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 86 30.07%
The Triple Entente 116 40.56%
Neither one of them 84 29.37%
Voters: 286. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 8th, 2012, 01:26 PM   #711
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by KunaltheGreat View Post
I doubt the same thing could ever happen in France. The French are much different than the Germans,

True - but then the Italians and Spaniards are also quite different from the Germans - but that didn't stop them succumbing to a Mussolini or a Franco.

In fact, by the mid-1930s most of Europe was ruled by dictators of one stripe or another. The states which had democracy in 1914, were, by and large, more or less hanging on to it twenty years later, but elsewhere it survived only in Czechoslovakia and Finland.

As for France, she'd had one dictatorship under Napoleon III, and narrowly missed another under Boulanger, so it's at least not fanciful to imagine such a thing in the aftermath of another lost war.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2012, 01:34 PM   #712
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Lol,

Forgive my outburst, but their is another thread similar to this one in which I do contend that war as inevitable. The Jingoistic Junkers of the German Empire would see to that. But the spark that came from the Balkans could have been avoided. The ruin of the Austro-Hungarian Empire may never have happened. Perhaps instead of a World War we may have had just a Russo-German War or Anglo-German war instead

Indeed a cynic could argue that the Junkers' mistake was in not being aggressive enough.

They could have used an earlier Balkan crisis to provoke a war with Russia in the later 1880s. Naturally France would have joined in, but almost certainly not Britain, as the Naval Race was still in an unforseen future, and our main colonial rivals were Russia and France, not Germany. Intervention by the US of Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland would have been even less likely.

The Germans would almost certainly have won. Britain wouldn't have welcomed their domination of the Continent, but would most likely have accepted it once it was a fait accompli.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 01:42 PM   #713

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
Indeed a cynic could argue that the Junkers' mistake was in not being aggressive enough.

They could have used an earlier Balkan crisis to provoke a war with Russia in the later 1880s. Naturally France would have joined in, but almost certainly not Britain, as the Naval Race was still in an unforseen future, and our main colonial rivals were Russia and France, not Germany. Intervention by the US of Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland would have been even less likely.

The Germans would almost certainly have won. Britain wouldn't have welcomed their domination of the Continent, but would most likely have accepted it once it was a fait accompli.
Intriguing, I find your view stimulating in the regards that you:

1. See Germany beating a much more competent and ablely ruled Russian Empire being defeated by the German Empire. (NEVER INVADE RUSSIA!!!)

2. That you do not see the Germans or the French going at it again

3. You see the British Empire accepting the German domination on the Continent. Even though it would run contrary to their theory of Balance of Power on the Continent.

Bismarck's Germany did wage war for the sake of it but to specifically achieve a singular purpose. But that said, after Bismarck's fall the Imperial fervor being disseminated through the Empire by the Junkers and Prussians was pervasive. In my minds eye war was destined to happen but did it have to be a World War? I think not
Paragonrex is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 07:20 PM   #714

mansamusa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,580

Nial Fergusson agreeing with me? :


Sweet Christ.
mansamusa is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 07:55 PM   #715
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 125

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Intriguing, I find your view stimulating in the regards that you:

1. See Germany beating a much more competent and ablely ruled Russian Empire being defeated by the German Empire. (NEVER INVADE RUSSIA!!!)
I don't envisage the Germans marching on Moscow. So long as the fighting is kept reasonably close to the border they can win, as thye did in 1914-17. And if Russia is better led than in 1914 (not necessarily saying much) it is also a lot less industrialised.

Quote:
2. That you do not see the Germans or the French going at it again
Actually I do - I assume the French will intervene. But I also assume that with no British army and no bloclkade the Germans win.

Quote:
3. You see the British Empire accepting the German domination on the Continent. Even though it would run contrary to their theory of Balance of Power on the Continent.
But as yet GB doesn't fear Germany as a naval rival, and she is less of an economic competitor than she will be by 1914. It took a whole generation to bring Britain into the anti-German camp.

Quote:
Bismarck's Germany did wage war for the sake of it but to specifically achieve a singular purpose. But that said, after Bismarck's fall the Imperial fervor being disseminated through the Empire by the Junkers and Prussians was pervasive. In my minds eye war was destined to happen but did it have to be a World War? I think not
Agreed. And it was the British involvement which made it one.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 11:59 PM   #716

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,978

Quote:
Originally Posted by KunaltheGreat View Post
I doubt the same thing could ever happen in France. The French are much different than the Germans,
Because anti-semitism in France, e.g. during the Dreyfus-affair or because the xenophob FN has today votes up to 18%? or because of the grand peur?
beorna is online now  
Old December 11th, 2012, 02:16 AM   #717

Pancho35's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Newfoundland
Posts: 1,944

Well I'm Canadian but if I really had to grasp at straws and choose who the good was of World War I, I would have to say the Germans.
Pancho35 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:57 AM   #718

Halomanuk2's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Flitwick,Bedfordshire,UK
Posts: 221

The British of course !!
Halomanuk2 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 10:59 AM   #719
Suspended until October 15th, 2014
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Maryland
Posts: 1,254

The British, French, and Belgians were the good guys. Why? Because I see no reason why Belgium should've been invaded and treated so poorly. Second, I also think that the assassination of a political leader by a single person is a terrible excuse to invade an entire country, like Austria-Hungary did. Lastly, I am inclined to support democratic republics, like France, and am not a fan of the political and social views supported by Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 11:17 AM   #720
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,711

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
The British, French, and Belgians were the good guys. Why? Because I see no reason why Belgium should've been invaded and treated so poorly. Second, I also think that the assassination of a political leader by a single person is a terrible excuse to invade an entire country, like Austria-Hungary did. Lastly, I am inclined to support democratic republics, like France, and am not a fan of the political and social views supported by Germany and Austria-Hungary.
I agree the Belgium is the crux of the issue, before the invasion of Belgium the central arguments had an acceptable, if stretched, argument for war, but there was no justification for such a harsh treatment of a neutral. Military expediency can be a difficult thing to discern in the heat of battle, but everyone assumed it would be a quick war, and that faulty assumption led to some serious miscalculations on Germany's part.
constantine is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war


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 08:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 08:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.