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 143 29.48%
The Triple Entente 190 39.18%
Neither one of them 152 31.34%
Voters: 485. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2014, 09:26 AM   #861
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Exactly which SS-Gruppenführer are you talking about here? Also, for the record, I myself am of Jewish and Slavic (Russian and Belarusian) ancestry, rather than of Jewish and German ancestry like I am presuming most Mischlinge in Nazi Germany were. I heard that Hitler also disliked Russians, so yeah.
Wilhelm Stuckart and Bernhard Lösener
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Stuckart]Wilhelm Stuckart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Bernhard Lösener - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
beorna is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 29th, 2014, 02:33 PM   #862

Mike Lynch's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: Colorado
Posts: 1,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Realism View Post
I side with the Central Powers. The destruction of the Russian, French, and British Empires would be a blessing on the oppressed peoples of the world in 1914. It would be high time for the major colonial aggressors to get a taste of their own medicine on their home soil.
You honestly believe that replacing the British or French with German overlords would improve their lot? In Africa the Germans certainly were not more benevolent than the French or British. Certainly not when it came to the Hereros.
Mike Lynch is offline  
Old December 29th, 2014, 03:06 PM   #863
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 267

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
Fleeing is no answer.

Yes it is, unless the person concerned is in a position to bring down the Third Reich. So for most people in the line of fire it was probably the only answer.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old December 29th, 2014, 03:10 PM   #864

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 13,164

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
You honestly believe that replacing the British or French with German overlords would improve their lot? In Africa the Germans certainly were not more benevolent than the French or British. Certainly not when it came to the Hereros.
And of course what came after would be all sweetness and light as it was before the dastardly British, French etc came.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 30th, 2014, 03:52 AM   #865
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lynch View Post
....In Africa the Germans certainly were not more benevolent than the French or British. Certainly not when it came to the Hereros.
The Germans were not more benevolent than ...? Which colonial power was benevolent? The Germans simply could be as cruel as the other european nations before.
beorna is offline  
Old December 30th, 2014, 01:07 PM   #866

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,829

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
The Germans were not more benevolent than ...? Which colonial power was benevolent? The Germans simply could be as cruel as the other european nations before.
Not all colonization was bad imo. In fact in many colonies the Europeans provided medicine, education and infrastructure.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old December 30th, 2014, 01:19 PM   #867

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,829

I myself side with the Central powers. First of all a positive central powers outcome of the war would probably have lead to some sort of prototype of the European Union (under German domination) which I applaud. Secondly I hate how Europe fell apart in small countries afterwards. I prefer the pre-1914 borders/situation with large Empires. Thirdly I believe that the autocratic regimes in Germany, Austria-Hungary etc were much more beneficial to the people living there then the democracies that followed. Germany for example was a semi-autocratic monarchy, but at the same time had the most developed social system in the world.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old December 31st, 2014, 09:05 AM   #868

Kotromanic's Avatar
McCartneynite-Lennonist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Iowa USA
Posts: 3,988
Blog Entries: 1

At noon US Central time: still a practical tie between the CP and neither choices, 97-96.

Since a bump of the thread in late August the tally is 14-13 in newer votes. The Central Powers supporters are persistent!
Kotromanic is offline  
Old December 31st, 2014, 09:39 AM   #869
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: Romania
Posts: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
I myself side with the Central powers. First of all a positive central powers outcome of the war would probably have lead to some sort of prototype of the European Union (under German domination) which I applaud. Secondly I hate how Europe fell apart in small countries afterwards. I prefer the pre-1914 borders/situation with large Empires. Thirdly I believe that the autocratic regimes in Germany, Austria-Hungary etc were much more beneficial to the people living there then the democracies that followed. Germany for example was a semi-autocratic monarchy, but at the same time had the most developed social system in the world.
While I voted with the Central Powers, I doubt that what most of what you said would have happened. Even if the Central Powers had won they would be on a great deficit of resources as Great Britain and France were at the end of the war. They would have forced Great Britain and France (and probably America) to pay massive war reparations which in turn it would have made it susceptible to radical people similar to Hitler who would also say that they need to get revenge and take back what the Germans and Austrian-Hungarian's took so another possible WWII with different contenders, so it is unclear if a European Union would have been made if the Central Powers won. And I disagree that Austria-Hungary was beneficial to the countries near it, especially to my own home country(Romania), more exactly a large chunk of it where the majority was Romanian.

The other countries, such as Bosnia and Serbia suffered greatly thanks to the influence of Austria-Hungary who thought that the two countries belonged to them. You probably know what was requested of Serbia beacuse of the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This showed that they considered Serbia, not a country of it's own, but a autonomous region of their empire.

I do however agree with your second point, it was much more practical that only, say a few empires, ruled Europe instead of two dozen unstable and smaller countries ruling Europe. Less countries means less conflicts with neighbours and more focus on inner development of the country, less focus on the military and more focus on the people of said empire.

Last edited by Claw2k11; December 31st, 2014 at 09:41 AM.
Claw2k11 is offline  
Old December 31st, 2014, 09:49 AM   #870

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,911
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claw2k11 View Post
While I voted with the Central Powers, I doubt that what most of what you said would have happened. Even if the Central Powers had won they would be on a great deficit of resources as Great Britain and France were at the end of the war. They would have forced Great Britain and France (and probably America) to pay massive war reparations which in turn it would have made it susceptible to radical people similar to Hitler who would also say that they need to get revenge and take back what the Germans and Austrian-Hungarian's took so another possible WWII with different contenders, so it is unclear if a European Union would have been made if the Central Powers won. And I disagree that Austria-Hungary was beneficial to the countries near it, especially to my own home country(Romania), more exactly a large chunk of it where the majority was Romanian.

The other countries, such as Bosnia and Serbia suffered greatly thanks to the influence of Austria-Hungary who thought that the two countries belonged to them. You probably know what was requested of Serbia beacuse of the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This showed that they considered Serbia, not a country of it's own, but a autonomous region of their empire.

I do however agree with your second point, it was much more practical that only, say a few empires, ruled Europe instead of two dozen unstable and smaller countries ruling Europe. Less countries means less conflicts with neighbours and more focus on inner development of the country, less focus on the military and more focus on the people of said empire.
The Central Powers would not have been in a position to make either Britain or the U.S.A. pay reparations to them if they would have won World War I.

As for WWII breaking out in this scenario, I am unsure that, say, a fascist France and a Communist Russia would have been willing to cooperate with each other in regards to fighting against and seeking revenge on Imperial Germany.
Futurist 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 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.