stronger government generally, and when Kerensky wouldn't implement it, he began marching on Petrograd, claiming Kerensky had ordered him to do so. Kerensky thought he was attempting to launch a coup, and therefore called upon the citizens of Petrograd to defend the city against him. To aid him in this, he released the Bolshevik leaders from prison and allowed Lenin back from Finland (he had moved against the Bolsheviks after publishing evidence that Lenein was an agent of Germany). Although Kornilov's army was stopped by railroad workers and never actually reached the city, the Bolsheviks got the credit for 'stopping' Kornilov. Additionally, they were both at liberty and armed.

With regards to food shortages. These were in fact caused mainly by the problems of transporting food from the countyside to the cities, due to the demands of the war. Without the war, obviously these problems would not have occurred. Morover, even if there would have been an uprising without the war, it's quite possible the army would have put it down. One of the factors that caused the revolution was that the army was no longer loyal to the czarist government - it couldn't be used against the revolutionaries, largely because of the conditions created by the war.

OK, enough typing, I can't think what else I should have mentioned.

EDIT: It was the March Revolution, not the April one.

[Lonestar]

Che,

The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Che,

The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

Actually, the oft ignored Great Labor Uprising of 1877 would be closer to the truth. In Chicago, pitched battles were fought with the military. The GLU was sparked by the economic crash of 1873. There is a reason, however, that Chicago was known as Red Chicago, and part of that had to do with the inability or rather, unwillingness, of the government and the "community leaders" to provide enough relief and work for the hundreds of thousnads made homeless just before winter by the Great Fire (notice how everthing was Great in those days? ).

The general European uprising refers to a series a major confrontations with governement following the Russian Revolution, such as the revolutions in Bavavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and later the one year Red Republic of Hungary (which was overthrown by a Romanian invasion). There was a massive general strike in Great Britain which nearly toppled the government, the largest yet strike wave in the US (including a general strike in Seattle, to which Lenin sent a letter of solidarity), and so on.

Oh, wait, not that uprising. Okay, in 1848 there was a series of revolutions in France, followed shortly by revolutions in western Germany, Hungary, and elsewhere. The Prussian Kaiser was overthrown, and Karl Marx helped lead a radical bourgesois government in the Rhineland (IIRC), before Russian troops intervened sqaushing the revolutions and restoring the Kaiser. In France, the workers pushed too far too fast, and were overthrown. Shortly thereafter, Louis Napoleon set himself up as emperor of France.

[Ramo]

The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

A revolution probably would've happened if it wasn't for the gov't crackdown (IIRC, some 80000 workers were involved).

What general uprisings in Europe?

Huge uprisings all across Europe. France (one revolution that suceeded to some degree), Austria, Russia, Prussia, the Italian states, the other German states, Denmark, etc. all had to deal with uprisings. It was only through the rulers' solidarity (the "Holy Alliance") were the revolutions crushed.

[chequita guevara]

Beat ya by three minutes.

[GeneralTacticus]

Re: those uprisings, I thought you said 1948. My bad .

Never heard about Karl Marx having led a government anywhere, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. All I can say is that it obviously didn't last long. I don't think that the Prussian Kaiser was actually overthrown, but your definition may be different from mine, mine being that he would have lost power and not been able to reclaim it.