David Frum: What If the Allies Had Lost World War One?

[Malthus]

A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.

The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.

After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.

The size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate

That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

The US enfranchised women in 1920, and some states retained what amounted to a property qualification in the form of "poll taxes" and "literacy tests" for far longer than the UK.

From 1890 to 1908, ten of the eleven former Confederate states completed political suppression and exclusion of these groups by ratifying new constitutions or amendments which incorporated provisions to make voter registration more difficult. These included such requirements as payment of poll taxes, complicated record keeping, complicated timing of registration and length of residency in relation to elections, with related record-keeping requirements; felony disenfranchisement focusing on crimes thought to be committed by African Americans,[31] and a literacy test or comprehension test.

Prospective voters had to prove the ability to read and write the English language to white voter registrars, who in practice applied subjective requirements. Blacks were often denied the right to vote on this basis. Even well-educated blacks were often told they had "failed" such a test, if in fact, it had been administered. On the other hand, illiterate whites were sometimes allowed to vote through a "grandfather clause," which waived literacy requirements if one's grandfather had been a qualified voter before 1866, or had served as a soldier, or was from a foreign country. As most blacks had grandfathers who were slaves before 1866 and could not have fulfilled any of those conditions, they could not use the grandfather clause exemption. Selective enforcement of the poll tax was frequently also used to disqualify black and poor white voters. As a result of these measures, at the turn of the century voter rolls dropped markedly across the South. Most blacks and many poor whites were excluded from the political system for decades. Unable to vote, they were also excluded from juries or running for any office.

In Alabama, for example, its 1901 constitution restricted the franchise for poor whites as well as blacks. It contained requirements for payment of cumulative poll taxes, completion of literacy tests, and increased residency at state, county and precinct levels, effectively disenfranchised tens of thousands of poor whites as well as most blacks. Historian J. Morgan Kousser found, "They disfranchised these whites as willingly as they deprived blacks of the vote."[32] By 1941, more whites than blacks in total had been disenfranchised.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Milestones_of_national_franchise_extension

Not seeing the argument that democracy in the US was 'more democratic' than democracy in the UK during or after WW1. One would have to add up all the disenfranchisement features of each country to compare - and note, allegedly more poor Whites were disenfranchised by such measures than Blacks.

[Malthus]

As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won.  The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)

Agreed - I can't imagine a CP victory in a short war could possibly have proved worse than what actually happened. After a long war, that would depend on how it came about.

[Valmy]

Again, the point here is that Frum's position is not ridiculous if you take it in the context he is making it - the 1918 Act made a HUGE difference in the maeup of the voting population in the UK. Tripling the number of voters is not a difference in just scale, but in kind.

Yeah well we had exams and poll taxes and didn't let women vote. So if we were to go by what Frum is saying Democracy was invented in 1907 by Finland. That does not strike me as reasonable.

[Valmy]

As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won.  The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)

A CP victory at any point would mean a German dominated Continent Britain could never have allowed. That alone suggests a very grim future.

[The Minsky Moment]

Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."

Mahler and Schoenberg.  Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha.  Frank and Loos.    Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder.  Wittengenstein and Husserl.   Buber. Popper.  Otto Neurath.  The entire Austrian school -  Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter.  Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern.  Kurt Godel.  Freud.  And Adler.  And Frankl.  Joseph Roth.  Robert Musil.

All Habsburg born and raised.

[The Brain]

Calling a country where a minority of adults have a vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong in some particular context, but it's not obviously correct and it is a bit misleading.

Ok, calling a country which allows some of its regions to create laws limiting the ability of the vast majority of one race to vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong either, but would you really suggest the US was not a democracy until the late 1960s.

I don't follow.

[crazy canuck]

As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won.  The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)

Agreed - I can't imagine a CP victory in a short war could possibly have proved worse than what actually happened. After a long war, that would depend on how it came about.

Depends on what the terms of the peace and how reasonable the CP would be.   Everyone expected the war would be short.  If all that occurs is A-H gets to punish Serbia in some way and France gets humiliated again then, I agree with Valmy, the stage gets set for the next conflict between the Great Powers.  But it would be an interesting question of how they would align themselves in the next go round.

[The Brain]

This thread reminds me of the back cover of Twilight:2000, which claimed that the war of 1812 was fought between democracies.

[Barrister]

This thread reminds me of the back cover of Twilight:2000, which claimed that the war of 1812 was fought between democracies.

Twilight: 2000

[Zanza]

A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.

The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.

After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.

The size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate

That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

Based on that criterion alone, Germany was more of a democracy than Britain before the war. The 1912 Reichstag election had about 14.4 million people with voting rights, which corresponds to 22% of the total population of Germany at the time. The 7.7 million in Britain are just 17% of the total population.

Of course Germany was a neo-absolutist monarchy.

[crazy canuck]

Of course Germany was a neo-absolutist monarchy.

Which goes to Warspite's point. It is the form of government, not necessarily the percentage of the population who can vote, which defines a democracy.

[Razgovory]

Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."

Mahler and Schoenberg.  Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha.  Frank and Loos.    Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder.  Wittengenstein and Husserl.   Buber. Popper.  Otto Neurath.  The entire Austrian school -  Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter.  Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern.  Kurt Godel.  Freud.  And Adler.  And Frankl.  Joseph Roth.  Robert Musil.

All Habsburg born and raised.

He has some strange hatred of the Habsburgs.  I don't see why Austria-Hungaria is more damned or deserving to fall apart then Russia in 1914.

[Queequeg]

Uh, basically Germany and Russia around this time produced almost of a plurality of my favorite artists and thinkers from any time, ever, and I'm actually fascinated by the Imperial German government because of the coexistence of "modern state" w "archaic nonsense."

Mahler and Schoenberg.  Klimt, Schiele, and Kokoscha.  Frank and Loos.    Preminger, Lang, von Stroeheim, Billy Wilder.  Wittengenstein and Husserl.   Buber. Popper.  Otto Neurath.  The entire Austrian school -  Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, von Mises, and Schumpeter.  Johnny von Neumann AND Oskar Morgenstern.  Kurt Godel.  Freud.  And Adler.  And Frankl.  Joseph Roth.  Robert Musil.

All Habsburg born and raised.

You forgot Kafka, Bruno Schulz, Hasek and Mucha. 

As I was writing this I started writing a list and I kept accidentally including Austrians.  Point granted.  Between Schiele,  Billy Wilder, Schulz and Kafka that's four of my favorite people who ever lived off the bat.

[Berkut]

It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.

But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.

After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.

Agreed.

I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.

But as far as pre-1918 democracies go it was one of the best.  Which is very different from the point Frum is trying to make. 

Actually, it is not - because the point he was making is that it wasn't much a democracy in the context of the idea that the US entered the war to protect democracies, as opposed to the idea of democracy (as identified at that time by the US).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

As far as the main "what if" is concerned, I think it would have mattered a great deal just when and how the CP won.  The results of a CP victory in 1914 would likely be far different than the results of a CP victory in 1917 (I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.)

A CP victory at any point would mean a German dominated Continent Britain could never have allowed. That alone suggests a very grim future.

maybe, or maybe things might have gone rather well with Britain no longer in the position to play it's Balance of Power games at the expense of others. We'll never know.