Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: Who's side are you on?
The Central Powers 139 29.20%
The Triple Entente 187 39.29%
Neither one of them 150 31.51%
Voters: 476. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 2nd, 2017, 10:44 AM   #1301

Jaquet's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: FR
Posts: 228

Funny how the British talk about this. For 300 years, through a continuous succession of bloody wars, the British subjugated most of the globe. It wasn't as if one day Indians went to London with the request come to India, subjugate us, but it was the British who went to India and the Indian people did not want the British. They killed tens of millions of Indians through mass executions, famines and other uses of force to subjugate that country.

So called Germany was a militaristic monarchy and other nonsense should have been of no concern to the British, but rather an internal matter for the German people. But the British always feel concerned for other nations apparently.

Everything Britain has done in its history was motivated by imperial greed not concern for other states, civilization or other hogwash people post here. Britain came out of WWI as the greatest beneficiar and profiteer with the British Empire adding 950,000 square miles and millions of subjects.

Last edited by Jaquet; August 2nd, 2017 at 10:51 AM.
Jaquet is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 2nd, 2017, 10:55 AM   #1302
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 965

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Mobilisation is not war. Other Nations had mobilised in other crisis and not resulted in war. Are you seriously saying that moving A Nation's troops around within that Nation sovereign territory , increasing their state of readiness is exact same thing as invading another Nation?

It was the germans who started the war by invading other countries , declaring and starting the shooting.

Russia may well have started the war once mobilised, it remains speculation. The war was started by Germany. Germany chose to stop talking and start shooting.

The Central Powers were initiating a change in the Status Quo by violent Military means. They could have chosen to talk. They chose to shoot instead.
What other nations and what other similar situations with the alliance system in place? It wasn't the Russian mobilization, it was the Russian refusal to stop which forced the Germans to mobilize to put the pieces in play for their plan which needed to go perfectly to succeed. Russian early mobilization did work in ruining the plan by the way the early invasion of East Prussia forced the Germans to send critical reserves to the east that could have been used to break through to Paris. The risk of the Schlieffen Plan not working was enough to force the Germans to mobilize for war because if the plan didn't work the Germans would be stuck in a two front war.

There are valid cases to be made for Austria, Germany and Russia to be responsible.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 01:02 PM   #1303

Jaquet's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: FR
Posts: 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycurgus View Post
I voted Triple Entente, because I would prefer the liberalism of Britain and France than the authoritarian militarism of Germany.

Also, Britain and France controlled vast colonial empires and had an abundance of resources and Britain was much more powerful as a naval power, both of which are extremely important in an industrial war.
You better check the facts because Germany was more democratic and liberal country than Britain, France and Russia put together. Germany invented the welfare state in 19th century, which was more sophisticated than even most of the countries today. Every German citizen back then had guaranteed health care, a pension, a minimum wage, workplace regulation, vacation, and unemployment insurance. The Reichstag was one of the most progressive parliaments in Europe. Also Germany introduced universal women’s suffrage in 1918. Britain did not give women the same voting rights as men until 1928. France only in 1945.
Though not perfect, Germany was probably the most tolerant, progressive, and environmentally friendly country in the world.

Last edited by Jaquet; August 2nd, 2017 at 01:37 PM.
Jaquet is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 03:10 PM   #1304

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,168

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Never said the Armenian genocide wasn't horrible or that the Ottomans weren't a regime with a god awful human rights record. I said that this wouldn't have changed with a Central Powers victory and my argument is that the world would be better off with a Central Powers victory. The only scenario that could have stopped the Armenian genocide is no WWI at all.
But that would still live a weak and insecure state with both nationalist aspirations and intense fears in control of the same regions. It would then mean that ANY outside stress on Turkey would be enough to raise the possibility of the Turks deciding to massacre those they see as a threat. They did it with the Armenians (and to a lesser degree with Greeks and Assyrians) in WWI...

If the Central Powers win... what is to stop them from doing it again with some other ethnic/religious group?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Turks had controlled this territory for centuries and while rebellions would have been likely, I'm confident things would have turned out better. At the very least the British and French wouldn't be drawing up the borders of Iraq ,Syria and Lebanon and putting groups who hate each other into the same nation.
But they would all be in the same nation... Turkey. And as local groups voice their own opinions of what they want, what is to stop a regime that has already turned to genocide once in the 20th Century from doing it again?

German observers and medics were horrified by what the Turks did to the Armenians, but since their government refused to put pressure on Turkey, they were not able to do much. And as such, it isn't likely that the German government would take a firm stand internal Turkish matters in a Central Powers victory.

That means that if say the Kurds decide they want Kurdistan, there is NOTHING to stop the Turks from killing off the Kurdish population. And since the Turks had turned to it once, there is nothing that proves the won't turn to it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
I'm sure there would be no Israel-Palestine conflict today and that the region wouldn't be ruled by the Hussein, Saud's Assad and friends.
Maybe, maybe not. Zionism predated WWI, and with anti-Semitism being a European problem in general with its most extreme adherents quite willing to want to see Europe's Jews dead, you cannot say with complete certainty that the problem would exist had the Turks been allowed to retain their empire. The conflicts as we know it may cease, but that doesn't mean a DIFFERENT conflict arises...

As said, the Turkish government in the early 20th Century was very sensitive to its own position, as through the 19th Century, either Russia or Austria (usually Russia) had attacked the Balkan holdings in the name of "protecting Christians," which at that particular time wasn't necessary. But as the Turks lost territory and increasingly became the "Sick Man of Europe," its government began to see conspiracies against Turkish rule in nearly ever sector... It's that paranoia that fueled the Armenian Genocide in WWI. And that paranoia isn't going to go away because the Central Powers win WWI...

Which could well mean that any minority or non-ruling group in the Ottoman Empire is at risk to taking the blame for ANY problem the Turkish government may run into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
As someone from the US like you who's lived through 9/11, I see lack of Western influence in the region as being key to preventing those attacks and our countries involvement in the region. So maybe I'm biased and self centered in that regard but that is the outcome I think and am hoping would be achieved if the British and French are never involved in the region beyond Egypt.
Perhaps, but at the same time, 9/11 was not born out of WWI... At least not directly. The religious schools/thought that men like Osama Bin Laden followed existed before WWI and had caused trouble earlier in history. Where do you think the Mahdi that the British and the Egyptians spent years fighting in the Sudan got their ideas from? From conservative and hyper religious "schools" in the Arabian peninsula. So, the base origins for 9/11 were already in existence when WWI began, and as such a Central Powers victory wouldn't prevent them.

And at the same time, Bin Laden's declaration of war on America had more to do with America's presence in Saudi Arabia to defend the kingdom against Saddam Hussein. One can point to that as a "western presence," but one also needs to remember that from America's point of view, they were also there to protect their oil supply, as Saddam wanted to drastically change the oil market which would have hurt both Saudi Arabia and the US in 1991. A Central Powers victory would not change the fact that oil was in the region, and I think the British were already exploring oil fields in Persia when WWI began. A Central Powers victory might remove Britain... but then Britain would be replaced by Germany as the primary western power with interests in the region, and I doubt that Bin Laden would decide that German foreigners drilling for oil are better than American/British foreigners drilling for oil. In that... you'd only see a change in the nature of the conflict, not the removal of the conflict altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
If Ottomans take over Persia even better no Shah and therefore no Iranian revolution.
But the Iranian Revolution was born out of the Shah's own maltreatment of his citizens. Having Turkey take over wouldn't change that. The only thing that would change is WHO is mistreating the Iranian people...

And in such a situation, you'd more likely have something akin to the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. The Sunni Turks fighting a religious war with the Shia Persians. Not a situation that would make things better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
French were not a cowardly bunch of losers who didn't know how to fight. I constantly argue they were the strongest power in Europe from the end of the 30 years War to Waterloo and maybe were the strongest power at some point during the interwar period. That doesn't change the demographic issues the French were facing before and after WWI that they themselves were only two well aware of.
There were demographic differences, but doesn't make the French incapable of recovery.

The fact that the French Army had surpassed the Germans by the Boulanger crisis demonstrates that. In that sense, Boulanger's government's rise to power (and its fall from power) represents the natural instability of French politics. A defeat in WWI is likely to inspire a desire for revenge, just as Boulanger's government desired revenge for the Franco-Prussian War... And this new government would likely well push for measures to address the demographic issue... Either A) put in place measures to increase the birth rate in France, B) increase the quality of the French army so that fewer men can do more, C) increase mechanization of the army so that fewer men are needed for a strike force, or D) some combination of the previous points...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
This is why France in our timeline focused so much more on defensive positions than on invasion plans.
The mentality of French officers in the build up to WWI would disagree. Men like Joffre, Neville, and Foch had all agreed to a police of all out offensive, and while this sort of mentality cost the French in WWI, that often had more to do with the fact that in the build up to WWI, France did little to develop real heavy artillery. They had it, but they were mostly fortress guns in places like Verdun's forts. The result was that when the war of movement ended in 1914, their excellent field pieces couldn't penetrate the German trenches and bunkers. That is more an issue of capability rather than intention, as seen in the fact that the French followed a policy of all out attacks in WWI regardless of the lack of heavy artillery to support such a policy against fortified trenches...

And even AFTER the war, it didn't really disappear. France's WWI tank commander and the future Free French leader Charles De Gaulle BOTH argued in favor tank warfare development, and De Gaulle even took it to the point of going to a smaller and more professional army that could serve as a better strike force, as the men would be highly trained and have interest in fighting (similar to the BEF in 1914) and thus giving France options beyond massed call ups of conscripts who may or may not want to be there...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
This isn't only because they were focusing on fighting the last war but because they didn't have the population or capacity to defeat a re armed Germany without Allies. If France goes Fascist after losing the war, who exactly would back them in their aggression, a weakened Soviet Union, the UK?
A revenge minded France probably would need allies, but one also shouldn't simply assume that it's a desperate need... in that one should think that the French would become incapable of acting or recovering. As there would be options for them to do so... as stated above concerning policies related to birth rates, martial training, and/or mechanization.

And at the same time, if the war goes on for a lengthy period... one must assume that Germany's peace terms would be humiliating on ALL involved. They may not be able to force everything they want on Britain, but one shouldn't assume that Britain is going to suddenly love the Germans in a post WWI Central Powers victory, where Germany is likely to demand a more equal naval ratio between Germany and Britain, so as to better benefit German trade... In this a Fascist France would have options...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germany would also be more powerful than it was in WWI with much of Eastern Europe's resources under their control. In a war without the UK helping them(and UK wouldn't have helped them in a war of aggression), Germany would have also had naval supremacy against the French because they'd have had no reason to dismantle their fleet.
Germany would have greater access to material than in history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would be stronger. In fact, if things play out the way things often do with the victors of a war, then the case could really be made that a victorious Germany could well be weaker than it was in WWI despite the greater access to raw material...

In history, the development of what would become called "blitzkrieg" was largely the result of trying to solve the problems that lead to the stalemated war that Germany lost in WWI. Generals like Hans von Seeckt deliberately made their case as a way to prevent another "Battle of the Marne leading to a Race to the Sea and thus an Allied victory." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v...the_Reichswehr About all Guderian did later was replace the use of stormtroopers with tanks...

But if the Central Powers win WWI... the developments and major changes that Seeckt pushed for in history would be seen as unnecessary. Germany had won the war with its existing methods. Some things may in fact change, but not radically so, as there would be no perceived need to do so. And so... with no perceived need, it'd be likely that the German army would remain relatively stagnant with no need for radical change... after all, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But, by contrast, having lost the war, the French would be more willing to accept or even embrace radical change as a means to even things out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Again even if you are right and France invading Germany wasn't a pipe dream do you expect them to fight against the Hapsburgs and the Russians? They just weren't capable of going all Napoleon on Europe at this point.
The Hapsburgs were ultimately about as weak and fragile as the Turks were. Perhaps more so. As while the French with some British help at the Marne would win in 1914, it wasn't a victory that forced the German army out of France. The Marne merely pushed the Germans back to the Aisne, where they largely stayed until 1917 with the withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, and then the defeat in the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918. In contrast, while the Austrians took Belgrade in 1914... the Serb army countered and chased the Austrians OUT of Serbia altogether. And at the same time, the Russians invaded Austrian Galicia and came close to breaking through into the Hungarian plain... and the Russians came close to doing that again in 1916 in the Brusilov Offensive. Winning WWI isn't going to make the Austrians stronger, and in all likelihood, their position would STILL be stuck in dealing with ethnic issues in the Balkans.

And as I said before, while Germans might be able to insure a weaker Soviet Union, a pro-German Russia isn't likely and the puppet states created by Brest-Litovsk would probably be more concerned with the Soviets on their eastern borders than the French on Germany's western border.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Renault was the best tank of WWI we agree there. Also France had the same concerns about Germany before WWI as well and a war vs Germany had been hopeless until the Russian alliance was made. This is why Bismarck's strategy was to keep France isolated because an isolated France was a harmless France. A fascist France after WWI would almost certainly be similarly isolated.
This assumes that German peace measures don't inspire revenge driven agendas in countries besides France... Which is unlikely. Particularly if the war goes on long...

And remember that even as "victors" of WWI in history there were Fascist groups in France, Belgium, and Britain. Had they lost and Germany puts a peace on par with Brest-Litovsk in the West, you'd see all three humiliated and resentful, which would give an opening for Fascist parties to thrive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germany lost almost 4 percent of their population as well, WWI probably only marginally made the population gap worse that already existed. Best case WWII scenario for the French would be an alliance with Italy with the Italians also outnumbered by the Austro-Hungarians.
But this assumes that the Germans offer magnanimous peace terms to Britain, which is unlikely. Especially if the war goes on for too long. The longer the war went on and the more Britain brought its entire empire into the fight and used its navy to blockade Germany, leading to the deaths of millions at home to starvation... the more likely that Germany would seek to punish Britain. They might not be able to get it all... but they would certainly seek to make sure that Britain paid for those Germany felt Britain had wronged during the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
No bloody Eastern front, no Iron Curtain, no Holocaust/mass killings in Eastern Europe, the benefits of a Central Powers victory in Europe are immense. Even if the Germans's had a less than perfect peacetime human rights record in the East there is no doubt the region would be better off in this scenario than having to live through Nazi genocide and the Eastern front.
These issues as we know them may not happen... but saying that there would be no conflicts or turmoil... that's simply a pipedream born out of the flaws out of the history we got, and assuming a different history would be better...

It's akin to saying, "If only Rome didn't fall in 476..." and assuming that the preserved Western Roman Empire would control all its territories, despite the fact that by 476, the Western Roman Empire was pretty much limited to Italy.

Were there flaws in the peace we got in the Allied victory? Sure. No human effort has ever been perfect, but for that same reason, there would be just as much potential for flaws and conflict in a Central Powers victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Soviets would be weaker in this timeline and I think the Germans would be successful at deposing them and putting a puppet government in play. Seeing how well the Polish and Western allies did against the Soviets in the immediate post war era, I do not think this is a bold prediction to make although not a sure thing either.
The Soviets may be weaker, but in reality... they were never close to being "defeated" in the Russian Civil War. The Whites were heavily divided among themselves and fought each other just as much as they fought the Soviets. And while some groups like Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states won their independence, they weren't strong enough to do more than that. Remember that the Polish/Soviet War ended at the gates of Warsaw, not Moscow. The Soviets might be weaker, but they'd survive and recover...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
The Soviet/German pact was also more due to being bordering nations and wanting to split up Poland. A Russo/Soviet-French pact with no UK help seeing what happened in WWI wouldn't have a good chance at victory and the Russo/French side would be weaker than in WWI and the Germans would be stronger. The French/Russian entente by itself would have been beaten in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan IMO.
And you don't think a Fascist France wouldn't reach the same consideration? To divide up Europe to suit their own revenge?

And that Germany is going to be magnanimous and forgiving to the power they saw as doing the most damage to Germany in WWI?

Or that the German army is going to put in place radical changes to its army with no perceived need to do so?

All of this is nothing more than assumptions that something changes and the only thing in German history that changes are the negative aspects... which is unlikely. If you change one thing in history... EVERYTHING changes, not just the parts you don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
In terms of German diplomacy I honestly don't think it could have gotten any worse.
But that's the problem. German diplomacy under Wilhelm II wasn't great to begin with. It might not get worse, but to avoid problems it needs to get BETTER. And at best, a victorious Germany would likely be where it was earlier. It wouldn't get worse, but neither would it get better... And given the likelihood to put punitive measures in their peace treaty, about the only ones who would really escape punishment in a Central Powers victory would be the Americans. If the war goes on long, Germany would seek to punish Britain every bit as they'd seek to punish France or Russia... as it was Britain that the Germans saw as doing the most damage to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Still a defeated Fascist France would have had a harder time finding friends than a victorious Republican one and the victorious French epically failed in their attempts to maintain the post Versailles order. Brits and Americans wanted no part in Europe after their costly win and I imagine the same in defeat. Both sides retreat over the water and try to pretend the whole debacle never happened.
But that again assumes German diplomacy gets better or that Britain is suddenly fine with a German dominated continent. Neither is likely. Britain has had a long history of opposing any continental power trying to create for itself a hegemonic rule over the continent. It's why they frequently were on the side of the coalitions aimed at defeating the Bourbons in the wars prior to the American Revolution and why they funded EVERY coalition against Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. And as Germany rose, and particularly under Wilhelm II when they began to put in place policies that to British politicians looked as though Germany was trying to put in place its own hegemony over Europe, why they put aside their historic rivalry with France in the first place...

A Central Powers victory may result in the Entente Cordielle being nullified... But it isn't going to make the British okay with a German dominated continent. This is where German diplomacy NEEDS to improve in order to give any post WWI British government reason not to renew policies aimed at countering Germany at some later date... But given the punitive measures that Germany put in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the fact that Germany ultimately saw Britain as doing them the most harm... it's likely that Germany would try its best to punish Britain in any peace settlement, which could potentially include the dismantling of the Grand Fleet...

And one you can argue that Germany was never able to defeat the Royal Navy, there is also the point that the Royal Navy didn't win a great Nelson-like victory over the Germans in WWI at sea. At best, the British contained the German Navy, but they never defeated it outright, yet when the war ended, Germany pretty much lost its entire navy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Only ally I can see jumping to help Fascist France is Fascist Italy which had an even smaller population due to the fact they would be pissed too for losing the war and would share historical ties from the 19th century. Italy's prospects of revenge against the Austrians would be almost as unlikely as France's against Germany and that would probably be the lines drawn in that conflict.
Assuming that the Germans are magnanimous with Britain, despite there being no evidence of this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
I've made my position on clear about Austria. No evidence to suggest this would continue after the war and I think even if it did the region would be better off than with the multiple other genocides that happened in our timeline between the parts of Yugoslavia. Simply looking at which scenario would be better, not whether it's good or not. Same logic in the Armenian genocide, it was horrible but changing the outcome of the war doesn't change whether the genocide happened or not and only thing that probably stops it is no assassination and war. With the Croat and Serbian genocides that's not the case, Allied victory means those events happen, Central Powers means they almost certainly don't.
The events you refer to, and link to later in your post, though are WWII actions. They aren't a direct consequence of WWI. In fact as shown in the creation of Yugoslavia, the peoples of the region were quite fine with the formation of Yugoslavia...

And preserving Austrian rule does NOT address the problems that spawned the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or the potential for ethnic troubles in the region. Austria's persecutions may stop when the war ends, but that doesn't mean that the Serbs are going to suddenly be fine with Austrian rule in Bosnia and neither does it necessarily mean that the Austrian government is going to suddenly favor policies that would actually resolve the issue fairly...

The best case for Austria is that they get an Emperor who adopts policies closer to what Franz Ferdinand wanted, essentially granting the minority groups local autonomy and control with the Emperor as a more ceremonial head of state for all of them. And in pure theory, I think Franz Joseph's successor did offer this in 1918... but by then it was too late and the member states began breaking away...

The worst case is that victory in the war leads to a continuation of Franz Joseph's more autocratic polices and Austria continues to sit on a powder keg that has the potential to destroy their Empire...

But... to say that the Croatian/Serbian genocides of WW2 are guaranteed because of Allied victory in WW1 is ridiculous. Those later crimes are more do to post WWI failures, not WWI itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germany didn't care about the Tsar's brutality they cared about getting a regime that would bring about a favorable peace with Russia and free up troops to send to the Western Front. Kerensky's government's main flaw both in regards to the Germans and Russian people was it's insistence to continue the war. Lenin on the other hand ran on "land, bread and peace" and was willing to accept the Treaty of Brest Litovsk because Communist ideology was against war and thought that borders were meaningless and that the world was soon going to fall to a Communist revolution anyway. So Lenin was much more inclined to take that deal.
"Bread, peace, and land" was a sham, and Lenin knew it. In many ways, Lenin was something of a pragmatist and saw that the Russian people weren't going to buy into Bolshevik rule that easily. The fact that the Bolsheviks really didn't momentum until late in 1917 is proof of that. With that realization, Lenin understood that if his regime was to survive, it would have to deal with one enemy at a time. He couldn't simultaneously defeat the Imperialist Germans and the Whites at the same time. Thus he used "bread, peace, and land" as a slogan to win Russian support against the Whites and dropped out of WWI to shore up his "flank."

And at the same time, while Lenin did agree to make peace, he wasn't necessarily wanting to make peace on GERMANY'S terms, which included giving up territory. See: Russia's Great War and Revolution

If Lenin was truly wishing to surrender to Germany's terms on "bread, peace, and land," the Soviets would have given up without negotiation. In that sense, Lenin did want peace, but not peace at any price, and thus why further German offensives were needed to get the Soviets to actually agree to Germany's terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germany was the REASON for the Soviet Union, no argument's there, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have deposed them for more friendly government/tried to overthrow them once the war ended. Soviet Union were the successful means to a German end.
But the Germans were in no condition to wage a war of conquest in the Soviet Union after WWI. Their people were starving and they were running out of raw material. There was no way, even in victory, would the Germans be able to remove the very monster they created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Disagree on the Hitler stuff. Hyperinflation was not the reason Hitler took power. It is one of those history myths that some of the smartest people still believe. Don't believe I can convince you otherwise so I'm not going to try.
The Nazis talked a lot about the Stab in the Back myth, and admittedly, it WAS an issue they supported. But it wasn't the issue that brought them to power. If it was, the Beer Hall Putsch would have ended in Hitler seizing control of the government by force in the early 20s rather ending in hail of Bavarian Police and Reichswehr bullets...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Anti-Semitism wasn't a German problem. The Holocaust and the concept of killing not just Jews, but Slavs, Gypsies etc was a German problem with other groups collaborating cause the Germans were hegemons during WWII. You can say Europe would have been anti-semite anyway without the Nazi's you can't say those people would have mostly died cause they wouldn't have. No guarantee the French fascists would have been had the Nazi's racial based ideology. Even if they did no guarantee they would kill the Jews, rather than try to deport them, even then they would have no way to reach the Jews in Eastern Europe the way the Germans did, nor the Slavs. French had elements of society that were anti-semite's but were actually seen as racially inferior to some English and Americans, I think they'd be less inclined to fall to Nazism than the Germans. Fascism does not inherently equal Nazism it can though.
Paul Jankowski's take in the book was that the groups like Action Francaise were quite comfortable with the idea of killing France's Jews. And as such, their presence is thus a credible threat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
I was referring to Croatia being given control of Yugoslavia by the Germans and their human rights violations during the war in addition to the later Serbian genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...ate_of_Croatia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ution_of_Serbs
Ah... But still, this doesn't relate to the creation of Yugoslavia, which Croatia was fine with in 1918-1919. As such, these atrocities could have also been avoided with better decisions made in the interwar years or simply by the Croats not wanting to collaborate with a mad tyrant like Hitler. Blaming these later actions on the results of WWI comes off as trying to simultaneously condemn and excuse the crime in the first place...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Similar thing happened with Slovakia.
Flaws in one side's peace does not make the other side better. Slovakia would not have gotten its independence had the Central Powers won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Hungary got the worst deal of any WWI loser and lost almost all of their territory to various new states that the French turned into the Little Entente.
They lost territory, yes, but in the territories they lost, nowhere did they have a population that was in the majority...

Click the image to open in full size.

In some cases they may have been the largest of the ethnic groups present, but their numbers were still less than 50%, and as such that's NOT a majority. It's a plurality... but making an argument on that basis assumes that the most of the other ethnic groups uniformly agreed that they wanted to be ruled by the Hungarians...
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 03:29 PM   #1305

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
Certainly horrible, but was it that much worse than what tended to happen in 1912 when Serbian forces (or ftm Greek or Bulgarian ones) overran a Moslem village, or in 1913 when Greeks or Serbs took a Bulgarian one in Macedonia? That's the way things tended to be done in the Balkans and points east.
That may show that the Balkans was a messy place and had the potential to be messy regardless of who is in charge...

But by that point, would Austria retaining or expanding its rule be "better?" Or would that same old messy history continue, just in a different path than from the original timeline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
There's smaller and smaller.

In 1871, even after the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, there were still 36 million French against 41 million Germans. During the FPW itself, the populations had been virtually equal.

In 1910, OTOH, it was 39 million French against 65 million Germans - well over three to two. And after a CP victory, depending on the exact peace terms, the disparity might have become even greater.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that France can't enact policies to increase their birthrate, or improve the quality of their army so that they don't need as many people to serve, or increase their mechanization to allow their army to be able to do more...

And at the same time, even if they can't get policies to directly deal with their population issues, that doesn't mean that they can't try to forge new alliances against Germany to make up for it. And if the wars goes on beyond 1914, that'd increase the likelihood of Germany imposing punitive and humiliating peace terms, which could well open up avenues those humiliated, and not just in France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
All the ethnographic maps I've ever seen show significant Magyar-majority areas directly adjacent to Hungary's post-Trianon borders.

There were of course enclaves, like the Szekler "island" in Transylvania, which could not easily have been left to Hungary, but this was by no means always the case.
But define "majority" and the areas... As shown in the map in my previous post, in the territories that Hungary lost, at BEST the Hungarians had a plurality. There were more Hungarians than the other ethnic groups individually, but the number of Hungarians did not equal 50% in any of the territories lost.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 05:12 PM   #1306
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,479

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaquet View Post
You better check the facts because Germany was more democratic and liberal country than Britain, France and Russia put together. Germany invented the welfare state in 19th century, which was more sophisticated than even most of the countries today. Every German citizen back then had guaranteed health care, a pension, a minimum wage, workplace regulation, vacation, and unemployment insurance. The Reichstag was one of the most progressive parliaments in Europe. Also Germany introduced universal womenís suffrage in 1918. Britain did not give women the same voting rights as men until 1928. France only in 1945.
Though not perfect, Germany was probably the most tolerant, progressive, and environmentally friendly country in the world.
All that does not make Germany more democratic. The Riechstag had veyy limited authority ministers served at the will of the Monarch, and will not responsible to the parliament. The Parliaments ability to control and influence policy was fairly limited. Voting Rights don't give you much when parliament is sidelined and ignored.

Progressive and Tolerant? Germany decided before the that they were going shoot innocent hostages in Belgium, they decided to target Hospital ships as a matter of policy.
pugsville is online now  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 05:26 PM   #1307
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,479

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
What other nations and what other similar situations with the alliance system in place? It wasn't the Russian mobilization, it was the Russian refusal to stop which forced the Germans to mobilize to put the pieces in play for their plan which needed to go perfectly to succeed. Russian early mobilization did work in ruining the plan by the way the early invasion of East Prussia forced the Germans to send critical reserves to the east that could have been used to break through to Paris. The risk of the Schlieffen Plan not working was enough to force the Germans to mobilize for war because if the plan didn't work the Germans would be stuck in a two front war.

There are valid cases to be made for Austria, Germany and Russia to be responsible.
The Germans formed a war plan which relied on the Germans being able to mobilise faster than anyone else. It was only Germany and particularly with Russia that had bet on mobilisation speeds. Russia is not responsible for German war plans.

The German Plan relying on the slowness of Russian Mobilisation does not make Russian mobilisation an act of war. Other Nations had mobilised in other crosses it was not an act of war.

German was not forced to act. German felt forced to act as their war plan required on a mobilisation advantage that they felt was slipping away (sth Russians took weeks, the Germans days) But it was also the German military taking control over the politicians and monarch.

Germany and Austria could have agreed to talks and stopped action the Balkans and that would have stopped the war. But neither Germany nor Austria felt that was acceptable, they were seeking to impose their military solution by unilateral military action, the only way to oppose this was military action as they were refusing talks. Russia started to mobilisation a long slow process that would take weeks. Germany immediately started the European war. Thought the crisis the definitive actions are German and Austrian.

Germany started the European wide war. Germany deliberately refused diplomatic solutions to the Balkan crisis,. knowing Austria was bent on war, and the that the Austrians would only act if Germany backed them. Austria started the Balkan war, germany the European war, Both acted dishonestly in the diplomatic exchanges the Note was designed to be unacceptable and no reposes would have been accepted anyway.


Moltke the younger panicked the troops were not actually required in the east ((hey arrived after tannenberg after the crisis had passed)
pugsville is online now  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 10:08 PM   #1308

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,526

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotromanic View Post
I think even very patriotic Serbs have to admit that a big issue in the five weeks after Sarajevo was that the Prime Minister in Belgrade had no political space to operate, as the military was at least an equal power center to the civilian government.

Pasic might have been warning Vienna about the Archduke's visit ahead of time*, but he wasn't able to do so in an overt way precisely since Apis was an independent center of power in the regime. Of course, Alexander acted decisively two and a half years later when Apis faced a sort of kangaroo court.

*reference to a meeting between the Austrian Minister of Treasury and Serbian ambassador apparently arranged by PM Pasic.
There was little anyone in Serbia could do to stop Austria-Hungary from going to war. The government certainly tried, they accepted almost the entirety of the Austrian ultimatum, but A-H had already had its mind set on war. With Germany promising support, the war hawks in Vienna only gained a new boost.
Maki is online now  
Old August 2nd, 2017, 10:46 PM   #1309
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
They lost territory, yes, but in the territories they lost, nowhere did they have a population that was in the majority...

Click the image to open in full size.

In some cases they may have been the largest of the ethnic groups present, but their numbers were still less than 50%, and as such that's NOT a majority. It's a plurality... but making an argument on that basis assumes that the most of the other ethnic groups uniformly agreed that they wanted to be ruled by the Hungarians...

Trouble is, that map doesn't show how the ethnic groups were distributed.

A proper ethnographic map (there are plenty online) shows that there were plenty of Magyar areas directly adjacent to Hungary's post-Trianon borders.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...x=1&ajaxhist=0
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2017, 12:07 AM   #1310
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
But that would still live a weak and insecure state with both nationalist aspirations and intense fears in control of the same regions. It would then mean that ANY outside stress on Turkey would be enough to raise the possibility of the Turks deciding to massacre those they see as a threat. They did it with the Armenians (and to a lesser degree with Greeks and Assyrians) in WWI...

If the Central Powers win... what is to stop them from doing it again with some other ethnic/religious group?



But they would all be in the same nation... Turkey. And as local groups voice their own opinions of what they want, what is to stop a regime that has already turned to genocide once in the 20th Century from doing it again?

German observers and medics were horrified by what the Turks did to the Armenians, but since their government refused to put pressure on Turkey, they were not able to do much. And as such, it isn't likely that the German government would take a firm stand internal Turkish matters in a Central Powers victory.

That means that if say the Kurds decide they want Kurdistan, there is NOTHING to stop the Turks from killing off the Kurdish population. And since the Turks had turned to it once, there is nothing that proves the won't turn to it again.



Maybe, maybe not. Zionism predated WWI, and with anti-Semitism being a European problem in general with its most extreme adherents quite willing to want to see Europe's Jews dead, you cannot say with complete certainty that the problem would exist had the Turks been allowed to retain their empire. The conflicts as we know it may cease, but that doesn't mean a DIFFERENT conflict arises...

As said, the Turkish government in the early 20th Century was very sensitive to its own position, as through the 19th Century, either Russia or Austria (usually Russia) had attacked the Balkan holdings in the name of "protecting Christians," which at that particular time wasn't necessary. But as the Turks lost territory and increasingly became the "Sick Man of Europe," its government began to see conspiracies against Turkish rule in nearly ever sector... It's that paranoia that fueled the Armenian Genocide in WWI. And that paranoia isn't going to go away because the Central Powers win WWI...

Which could well mean that any minority or non-ruling group in the Ottoman Empire is at risk to taking the blame for ANY problem the Turkish government may run into.



Perhaps, but at the same time, 9/11 was not born out of WWI... At least not directly. The religious schools/thought that men like Osama Bin Laden followed existed before WWI and had caused trouble earlier in history. Where do you think the Mahdi that the British and the Egyptians spent years fighting in the Sudan got their ideas from? From conservative and hyper religious "schools" in the Arabian peninsula. So, the base origins for 9/11 were already in existence when WWI began, and as such a Central Powers victory wouldn't prevent them.

And at the same time, Bin Laden's declaration of war on America had more to do with America's presence in Saudi Arabia to defend the kingdom against Saddam Hussein. One can point to that as a "western presence," but one also needs to remember that from America's point of view, they were also there to protect their oil supply, as Saddam wanted to drastically change the oil market which would have hurt both Saudi Arabia and the US in 1991. A Central Powers victory would not change the fact that oil was in the region, and I think the British were already exploring oil fields in Persia when WWI began. A Central Powers victory might remove Britain... but then Britain would be replaced by Germany as the primary western power with interests in the region, and I doubt that Bin Laden would decide that German foreigners drilling for oil are better than American/British foreigners drilling for oil. In that... you'd only see a change in the nature of the conflict, not the removal of the conflict altogether.



But the Iranian Revolution was born out of the Shah's own maltreatment of his citizens. Having Turkey take over wouldn't change that. The only thing that would change is WHO is mistreating the Iranian people...

And in such a situation, you'd more likely have something akin to the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. The Sunni Turks fighting a religious war with the Shia Persians. Not a situation that would make things better.



There were demographic differences, but doesn't make the French incapable of recovery.

The fact that the French Army had surpassed the Germans by the Boulanger crisis demonstrates that. In that sense, Boulanger's government's rise to power (and its fall from power) represents the natural instability of French politics. A defeat in WWI is likely to inspire a desire for revenge, just as Boulanger's government desired revenge for the Franco-Prussian War... And this new government would likely well push for measures to address the demographic issue... Either A) put in place measures to increase the birth rate in France, B) increase the quality of the French army so that fewer men can do more, C) increase mechanization of the army so that fewer men are needed for a strike force, or D) some combination of the previous points...



The mentality of French officers in the build up to WWI would disagree. Men like Joffre, Neville, and Foch had all agreed to a police of all out offensive, and while this sort of mentality cost the French in WWI, that often had more to do with the fact that in the build up to WWI, France did little to develop real heavy artillery. They had it, but they were mostly fortress guns in places like Verdun's forts. The result was that when the war of movement ended in 1914, their excellent field pieces couldn't penetrate the German trenches and bunkers. That is more an issue of capability rather than intention, as seen in the fact that the French followed a policy of all out attacks in WWI regardless of the lack of heavy artillery to support such a policy against fortified trenches...

And even AFTER the war, it didn't really disappear. France's WWI tank commander and the future Free French leader Charles De Gaulle BOTH argued in favor tank warfare development, and De Gaulle even took it to the point of going to a smaller and more professional army that could serve as a better strike force, as the men would be highly trained and have interest in fighting (similar to the BEF in 1914) and thus giving France options beyond massed call ups of conscripts who may or may not want to be there...



A revenge minded France probably would need allies, but one also shouldn't simply assume that it's a desperate need... in that one should think that the French would become incapable of acting or recovering. As there would be options for them to do so... as stated above concerning policies related to birth rates, martial training, and/or mechanization.

And at the same time, if the war goes on for a lengthy period... one must assume that Germany's peace terms would be humiliating on ALL involved. They may not be able to force everything they want on Britain, but one shouldn't assume that Britain is going to suddenly love the Germans in a post WWI Central Powers victory, where Germany is likely to demand a more equal naval ratio between Germany and Britain, so as to better benefit German trade... In this a Fascist France would have options...



Germany would have greater access to material than in history, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would be stronger. In fact, if things play out the way things often do with the victors of a war, then the case could really be made that a victorious Germany could well be weaker than it was in WWI despite the greater access to raw material...

In history, the development of what would become called "blitzkrieg" was largely the result of trying to solve the problems that lead to the stalemated war that Germany lost in WWI. Generals like Hans von Seeckt deliberately made their case as a way to prevent another "Battle of the Marne leading to a Race to the Sea and thus an Allied victory." See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v...the_Reichswehr About all Guderian did later was replace the use of stormtroopers with tanks...

But if the Central Powers win WWI... the developments and major changes that Seeckt pushed for in history would be seen as unnecessary. Germany had won the war with its existing methods. Some things may in fact change, but not radically so, as there would be no perceived need to do so. And so... with no perceived need, it'd be likely that the German army would remain relatively stagnant with no need for radical change... after all, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But, by contrast, having lost the war, the French would be more willing to accept or even embrace radical change as a means to even things out.



The Hapsburgs were ultimately about as weak and fragile as the Turks were. Perhaps more so. As while the French with some British help at the Marne would win in 1914, it wasn't a victory that forced the German army out of France. The Marne merely pushed the Germans back to the Aisne, where they largely stayed until 1917 with the withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, and then the defeat in the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918. In contrast, while the Austrians took Belgrade in 1914... the Serb army countered and chased the Austrians OUT of Serbia altogether. And at the same time, the Russians invaded Austrian Galicia and came close to breaking through into the Hungarian plain... and the Russians came close to doing that again in 1916 in the Brusilov Offensive. Winning WWI isn't going to make the Austrians stronger, and in all likelihood, their position would STILL be stuck in dealing with ethnic issues in the Balkans.

And as I said before, while Germans might be able to insure a weaker Soviet Union, a pro-German Russia isn't likely and the puppet states created by Brest-Litovsk would probably be more concerned with the Soviets on their eastern borders than the French on Germany's western border.



This assumes that German peace measures don't inspire revenge driven agendas in countries besides France... Which is unlikely. Particularly if the war goes on long...

And remember that even as "victors" of WWI in history there were Fascist groups in France, Belgium, and Britain. Had they lost and Germany puts a peace on par with Brest-Litovsk in the West, you'd see all three humiliated and resentful, which would give an opening for Fascist parties to thrive.



But this assumes that the Germans offer magnanimous peace terms to Britain, which is unlikely. Especially if the war goes on for too long. The longer the war went on and the more Britain brought its entire empire into the fight and used its navy to blockade Germany, leading to the deaths of millions at home to starvation... the more likely that Germany would seek to punish Britain. They might not be able to get it all... but they would certainly seek to make sure that Britain paid for those Germany felt Britain had wronged during the war.



These issues as we know them may not happen... but saying that there would be no conflicts or turmoil... that's simply a pipedream born out of the flaws out of the history we got, and assuming a different history would be better...

It's akin to saying, "If only Rome didn't fall in 476..." and assuming that the preserved Western Roman Empire would control all its territories, despite the fact that by 476, the Western Roman Empire was pretty much limited to Italy.

Were there flaws in the peace we got in the Allied victory? Sure. No human effort has ever been perfect, but for that same reason, there would be just as much potential for flaws and conflict in a Central Powers victory.



The Soviets may be weaker, but in reality... they were never close to being "defeated" in the Russian Civil War. The Whites were heavily divided among themselves and fought each other just as much as they fought the Soviets. And while some groups like Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states won their independence, they weren't strong enough to do more than that. Remember that the Polish/Soviet War ended at the gates of Warsaw, not Moscow. The Soviets might be weaker, but they'd survive and recover...



And you don't think a Fascist France wouldn't reach the same consideration? To divide up Europe to suit their own revenge?

And that Germany is going to be magnanimous and forgiving to the power they saw as doing the most damage to Germany in WWI?

Or that the German army is going to put in place radical changes to its army with no perceived need to do so?

All of this is nothing more than assumptions that something changes and the only thing in German history that changes are the negative aspects... which is unlikely. If you change one thing in history... EVERYTHING changes, not just the parts you don't like.



But that's the problem. German diplomacy under Wilhelm II wasn't great to begin with. It might not get worse, but to avoid problems it needs to get BETTER. And at best, a victorious Germany would likely be where it was earlier. It wouldn't get worse, but neither would it get better... And given the likelihood to put punitive measures in their peace treaty, about the only ones who would really escape punishment in a Central Powers victory would be the Americans. If the war goes on long, Germany would seek to punish Britain every bit as they'd seek to punish France or Russia... as it was Britain that the Germans saw as doing the most damage to them.



But that again assumes German diplomacy gets better or that Britain is suddenly fine with a German dominated continent. Neither is likely. Britain has had a long history of opposing any continental power trying to create for itself a hegemonic rule over the continent. It's why they frequently were on the side of the coalitions aimed at defeating the Bourbons in the wars prior to the American Revolution and why they funded EVERY coalition against Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. And as Germany rose, and particularly under Wilhelm II when they began to put in place policies that to British politicians looked as though Germany was trying to put in place its own hegemony over Europe, why they put aside their historic rivalry with France in the first place...

A Central Powers victory may result in the Entente Cordielle being nullified... But it isn't going to make the British okay with a German dominated continent. This is where German diplomacy NEEDS to improve in order to give any post WWI British government reason not to renew policies aimed at countering Germany at some later date... But given the punitive measures that Germany put in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the fact that Germany ultimately saw Britain as doing them the most harm... it's likely that Germany would try its best to punish Britain in any peace settlement, which could potentially include the dismantling of the Grand Fleet...

And one you can argue that Germany was never able to defeat the Royal Navy, there is also the point that the Royal Navy didn't win a great Nelson-like victory over the Germans in WWI at sea. At best, the British contained the German Navy, but they never defeated it outright, yet when the war ended, Germany pretty much lost its entire navy...



Assuming that the Germans are magnanimous with Britain, despite there being no evidence of this...



The events you refer to, and link to later in your post, though are WWII actions. They aren't a direct consequence of WWI. In fact as shown in the creation of Yugoslavia, the peoples of the region were quite fine with the formation of Yugoslavia...

And preserving Austrian rule does NOT address the problems that spawned the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or the potential for ethnic troubles in the region. Austria's persecutions may stop when the war ends, but that doesn't mean that the Serbs are going to suddenly be fine with Austrian rule in Bosnia and neither does it necessarily mean that the Austrian government is going to suddenly favor policies that would actually resolve the issue fairly...

The best case for Austria is that they get an Emperor who adopts policies closer to what Franz Ferdinand wanted, essentially granting the minority groups local autonomy and control with the Emperor as a more ceremonial head of state for all of them. And in pure theory, I think Franz Joseph's successor did offer this in 1918... but by then it was too late and the member states began breaking away...

The worst case is that victory in the war leads to a continuation of Franz Joseph's more autocratic polices and Austria continues to sit on a powder keg that has the potential to destroy their Empire...

But... to say that the Croatian/Serbian genocides of WW2 are guaranteed because of Allied victory in WW1 is ridiculous. Those later crimes are more do to post WWI failures, not WWI itself.



"Bread, peace, and land" was a sham, and Lenin knew it. In many ways, Lenin was something of a pragmatist and saw that the Russian people weren't going to buy into Bolshevik rule that easily. The fact that the Bolsheviks really didn't momentum until late in 1917 is proof of that. With that realization, Lenin understood that if his regime was to survive, it would have to deal with one enemy at a time. He couldn't simultaneously defeat the Imperialist Germans and the Whites at the same time. Thus he used "bread, peace, and land" as a slogan to win Russian support against the Whites and dropped out of WWI to shore up his "flank."

And at the same time, while Lenin did agree to make peace, he wasn't necessarily wanting to make peace on GERMANY'S terms, which included giving up territory. See: Russia's Great War and Revolution

If Lenin was truly wishing to surrender to Germany's terms on "bread, peace, and land," the Soviets would have given up without negotiation. In that sense, Lenin did want peace, but not peace at any price, and thus why further German offensives were needed to get the Soviets to actually agree to Germany's terms.



But the Germans were in no condition to wage a war of conquest in the Soviet Union after WWI. Their people were starving and they were running out of raw material. There was no way, even in victory, would the Germans be able to remove the very monster they created.



The Nazis talked a lot about the Stab in the Back myth, and admittedly, it WAS an issue they supported. But it wasn't the issue that brought them to power. If it was, the Beer Hall Putsch would have ended in Hitler seizing control of the government by force in the early 20s rather ending in hail of Bavarian Police and Reichswehr bullets...



Paul Jankowski's take in the book was that the groups like Action Francaise were quite comfortable with the idea of killing France's Jews. And as such, their presence is thus a credible threat.



Ah... But still, this doesn't relate to the creation of Yugoslavia, which Croatia was fine with in 1918-1919. As such, these atrocities could have also been avoided with better decisions made in the interwar years or simply by the Croats not wanting to collaborate with a mad tyrant like Hitler. Blaming these later actions on the results of WWI comes off as trying to simultaneously condemn and excuse the crime in the first place...



Flaws in one side's peace does not make the other side better. Slovakia would not have gotten its independence had the Central Powers won.



They lost territory, yes, but in the territories they lost, nowhere did they have a population that was in the majority...

Click the image to open in full size.

In some cases they may have been the largest of the ethnic groups present, but their numbers were still less than 50%, and as such that's NOT a majority. It's a plurality... but making an argument on that basis assumes that the most of the other ethnic groups uniformly agreed that they wanted to be ruled by the Hungarians...
This is going to be a long post but I'm really enjoying the dialogue.

Much of your first point is a weak hypothetical. Regardless of the brutality of the Armenian Genocide the reason for it was that they were suspected of being sympathetic to the enemy. With no war, the reason for this goes away. International community including the Germans would have not stood idly by and allowed this to happen during peacetime. Genocide was not based on Armenian nationalism all of these hypothetical situations like with the Kurds are just that hypothetical. Germans and every other great power in a position to act were also kind of pre occupied at the moment. In peacetime that would have been a different story. Germany would have much influence over the Ottoman Empire who'd owe their survival and the removal of the Russians who'd been dreaming of seizing Constantinople for centuries almost entirely to Germany. My argument is just can't see it happening again during peacetime.

Ottomans were pretty good at keeping their empire together for the previous centuries. Syria and Iraq were abstract concepts created by the Europeans rather than actual ethnic factions pushing for independence in Europe. These states all contained different groups who did not see themselves as "Syrian" or "Iraqi" or "Lebanese" these were regions that had been juggled around by non native ruling empires since before the time of Christ. Egypt and Persia are different stories of course. They were different provinces of the Ottoman Empire not Turkey.

Zionism predated WWI but Israel acquiring a state didn't become politically viable until the Holocaust. There's also the fact that with a Central Powers victory the truth of the first statement becomes irrelevant as the British probably don't rule Palestine. What other problems do you suggest would possibly arise if Germany goes after Arabian oil instead of the British and Americans? At the very least there is no 9/11 and American intervention in the Middle East.

The Middle Eastern situation is a great deal more complicaed than Sunni v Shia. The Ottomans and Persians had coexisted in this capacity for 400 years in quite a similar way as the Romans and Parthians/Sassanians had, constantly at war, western side clearly superior but the East was never conquered. A great deal better than today's mess with different groups fighting for control in all these 1920's European abstractions of country's.

We disagree on France and recovery. Going 1v1 with a nation with over 50% more people than you that has a larger industrial capacity is a very difficult situation at the very best. In our timeline France got back Alsace and Lorraine and took away Saar and Rhineland from Germany even temporarily occupying the Ruhr robbing Germany for over a decade of much of it's industrial base. Germany had also lost territory in the East. Germany still managed to conquer a France that had UK support after like 5 years of rearmament. In this scenario Germany's population and industrial advantages would be greater and Germany would have no need to recover. In our timeline France had the same concern's as they would in a Central Powers victory and they were not able to close the demographic gap.

Let's examine this closer. France's population did probably increase faster between WWI and WWII in a shorter time than it did from 1870-1914(France went from around 40-42 million in the latter period while in the former they went from 36 to about 40) so some of these efforts probably were made even though I'm not an expert on that. This population gap wasn't just staying still though it was growing and any French efforts to increase population would only slow down how fast that gap continued to grow. Germany by 1939 had 69.3 million people versus the 64.9 it had in 1914. So in a period when France experienced population growth of about 2 million people, Germany experienced population growth of 4.4 million more than twice as much. Keep in mind this is a period when France has acquired Alsace-Lorraine and Germany has lost it and when the French were doing everything in their power to keep the German economy down. Also no the German population does not count Austria, Czechoslovakia etc. What I'm trying to say is that even keeping that gap from getting larger would be a herculean feat and that closing that gap was out of the question, regardless if the German territory in the East doesn't equal them getting stronger things staying the same after WWI in unfavorable conditions still saw the gap continuing to grow. UK assistance was needed in WWI to wage a defensive war against the Germans. There is a reason the German commanders were so confident they could defeat the French quickly and that the Schlieffen Plan Plan hinged on this outcome. All numbers are from wikipedia.

The UK had the option to send the BEF because they weren't defending their homeland but sending troops to the aid of another power. If an enemy army actually successfully landed on UK soil I don't know what would happen as the UK hinged everything on preventing that outcome. Anyway you're making an assumption that the French would learn and adapt and that the Germans wouldn't. France being a real threat post central powers victory requires everything in your scenario to go perfectly and even then is pretty questionable. I could be wrong about lots of what I'm saying and I don't think it really changes the principle that France attacking Germany would be an ill fated move that would be far less successful endeavor than the opposite, which is what we're arguing here.

Austria was fighting a 2 and sometimes 3 front war at different times during the conflict. While yes disunity in their ranks was a real thing, Austria was far from the liability to the German Empire as Italy would become for the Third Reich and fought quite well given the circumstances. I'd say they did quite better than the Ottomans. Not going to blame them for their difficulty conquering Serbia with only part of their strength they fought very well and were willing to sacrifice so much to keep the Austrians out of their country. Serbia sustained population loss at a level worse than the Soviets did, they were not going to be a tough nut to crack. They also simply weren't as strong as Russia. Austrians also almost defeated Italy. They collapsed due to the war not their ethnic issues and turning the Hapsburg Empire into a Triple Monarchy with the Czechs could have solved a lot of problems. Also there were winners and losers when the Hapsburg Empire came undone. Croats ended up stuck in Yugoslavia, Hungarians ended up stuck in Romania, Slovaks and Germans ended up stuck in Czechoslovakia. These groups would have preferred the continuation of the Hapsburg empire, same way Transylvanian Romanians, Poles in Galicia, Czechs and Serbs in Bosnia preferred the way things turned out. All I know is that Austrian rule prevents the ethnic tensions and human rights issues in these new states.

The point I'm most willing to concede here is the likelihood France becomes Fascist. Yes Fascist groups existed in France and if France had been defeated it would have been more likely they would have emerged. I do think France was a less fertile ground for this sort of movement seeing as France had lived through resentment for 54 years after the Franco-Prussian War and wouldn't have lost too much if any base territory but I realize this is far from a guarantee as Fascism wasn't really around until after WWI. My main point that I'm far more confident in is that Fascist France wouldn't have been as dangerous as Nazi Germany and that France was not capable of launching the sort of carnage the Nazi's did, the same way Fascist Italy wasn't.

I do not know how you think the Germans would be able to enforce harsh peace terms on all involved as all involved were not in the same position. France, Belguim, Russia and Italy were all being invaded while the US, UK and Japanese homelands were all untouchable. The whole reason the UK went to war(unofficially of course) in the first place was paranoia over German naval power and seeing how much better the Germans did with less at Jutland, there is no way the Brits would agree to more than a 50-60% ratio for the Germans. This is also very generous as it's based on the post war Washington Treaty ratios set between WWI friends in different parts of the world, not former enemy's and neighbors. The UK in that treaty treaty did not let another European navy have more than a 20% of it's own tonnage and that was only the Italians and French. Japanese and US were considerably less risk to the UK. With no ratios the British could have just kept building dreanoughts at a faster pace than the Germans the way they had before the war so why would the British agree to anything? If Germany defeated France, UK was well capable of just keeping the blockade in place and refusing to negotiate for however long it took to get the peace they wanted.

I do think Germany would have been more capable of deposing the Soviets than the Allies were. The unity of the white Russians wouldn't really matter, the more fragmented the Russia the less prospects for an Eastern war. If a war torn Germany was able to take out a centuries old regime what makes you think they couldn't have taken down the struggling Soviets. Germany had a lot of troops in the East and in the event of a Western victory would have been in much better position to take out the Bolsheviks than the Western Allies were in our timeline. Again I'm not close to certain that German would have been able to do it or would have tried but I do think the prospects for Soviet survival and superpowerdom would be much lower.





The abstract point of "you're just saying the grass is greener on the other side and different bad things could have happened" is potentially valid and is a point all Central Powers backers on this thread should think about. However all we can do is look at what's likely based on what happened in our timeline and go from there. Saying for sure things would have been worse with no basis to prove it IMO has less standing than examining what's likely based on what we do know even if that's not perfect either. I think the world would be a considerably better place today in the event of a Central Powers victory because I believe a variety of bad things that happened with an Entente victory wouldn't have happened and that's it a more positive scenario than what we got.

I agree the UK was always against a dominant continental power and had done more damage to Germany than any other power but at the end of the day the question is what can the Germans do to get a harsh peace from Britain? To get the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Germany actually had to invade Russia, militarily exhaust them and negotiate with a leader who saw the world in way which made any end to the war reasonable. Germany could not punish the UK no matter how much they wanted to because if the UK doesn't want to sign what can the Germans do to compel them? UK on the other hands occupied Germany's entire African Empire and the Japanese occupied the entire Asian one. Defeating France does nothing to make those troops just go up. Defeating the UK in France means the UK failed in stopping the German invasion of France and in protecting Belgian neutrality. Germany would not be able nor willing to follow up with an invasion of the UK without defeating the German fleet at sea, which is something you seem to think would have been possible. It wasn't and every naval historian will tell you the same. German strategy was to defeat little parts of the British navy to narrow the gap, the British thus used a little part of the navy as bait with most of the rest of the navy behind. The German fleet did cause some serious damage to the bait sinking a few cruisers and almost sank a dreadnought or two but when they saw the full fleet they turned and fled. The British sent in their cruisers to stop the retreat with cruisers and the Brit attack failed badly and took much heavier losses. As I've said on the naval thread the Germans had no chance of achieving their objective of even narrowing the battleship and cruiser gap. I'm going to break down just how hopeless the German situation was. First off the British weren't even fighting with their entire capital ship fleet leaving 3 dreadnoughts and 1 battlecruiser at home while the Germans were fighting with everything so some ships weren't in jeopardy for the Brits while the Germans were risking everything. Second at Jutland the British fleet had 28 dreadnoughts to 16 German dreadnoughts and 9 battlecruisers to 5 German battlecruisers. The Brits lost three battlecruisers while the Germans lost 1 battlecruiser. Now let's see the Germans live up to their fullest potential in the battle and destroy all the bait ships before the main fleet arrives, 7 UK battlecruisers and 4 UK dreadnoughts(which would have been a huge stretch) are sunk which gives the Germans a battlecruiser edge 4-3 and the British a dreadnought edge 27-16, the Brits had 5 battlecruisers in the pipeline to the Germans 1 and the Brits had 3 state of the art dreadnoughts about to be released while the Germans only had 2(these were all the remaining capital ships built during the war).

Got a little carried away with the Jutland explanation but the Germans lost their fleet because the fleet surrendered to the Brits as their country was defeated. Again why would the British give up their fleet to the Germans when a similar situation had not occurred? The main reason Brits were against a major continental power is that one European power could then muster the ships to overwhelm the British Isles like the Spanish and Napoleon tried to do. British would never have given up their fleet barring an invasion of the home islands and unconditional surrender, they would have rather given up India and their empire. That is simply not a realistic scenario. Again if Germany beats France, UK still has naval supremacy that the Germans will be in no position to challenge while when the Germans signed the armistice their armies were in full retreat and their fleet was bottled up by the British superior numbers. I really want to know what you think will happen if the Germans had defeated France got them to surrender do you think the British just magically give up their nations main defense and leave themselves defenseless voluntarily because for the Brits to give up their fleet that is exactly what would have to happen. Let me try to explain, for Germany defeating her army leads to her overall surrender including her navy because her navy is irrelevant if the army collapses but for the UK defeating her EF nm her army does nothing because she's a sea borne nation separated from Germany by water and who can't be invaded as long as her fleet has naval supremacy. So it takes different things to defeat Germany and the UK because they are different nations in different situations. There's also the fact the Germans entire colonial empire was under British/Japanese control within a few months maybe a year of the start of the war. If Germany defeats France, the UK can't attack Germany anymore except maintain the blockade but the Germans can't attack the UK either in any capacity. It's like if Russia had won the Crimean war and seized Constantinople, yeah the Brits got beat but does mean they need to surrender or do they just sign a treaty recognize the changes to the European order and pretend nothing ever happened? France and Italy get defeated, USA walks away like nothing ever happens and Japan and UK walk away with Germanies colonial empire(which regardless of victory in the war basically dies if they don't get compensated by the French and Belgians).

Austrian empire wouldn't be fine and would still be unstable but would certainly not collapse the way they did in our timeline. Even if Austria lost territory to nationalist rebellions hypothetically they would still keep much of their territory and be a stronger empire for it. Croatia and Slovakia, two of the drivers of the WWII genocides I cited are two such regions that only left the Hapsburg Empire because of the post war settlement after being part of Hungary for almost a millenia. Not all the member states would have broken off or left the Czechs and Bosnian Serbs were the main groups opposed to Hapsburg rule and were rewarded by becoming the new oppressors in new multinational states with the same ethnic tension. I think making the Czechs the third part of the monarchy would make historical sense seeing the traditional importance of Bohemia.

Allied victory is what put the Slovaks and Czechs together and the Serbs and Croats together in a dominant/subordinate relationship. It is almost entirely what caused these events and the Croat genocide then made the Serbs mad and led to more ethnic cleansing down the line. There is a clear cause and effect here and it is far from ridiculous to claim that a Central Powers victory would prevent these things because a Central Powers victory prevents the conditions that led it to happen. I'm not blaming anyone for the crimes of individuals but that doesn't mean people don't do crimes for a reason and that if you take the reason away they probably won't do them.

Munich coups' failure does not say that the central issue in the rise of the Nazi's wasn't the WWI defeat. It was a regional fiasco in a region that had just put down a Communist revolution. If someone has political beliefs that are popular and storms a city's town hall declaring a new government and am arrested, that doesn't mean there is no support for their policies it means they're an idiot. The popularity of sentiments doesn't= regional coup successfully taking over entire country. Hitler did get a very sympathetic sentence based on the severity of his crime in an age where people got shot pretty easily for treason. Ludondorff walked away from the whole event like nothing had happened basically daring the cops to arrest him.

You are right about Russia and "Bread, Peace, Land" no disagreements there. Doesn't really contradict what I said though which is that Lenin did see a revolution coming soon and thus was less bothered by the USSR's borders. That was not the only reason he made peace but damm that was a horrible deal lol.

In terms of Hungary, Croats and Slovaks were basically part of Hungary and had been for around a millenia. In terms of Translvania no matter who got that territory it would be a mess. Have you seen a map the way the Hungarian and Romanian populations are laid out? Usually there's something resembling borders but with Transylvania it's pocka dots of Hungarians and Romanians. No one was receiving that territory without contreversy nor could it be split fairly. Also Transylvania was the eastern part of Hungary before the Ottoman invasion.

Enjoyed the map here's a map that I found describing the complex situation as well!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transy...ary_ethnic.svg

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; August 3rd, 2017 at 12:13 AM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 09:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 09:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.