Another Russian Rewrite of History

[Neil]

But in fact Nobody "won" WWI ... It went on too long and they had to stop so that all the nations could spend 20 years growing new young men to die in part 2.

You could a case that the United States "won" the war.  They went from after thought in the global scene compared to the elite European players to damn near top dog due to their now massive skilled labor advantage and their new found financial and military power.

And that was disastrous for the civilized world.  American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world.  All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.

[Eddie Teach]

And that was disastrous for the civilized world.  American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world.  All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.

Oh, we're to blame for that now?

I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.

[grumbler]

You could a case that the United States "won" the war.  They went from after thought in the global scene compared to the elite European players to damn near top dog due to their now massive skilled labor advantage and their new found financial and military power.

Actually, the US was producing more steel than all of Europe* in 1914, and more than half the world's petroleum.  It had almost as many miles of rail line as all of Europe.  It wasn't the war that made the US an economic gianmt - that happened before the war.  One could certainly argue that the war vastly modenized the archaic US Army, though.  I think the US military owned something like 50 planes total when it went to war, and none of them were combat aircraft.  US artillery was also a joke.

However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish.  The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it.  The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided, and the whole "France and Britain stabbed the US in the back" syndrome from Versailles would have been avoided, thus mitigating some of the populatrity of post-war isolationism and maybe making the US more willing to try to stop Hitler, had he come to power.

*Including Russia

[grumbler]

And that was disastrous for the civilized world.  American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world.  All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.

  Beautiful troll.  One of your very best.  My hat is off to you, sir. 

[grumbler]

Oh, we're to blame for that now?

I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.

And the first victim takes the bait...

[jimmy olsen]

However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish.  The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it.  The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

[Martim Silva]

I can certainly see how Russians wouldn't view threatening a country with destruction unless they hand you territory as an aggressive act.

Hitler's demands on Poland were as follow:

1. Return to Germany of the Free City of Danzig (which, btw, was a majority German independent city-state overseen by the League of Nations and not part of Poland in any way or form).

2. The right to build a road and railway line that would link Germany by land to East Prussia. That line would have extraterritorial rights, not being subject to Polish inspections.

(secretly, Germany also proposed Poland an alliance against the Soviet Union).

Hitler never asked Poland for an inch of ground. The common perception that he did, however, is indeed a nice rewrite of History.

http://www.poloniatoday.com/history11.htm

At the beginning of 1939 German diplomacy put forth demands toward Poland: to incorporate Gdansk into the Reich and to build an extra-territorial motorway through Polish Pomerania. Moreover, Germany proposed that Poland accede to the Anti-Soviet Pact.

http://books.google.pt/books?id=7lsVajEtaQ0C&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=list+of+hitler+demands+poland&source=bl&ots=URv8KKnWTn&sig=kNKV3U3Y3aRUI-EmcsxoO272elc&hl=pt-PT&ei=z4I-StuhOJ-UjAf1lOAY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Hitler demanded the return of Danzig (today Gdansk, Poland), a German-inhabited enclave in the midst of Poland He also requested that Poland allow Germany to build an extraterritorial road across the Polish Corridor, which separated German East Prussia from the rest of Germany

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish.  The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it.  The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France.  Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.

[jimmy olsen]

However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish.  The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it.  The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France.  Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.

Yeah, but the German's problem is that they're starving due to the blockade. They have to give in.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish.  The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it.  The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France.  Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.

Yeah, but the German's problem is that they're starving due to the blockade. They have to give in.

Large parts of France's army were close to mutiny, and without US support the German blockade of Britain would have likely been more severe.  If the Entente were teetering so close to collapse themselves, Germany rejecting peace terms wouldn't have gone over well.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I agree with Grumbler.  The Central Powers and Entente were both on the brink of a meltdown, although The CP's was far, far worse.  But with so much of the French army on the verge of a general mutiny and both of them exhausted whatever peace emerged might have been much easier for Germany to deal with.  It was the hundreds of thousands of fresh American troops landing that allowed them to force a total surrender. 

On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over.  If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations? 

I think we need Tim to make some maps.

[grumbler]

I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?

The Brits and French ignored Wilson and imposed their own conditions (in violation of the Armistace arrangements, but we are not talking about the most virtuous of men).

[Neil]

Indeed.  Then again, Wilson was a walking disaster.

[grumbler]

On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over.  If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations? 

Actually, the existance of a non-emasculated Germany would have given the Russians serious pause.  The demoocratic regime that would have taken power in postwar Germany (because even in a non-punative peace the Kaiser would have been forced to step down, as he had no cred left) would have been far stronger than the Weimar Republic, both for having avoided the image of craven surrender monkeys and avoiding the bulk of the reparations.  The chances of a Red takeover would still have been significant, but less so than in the real situation, I think.

It is interesting to speculate whether, in the absence of a punitive Versailles Treaty, the Treaties of Saint Germain and Trianon would have been so punitive, and in particular whether or not Yugoslavia would have been created.

[Sophie Scholl]

In regards to U.S. steel production and rail capacity, I think there's a difference between being the biggest producer and being acknowledged as a legit player.  The facts of the United States' industrial and infrastructural might and capacity was known, but I think they were still treated as a kid trying to sit at the adult table prior to World War I.  It was the Allies need to include them for their money, their industry, and their manpower that allowed the United States to truly earn a spot in Global Diplomacy on par more or less with the traditional European Great Powers.