Was World War I worth it?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,555
Portugal
Indeed, but they were still a part of the Central Powers.

It was most certainly used in propaganda, sometimes in quite ridiculous propaganda, but it still happened. And Belgium is not the only country that suffered at the hands of the Central Powers. Serbia and Montenegro come to mind.

Napoleonics never committed a full-scale genocide.
It was generally assumed in Britain that stories about Belgium had been grossly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, but research in the last twenty years or so suggests there was a considerable element of truth in them, e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rape-Belgium-Untold-Zuckerman-Hardcover/dp/B01182JWA2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=larry+zuckerman+rape+belgium&qid=1562413898&s=books&sr=1-1[/QUOTE]
Maybe it seemed so, but I was not trying to dismiss the German “Rape of Belgium” or the Ottoman genocide in Armenia.

I am not that much informed with the Austrian and German occupation of Serbia and Montenegro to comment, so I would appreciate to hear from you about that Maki, since you mentioned it, but we all know that the Belgium issue, even with all the crimes committed they were exaggerated by the British to gain support in their own public opinion and then to bring the USA to the War.

And I was not comparing the Napoleonic attitude in the Iberian Peninsula with the Armenian Genocide, we are in different levels there. I was comparing the Napoleonic attitude in the Iberian Peninsula with the Belgium Rape because even a century apart, I think we are in similar levels there. Not a trillion levels of difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,987
Republika Srpska
And I was not comparing the Napoleonic attitude in the Iberian Peninsula with the Armenian Genocide, we are in different levels there. I was comparing the Napoleonic attitude in the Iberian Peninsula with the Belgium Rape because even a century apart, I think we are in similar levels there. Not a trillion levels of difference.
Well, I was not talking solely about Germany, but about the Central Powers as a whole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,750
SoCal
Forgive me for saying so, but this reads like you are vaguely trying to justify Lebensraum.
Yeah, I mean, the US's expansion into formerly Mexican territory did provide a significant benefit to the US. I certainly don't support what happened to the Native Americans on this territory afterwards, but if there was a way for the US to conquer this territory and subsequently treat the Native Americans on this territory better than they did in real life, then this would probably be ideal.

Furthermore it clearly gives an edge to the US, why are they in the right but Mexico is in the wrong for defending their territory?
Oh, Mexico was certainly justified in defending its territory both in Texas and in Alta California and New Mexico.

I fail to grasp this logic. It would've been better for Germany to have more sensible leadership but that just wouldn't be Nazi Germany anymore. If we go far enough I could say that it would've better for something to happen like Napoleon dissolving Prussia completely in 1806, so the German Unification under Prussia doesn't happen or something.
Yes, this probably would have been better.

If you change the whole cause of the war by some magic then you pretty much change the point of the war,. Of course WWII wouldn't have been worth it if Germany had more sensible leadership but they didn't.
Yeah.

The World Wars were not crucial for decolonsation though they greatly accelerated it.
Yeah, I mean, one would think that sheer demographics would be reason enough for countries to eventually decolonize even without the World Wars--though I could nevertheless see some blank slatists (probably primarily liberals) argue that colonial powers should keep their colonies and gradually integrate them into the metropole and give citizenship, political power, and full legal equality to all of the people who are living there. It might not be very likely since even blank slatists might be unwilling to become outnumbered in their own countries, but it's not completely impossible--as evidenced by the willingness of many Western countries to significantly change their demographics over the last several decades.
 
Sep 2013
324
SouthWest USA
Um, about forty million casualties (both civilian and military), social instability sowing the seeds of authoritarianism (Fascism, Nazism, Communism), the spread of the Spanish Influenza (50 to 100 million deaths or 3-5% of the world's population), etc.

I don't want to jump to a hasty conclusion, but I would say, "No."


guy also known as gaius
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Sep 2013
324
SouthWest USA
Outside of Europe and Asia, one of the biggest victims of WW1 were South American countries like Argentina and Uruguay. These countries were prosperous, developed societies by 1914, but since they were small countries their economy was based on trading with Europe, when Europe consumed itself in the flames of WW1/WW2, Argentina and Uruguay lacked the massive size of their North American cousins (US and Canada) to allow for economic development without depending on international trade. As WW1 lead to a massive collapse in international trade, only the US/Canada managed to grow from 1914 to 1950, since they were the only large developed economic block not devastated by 1914-1945, so by 1950 North America emerged as by far, the richest region in the world. Without WW1 we would have multiple continents that developed like North America did from 1914 to 1990. We know that specially because the world since 1989 looks very much like it would have looked from 1914 onward with peace: quick spread of technology and development.
I have family in Argentina, so I found this explanation for Argentina's economic failure appealing in its simplicity, but deceptively wrong. (Even if it were true, Argentina's problems are far deeper than lack of European trade.)

Here's an interesting counter argument that contends that World War One was not a total disaster for Argentina:

Argentina in World War 1

(Click to see a nice summary)

Argentina In World War 1
To Sum Up...

Political and Social: Argentina became a very important nation in Latin America due to the boost in the economy.
Involvement/Participation
    • Argentina traded with and loaned money to the Allies.
    • There was great pressure on Argentinean president Hipolyto Irigoyen to join the Allies because of his pro-Allies citizens.
    • The president saw no direct reason why Argentina should enter the fight, and preferred that the country do nothing but profit from the support it was giving.
    • Argentina began selling surplus wheat to Britain and France in 1918.
    • In 1924, Argentina went through a sudden period of prosperity due to foreign investment, immigration, and rising exports.
    • From 1913 to 1929 the amount of foreign trade had tripled.
    • Argentina became a creditor and paid off their American loans.
    • They became the richest nation in Latin America.
    • Became a major exporter of wool, beef, and wheat.

guy also known as gaius
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Feb 2019
1,178
Serbia
Yeah, I mean, the US's expansion into formerly Mexican territory did provide a significant benefit to the US.
So you admit you are justifying this Lebensraum-esque philosophy and expansionism? Do you not see any problem with this thinking?

but if there was a way for the US to conquer this territory and subsequently treat the Native Americans on this territory better than they did in real life, then this would probably be ideal.
I think it's rather nationalistic to say that the Mexican-American War was good and justified for all because the USA conquered 1/3rd of Mexico in the name of living space and settler colonialism. Good for the USA, but is it good for Mexico or the people who lived in that territory that were not settlers? Certainly not! To me this seems pretty one-sided and biased. I think someone would be quick to say to say that it would be better if the USA never expanded in the first place, I would claim that it would be the best if Britain kept the 13 colonies and the decolonisation of America didn't occur at all. But this view is neither fair nor very ''liberal''. I think the Mexican-American War was unjustified because the USA really didn't have a credible casus beli in my eyes, and to claim that settler colonialism and acquiring living space is a legitimate, clean casus beli does not sit well with me for a multitude of reasons.

Yeah, I mean, one would think that sheer demographics would be reason enough for countries to eventually decolonize even without the World Wars--though I could nevertheless see some blank slatists (probably primarily liberals) argue that colonial powers should keep their colonies and gradually integrate them into the metropole and give citizenship, political power, and full legal equality to all of the people who are living there. It might not be very likely since even blank slatists might be unwilling to become outnumbered in their own countries, but it's not completely impossible--as evidenced by the willingness of many Western countries to significantly change their demographics over the last several decades.
A way for countries to not decolonise, or at least last longer would be something like the Imperial Federation advocated by Joseph Chamberlain.