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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Maniac


Lusitania IIRC

correct.

and while the sinking of the Lusitania added to war fever, it was NOT sited as a casus belli. Rather the German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare was.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


correct.

and while the sinking of the Lusitania added to war fever, it was NOT sited as a casus belli. Rather the German declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare was.

Yep, that's how I understood it, but after my other contribution I thought I'd keep schtum on that one.

Footnote:
One of the mysteries of original The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy radio series was the line "Chance? You might as well lower haystacks off the deck of the Lusitania". Adams wrote it in as a pencilled- footnote. Apparantly he had no idea why he wrote it or what it meant, but it somehow got into the dialog and stayed there.

[Blaupanzer]

The US wasn't really neutral in any sense prior to its entry into the war. The Lusitania, the Reuben James, the Mexican incident (Germany attempts to induce Mexico to attack American interests), were all whipped up by the administration and the press to justify overcoming Washington's admonition about not getting tangled up in foreign wars. We loaned Britain and France a lot of money, converting it into armaments, especially ammunition, produced in this country. We freed British ships for blockade duty by escorting our ships into areas where the Germans had warned us to stay out. Unrestricted warfare was their response to our provocation. The US then used that as a primary justification to enter the war.

I still contend the cycle of warfare was inevitable, even if specific outbreaks could be delayed. 1875 led to 1905, when the war was delayed, to 1914, to 1938, when war was delayed to 1939, and so forth. This cycle was only broken by the arrival of the city busting bomb -- nukes. Even with those in place world war nearly broke out in the early 60's and the early 80's.

If WW II was inevitable, then the actual results of WW I only changed the relative importance of the various players. Losing WW I would have made France less "effective," as though being overrun was a sign of effectiveness.

Antisemitism and its manifestations has been covered rather definitively by Hannah Arendt. I won't go into her theses here, but a triumphant Germany would still have been ripe for pogrom-style assaults on Jews. More may have "gotten away" by being driven out, but they still would have lost everything, and many would have died.

[Blaupanzer]

Good thread, Lancer.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer Antisemitism and its manifestations has been covered rather definitively by Hannah Arendt. I won't go into her theses here, but a triumphant Germany would still have been ripe for pogrom-style assaults on Jews. More may have "gotten away" by being driven out, but they still would have lost everything, and many would have died.

This is our primary point of disagreement. Arguing that there would have been widespread pogroms even in a victorious Germany seems to be a sideways attempt to make the old "Germans are inherently evil" argument.

There was anti-semitism in German culture. It was there in the Secon Reich. However, I don't think that there was anything particularly special about German antisemitism that would create a Holocaust regardless of the circumstances. The sudden loss of a war that the German people thought they were winning, the unprecedented War Guilt clause and national humiliation springing from Versailles, the spectre of Communist revolution, and terrible socio-economic instability that Germany suffered through most of the twenties created a situation in which the average German started giving widespread creedence to theories that were previously held only by the "lunatic fringe." The typical antisemitism that was shared by the Wilhelmine Germans (and by most other contemporary Europeans) provided a fertile ground for the radical anti-semites, but it was only able to be cultivated IMO because of the societal stresses that accompanied the loss of the war, the hyperinflation, etc. Denying that these stresses played a huge role in the Holocaust leads to the conclusion that there was something particularly evil about the German people.

If the Germans would have won, then I think that the average person would retain the Wilhelmine level of antisemitism: they would have been disdainful of Jews, but they wouldn't have been homicidal. Prior to the war, Germany was a better place for Jews than most of Europe (especially Russia). Virulent anti-semites were fringe political actors. Without the stresses brought on by the loss of the War, I don't see why that would change.

I'll have to read what Arendt says.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Britain has always wanted a balance of power on the continent. What made the British allies of France was the fact that Germany was the fastest-growing European power, far quicker than France, and a threat for Britain.

And even then, Britain waited almost one year before joining the war..

WTF? Where did you get that? They waited a few days, and then sent the BEF in, as well as starting naval combat. It took them till 1915 till they sent really large numbers of ground troops in, but that was cause they simply didnt have a large army.

Britain waiting a year to make war on Germany would make a really good "what if".

Not sure youd like the outcome.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
The US wasn't really neutral in any sense prior to its entry into the war. The Lusitania, the Reuben James, the Mexican incident (Germany attempts to induce Mexico to attack American interests), were all whipped up by the administration

The Reuben James was sunk in 1941.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Who or what swung the Catholic Centre Party behind the idea of German colonies in Africa ?

Bismarck.

When confronted by a native uprising, Bismarck needed 10 000 000 more marks from the Reichstag to fund the military required to put it down.

He cynically said:



with respect to the Arab slave trade. Bismarck actually despised Black Africans, but the only way to get the Catholic party to approve the funds was by suddenly discovering a hitherto unknown 'tendresse' and a new desire to:



And also with alcohol, because he opposed cooperation with other foreign powers on the restriction of sales of alcohol to native Africans, possibly because he owned a distillery himself...

It's worthwhile remembering that the colonial empire of Germany was almost all achieved within the space of a year: in July of 1884 Togoland and the Cameroons, South West Africa in August that year, New Guinea in December and German East Africa by May 1885.

I do admire his cynicism however:

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Yep, that's how I understood it, but after my other contribution I thought I'd keep schtum on that one.

Footnote:
One of the mysteries of original The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy radio series was the line "Chance? You might as well lower haystacks off the deck of the Lusitania". Adams wrote it in as a pencilled- footnote. Apparantly he had no idea why he wrote it or what it meant, but it somehow got into the dialog and stayed there.

what if USS Lousiana sunk?

"USS Louisiana (Battleship # 19, later BB-19), 1906-1923
USS Louisiana, a 16,000-ton Connecticut class battleship built at Newport News, Virginia, was commissioned in June 1906. During that year and the next, she was active in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean areas, including making a diplomatic visit to Havana, Cuba, in September 1906 and carrying President Theodore Roosevelt to Panama later in that year. From December 1907 until February 1909, Louisiana steamed around the World with the other battleships of the "Great White Fleet". During this cruise, she called on ports in Trinidad, South America, Mexico, the U.S. west coast, Hawaii, Australia, the Philippines, Japan, China, Ceylon, and the Mediterranean."

Some guy gets sloppy in the engine room, and the ship blows up. Teddy Roosevelt dies in late 1906 Whos the Veep at the time? What happens next?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And even then, Britain waited almost one year before joining the war.

Is this what they teach in French schools, or is this just another example of Spiff's favourite hobby of gratuitous Rosbif-bashing?

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/mons.htm

[Lancer]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


WTF? Where did you get that? They waited a few days, and then sent the BEF in, as well as starting naval combat. It took them till 1915 till they sent really large numbers of ground troops in, but that was cause they simply didnt have a large army.

Britain waiting a year to make war on Germany would make a really good "what if".

Not sure youd like the outcome.

I was somewhat stunned by this Spiffor statement also. Not very realistic realism. However Spif usually is much more on the ball so whatever.

[Colon™]

The BEF was very useful in slowing down the German advance through Belgium and holding the positions at the Yser river, thereby hampering the closing down of the trap that the Schlieffen plan involved.

[Lancer]

I agree, the Brits saved France, and KW really did bring them in on the other side.

[Dauphin]

Britain entered the war to help Belgium, France just happened to benefit too.

[Lancer]

It was the alliance system.