Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"Significant" relative to what, because according to most peoples understanding of the word the Klan was no where near that level of power and influence.

The Klan marching on Washington





From Wikipedia.org

The following table shows the change in the Klan's estimated membership over time.[55] (The years given in the table represent approximate time periods.)
year membership
1920 4,000,000
1930 30,000
1970 2,000
2000 3,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klu_Klux_Klan#Political_influence

The second Ku Klux Klan rose to great prominence and spread from the South into the Midwest and Northern states and even into Canada. At its peak, Klan membership exceeded 4 million and comprised 20% of the adult white male population in many broad geographic regions, as high as 40% in some areas. Most of the membership resided in Midwestern states.

....

Klan delegates played a significant role at the pathsetting 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City, often called the "Klanbake Convention" as a result.

....

At the peak of the Klan's political power, a number of highly notable political figures in the U.S. and Canada joined the Klan or flirted with membership. The list includes two Supreme Court justices and, according to evidence which is in some cases contested, possibly two presidents.

Thou art pwned.

[Patroklos]

Wow Che, once again you fall victim to your inability to apply your fantacies to any modicum of reality.

4 million (estimated, very important) out of a population of what? And that number includes Canadians, from your own “source.” You trotted out Wiki, funny in its own right.

20% of the adult white male population

Because numbers look better if we arbitrarily pick and choose demographics.

in many broad geographic regions....

Or just pick any undisclosed conglomerate of geographic regions on a whim.

The sad part is you actually offered this drivel as proof of "significant" ie in regards to your argument coups level influence. There is no way you can actually believe it this. Like I said earlier it is necessary for you to propagandize like this because of your own political association, but deep down I know you are smart enough to smell your own BS.

They marched on Washington right? I guess the gays really are taking over. I wonder who else has mall permits this week. National Association of Librarians, Peoples Front of Judia, Boy Scouts (15 million members!!!), all poised to take down the government.

or flirted with membership.

Even better, now this qualifies you to call anyone a Klan member, GENIUS CHE. 100% of the population were Klan members!!!! All those poor commie flirting movie producers in the 50’s really were trying to over through our government back then. Commie history is fun!

to the “real” revolutionary.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



a cynicism shared, if not in so many words, by Brits, French, and " not officially belgians".

Look at how Britain got Nigeria, and Uganda.

Look at the naked land grab in Rhodesia.

And your point ?

Contrast people in comparable positions, why don't'cha ?

How about Gladstone (whom Kaiser Wilhelm II and Bismarck both disliked) and the Iron Chancellor himself ?

Rather different views on colonialism, imperialism and black Africans there, I think you'll find.

In the early 1880s when other European countries were acting to put an end to the Arab slave trade, so deeply concerned was Bismarck for the well-being of black Africans, so hurt was he by their being sold in market places, that Bismarck directly ordered the German Foreign Ministry to sidestep or ignore the issue.

I think you'll also find that the British Imperial government was inveigled into more than a few colonial wars by traders and missionaries who were already imbroiled in local affairs- in China, where pressure was applied by traders associated with the East India Company, and in Africa by zealous missionaries.

So eager was the Imperial government for land abroad that it somehow allowed Germany to snatch South West Africa- despite its bordering the troublesome but strategically important British territories at the Cape.

In any case, this is Bismarck attempting to appeal to the anti-slavery sentiments of a Roman Catholic political grouping, despite his not being Roman Catholic and not caring one iota about the Arab slave trade or black Africans.

That's one trifecta of domestic, imperial and colonial cynicism all in one tasty package.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Lancer
It was the alliance system.

I, for one, blame the butlers.

Those liveried gaunt stiffs. Ugh. Always up to no-good.

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by Wycoff


... there wasn't all that much damage that Kaiser Wilhelm could do besides make more blustery PR gaffes (though it seems like someone was reigning him in after 1909). Wilhelm wasn't an absolute monarch. He could appoint the Chancellor, but his power was limited by the Junkers, the Military, and the Reichstag. If Kaiser Bill went completely insane, they would have deposed him in favor of his son.

That was, unfortunately, a rather big 'if'. The Second Reich was not quite an absolutist monarchy, but it came pretty close. Flatterers and sycophants surrounded the Kaiser, who always opted for advice from the Junker militarists in preference to anything that mere elected politicians might have to say.

Getting rid of Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria was simple, but getting rid of Kaiser Wilhelm II would not have proved so easy. Only once war had begun in earnest did the Kaiser take a back seat, and by then the damage was done. It is possible to directly link parliamentary legislation post-Bismarck's resignation to the Kaiser; for instance:

the fleet building policies

the prostitution law

education policies.

When confronted with a non-compliant Reichstag, he could and did dismiss it, until one more to his liking was elected. It goes without saying that this was even more the case for his ministers:

"I cannot consider it useful to make suggestions to His Majesty the Kaiser which have no prospect of actual success and only make him annoyed with me."

Chancellor Bernhard von Bulow

and

"I would be worsening my position in relation to H. M. for a subsidiary aim without any hope of success."

Alfred von Tirpitz

Both Friedrich von Holstein and Tirpitz went to some lengths to emphasise how personal pressure from the Kaiser was responsible for the aggressive development of the German Navy- and yet Tirpitz also had to suggest that a propaganda campaign be launched to convince the Reichstag and the German public of the necessity for this fleet, such was the general unenthusiasm for it.

Even taking this for granted (the pyscho-sexual disorders are still a matter for debate, IIRC),

There's an anecdote I can't find at the moment, about a German courtier who writes to the Kaiser about his joy at appearing before him dressed as a poodle, and how much the Kaiser will appreciate this; then there's the Kaiser's very close relationship with Eulenburg and his friends, which indicates that even if the Kaiser were not actively gay, he was certainly happy to be seen in the company of known homosexuals. And then there's his love of very tall military men in showy dress uniforms...

Oh, and the curious case of the pornographic letters ( I don't have the full details handy, but I'll try to find them) received at court....

Like I mention in the quoted post, these groups were fringe groups.

The Conservatives weren't though, and with a Kaiser who grew increasingly more anti-semitic and a fashionable petit bourgeois antisemitism coupled with an ever present rural or peasant antisemitism, renewed annually by mystery or miracle plays, then add the new pseudo-scientific antisemitism supposedly based on Darwinian theory, and there was not only fertile ground for racial antagonism, but a section of the populace eager to resort to it when occasion rose- as it did in times of economic strife such as the so-called Long Depression of 1873-1896, and earlier in the 19th Century in the Rhineland, for instance.

By the 1920s, Ludendorff had gone beyond the pale.

But he would have been a victor in a winning Imperial Germany, not a disconsolate member of the far right looking back on what might have been. In any case, look at the publication date of his war memories- only 1920.

I could see a victorious Germany solving its Jewish problem by asking its partner, Turkey to cooperate in setting up a new Jewish homeland as part of the whole Berlin-Baghdad Railway Economic CoProsperity Sphere.

It would be a propaganda coup for Turkey and Germany and distract world attention from the Armenian troubles, and be useful for Turkey in that it would have a politically and economically beneficial counterweight to Arab nationalists in the region.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
In the early 1880s when other European countries were acting to put an end to the Arab slave trade, .

By putting the Congo in the hands of King Leopold. Well, at least it kept from the anti-free trade French.

And by sending Gordon to fight slavery in the Sudan. Of course Gladstone, whom you cite, didnt think much of Gordon. Perhaps he saw hypocrisy on the slave trade as not strictly a German affair.


(Note - i know well that Britain took a strong role in ending - sort of - the Congo horror, and that German imperialism was particularly nasty - and that Bismarck was cynical - and that Brit imperialism was often driven by local traders and missionaires - though by no means entirely - Im merely contesting that cynical use of slavery to justify imperial expansion was particularly German - I mean nothing Bismarck did in Africa compares to the rampant cynicism of Leopold)

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by molly bloom




But he would have been a victor in a winning Imperial Germany, not a disconsolate member of the far right looking back on what might have been. In any case, look at the publication date of his war memories- only 1920.
.

Have y'all decided on the Point of departure for German victory? I thought you all had Germany winning at the Marne, and getting a favorable piece by the end of 1914. I think thats sheer fantasy (IE not a feasible what if) but if it did happen, Ludendorff wouldnt be that big a figure postwar.

What happens to the Jews in a victorious Germany depends on several factors. one is the extent of conquests in the East. A germany that makes large scale conquest will be looking for friendly locals. OTL, the German govt set up a committee of German Jews to appeal to their coreligionists in the East. This didnt work out all that well, as the Russian Jews wisely were afraid to bet on a German victory. But if Germany has actually won and is running an eastern empire, the incentive for the Jews is to support the new empire. Unless, of course, the Germans rely more heavily on the Ukrainians. But even thats not clear, as some Jews were quite supportive of the Ukrainian state in 1918.
Secondly, does a revolution still happen in Russia? If no revolution, we've got a losing tsarist state, probably going more intensely antisemitic. Jews are more likely to look to Germany. OTOH a victorious Germany may be less antisemitic, since they dont to resort to antisemitism esp in times of stress, or to ward off the left. OTOH if there is a Russian Revolution, things might not be as different from OTL.

Also, if France loses, what does French politics look like? A move to the far right, a la vichy, and the fall of Republicanism, or a move to the far left, the socialists proven right? Its hard to see bourgeois republicanism doing well though.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by molly bloom

. It is possible to directly link parliamentary legislation post-Bismarck's resignation to the Kaiser; for instance:

the fleet building policies
.

IIUC Calleo, in "The German Problem Reconsidered" suggests the fleet building program was largely supported by the German bourgeois, who, by that point, supported imperialism for economic reasons (among other things, the fear of losing markets as Britain began to consider Imperial preferences)

If theres a serious academic work since that counters Calleo, Id be very interested to hear about it.

[lord of the mark]

re the klan

The klan of the early 1920's was very powerful, and, unlike earlier and later incarnations, was not limited to the South, but was very strong in the midwest. And it focused less on race than on hostility to immigration, esp Catholic and Jewish immigration.

OTOH I dont think the US capitalist establishment would ever have subordinated itself to the Klan in the way the German capitalists did to the Nazis. Despite the facile comparison above, there were too many differences. 1. There was no Communist state close at hand. 2. Left socialist movements were historically weak in the US, as compared to pre WW1 Germany 3. The regional diversity of the US. 4. Not only the considerable importance of "liberal" ideals in the national identity, but the relative strength of "liberal" institutions. Germany wasnt JUST a defeated power - it was ALSO a new born democracy, with very weak institutions.

Even without going into "essentialist" ideas, the notion that it could "happen anywhere" is somewhat exaggerated.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



By putting the Congo in the hands of King Leopold. Well, at least it kept from the anti-free trade French.

Nothing to do with the Arab slave trade, was it ? Still, great non sequitur.

And by sending Gordon to fight slavery in the Sudan. Of course Gladstone, whom you cite, didnt think much of Gordon.

He thought enough of him to send him back to the Sudan, didn't he ? You're still not actually saying anything about the differences of opinion or belief between Bismarck and Gladstone I notice. Try to address the point...

Perhaps he (Gladstone presumably ?) saw hypocrisy on the slave trade as not strictly a German affair.

And perhaps he saw Christ in glory in the tetramorph.

Speculate all you want, but do give us something either Gladstone or Bismarck said directly on the subject of the Arab Slave trade in Africa, why don't you ?

Im merely contesting that cynical use of slavery to justify imperial expansion was particularly German.

I believe I addressed the cynicism PERSONALLY and ONLY to Chancellor Bismarck. Not to Germans.

i know well that Britain took a strong role in ending - sort of - the Congo horror,

So do I. I've read Sir Roger Casement's evidence on the subject. And do give full credit where credit's due:

The full Report runs for forty pages of the Parliamentary Papers to which is appended another twenty pages of individual statements gathered by the Consul, including several detailing the grim tales of killings, mutilation, kidnapping and cruel beatings of men, women and children by soldiers of Bula Matadi (i.e., the name used by the natives for the Congo Administration of King Leopold). Copies of the Report and enclosures were transmitted by the British government to the Belgian government as well as to governments (Germany, France, Russia, et al.) who were signatories to the Berlin Act in 1885. The Congo administration was thus forced to initiate an investigation into the atrocities detailed in the Report which led to the arrest and punishment of white officials who had been responsible for cold-blooded killings during a rubber-collecting expedition in 1903 (including one Belgian national who was given five years' penal servitude for causing the shooting of at least 122 Congolese natives.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob73.html

An Irish patriot:

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by lord of the mark



... the German bourgeois, who, by that point, supported imperialism for economic reasons (among other things, the fear of losing markets as Britain began to consider Imperial preferences)

If theres a serious academic work since that counters Calleo, Id be very interested to hear about it.

Perhaps Calleo ignored the fact that the British electorate had rejected Chamberlain's protectionist policies in favour of free trade, allowing German exports to compete in the British home market and in its colonies abroad.

Calleo, in "The German Problem Reconsidered" suggests the fleet building program was largely supported by the German bourgeois,

If this were the case, why would Tirpitz fret about a propaganda campaign needed to persuade the public to support the expansion of the naval forces ?

75% of German trade was with Europe, over 60% with countries of the Entente. Germany actually increased its share of world trade in the years up to 1914. It was running a trade surplus with the British Empire.

Going to war for Austria-Hungary was not simply unnecessary; it was financial suicide.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Nothing to do with the Arab slave trade, was it ? Still, great non sequitur.

Excuse me? The entire justification for the Congo Free State, accepted by the powers in 1884 was to fight the arab slave trade.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Perhaps Calleo ignored the fact that the British electorate had rejected Chamberlain's protectionist policies in favour of free trade, allowing German exports to compete in the British home market and in its colonies abroad.

I doubt he ignored it, its a very reputable history, and if theres another established history that contradicts its main thesis, Ive yet to hear of it.

75% of German trade was with Europe, over 60% with countries of the Entente. Germany actually increased its share of world trade in the years up to 1914. It was running a trade surplus with the British Empire.

Much of their trade was with Russia, which was industrializing, and doing so behind a tariff wall, IIUC. Another part was with Austria, whose existence appeared to be endangered. And while Chamberlain had not succeeded, IIUC Calleo asserts that the German bourgeois feared he would succeed.

Going to war for Austria-Hungary was not simply unnecessary;

But the question is not why they went to war in July 1914, but why they took an aggressive stance on colonies, Turkey, Morocco, the fleet, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by molly bloom


If this were the case, why would Tirpitz fret about a propaganda campaign needed to persuade the public to support the expansion of the naval forces ?
.

Presumably because the entire population of Germany was not bourgeois. Just as ruling classes in other capitalist states had to use propaganda. The point being it just made Germany one more capitalist state.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Excuse me? The entire justification for the Congo Free State, accepted by the powers in 1884 was to fight the arab slave trade.

Apologies; it should have read 'German response to the Arab Slave trade'.

Presumably because the entire population of Germany was not bourgeois.

A point I believe I've already covered.

I doubt he ignored it, its a very reputable history, and if theres another established history that contradicts its main thesis, Ive yet to hear of it.

I'm constitutionally disinclined at the moment to help you with your research. See: 'l.o.t.m.'s response to molly's humour '.

Much of their trade was with Russia, which was industrializing, and doing so behind a tariff wall. Another part was with Austria, whose existence appeared to be endangered.

The trade treaties with Russia and Austria-Hungary were due to expire in 1914. Austria was immediately being threatened by whom, exactly ? Serbia ? (I mean in reality, not in propaganda terms)

In terms of figures I believe I've already given percentages for German trade.

And while Chamberlain had not succeeded, Calleo asserts that the German bourgeois feared he would succeed.

Quote ? Reference ? Which German bourgeois, exactly?

But the question is not why they went to war in July 1914, but why they took an aggressive stance on colonies, Turkey, Morocco, the fleet, etc.

The political vacuum that appeared after Bismarck.

After Bismarck, German diplomacy and foreign policy become erratic, unpredictable and self-defeating. As the German courtiers and advisers I've previously quoted have stated, it becomes difficult to offer advice to a king that the king does not wish to hear. This becomes problematical when the king is an autocrat and mentally unstable.

Bismarck said (sensibly) that his Africa was in Europe; the Kaiser wanted (possibly out of a misplaced sense of inferiority) to have both a Mittelafrika and a Mitteleuropa (under German domination) .