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

[Qilue]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Was the colonial imperialist mentality the ultimate cause of WW1? Were repeated world wars inevitable until imperialism eventually died away? Personally I think so. So long as the vast majority of the Earth's surface was under the control of a few imperial powers the dynamic lesser imperial powers were faced with a situation that seemed hopeless. Their development was limited not by their own talent and capacities, but by the grip of the great powers on markets.

The succesful fight for freedom by today's developing nations has saved millions of lives in the "developed" world by freeing them from the struggle for access to colonies.

So in effect, the current economic imperialism of the US is lessons not learned but will eventually fade away once lessons of history assert themselves?

[Kontiki]

Would the world have been a better place if Germany had won the World Cup?

[Lancer]

This thread has seen some great posts.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Would the world have been a better place if Germany had won the World Cup?

It would have proven Nostradamus right....

What did he predict? Something like:

In the sixth month of the year 2006,
The King of Spain will lead his legions over the Pyrannes
[something about a battle in central Europe]
And bring home the Holy Grail.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

But Austria still had an Adriatic coastline and internal trade with Germany.

Their rail route to the Adriatic went to Trieste, claimed by Italy, and threatened by south slav nationalism, backed by Russia. In any case, losing the Danube would have been a major blow, threatening Hungarian agricultural interests. I didnt say AH would have been subject to 100% siege - I dont think that was necessary.

And as the outbreak of war showed, Serbia was not a great military threat- and neither was Italy. Russia would have had to cope with its own anti-Russian nationalists as I've shown. After all it's difficult to support the calls for Pan-Slavism or Slav nationalism and ignore the rather obvious examples of the Baltic states, Finland and Russian-occupied Poland and the Ukraine.

After sending a fleet to the Pacific. Something Austria couldnt have done with any hope of success.

And something that Russia notably failed to do with any success !

That Russia had difficulty projecting power in the Pacific, doesnt mean it wasnt a threat to AH in SE europe.

With reference to those badly supplied Russian armies, who were badly led and had to cope with poor transport infrastructure ? (see my figures for the Russian railway system)

From which it emerged with a more modernized political system, and at which point it began a surge of economic growth

Uh, from which it emerged with a State Duma (a 'consultative body') which Tsar Nicholas routinely ignored. The First Duma met on 10th May 1906; it was dissolved on July 21st.

In any case, Stolypin set about ensuring the Duma would be dominated by parties of the Right by its third meeting, and would have its full complement of wealthy landowners and aristocrats.

Trotsky called 1905 'a dress rehearsal' .

AH was coming apart at the seams in 1905-1914.

So much so, that it annexed Bosnia in 1908....

Many of Russia's non-Russians were felllow east slavs,

Uh, many were non-Russian and non-Christian, as I've indicated. Some were Armenians and Georgians, and others were Catholic Poles and Uniate Ukrainians, both with long-standing grievances against the Orthodox Russians.

Despite Russias "backwardness", the Russian army in 1914 was able to easily defeat Austrian armies, despite diversion of troops to fight the Germans.

John Keegan outlines in one of his books how disastrous some Austrian commanders were- the fault lay not in the Austro-Hungarian forces, but some of their officers, who detested each other more than they did the enemy.

Once Austria was Germanys only ally, it was that or diplomatic isolation.

Only because of the Kaiser ! Bismarck had managed to get Germans involved in three conflicts, and yet had convinced Europe that his side was the wronged party in those instances. There had been a Dreikaiserbund once upon a time... and could have been again.

But markets throughout the colonial world were seen at the time as important, and not just by Germans.

I'm talking about the reality of the German colonial markets in Africa. I know the figures, do you ?

and as ive already said, that trade surplus was creating tensions and a movement for imperial preferences before 1914.

You may have said it, you haven't proved that the 'imperial preferences' were anything but an illusion concocted by self-deluding fantasists.