What I see alot of in America

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by Chimera


Well, with the unrestrained U-boats sinking everything in sight and the infamous Zimmermann Plan to ally with Mexico, I think events forced Wilson's hand. If he had done nothing in the face of such provocations, he would have been branded a lame duck or worse. Also, by 1917 the French were close to collapse and mutinies were breaking out quite frequently. Russia had imploded and the Germans were free to transfer large forces to the West. They would likely have forced the French and Brits to the negotiating table had the US remained neutral thru 1917-8. Of course, had the Germans won WWI under the Kaiser, it's quite likely that WW2 may not have happened at all.

If the US had truly been neutral, and not supplying ONLY the allied powers with weapons and such Germany would not have needed to resort to U-boat attacks and the Zimmerman Plan. We were belligerents long before we declared war...

If Germany won WWI it would have gotten a few more colonies and a little land on the French/German border. There would have been a Soviet-German war restoring a constitutional monarchy to Russia and Germany would have slowly evolved into a democracy much like Britain.

Probably no WWII, almost certainly no cold war.

The world would have been a much much better place.

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by BRYCON316

I am going to guess that you stand alone on that issue. For economic reasons, it was almost compulsory for the U.S. to enter the war. A German victory would have meant a German-dominated customs union that stretched from the Ukraine, down to the Balkans, and included the Dutch provinces, and maybe Italy and France. This would have made Germany the world's leading economic power far and away, and would have led to WWII, just with a different CB.

Wilson is one of the great presidents in history, and the last to bring historians to peace negotiations. After that, everyone from MacArthur to Kissinger brought Poly Sci people with them. No wonder the world is in the state that it is in.

Germany tried to offer a true status quo peace in 1916. Even though the Germans were 'winning' at the time the allies would have none of it primarily because the French wanted land.

A German victory in WWI would not have created some German super-state like it would have in WWII. They had colonial ambitions like the other Euros, but not the idea of conquering the whole continent.

As for Wilson, he confused politics with philosophy and managed to mangle both. The US got absolutely NOTHING positive out of WWI except more of our loans to the British and French paid back.

I don't think it 20/20 hindsight to point out that Wilson should have known the Allies would NOT have abided by his program no matter what.

So overall Wilson pretty much assured the world of the advent of communist states, the great depression, and WWII by entering into WWI. That's why I rank him as perhaps the worst American president.

 

[unmerged(5178)]

I only have one thing to add to this enlightened debate: if it weren't for the french and the spanish all you americans would still be speaking proper english.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Swilhelm, the Germans did not offer a status quo peace in 1916; the terms offered by the Germans were absolutely ludicrous and if the Allies had accepted them it would have been the equivalent of letting Germany win.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Swilhelm, the Germans did not offer a status quo peace in 1916; the terms offered by the Germans were absolutely ludicrous and if the Allies had accepted them it would have been the equivalent of letting Germany win.

IIRC, it was the Allies who were unreasonable, refusing to consider any peace offer that didnt include payment of reparations and restitution by Germany. IMO that was ludicrous given the strategic situation in Dec 19116 which was:
1) Germany occupying much of Belgium and big chunks of France.
2) Russia on the verge of collapse
3) The French army having lost all potential offensivce effectiveness after the ill-fated counterattack at Verdun
4) The British army having just been bled white at the Somme.

The Allies should have responded to the German proposals by opening negotiations; instead the issued an ultimatum. Millions more had to die so that the Allies could get their reparations and "revenge peace", helping set the stage for the next war . . .

 

[unmerged(6964)]

It's significantly more complicated than that.

The British army was NOT "bled white" on the Somme. If anyone was bled white on the Somme it was the Germans, who lost most of their trained NCOs and officers. The Somme "broke the back" of the German Army not the British one. The Somme taught the British Army it's trade and after the disastrous campaign opening the British emerged with new tactical doctrine and more experienced soldiers. Their performance after the Somme was excellent.

In 1916, the Germans refused to set out their war aims, as requested by the Americans. They also wanted to keep much of the territory they had taken. It wasn't until the end of 1917 that voices within the German government started to look at asking for a peace with no annexations by Germany. Not only this, but the regime in Germany would have remained. The British Foreign office believed at the time that "a defeated Germany would become democratic and lose it's appetite for expansion".

What you are effectively saying is that in 1916 the Allies should have let the Germans win. That's what it would have added up to. That's what it would have added up to to those at home, that's what it would have added up to to the men in the trenches and that's what it would have added up to to the GERMANS who would go home with their territory expanded, anbd their regime intact and something to brag about, unlike the Allies who would have just lost men. It's easy for you to say it now, but how many Americans, if a foreign army was deep into American soil and you could still fight back and fight back well, how many of you would SERIOUSLY be going "Ok, we'll open peace negotiations, maybe we'll just give them Michigan and Washington and leave them in charge of Canada and Britain and they'll go home". And yet you argue that's what the French should have done in 1916? I think that's taking hindsight to quite extraordinary lengths.

 

[unmerged(6219)]

"If no-one won, then how come someone lost? "
Everyone lost.
No land gains(or any other) for anyone, I think that is a lost war.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

The Allies won the war but the peace was bungled. If Germany had emerged as a thriving democracy then it would have been in everyone's interests and worth a lot more than territorial gain. As it was, it all went tits up.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Cruku
"If no-one won, then how come someone lost? "
Everyone lost.
No land gains(or any other) for anyone, I think that is a lost war.

First of all land gains are a pretty poor parametre to judge winners or losers on.

But apart from that it is simply plain wrong to say that there were no land gains after WW2. Aren't you from Finland?!

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by swilhelm73




A German victory in WWI would not have created some German super-state like it would have in WWII. They had colonial ambitions like the other Euros, but not the idea of conquering the whole continent.

As for Wilson, he confused politics with philosophy and managed to mangle both. The US got absolutely NOTHING positive out of WWI except more of our loans to the British and French paid back.

I don't think it 20/20 hindsight to point out that Wilson should have known the Allies would NOT have abided by his program no matter what.

So overall Wilson pretty much assured the world of the advent of communist states, the great depression, and WWII by entering into WWI. That's why I rank him as perhaps the worst American president.

I said that Germany wnated to create a massive customs union, like a super-Zollverein, and those territories all would have been included in it. Germany planned to have a free Polish state as a buffer between Ukraine and Russia, and Germany. Germany had little need for annexations, except for Luxembourg, and maybe Belgium.

There was no reason to believe that Wilson's 14 points wouldn't have been accepted. The U.S. saw themselves as the savior of the war, and at the time, that was correct. The German's concluded Brest-Litvosk so that they could begin to transfer men to the west to counter the U.S. insurgance, even though the Germans wished to inflict an even harsher peace on the Soviets than they did. Wilson saw himself as almost a 20th century Metternich, who would bring all the powers together, and mold them to his own vision.

Also, there was a Communist state in the U.S.S.R. by the time of the U.S. entry into the war. I don't believe that a victorious Germany would have had the will to fight the Soviets and reinstate the monarchy, and besides, a German victory and an expanded Zollverein would have caused the same economic protectionism that led to the Great Depression and WWII.

 

[unmerged(7513)]

World War II would have come regardless of the outcome of WWI. There was only one thing that could have prevented the rise of Hitler and the resulting war... Hitler not losing his dog in 1917!

"I was desperate. The swine who stole my dog doesn't realize what he did to me!" - Hitler, 1917, After a railroad worker in Alsace stole his terrier

Hitlers rise and the resulting attack on France was fueled by one thing, revenge for the loss of his dog.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
Also, there was a Communist state in the U.S.S.R. by the time of the U.S. entry into the war.

The Bolshevik Revolution happened late in 1917 (in October by the old Russian calendar, in November by the Gregorian). At the time of US entry, even the first Russian Revolution hadn't occurred.

 

[unmerged(7513)]

Not only do the Americans think they won WWII by themselves, they're a little hazy about when the war actually started. I missed this exam question in high school.
When did WWII start?
I answered Sept. 9 1939.
The correct answer ofcourse is Dec. 7, 1941.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Chimera


That's only with the benefit of post-WW2 hindsight. From 1918 to the mid-1930s I believe most rational individuals would have considered the probablility of ANOTHER world war extremely low.

America stayed out of WW2 initially because it seemed ridiculous to most Americans why their boys should "die for European interests". Only after the French collapse in 1940 did real alarm bells start going off and the US began rearming somewhat belatedly.

Not really. When he was told of the final draft of the Treaty of Versailles, Foch said, "This is not peace, it is an armistice for twenty years". And Archibald Wavell commented, "After the war to end all wars, they seem to be bent on making a peace to end all peace" (not literal quotations, I'm citing from memory).

Marxist analysts correctly predicted that there would be another imperialist war. For example, Trotsky predicted that there would be a war between the U.S. and Japan, and that the U.S. would win.

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
If it wasn't for Wilson, the SDP wouldn't have agreed to cease hostilities, and would have forced the Western powers to battle for every piece of ground in Germany, which would have been a tough pill to swallow, as the Anglo-French forces had been pushed to their limits. Unless the SDP stabbed Germany in the back in 1918....

And again, such a factor may have forced the French to accept more reasonable peace terms...

They couldn't have invaded Germany without American troops and Russia out of the war. Heck, without the American troops France probably would have fallen in 1918 or 19.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

The Bolshevik Revolution happened late in 1917 (in October by the old Russian calendar, in November by the Gregorian). At the time of US entry, even the first Russian Revolution hadn't occurred.

Not totally correct. The U.S. declared war in April, the revolution in Russia began in March (February according to the Julian calendar).

 

[unmerged(7307)]

GB,US and Russia were all instrumental in ending WW2. The German war machine was to much for either nation alone. If we(americans) hadn't supplied Russia and GB they couldn"t have survived. The British did serious damage to the German air force. Do you Russians serious beleive you could have stopped Germany at Moscow if they still had their air force intact? As for us american's,without the logistics of Great Britian as a base we couldn't have got supplies and troops to the front. If either one of these three nations wouldn't have been in the war German would have won.

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
Also, there was a Communist state in the U.S.S.R. by the time of the U.S. entry into the war. I don't believe that a victorious Germany would have had the will to fight the Soviets and reinstate the monarchy, and besides, a German victory and an expanded Zollverein would have caused the same economic protectionism that led to the Great Depression and WWII.

Germany was to put it mildly not very happy with the success of the communists in Russia...they had given them some support in hopes of weakening Imperial Russia. I rather doubt Kaiser Wilhelm would have allowed the murder of his relative Czar Nicholas and his whole family had he any choice in the matter. Not to mention communist states were anathema to pretty much every state in Europe at the time.

Further, democrat and monarchal groups were still viable in Russia until the early 20s. The Poles beat the stuffing out of the communists at this time, I would presume the German Army could have done much better.

Even into the middle and late 20s the peasant wars provided both a Casus Belli and a true chance for defeating the Soviet Regime.

Economic protectionism was certainly part of the cause of the Great Depression, but so was the Versailles treaty and its destruction of the German economy.

I don't see economic protectionism as much of a cause of WWII, however.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by swilhelm73

They couldn't have invaded Germany without American troops and Russia out of the war. Heck, without the American troops France probably would have fallen in 1918 or 19.

While the psychological effect of US troops - and the defeat of the 1918 offensive - definitely was a factor in the German surrender, the military effect of US troops on the battlefield was next to nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Caesar12
GB,US and Russia were all instrumental in ending WW2. The German war machine was to much for either nation alone. If we(americans) hadn't supplied Russia and GB they couldn"t have survived.

Those are opinions. Not facts. You might want to substantiate those opinions with data. And a word of advice: Try to look at the dates and how they coincide with a) US entry into the war, b) the crises of the BoB and Operation Typhoon.

The British did serious damage to the German air force. Do you Russians serious beleive you could have stopped Germany at Moscow if they still had their air force intact?

Newsflash: Denmark is not part of Russia.
The US entered the war the 7th(?) of December 1941. Exactly what influence did they have on the German push towards Moscow (Operation Typhoon) in November/December 1941?!

And what were those planes supposed to do in the blizzard conditions of the Soviet counterattack?

If either one of these three nations wouldn't have been in the war German would have won.

Uhm. No.

Regards,

EoE