Poll
Question:
Did the US make the correct decision to enter the First World War.
Option 1: Yes!
votes: 16
Option 2: No!
votes: 14
Option 3: I don't know!
votes: 5
Been thinking of WWI lately, and wonder if the US should have stayed neutral or entered the war. Wondered what the rest you folk think. I think entering the war was a mistake, as I could see no real benefit for the US to enter the war.
I concur. Should have stayed out.
Fighting for Serbia is its own reward.
Yes. Enjoy your liberty cabbage.
Only worthwhile if we'd had airpower and the bomb.
It lost them little and they got to play a full part in remaking the world- that they lost interest in this soon afterwards is where a problem lies
100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.
The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:03:05 AM
The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.
Short term certainly not; long term? I'm not so sure - the German plans for redrawing Europe's borders weren't far short of Hitler's in scope and with the addition of their Colonial ambitions... :hmm:
Say the Germans had grabbed the French Colonies in the Americas as part of the peace treaty and started expanding their influence in Latin America - could they have become an existential threat then?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:03:05 AM
100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.
The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.
100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.
I've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.
The Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.
It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.
Yeah cause winning WW1 made the world safe from German aggression. :hmm:
Quote from: Tyr on May 25, 2014, 05:54:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:03:05 AM
100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.
The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.
100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.
I've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.
The Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.
It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.
The Spanish flu, contrary to the name originated in Kansas and was spread by American soldiers to Europe.
The Federal Reserve would not have continued to issue loans to Britain if America had not joined the war effort, in fact it had ceased to so months prior. Without these loans Britain would have been unable to simultaneously finance it's own war effort while heavily subsidizing France.
Quote from: Tyr on May 25, 2014, 05:54:54 AM
100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.
I have no idea what the point here is. Is this an argument for, or against, US involvement? It seems to me that the US wouldn't have lost 100,000 people if it hadn't entered the war (which was the question), while millions would have already died by the time the decision was made.
QuoteI've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.
You are probably correct. The popular myth that the flu started in kansas is just a myth (though there was an early outbreak there). However, the movement of troops and material to and from Europe probably explained why the influenza spread so quickly.
QuoteThe Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.
It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.
So, the Germans couldn't win, but it would be bad when they did? :hmm:
Interesting theory.
We entered on the wrong side.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 25, 2014, 05:54:54 AM
100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.
I have no idea what the point here is. Is this an argument for, or against, US involvement? It seems to me that the US wouldn't have lost 100,000 people if it hadn't entered the war (which was the question), while millions would have already died by the time the decision was made.
I mean that without America in the war the Germans would probably have been more inclined to drag out the war a bit longer, killing a lot more people than the 100,000 Americans that died (and the Germans they killed).
From a purely selfish American perspective that's no argument in favour of the US being involved, but from a global perspective I'd like to think their sacrifice was for the greater good.
Quote
So, the Germans couldn't win, but it would be bad when they did? :hmm:
Interesting theory.
They weren't going to win but in a theoretical situation where they do, it wouldn't be great for American interests.
Yes. Should have entered earlier so that the Provisional Government in Russia had a chance. The Ottomans and the Austrians were scum, and Germany was already well on it's way to going full retard.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 25, 2014, 09:29:17 AM
Yes. Should have entered earlier so that the Provisional Government in Russia had a chance.
Does the non-existence of the USSR help or hinder progressive development in the West?
Probably hinders. If nothing else, the Soviets offered a glimpse at what might happen if you take no steps to ameliorate the lot of the proletariat, and puts pressure on market-committed governments to take at least some measures. While a full-on revolution was probably never going to, and never will, happen in America.
I'd like to take this moment to thank all those dead kulaks.
No Communism to scare Europe in to Fascism. The Socialists are united behind the SPD model. Eventually it evolves along slightly pro-market lines.
Almost entirely positive. The USSR was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, and Communism one of the great evils in all of history.
Quote from: Tyr on May 25, 2014, 07:53:05 AM
They weren't going to win but in a theoretical situation where they do, it wouldn't be great for American interests.
Germany wasn't a danger to the US, and wouldn't be a danger to the US. The only country that was a danger to the US at the time was Japan, an Entente state.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
Germany wasn't a danger to the US, and wouldn't be a danger to the US. The only country that was a danger to the US at the time was Japan, an Entente state.
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Quote from: Tyr on May 25, 2014, 04:40:55 AM
It lost them little and they got to play a full part in remaking the world- that they lost interest in this soon afterwards is where a problem lies
The US had minimal input on Sykes-Picot.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 25, 2014, 10:48:19 AM
No Communism to scare Europe in to Fascism. The Socialists are united behind the SPD model. Eventually it evolves along slightly pro-market lines.
Wrong. The US staying home would not have mattered in the least to what was happening in Russia.
QuoteThe USSR was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, and Communism one of the great evils in all of history.
You're so full of shit.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
Germany wasn't a danger to the US, and wouldn't be a danger to the US. The only country that was a danger to the US at the time was Japan, an Entente state.
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 25, 2014, 10:48:19 AM
No Communism to scare Europe in to Fascism. The Socialists are united behind the SPD model. Eventually it evolves along slightly pro-market lines.
Wrong. The US staying home would not have mattered in the least to what was happening in Russia.
No, he's possibly onto something. An early U.S. entry might (emphasis on might) have lessened the pressure on the Provisional Government. That said, the Provisional Government was unbelievably stupid for continuing to try to prosecute a lost war and one that never served a compelling national interest.
QuoteYou're so full of shit.
Even I concede Stalinism had excesses, man. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 25, 2014, 10:48:19 AM
No Communism to scare Europe in to Fascism. The Socialists are united behind the SPD model. Eventually it evolves along slightly pro-market lines.
Wrong. The US staying home would not have mattered in the least to what was happening in Russia.
No, he's possibly onto something. An early U.S. entry might (emphasis on might) have lessened the pressure on the Provisional Government. That said, the Provisional Government was unbelievably stupid for continuing to try to prosecute a lost war and one that never served a compelling national interest.
Wrong.
QuoteQuoteYou're so full of shit.
Even I concede Stalinism had excesses, man. :lol:
It's one of the great evils of the 20th century, but not the greatest evil in all of history. like Spelltard says. That apparently is Wilsonian democracy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:47:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2014, 01:43:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on May 25, 2014, 10:48:19 AM
No Communism to scare Europe in to Fascism. The Socialists are united behind the SPD model. Eventually it evolves along slightly pro-market lines.
Wrong. The US staying home would not have mattered in the least to what was happening in Russia.
No, he's possibly onto something. An early U.S. entry might (emphasis on might) have lessened the pressure on the Provisional Government. That said, the Provisional Government was unbelievably stupid for continuing to try to prosecute a lost war and one that never served a compelling national interest.
Wrong.
QuoteQuoteYou're so full of shit.
Even I concede Stalinism had excesses, man. :lol:
It's one of the great evils of the 20th century, but not the greatest evil in all of history. like Spelltard says. That apparently is Wilsonian democracy.
Seeds - forever in a world of black and white.
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2014, 01:50:55 PM
Seeds - forever in a world of black and white.
Right, because the Europeans did foreign policy so fucking well.
He said "one of."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:53:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2014, 01:50:55 PM
Seeds - forever in a world of black and white.
Right, because the Europeans did foreign policy so fucking well.
Why does it have to be either or?
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2014, 01:54:01 PM
Why does it have to be either or?
I'm sure Mr. Wilson would've been open to your alternatives at the time, whatever they may have been.
At this point, what difference does it make?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 25, 2014, 01:54:01 PM
Why does it have to be either or?
I'm sure Mr. Wilson would've been open to your alternatives at the time, whatever they may have been.
Likely not. I think my family was in MS
Quote from: Siege on May 25, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
At this point, what difference does it make?
All the difference in the world, my good boy.
Quote from: Siege on May 25, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
At this point, what difference does it make?
If we let the Euros bleed a bit more, European Imperialism might have collapsed 20 years early. Imagine an Israel independent in 1929.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 04:53:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 25, 2014, 01:59:16 PM
At this point, what difference does it make?
If we let the Euros bleed a bit more, European Imperialism might have collapsed 20 years early. Imagine an Israel independent in 1929.
I'm having a bit of difficulty imagining that given the demographic situation in Palestine at the time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
Fuck you, so what. Go get gunned down by Katmai or something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
And they basically wanted the annexation or control of the entire North Sea coast, considerable British colonies in Southern Africa and the dismantling of the Royal Navy.
Given the comparatively piffling rise of Japan in the Pacific, it's tough to see how that shift wouldn't represent a danger for the US in the Atlantic.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
You really think that ideology is the sole cause of resentment towards the USA in Latin America? Particularly in the first half of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the USA's aggressive policy in the Carribean of the first two decades of the Century?
I presume that those telling us so assuredly what the Germans wanted out of WW1 are relying on Fischer? I'd point out that his isn't the only opinion on the topic. I think he egged his beer, myself.
Interestingly, the Germans were interested in a negotiated settlement of the war, even when Germany seemed to be winning, while the British and French were not (Lloyd George was especially contemptuous of the idea of stopping the butchery). The conditions the Germans were to present had the Allies agreed to talks in Dec 1916 are not entirely clear (lots of secondary-source guessing but no primary sources), but the fact that the Germans were willing to talk peace after the fall of Romania is interesting.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
You really think that ideology is the sole cause of resentment towards the USA in Latin America? Particularly in the first half of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the USA's aggressive policy in the Carribean of the first two decades of the Century?
Sure, the elites would definitely try to get German support to counter the US. However there aren't going to be popular revolutions overthrowing the government and setting up Hohenzollern monarchies.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 06:51:56 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
You really think that ideology is the sole cause of resentment towards the USA in Latin America? Particularly in the first half of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the USA's aggressive policy in the Carribean of the first two decades of the Century?
Sure, the elites would definitely try to get German support to counter the US. However there aren't going to be popular revolutions overthrowing the government and setting up Hohenzollern monarchies.
And in a quest for influence in Latin America how is this going to make a material difference?
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 05:31:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2014, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 01:27:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 12:01:18 PM
If they'd won and enacted their plans - especially after the first year - Germany definitely would've been a danger too the US.
Oh?
They were very, very interested in the Caribbean and Latin America, in your typical German military expansionist kinda way. It's not news.
So what? Our navy was right next door and unlike the Soviets, the Germans wouldn't be peddling an ideology that would inspire the locals to join their side voluntarily.
You really think that ideology is the sole cause of resentment towards the USA in Latin America? Particularly in the first half of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the USA's aggressive policy in the Carribean of the first two decades of the Century?
Yes. The elites in the Caribbean supported and in many cases called for US intervention.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 06:56:29 PM
And in a quest for influence in Latin America how is this going to make a material difference?
Fighting over the supports of elites is a lot easier than fighting for the support of the people.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 06:58:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 06:56:29 PM
And in a quest for influence in Latin America how is this going to make a material difference?
Fighting over the supports of elites is a lot easier than fighting for the support of the people.
And this will cause a material difference how?
Latin America: Communism versus USA = Coups.
Latin America: Kaiserreich versus USA = Coups.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 25, 2014, 06:51:56 PM
Sure, the elites would definitely try to get German support to counter the US. However there aren't going to be popular revolutions overthrowing the government and setting up Hohenzollern monarchies.
Sure the elites may be pro-American but there's not going to be any revolutions overthrowing governments and setting up fascist military regimes.
I don't get all this talk about Germany overthrowing pro-US governments in the Caribbean and Latin America. What's their motive? They certainly don't need the trade, and pissing off the US seems like a needlessly reckless thing to do.
The Pacific? I could see them doing something there. latin America? No. Too difficult, too risky, and too many downsides.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
I don't get all this talk about Germany overthrowing pro-US governments in the Caribbean and Latin America. What's their motive? They certainly don't need the trade, and pissing off the US seems like a needlessly reckless thing to do.
The Pacific? I could see them doing something there. latin America? No. Too difficult, too risky, and too many downsides.
Possibly from a combination of an improved German position in the Americas with Colonial gains from France and Wilhelmine Germany's known penchant for attempted strong-arming, even of Great Powers (see Venezuela, Morocco etc.)
Quote from: Agelastus on May 25, 2014, 07:35:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
I don't get all this talk about Germany overthrowing pro-US governments in the Caribbean and Latin America. What's their motive? They certainly don't need the trade, and pissing off the US seems like a needlessly reckless thing to do.
The Pacific? I could see them doing something there. latin America? No. Too difficult, too risky, and too many downsides.
Possibly from a combination of an improved German position in the Americas with Colonial gains from France and Wilhelmine Germany's known penchant for attempted strong-arming, even of Great Powers (see Venezuela, Morocco etc.)
Why would Germany get French colonies in the Americas, and why would Wilhelm want to repeat the embarrassment he suffered in Venezuela? This all sounds like speculation driven by a need to justify a US involvement in the First World War. France's "colonies" in the new World, other than poverty-stricken French Guiana, consisted of a couple of Caribbean islands of about a thousand total square miles with a couple hundred thousand inhabitants, and some islands in the St Lawrence Seaway.
Germany's colonial ambitions in 1916 were to get her prewar colonies back. Her response to Wilson mentioned nothing about French colonies in the New World.
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
I don't get all this talk about Germany overthrowing pro-US governments in the Caribbean and Latin America. What's their motive? They certainly don't need the trade, and pissing off the US seems like a needlessly reckless thing to do.
The Pacific? I could see them doing something there. latin America? No. Too difficult, too risky, and too many downsides.
The Kaiser did make some wild statements during the Spanish American war, but he probably made some wild statements about conquering the moon at some time. Germany would be in no position to take European possessions in the Caribbean and even less to influence Latin America. A German victory doesn't adversely affect US world standing more then an Entente victory. A longer war probably helps us in the long run.
Again I disagree. Germany would have become the dominant maritime power in the Atlantic.
Obviously it's not history so we don't know what would happen and the US and Germany could have cooperated very well, but equally that may not have happened. But that is of at least as much influence and threat to the US as Japan in the Pacific.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2014, 10:34:11 PM
Again I disagree. Germany would have become the dominant maritime power in the Atlantic.
Obviously it's not history so we don't know what would happen and the US and Germany could have cooperated very well, but equally that may not have happened. But that is of at least as much influence and threat to the US as Japan in the Pacific.
Given that America exists in this scenario, I'm not sure how you see that happening.
An isolationist America doesn't need such a strong navy.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2014, 10:31:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2014, 07:24:58 PM
I don't get all this talk about Germany overthrowing pro-US governments in the Caribbean and Latin America. What's their motive? They certainly don't need the trade, and pissing off the US seems like a needlessly reckless thing to do.
The Pacific? I could see them doing something there. latin America? No. Too difficult, too risky, and too many downsides.
The Kaiser did make some wild statements during the Spanish American war, but he probably made some wild statements about conquering the moon at some time. Germany would be in no position to take European possessions in the Caribbean and even less to influence Latin America. A German victory doesn't adversely affect US world standing more then an Entente victory. A longer war probably helps us in the long run.
The Germans were balls-deep into Haiti prior to the war, in both commerce and government; so much so that we deployed troops in 1915 to keep them from using the port.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2014, 03:58:23 AM
An isolationist America doesn't need such a strong navy.
Yes it does. Especially if the Royal Navy is severely restricted.
QuoteGiven that America exists in this scenario, I'm not sure how you see that happening.
The US started construction on their big navy in 1916 I think.
If the US doesn't enter and the Germans get their victory goals - reducing the Royal Navy, colonies in Southern Africa, control of the North Sea coast - then they've got a large headstart on you. Chances are - though obviously this is all a guess - there would possibly be some sort of clash as the US built up her navy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 12:02:30 PM
Yes it does. Especially if the Royal Navy is severely restricted.
That just means the UK is less of a threat. :P
We don't need to be as strong as Germany to be not worth picking a fight with. And we certainly wouldn't have to be as strong as post-WW2 America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2014, 09:41:17 AM
The Germans were balls-deep into Haiti prior to the war, in both commerce and government; so much so that we deployed troops in 1915 to keep them from using the port.
The German presence in Haiti was trivial except in a few retail areas, and there were plenty of reasons beyond fear of some invisible German fleet for the US to invade. Germany was in no position to be a major maritime power, let alone a dominant one, no matter what some treaty said. France still isn't the dominant military in the Atlantic, almost 100 years after Versailles.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 12:02:30 PM
If the US doesn't enter and the Germans get their victory goals - reducing the Royal Navy, colonies in Southern Africa, control of the North Sea coast - then they've got a large headstart on you. Chances are - though obviously this is all a guess - there would possibly be some sort of clash as the US built up her navy.
Germany wasn't going to get a reduction of the Royal Navy, nor was it going to get RN ships with which to become dominant itself. What it could likely get out of a victory was a demilitarized french border and a demilitarized Belgium, a return of its African colonies and permission to purchase the Belgian and Portuguese colonies, and and expansion of the German trade bloc in eastern Europe (and probably into the Middle East). Germany couldn't possibly afford the diversion of resources needed to become "the dominant maritime power in the Atlantic" with all of those other opportunities beckoning.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 12:02:30 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2014, 03:58:23 AM
An isolationist America doesn't need such a strong navy.
Yes it does. Especially if the Royal Navy is severely restricted.
QuoteGiven that America exists in this scenario, I'm not sure how you see that happening.
The US started construction on their big navy in 1916 I think.
If the US doesn't enter and the Germans get their victory goals - reducing the Royal Navy, colonies in Southern Africa, control of the North Sea coast - then they've got a large headstart on you. Chances are - though obviously this is all a guess - there would possibly be some sort of clash as the US built up her navy.
How does Germany get a "reduced Royal Navy"? They had no means of touching Great Britain. Even if the Germans force France to capitulate they couldn't impose their will on Britain.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2014, 12:30:25 PM
How does Germany get a "reduced Royal Navy"? They had no means of touching Great Britain. Even if the Germans force France to capitulate they couldn't impose their will on Britain.
This is all from Raz saying an Entente or Alliance victory made no difference. So as I said at the time if they won and imposed their terms this is what I think would happen and it would have led to tension with the US at least as much as Japan's part in the Entente victory.
I don't think the Germans could have won but I think a Germany victory wouldn't have been in the US's interests.
a Germany that was victorious in 1914 (before the turks enter the fray) might not have been a bad thing per se. Of course we'll never know.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 01:10:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2014, 12:30:25 PM
How does Germany get a "reduced Royal Navy"? They had no means of touching Great Britain. Even if the Germans force France to capitulate they couldn't impose their will on Britain.
This is all from Raz saying an Entente or Alliance victory made no difference. So as I said at the time if they won and imposed their terms this is what I think would happen and it would have led to tension with the US at least as much as Japan's part in the Entente victory.
I don't think the Germans could have won but I think a Germany victory wouldn't have been in the US's interests.
I said it wasn't going to make a difference for the US. To extend Naval power you need bases, and they didn't have that. The US was building up it's naval power prior to WWI.
I wish Neil were here; I recall discussing German naval buildup with him once post-1900 and there were some physical constraints on that due to geography, that might have been overcome if they occupied the Low Countries.
That said, building a bigger navy than the U.S. would've been impossible unless we just didn't try. More powerful, maybe, if they'd embraced CVs more wholeheartedly than they could be expected to, but the Japanese did just that and it didn't work out for them.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
I said it wasn't going to make a difference for the US. To extend Naval power you need bases, and they didn't have that. The US was building up it's naval power prior to WWI.
And if they won and imposed their conditions they'd have a chunk of Belgium, treaty ports along the North Sea coast and a big chunk of British South Africa - basically the same sort of bases Britain had needed to maintain the Indian Empire.
At least those were the goals by the end, on both sides they grew as the war went on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
I said it wasn't going to make a difference for the US. To extend Naval power you need bases, and they didn't have that. The US was building up it's naval power prior to WWI.
And if they won and imposed their conditions they'd have a chunk of Belgium, treaty ports along the North Sea coast and a big chunk of British South Africa - basically the same sort of bases Britain had needed to maintain the Indian Empire.
At least those were the goals by the end, on both sides they grew as the war went on.
I'm kinda curious where you are getting all of this. Germany never planned to take a chunk of Belgium, nor any of British South Africa. The Germans told Wilson when he issued his peace challenge in December 1916:
Quote...restitution of the part of upper Alsace occupied by the French..gaining of a frontier that would protect Germany and Poland economically and strategically against Russia..restitution of German colonies...restitution of those parts of France occupied by Germany under reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier and financial compensations...restoration of Belgium under special guaranty for the safety of Germany which would have to be decided on by negotiations with Belgium..economic compensation for territories exchanged and for German business concerns and private persons who suffered by the war..abandonment of all economic agreements and measure which would form an obstacle to normal commerece and intercourse after the conclusion of peace..the freedom of the seas...
according to
Peace Moves and U-Boat Warfare, K.E.Birnbaum, Stockholm,1958
Fischer made wilder claims, but they weren't based on anything the German government had said, just on a monograph written by a junior clerk who had been asked to find out what the German industrialists wanted out of the war. that monograph was never policy.
Most of its from memory in Richard Evans book on the rise of the Nazis - which I rummaged for to confirm but can't find - I remember it being what the military wanted. As I say I think all sides wanted a significantly more punitive peace as the war went on.
Although I would query what 'freedom of the seas' for example might mean in the context of Wilhelmine Germany.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
I said it wasn't going to make a difference for the US. To extend Naval power you need bases, and they didn't have that. The US was building up it's naval power prior to WWI.
And if they won and imposed their conditions they'd have a chunk of Belgium, treaty ports along the North Sea coast and a big chunk of British South Africa - basically the same sort of bases Britain had needed to maintain the Indian Empire.
At least those were the goals by the end, on both sides they grew as the war went on.
They would need bases in the Americas to bother the US. Which power in Europe manages to tyrannize the peoples of Africa or India is not our concern. Hell, weakened Britain and France might sells some of their possessions to the US and Germany would have it's resources stretched just keeping all of its plates spinning in Europe. To put it quite frankly, the more dead Euros there are, the better off the US is. European imperialism might even end earlier.
I doubt it.
Look the Royal Navy generally speaking allowed the US to not need to do a great deal in the Atlantic. An arms race for the Atlantic, or a new naval power would change that - hence the increase in American ship-building prior to entering the war. Apply the same view you have of Japan in the Pacific to Germany in the Atlantic - they don't need to be bothering the US for there to be problems.
They don't need to bother you, you don't need to care about Africa or India (my point was that they would have African bases) and it wouldn't necessarily lead to conflict. But a change like that would make a difference to the US and, in my view, it would be far more consequential than Japan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 05:59:27 PM
I doubt it.
Look the Royal Navy generally speaking allowed the US to not need to do a great deal in the Atlantic. An arms race for the Atlantic, or a new naval power would change that - hence the increase in American ship-building prior to entering the war. Apply the same view you have of Japan in the Pacific to Germany in the Atlantic - they don't need to be bothering the US for there to be problems.
They don't need to bother you, you don't need to care about Africa or India (my point was that they would have African bases) and it wouldn't necessarily lead to conflict. But a change like that would make a difference to the US and, in my view, it would be far more consequential than Japan.
Yeah, but the logic behind the Washington Naval Treaties would still apply. A naval arms race in the 1920s might have hurt the US economy a bit, but it would have probably bankrupted a Germany that had been victorious in WWI, so it would have still made sense to come to an agreement to limit naval construction. Granted, a victorious Germany might have been tougher to negotiate that with than a victorious Britian, but the principle would have still been there.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2014, 05:37:05 PM
The Germans told Wilson when he issued his peace challenge in December 1916:
Quote...restitution of the part of upper Alsace occupied by the French..gaining of a frontier that would protect Germany and Poland economically and strategically against Russia..restitution of German colonies...restitution of those parts of France occupied by Germany under reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier and financial compensations...restoration of Belgium under special guaranty for the safety of Germany which would have to be decided on by negotiations with Belgium..economic compensation for territories exchanged and for German business concerns and private persons who suffered by the war..abandonment of all economic agreements and measure which would form an obstacle to normal commerece and intercourse after the conclusion of peace..the freedom of the seas...
according to Peace Moves and U-Boat Warfare, K.E.Birnbaum, Stockholm,1958
Fischer made wilder claims, but they weren't based on anything the German government had said, just on a monograph written by a junior clerk who had been asked to find out what the German industrialists wanted out of the war. that monograph was never policy.
Which sounds reasonable until you realise just exactly what the second, almost innocuous, line quoted above translated to in the peace of Brest-Litovsk.
I fail to see why you think a victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have been less severe in the west (or for that matter more honest concerning its western ambitions than its eastern ambitions when communicating with Wilson.) Particularly when you consider how vague, open ended and severe some of the terms quoted up there actually are - and when you consider that none of them contradict the Septemberprogramm (and some sound eerily like it - a "special guarantee" with Belgium, "reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier" etc.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 05:59:27 PM
I doubt it.
Look the Royal Navy generally speaking allowed the US to not need to do a great deal in the Atlantic. An arms race for the Atlantic, or a new naval power would change that - hence the increase in American ship-building prior to entering the war. Apply the same view you have of Japan in the Pacific to Germany in the Atlantic - they don't need to be bothering the US for there to be problems.
They don't need to bother you, you don't need to care about Africa or India (my point was that they would have African bases) and it wouldn't necessarily lead to conflict. But a change like that would make a difference to the US and, in my view, it would be far more consequential than Japan.
What exactly do you expect the Germans to do in the Atlantic? You do know the US had a very large navy prior to WWI, larger then Germany I believe. The Pacific was consequential because it did lead to conflict. The US navy viewed war with Japan as all but inevitable, and the bases near by to attack the US possession in the Pacific (as they did in 1941 and '42). A German base in Dakar is not a staging point to threaten US anywhere. As DPS points out, any arms race in the Atlantic is going to be won by the US, and isn't likely to hurt the US economically much anyway.
So is there some kind of narrative that the British saved the Atlantic from the Hun in the UK?
Quote from: Agelastus on May 26, 2014, 07:28:44 PM
Which sounds reasonable until you realise just exactly what the second, almost innocuous, line quoted above translated to in the peace of Brest-Litovsk.
The treaty with the giant ants wasn't signed as part of a general peace agreement, because the Allies (and Lloyd George in particular) wanted the war to go on.
QuoteI fail to see why you think a victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have been less severe in the west (or for that matter more honest concerning its western ambitions than its eastern ambitions when communicating with Wilson.) Particularly when you consider how vague, open ended and severe some of the terms quoted up there actually are - and when you consider that none of them contradict the Septemberprogramm (and some sound eerily like it - a "special guarantee" with Belgium, "reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier" etc.)
None of these refer to treaty ports, or British colonies, or French colonies in the Caribbean, or the other wild claims made in this thread.
I do think a victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have been less severe than a victorious Britain and France proved to be. British and French war aims proved to be tragically short-sighted, though, and it'd be hard to argue that Kaiser Wilhelm was actually less stupid than Lloyd George, so maybe Germany would have botched the peace as badly as the Allies did.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
So is there some kind of narrative that the British saved the Atlantic from the Hun in the UK?
No. That's what literally no-one is saying.
I'm not going to say the same thing again and again so I'll use an analogy. If the US disappeared tomorrow and, say, Russia or Japan became the new dominant or competitive power in the Pacific that would matter and have consequences for Australia regardless of where it leads. It would make a difference and both of those powers would become a potential danger - regardless of what might happen. I mean if nothing else it would probably have a large impact on the nature of global trade.
To say the Germans posed no threat to US interests if they won is wrong. That doesn't mean they could win. That doesn't mean the US was necessarily right or wrong to enter the war and it certainly doesn't mean pickelhaubes were about to crawl out of the Rio Grande.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 07:51:57 PM
To say the Germans posed no threat to US interests if they won is wrong.
True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.
Absolutely.
But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.
Nothing here I disagree with.
Quote from: Agelastus on May 26, 2014, 07:28:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2014, 05:37:05 PM
The Germans told Wilson when he issued his peace challenge in December 1916:
Quote...restitution of the part of upper Alsace occupied by the French..gaining of a frontier that would protect Germany and Poland economically and strategically against Russia..restitution of German colonies...restitution of those parts of France occupied by Germany under reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier and financial compensations...restoration of Belgium under special guaranty for the safety of Germany which would have to be decided on by negotiations with Belgium..economic compensation for territories exchanged and for German business concerns and private persons who suffered by the war..abandonment of all economic agreements and measure which would form an obstacle to normal commerece and intercourse after the conclusion of peace..the freedom of the seas...
according to Peace Moves and U-Boat Warfare, K.E.Birnbaum, Stockholm,1958
Fischer made wilder claims, but they weren't based on anything the German government had said, just on a monograph written by a junior clerk who had been asked to find out what the German industrialists wanted out of the war. that monograph was never policy.
Which sounds reasonable until you realise just exactly what the second, almost innocuous, line quoted above translated to in the peace of Brest-Litovsk.
I fail to see why you think a victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have been less severe in the west (or for that matter more honest concerning its western ambitions than its eastern ambitions when communicating with Wilson.) Particularly when you consider how vague, open ended and severe some of the terms quoted up there actually are - and when you consider that none of them contradict the Septemberprogramm (and some sound eerily like it - a "special guarantee" with Belgium, "reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier" etc.)
The German government was quite willing to settle for much less than Brest-Litvosk. It was only when Russia rejected their relatively reasonable demands that they continued to march and forced the Bolsheviks to capitulate and sign a more punitive peace.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.
Absolutely.
But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.
A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 10:15:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 26, 2014, 07:58:37 PM
True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.
Absolutely.
But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.
A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.
you'd make a horrible joker.
I'm not arguing that though. I don't know if it was right or wrong for the US to enter from a US perspective. Personally I think it probably would've been better had the US not entered as I said in the other thread.
I'm just saying your view that it made no difference who won and that Germany wouldn't be a danger (but Japan would) is wrong. There was a difference to the US and Germany could be a danger.
Okay, then it wouldn't be more of a meaningful danger if Germany won. Happy?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2014, 10:18:38 PM
Personally I think it probably would've been better had the US not entered as I said in the other thread.
That's just crazy talk.
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2014, 10:16:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 10:15:29 PM
A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.
you'd make a horrible joker.
:lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 26, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
So is there some kind of narrative that the British saved the Atlantic from the Hun in the UK?
I think that Germany winning WWI means something different to Sheilbh than it does to the rest of us. Germany wins if they knock France and Russia out of the war. Well, they did knock Russia out of the war; had they knocked out the French as well, with no US entry, well, yeah, I think the British and Germans would have eventually come to some sort of peace agreement. But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Germans had no real way to touch Britian, so any agreement would probably just mostly ratify whatever the status quo in Europe was at that point. Outside of Europe, though, with the Royal Navy intact, the British would have essentially had a veto over the transfer of any French colonies to Germany. And since any colonial territory transferred to Germany would be more of a threat to the British than to the US, the British would have absolutely no reason to allow it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 24, 2014, 11:55:10 PM
Been thinking of WWI lately, and wonder if the US should have stayed neutral or entered the war. Wondered what the rest you folk think. I think entering the war was a mistake, as I could see no real benefit for the US to enter the war.
I agree. If the US had not entered the war then Wilson would not have been given any influence at the peace conference and the world would likely have been a much safer place as a result. Also, there may have been a real peace treaty and not just a pause waiting for the next inevitable outbreak of hostility to finally decide the issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 27, 2014, 04:39:34 PM
I agree. If the US had not entered the war then Wilson would not have been given any influence at the peace conference and the world would likely have been a much safer place as a result.
Agreed. All that League of nation/United Nations stuff would have been left in the dream locker.
QuoteAlso, there may have been a real peace treaty and not just a pause waiting for the next inevitable outbreak of hostility to finally decide the issue.
Probably not. Wilson restrained Lloyd George and Clemenceau from fucking up the peace to a point, but I think, in his absence, LG and C create a worse treaty that still causes the second war, but isn't so horrific that even their own people vomit on it. Wilson was the only man at Versailles who wanted a peace treaty, rather than a diktat (given that LG and C made sure the Germans weren't available to negotiate with).
The only way to achieve peace would have been to have the victors fuck up like they did in Vienna in 1815, and thus be forced to bring the losers into the negotiations. Lloyd George and Clemenceau (especially DLG) were fuckups, but they weren't big enough fuckups to be successful in their jobs.
Quote from: grumbler on May 27, 2014, 06:25:24 PM
Probably not. Wilson restrained Lloyd George and Clemenceau from fucking up the peace to a point, but I think, in his absence, LG and C create a worse treaty that still causes the second war, but isn't so horrific that even their own people vomit on it. Wilson was the only man at Versailles who wanted a peace treaty, rather than a diktat (given that LG and C made sure the Germans weren't available to negotiate with).
The only way to achieve peace would have been to have the victors fuck up like they did in Vienna in 1815, and thus be forced to bring the losers into the negotiations. Lloyd George and Clemenceau (especially DLG) were fuckups, but they weren't big enough fuckups to be successful in their jobs.
:lol: I hadnt quite thought of it that way. But you are probably right.
Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 06:29:47 PM
Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.
But then that depends on what capabilities for revenge the Soviet Union would have with Brest-Litovsk borders.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 06:29:47 PM
Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.
If the Germans win, I doubt Stalin ever comes to power. The military threat to the USSR would be pressing enough that a military bumbler like Stalin was known to be wouldn't have been chosen over the militarily gifted Trotsky.
Without Stalin's industrialization program, I wonder how well the USSR stands up over time.
And I don't see a victorious Imperial Germany tolerating Trotsky's internationalist shenanigans for too long.
Even with victory, Germany is going to be in rough economic shape for a while...and a Great Depression could still bring about an unhealthy share of communist/socialist unrest in Western Europe (maybe hitting defeated France/Britain harder this time. And who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
Hell, there's probably even a Turtledove novel on the subject. :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 27, 2014, 08:01:43 PM
And I don't see a victorious Imperial Germany tolerating Trotsky's internationalist shenanigans for too long.
OOOO, Strosstruppen burning Moscow. I just got a boner.
Quote from: derspiess on May 27, 2014, 08:01:43 PM
And I don't see a victorious Imperial Germany tolerating Trotsky's internationalist shenanigans for too long.
If Germany had won, there never would've been a Poland to tempt Trotsky in the first place.
He'd still be tryin' to export him some revolution.
Quote from: derspiess on May 27, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
He'd still be tryin' to export him some revolution.
He got an Icepick import.
Maybe south by southwest, perhaps. But not due west. :lol:
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 06:29:47 PM
Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.
If the U.S. isn't in the war and France is clearly crumbling, the Russians may accept the Germans original demands which IIRC were that Poland and Lithuania be made "independent".
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Even with victory, Germany is going to be in rough economic shape for a while...and a Great Depression could still bring about an unhealthy share of communist/socialist unrest in Western Europe (maybe hitting defeated France/Britain harder this time. And who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
:o :mmm: :w00t: :wub:
This is the first time I've ever actually really understood Spellus :o
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Even with victory, Germany is going to be in rough economic shape for a while...and a Great Depression could still bring about an unhealthy share of communist/socialist unrest in Western Europe (maybe hitting defeated France/Britain harder this time. And who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
Hell, there's probably even a Turtledove novel on the subject. :P
There's a very good Hearts of Iron mod on the subject. :)
No there isn't.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 08:31:05 PMAnd who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
France already had him with General Boulanger. Yeah...I don't think there was much danger to anybody but France with that sort of thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2014, 02:05:00 AM
No there isn't.
Is this because:
(a) The pedant option: it's actually a mod for Hearts of Iron 2?
(b) The historian option: the scenario is unrealistic?
(c) The Gamer's option: the mod is far too complicated in an effort to avoid railroading and to give each nation, large or small, a unique experience?
(d) Something else?
I take exception with the words "Very good".
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
I take exception with the words "Very good".
As British Mono pointed out, further clarification is possible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2014, 10:01:36 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Even with victory, Germany is going to be in rough economic shape for a while...and a Great Depression could still bring about an unhealthy share of communist/socialist unrest in Western Europe (maybe hitting defeated France/Britain harder this time. And who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
:o :mmm: :w00t: :wub:
This is the first time I've ever actually really understood Spellus :o
H.G. Wells becomes Emperor of Britain and immediately instituted totalitarian policies backed by airpower. Freely-provided STEM degrees flow like wine from the nation's universities. Communism collapses peacefully by 1950 in the face of the undeniable material achievement of liberal fascism. Humanity triumphs and there is rest enough for the individual man.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 28, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
I take exception with the words "Very good".
You would be wrong to do so.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2014, 01:31:29 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2014, 10:01:36 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 27, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
Even with victory, Germany is going to be in rough economic shape for a while...and a Great Depression could still bring about an unhealthy share of communist/socialist unrest in Western Europe (maybe hitting defeated France/Britain harder this time. And who's to say that some character like DeGaull doesn't end up being France's version of Hitler? (Minus all the Jewish hate and aryan mysticism).
:o :mmm: :w00t: :wub:
This is the first time I've ever actually really understood Spellus :o
H.G. Wells becomes Emperor of Britain and immediately instituted totalitarian policies backed by airpower. Freely-provided STEM degrees flow like wine from the nation's universities. Communism collapses peacefully by 1950 in the face of the undeniable material achievement of liberal fascism. Humanity triumphs and there is rest enough for the individual man.
Is this alt-hist?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2014, 01:31:29 PM
H.G. Wells becomes Emperor of Britain and immediately instituted totalitarian policies backed by airpower. Freely-provided STEM degrees flow like wine from the nation's universities. Communism collapses peacefully by 1950 in the face of the undeniable material achievement of liberal fascism. Humanity triumphs and there is rest enough for the individual man.
What the fuck does that even mean?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2014, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2014, 01:31:29 PM
H.G. Wells becomes Emperor of Britain and immediately instituted totalitarian policies backed by airpower. Freely-provided STEM degrees flow like wine from the nation's universities. Communism collapses peacefully by 1950 in the face of the undeniable material achievement of liberal fascism. Humanity triumphs and there is rest enough for the individual man.
What the fuck does that even mean?
Quite clear really.
It is an inherent contradiction in terms.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2014, 07:48:25 PM
It is an inherent contradiction in terms.
Not really. Why do you say that?
Obama is a liberal fascist.
Quote from: sbr on May 29, 2014, 07:56:48 PM
Obama is a liberal fascist.
Pfft, wrong. Conservative communist.
Obama tinge
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2014, 08:18:17 PM
Obama tinge
:yes: They shortened the family name from Riefenstobama when they emigrated to the US after WW2.
Huh. Seems we are fairly evenly split. I wonder how it breaks down with Euros and Americans.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 29, 2014, 07:41:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 28, 2014, 01:31:29 PM
H.G. Wells becomes Emperor of Britain and immediately instituted totalitarian policies backed by airpower. Freely-provided STEM degrees flow like wine from the nation's universities. Communism collapses peacefully by 1950 in the face of the undeniable material achievement of liberal fascism. Humanity triumphs and there is rest enough for the individual man.
What the fuck does that even mean?
It means Ide is mocking you for your stupid alt-his BS.
Quote from: grumbler on May 29, 2014, 08:39:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2014, 08:18:17 PM
Obama tinge
:yes: They shortened the family name from Riefenstobama when they emigrated to the US after WW2.
:D