Atlas Forum

General Politics => International General Discussion => Topic started by: Richard on August 09, 2005, 09:40:10 am



Title: World War I
Post by: Richard on August 09, 2005, 09:40:10 am
I believe Wilson was a senile old man and made an insane decision to involve the United States in World War I.  He should have been impeached and removed from office.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Colin on August 09, 2005, 10:07:16 am
Well let me put it very simply Richius. If America had not gotten involved in World War I in 1917 then Germany would have won within a year. French lines were already breaking and French morale was being destroyed by the Germans. If American reinforcements hadn't come at the time that they did I think you would have seen a huge retreat, and possibly rout, by French troops further into France. So what would have happened would have been a Germany triumphant. They probably would have dictated terms towards the French and English comparable to the OTL Verseilles Treaty. It makes a great counterfactual history but the point is that it would have been a horrible defeat for America's allies in Europe.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 09, 2005, 10:19:02 am
wrong thing. No good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of opposing powers. Didn't involve the US at all.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: John Dibble on August 09, 2005, 10:20:57 am
To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't have as much knowlege of that war as I do WWII. They seem to put more emphasis on the latter in school. :P


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Richard on August 09, 2005, 10:25:46 am
Well let me put it very simply Richius. If America had not gotten involved in World War I in 1917 then Germany would have won within a year.
So?

Quote
French lines were already breaking and French morale was being destroyed by the Germans. If American reinforcements hadn't come at the time that they did I think you would have seen a huge retreat, and possibly rout, by French troops further into France. So what would have happened would have been a Germany triumphant. They probably would have dictated terms towards the French and English comparable to the OTL Verseilles Treaty. It makes a great counterfactual history but the point is that it would have been a horrible defeat for America's allies in Europe.
Remember, at time, there were no allies.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: KillerPollo on August 09, 2005, 10:29:00 am
wrong thing. No good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of opposing powers. Didn't involve the US at all.
^^^

The treaty of versailles engineered by the Americans was the tool of ANGER and HATE that fueled Hitler's ideology of a great Germany. This treaty angered a lot of germans as much as the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo INFURIATES me! Proportionally, over the years, From the German Empite in 1878 until Germany today, it has lost about the same percentage of Territory that Mexico lost to the US.

Germany, I feel your pain! Too bad we dont have the power to take back our territory by force like the Germans did in WWII


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: ilikeverin on August 09, 2005, 10:31:13 am
We should have entered the war on Germany's side :P

IIRC, all they wanted in a peace treaty was Alasce (sp?) & Lorraine, compared to the Allies' barbaric Treaty of Versailles (sp? darn French place names :P)


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on August 09, 2005, 10:44:46 am
WWI was a totally stupid and unnecessary war, but however the US involment was a goog thing. It speeded up the end of the war. 


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: John Dibble on August 09, 2005, 10:50:02 am
The treaty of versailles engineered by the Americans was the tool of ANGER and HATE that fueled Hitler's ideology of a great Germany. This treaty angered a lot of germans as much as the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo INFURIATES me! Proportionally, over the years, From the German Empite in 1878 until Germany today, it has lost about the same percentage of Territory that Mexico lost to the US.

Germany, I feel your pain! Too bad we dont have the power to take back our territory by force like the Germans did in WWII

I don't think that anyone would argue that the aftermath was a royal f**kup, considering we don't use those sorts of policies anymore because of what it did. Still, that doesn't argue against involvment in the war, it argues for a better peace treaty.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: ragnar on August 09, 2005, 12:38:32 pm
wrong thing. No good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of opposing powers. Didn't involve the US at all.

I agree


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 09, 2005, 12:57:33 pm
World War I was not a disaster for us.  On the contrary, it saw the US taking its rightful place in the international community.  Wilson, along with T. Roosevelt and McKinley, was a key US president in bringing the US into modern times.  Ou rinvolvement sped up the end of the war and broke a 2-year long stalemate.  Wilson was an excellent president and a visionary, unless you hate income taxes (16th Amendment).  I know his 1916 slogan was "He kept us out of the war," but the increasing distraction of the war in Europe coupled with the German disruptions of our trans-Atlantic trade made it necessaary to go to war.  By the way, French demands prevailed at the Treaty of Versailles, so don't blame it on Wilson. 

Too bad the Republicans were too hell-bent on staying out of League of Nations and isolating ourselves from the world.  World War II might not have happened had we been a member of the League.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: AuH2O on August 09, 2005, 02:21:56 pm
Wrong to enter war.

It would have ended in a draw, at least that is the view of most military historians. Our entry broke the Germans.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: bullmoose88 on August 09, 2005, 02:37:22 pm
I don't know if it was the wrong thing to do.


Although I don't think a victorious (or at least not-defeated) Germany would have been a bad thing either.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: ?????????? on August 09, 2005, 04:05:36 pm
Option 2. And I would have supported the Germans as well.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: WMS on August 09, 2005, 04:30:27 pm
The treaty of versailles engineered by the Americans was the tool of ANGER and HATE that fueled Hitler's ideology of a great Germany. This treaty angered a lot of germans as much as the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo INFURIATES me! Proportionally, over the years, From the German Empite in 1878 until Germany today, it has lost about the same percentage of Territory that Mexico lost to the US.

Germany, I feel your pain! Too bad we dont have the power to take back our territory by force like the Germans did in WWII

WARNING! POTENTIAL THREAD HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!

Sorry, couldn't resist this. :P

Perhaps if Mexico - which actually had a larger army than the U.S. in the Mexican-American War - had been able to keep the same government for the entire length of the war it might have done better. ;D

And German attempts to enlist Mexico on its side against the U.S. were one of the reasons for American involvement in WWI.

And you are free to try and take the land back. Call me when the Texan National Guard sacks Monterrey. :P


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: DanielX on August 09, 2005, 05:52:14 pm
wrong thing. No good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of opposing powers. Didn't involve the US at all.
^^^

The treaty of versailles engineered by the Americans was the tool of ANGER and HATE that fueled Hitler's ideology of a great Germany. This treaty angered a lot of germans as much as the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo INFURIATES me! Proportionally, over the years, From the German Empite in 1878 until Germany today, it has lost about the same percentage of Territory that Mexico lost to the US.

Germany, I feel your pain! Too bad we dont have the power to take back our territory by force like the Germans did in WWII

You realize that the US held Mexico by the balls in 1848, and probably could have taken much more territory (in theory, the US could have conquered Mexico outright; they did make it to Mexico City, after all).
World War I, on the other hand, ended with the Germans still occupying Belgian and French soil.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: TG on August 09, 2005, 05:55:21 pm
#2
And we were on the wrong side. :P


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 09, 2005, 06:27:56 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: TG on August 09, 2005, 06:30:16 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Colin on August 09, 2005, 08:06:40 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Uh huh like Germany wasn't an imperialist power as well.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: dazzleman on August 09, 2005, 08:16:59 pm
I don't know if it was a good or bad thing.

I guess it was bad in that the outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.

Still, a German victory in 1917 may have been worse.  To get a taste of how the Germans would have been in victory, look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the Germans imposed on defeated Russia.

For all the Germans' self-centered wailing about Versailles, that treat was mild compared to what the Germans themselves imposed upon the Russians.

We'll know know how it might have turned out differently, but I can't look with favor on an almost certain German victory.  Whatever the weaknesses of the British and French, they were not at that point capable of the kind of barbarity that we later saw from the Germans, so I have to say it was a good thing that the British and French, and not the Germans, were the victorious powers in World War I, and this would not have happened without American intervention.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: J. J. on August 09, 2005, 08:56:51 pm
We should have entered the war on Germany's side :P

IIRC, all they wanted in a peace treaty was Alasce (sp?) & Lorraine, compared to the Allies' barbaric Treaty of Versailles (sp? darn French place names :P)

First, I'm going to point out that the bulk of Alsace-Lorraine had been annexed to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1.  While there were some (relatively minor) claims of French territory by Germany, there were not the subject of annexation.  Luxemburg and Belgium were however being considered for incorporation into the Second Reich.  This was the the sticking point for the British; centuries of strategy of the British were to Keep the low countries out of the hands of any great power.

One reason that the Germans wanted to annex what they did, and not all of France, was that Alsace-Lorraine was German speaking.

Second, Imperial Germany was not all that Imperialistic.  It entered the race for colonies late in the 19th Century.  Bismarck was actually opposed to colonialization and to a large navy to defend them.  What they had was exceptionally underpopulated and not profitable.  Most of Germany's colonies were overrun prior to the American entry.

Third, the Zimmerman note was basically a proposed alliance with Mexico that was predicated on the case of the US declaring war on Germany.  The reason Germany thought it was likely was that they were preparing to restart unrestricted submarine warfare.

The US wanted to be in a position where it send ships to the UK (and sell the cargos) and not enter a battle zone.  We balked at being shot at when we entered a war zone.

Yes, I would have opposed our entry into World War I, the Germans would have won and the Social Democrats (then including German Communists).  There numbers were growing and I would have expected a constitutional crisis in Germany after the war.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 09, 2005, 10:55:47 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Ummm...Perhaps you haven't seen a map of the world pre-1914.  Germany colonized half of Samoa, northern New Guinea (why do you think the islands around there are called the Bismarck archipelago?), and what is now Tanzania and Namibia and part of Cameroon.  Austria-Hungary had ruled over several European ethnicities against their will (Czechs, Slovenians, Croats, and others come to mind) and suppressed these cultures.  The Ottoman Empire suppressed the peoples of the Middle East who weren't Turks.  So next time, check your history.  Imperialism was by no means limited to the Allied Powers.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2005, 08:22:58 am
The intervention of the U.S stopped that big German offensive in 1918, the failure of which led to the collapse of the German's on the Western Front and made the end of the war come much sooner. So that's a good thing IMO...

O/c it was a terrible, pointless and stupid war (and Germany was just as responsible as everyone else) but that's not the issue here I think... and pretty much every European power was Imperalist back then, but in different ways.

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: KillerPollo on August 10, 2005, 08:27:42 am
wrong thing. No good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of opposing powers. Didn't involve the US at all.
^^^

The treaty of versailles engineered by the Americans was the tool of ANGER and HATE that fueled Hitler's ideology of a great Germany. This treaty angered a lot of germans as much as the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo INFURIATES me! Proportionally, over the years, From the German Empite in 1878 until Germany today, it has lost about the same percentage of Territory that Mexico lost to the US.

Germany, I feel your pain! Too bad we dont have the power to take back our territory by force like the Germans did in WWII

You realize that the US held Mexico by the balls in 1848, and probably could have taken much more territory (in theory, the US could have conquered Mexico outright; they did make it to Mexico City, after all).
World War I, on the other hand, ended with the Germans still occupying Belgian and French soil.

That is not the point i was trying to make!
The point was the anger and hatred instilled unto hitler because of the magnitude of the humiliation.

I too feel infuriated at the United States for what it did to my beloved home and native land. But i at least leave that behind, unlike Hitler.

Just imagine if they would have done some Versailles-like treaties after WWII! There would have been another Hitler by now.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Platypus on August 10, 2005, 08:37:38 am
Did the right thing.

From Australia's perspective, it's a bit more clear cut. We were also on the other side of the world, but we were still very much British then, and England was still reffered by many to be 'home'. We were one of the first nations to declare war, and we sent more troops per capita then any other allied nation-without conscription-to a war that didn't directly affect us. It might seem stupid in a modern context, but the empire came first back then. As a reward, Australia had a 'baptism of fire' so to speak, both on the western front and in the middle east (most notably gallipoli), and we proved ourselves as a nation.

I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua :D

as to the poll question; yes, the US should have been involved. Earlier.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: KillerPollo on August 10, 2005, 08:39:16 am
Did the right thing.

From Australia's perspective, it's a bit more clear cut. We were also on the other side of the world, but we were still very much British then, and England was still reffered by many to be 'home'. We were one of the first nations to declare war, and we sent more troops per capita then any other allied nation-without conscription-to a war that didn't directly affect us. It might seem stupid in a modern context, but the empire came first back then. As a reward, Australia had a 'baptism of fire' so to speak, both on the western front and in the middle east (most notably gallipoli), and we proved ourselves as a nation.

I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua :D

as to the poll question; yes, the US should have been involved. Earlier.

Nice post


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 10, 2005, 09:00:29 am
pretty much every European power was Imperalist back then, but in different ways.

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.

Thank you.  It's good to see someone with some sense when it comes to history.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2005, 11:17:56 am
I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua :D

Ah yes... Billy Hughes... how many political parties was he in at various stages in his career? Something like 6 in total IIRC...
At one stage he produced a comically distorted map showing pretty much all of the islands north of Australia touching Australia... ;D


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on August 10, 2005, 11:20:39 am
pretty much every European power was Imperalist back then, but in different ways.

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.

Thank you.  It's good to see someone with some sense when it comes to history.
Not to mention English.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 10, 2005, 12:19:41 pm
It is worth pointing out the US never really did enter the war on the side of the Allies. It simply declared war on Germany, but did not join the Allies. Much like Finland was only at war with the Soviets in WWII.

The Lusitania and other Germany actions is what caused that, and it seems too many Americans today think it was justified because of the Lusitania. What usually is not mentioned is that:

1-the Lusitania was carrying contraband military cargo
2-the Germans took out ads in major US papers giving warnings
3-the British would've done the exact same thing had it been a German liner

All sides were nasty imperalistic powers at the time, and considering what Britain had done in South Africa less than 15 years ealier, and what they were still doing in India and continued to do after the war, I'd argue they were definately worse than the Germans in this regard.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2005, 12:32:23 pm
It is worth pointing out the US never really did enter the war on the side of the Allies. It simply declared war on Germany, but did not join the Allies. Much like Finland was only at war with the Soviets in WWII.

U.S troops were fighting on the same front as French or British troops you know...

Quote
I'd argue they were definately worse than the Germans in this regard.

Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Richard on August 10, 2005, 12:35:04 pm
As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.
Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2005, 12:44:50 pm
Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.

Danzig wasn't given to Poland; it was basically made into a Free City under the protection of the League of Nations. Why do you think there are now two major ports in that area?


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 10, 2005, 12:47:32 pm
Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

And what you say there about the other powers might be true, but since the French are one of them it kind of proves the point that the Allies weren't really much better. And the single worse European colonizer was Belgium, simply because of what happened in the Congo. Now THAT was definite genocide. And they were on the Allies.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Richard on August 10, 2005, 12:49:12 pm
Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.

Danzig wasn't given to Poland; it was basically made into a Free City under the protection of the League of Nations. Why do you think there are now two major ports in that area?
Rephrase: Why was this taken away from Germany?  Justify it.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 10, 2005, 01:07:24 pm
What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

Take a look at one of my posts on the last page.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: TG on August 10, 2005, 02:41:09 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Ummm...Perhaps you haven't seen a map of the world pre-1914.  Germany colonized half of Samoa, northern New Guinea (why do you think the islands around there are called the Bismarck archipelago?), and what is now Tanzania and Namibia and part of Cameroon.  Austria-Hungary had ruled over several European ethnicities against their will (Czechs, Slovenians, Croats, and others come to mind) and suppressed these cultures.  The Ottoman Empire suppressed the peoples of the Middle East who weren't Turks.  So next time, check your history.  Imperialism was by no means limited to the Allied Powers.
The German "Colonies" were all useless that's why they got them.
And i did read up on my history when i got my history degree.
I think you missed my point.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 10, 2005, 02:44:50 pm

Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Ummm...Perhaps you haven't seen a map of the world pre-1914.  Germany colonized half of Samoa, northern New Guinea (why do you think the islands around there are called the Bismarck archipelago?), and what is now Tanzania and Namibia and part of Cameroon.  Austria-Hungary had ruled over several European ethnicities against their will (Czechs, Slovenians, Croats, and others come to mind) and suppressed these cultures.  The Ottoman Empire suppressed the peoples of the Middle East who weren't Turks.  So next time, check your history.  Imperialism was by no means limited to the Allied Powers.
The German "Colonies" were all useless that's why they got them.
And i did read up on my history when i got my history degree.
I think you missed my point.

What was your point?  You said we were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.  We would be perpetuating imperialism had we taken either side.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Gustaf on August 11, 2005, 06:27:45 am
Imperialism was mostly still  a good thing by that time, I suspect (with some exceptions - like Congo).

On the issue, I voted it was a good thing. It doesn't seem like anyone here takes an itnerest in the reason for joining the war, which was that a) the Germans renewed their indiscriminate submarine policy of sinking ALL ships, including civilian American ones such as Lusitania, thus killing hundreds of American citizens and b) Germany tried to enter a pact with Mexico, conspiring against the United States. Finally, Germany with their inferiority complex and world domination dreams more or less instigated the war (yeah, it was mostly Austria's fault, but to some extent also Germany's)

Finally, though the war was a silly one America's entrance probably shortened it and prevented a lot of suffering.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Gustaf on August 11, 2005, 06:32:04 am
We should have entered the war on Germany's side :P

IIRC, all they wanted in a peace treaty was Alasce (sp?) & Lorraine, compared to the Allies' barbaric Treaty of Versailles (sp? darn French place names :P)

First, I'm going to point out that the bulk of Alsace-Lorraine had been annexed to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1.  While there were some (relatively minor) claims of French territory by Germany, there were not the subject of annexation.  Luxemburg and Belgium were however being considered for incorporation into the Second Reich.  This was the the sticking point for the British; centuries of strategy of the British were to Keep the low countries out of the hands of any great power.

One reason that the Germans wanted to annex what they did, and not all of France, was that Alsace-Lorraine was German speaking.

Second, Imperial Germany was not all that Imperialistic.  It entered the race for colonies late in the 19th Century.  Bismarck was actually opposed to colonialization and to a large navy to defend them.  What they had was exceptionally underpopulated and not profitable.  Most of Germany's colonies were overrun prior to the American entry.

Third, the Zimmerman note was basically a proposed alliance with Mexico that was predicated on the case of the US declaring war on Germany.  The reason Germany thought it was likely was that they were preparing to restart unrestricted submarine warfare.

The US wanted to be in a position where it send ships to the UK (and sell the cargos) and not enter a battle zone.  We balked at being shot at when we entered a war zone.

Yes, I would have opposed our entry into World War I, the Germans would have won and the Social Democrats (then including German Communists).  There numbers were growing and I would have expected a constitutional crisis in Germany after the war.

Didn't read this page at first. ;) Good to see someone else straightened this out. :)

I'm sure you're aware of the Spartacist uprising in the early 20s? That might have happened, but in some other form.

I agree on territorial claims. France wanted to retake territories that Germany had taken in a previous war. Germany, on the other hand, wanted to expand further.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: KEmperor on August 11, 2005, 06:13:09 pm
Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.


Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.

Also, the German coastal possessions and sphere of influence in China were ceded to Japan.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: J. J. on August 11, 2005, 06:36:41 pm

Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.


Most of these were very sparcely populated.  84% of the population of the Germany Empire lived in Germany proper; 84% of the landmass was in the colonies.  The Germans had to organize native Africans in East Africa to quell an Arab rebellion. 

It really wasn't much of an Empire.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: KEmperor on August 11, 2005, 06:48:05 pm

Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.


Most of these were very sparcely populated.  84% of the population of the Germany Empire lived in Germany proper; 84% of the landmass was in the colonies.  The Germans had to organize native Africans in East Africa to quell an Arab rebellion. 

It really wasn't much of an Empire.

Yes, Germany got the sh**tty colonies because it entered the game late.  It wanted to have the type of colonies France and Britain had, and if they had won the war, they certainly would have.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Gustaf on August 11, 2005, 07:41:42 pm
Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

And what you say there about the other powers might be true, but since the French are one of them it kind of proves the point that the Allies weren't really much better. And the single worse European colonizer was Belgium, simply because of what happened in the Congo. Now THAT was definite genocide. And they were on the Allies.

Belgium wasn't really part of the allies. They just got overrun by Germany, (despite the fact that German had pledged to defend Belgium against invasions...)


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 11, 2005, 08:18:22 pm
Imperialism was mostly still  a good thing by that time

Imperialism is NEVER a good thing with one exception: Britain in Northern Ireland. I 100% support that. Otherwise I oppose all imperialism.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: A18 on August 11, 2005, 08:21:29 pm
Imperialism is never a good thing, with some exceptions: anything I like is an exception. I 100% support that. Otherwise I oppose all imperialism, because of course, I'm so consistent and not hypocritical in any way at all.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 11, 2005, 08:25:41 pm
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Defarge on August 12, 2005, 12:08:36 am
Right thing.  With German soldiers redeploying from the eastern front, the allies would have lost.  A Central Powers victory could potentially have been disastrous from a historical standpoint, as the great European Democracies would probably become fascist states, like the Weimar Republic.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Vincent on August 12, 2005, 12:16:05 am
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.
uggh MONSTERS!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

anyway....

Certainly there must be some other form of imperialism that you would like but have just overlooked.

At any rate you clearly dont oppose imperialism in principle.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: ?????????? on August 12, 2005, 12:29:07 am
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.

Yes, like the Protestants weren't put there by the British. They've been there all along..yeah, sure. ::)


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: J. J. on August 12, 2005, 12:51:19 am
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.

Yes, like the Protestants weren't put there by the British. They've been there all along..yeah, sure. ::)

Actually, most are native.  They aren't even Church of England.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Max Power on August 12, 2005, 12:53:31 am
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.

Yes, like the Protestants weren't put there by the British. They've been there all along..yeah, sure. ::)
Exactly. The British murdered Irish Catholics who refused to convert a while back, while giving more money and land to the Protestants.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: J. J. on August 12, 2005, 12:54:12 am
Right thing.  With German soldiers redeploying from the eastern front, the allies would have lost.  A Central Powers victory could potentially have been disastrous from a historical standpoint, as the great European Democracies would probably become fascist states, like the Weimar Republic.

I seriously doubt it.  Germany was about 5 years away from a constitutional crisis.  The Socialist  were the largest party before the war, and growing.  Wilhelm II might have saddled with a Socialist PM after the war.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Sam Spade on August 12, 2005, 01:03:31 am
My answer on this of course, depends on what happens to the Germans.  Remember that a lot of what the Allies did after the war led to Hitler's rise and Stalin's rebuilding of Russia. 

Whether America's entry not entering into the war is a good thing or not is of course entirely dependent on what happens to the Germans and Russians (and Austria-Hungary and Turkey to a lesser extent) post-war.  I think it's fairly safe to assume that nothing much happens to England (except for the massive loss of life and maybe the loss of a few colonies) and France is of course, exceptionally weakened.  But France was already considerably weaker than Germany pre-WWI anyway.

And what happens to the Germans depends on a lot things, do they win the war or is it just an exasperating draw that ends with a peace in 1919 (let's say). 

Remember that there were a lot of possibilities on the table at the time.  I think it's safe to say that the Kaiser would have remained on the throne had he not lost, but other than that who knows.  Germany could have stayed strongly authoritarian or it might have moved all the way to a modern social constitutional democracy (remember that in 1914, Germany had some of the most liberalized and strong social programs in the world) and the Social Democrats and Socialists were only growing in number by the bushel.

I'll make a couple of minor what-ifs to tell you what I think would have happened.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Gustaf on August 12, 2005, 05:59:29 am
To say that people are put in places is just silly. Why don't you give the entire American continent back to the Indians then?


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Virginian87 on August 12, 2005, 08:20:51 am
To those here who oppose imperialism so much, may I point out that it brought Western know-how and innovations like railroads and telephone/telegraph systems to many underdeveloped countries.  Had the British not been in India, there would be no unified nation today.  There are so many different peoples in India with different languages, that without English as a common language there would be hardly any unity.  Without imperialism, Hong Kong and Singapore would be rice paddies, diamonds would probably not have been dicovered in South Africa, and to a lesser extent, the Middle Eastern oilfields never would have been discovered.  Sure imperialism has some harmful effects over time, but in many ways it was useful. 

While we're on the subject of imperialism's problems, what's your opinion of American imperialism in the Caribbean, Philippines and Pacific (Hawaii and other islands)?  We didn't just go in and take it peacefully, you know.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 12, 2005, 10:51:03 am
I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.

Yes, like the Protestants weren't put there by the British. They've been there all along..yeah, sure. ::)

Ireland is where the Scots came from initially actually, so you can't really argue they have no business being there because of things that happened 300 years ago. And lots of the Protestants in Antrium county come from families that always have been in Ireland.

Ireland in the earlier part of the 20th century was an AWFUL place for women. They even had caps on how much married women could be paid! And ever heard of the Magdalene Laundries?


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 12, 2005, 10:54:17 am
While we're on the subject of imperialism's problems, what's your opinion of American imperialism in the Caribbean, Philippines and Pacific (Hawaii and other islands)?  We didn't just go in and take it peacefully, you know.

It was wrong. You can't really undo it though, most in Hawaii certainly want to remain part of the US, so I have no problem remaining that way. But it should've not have been forcibly annexed in the first place.

And the Phillipines was just wrong, period. The US killed as many a million civilians there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

oh and all the diamonds in the world can't excuse what the British did in South Africa.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 12, 2005, 11:27:09 am
BRTD: I've told you this a couple of times, but British Imperialism in Northern Ireland ended in 1921 with the partition. Northern Ireland was a de facto independent country until the collapse of Stormont in the early '70's.
And there has never been any need to protect the Protestants in NI; quite the reverse in fact... under Stormont, Catholics were treated in a way similer to Blacks in the Deep South prior to the end of segregation. Intially British troops were sent to NI to protect Catholics from the Protestant majority.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: The love that set me free on August 12, 2005, 12:34:00 pm
What you say may be true, but try telling that to an Irish republican. Most of the ones I've met (which is quite a bit over here, I've always found it interesting how Irish Americans had so much concern over what was going on in their ancestral country than most Americans do), talk about it being "the last remnant of the British Empire, the Occupied Six Counties, etc."

And what I meant by protecting the Protestants was keeping them out of what at the time was a pretty repressive country. No divorce, Magdalene Laundries, caps on the salaries of married women, pregnant teenagers often just thrown out on the streets and abanonded, abortion not even legal in the most dire of circumstances (I believe the Supreme Court case in Ireland that legalized abortion in cases where the mother's life was threatended involved a raped 13 year old girl who the Attorney General tried to prohibit from traveling to Britain for an abortion), the Republic was a pretty dire place during most of the time when The Troubles was going on. I'm quite happy it's been liberalizing lately, but during the conflict, that would definately have me backing the unionist side (of course that doesn't mean backing lunatics like Paisley or brutal unionist paramilitaries...)


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 12, 2005, 01:07:32 pm
What you say may be true, but try telling that to an Irish republican. Most of the ones I've met (which is quite a bit over here, I've always found it interesting how Irish Americans had so much concern over what was going on in their ancestral country than most Americans do), talk about it being "the last remnant of the British Empire, the Occupied Six Counties, etc."

The Unionists are just as insane... "everything is a Popish plot", "the Pope is the devil" yadda, yadda, yadda. Both sides are stuck about four hundred years ago in the past...

Quote
And what I meant by protecting the Protestants was keeping them out of what at the time was a pretty repressive country.

Northern Ireland wasn't exactly a haven of liberalism either. Abortion laws there are actually more restrictive than in RoI.


Title: Re: World War I
Post by: True Federalist on August 13, 2005, 07:28:13 pm
Here's my view on what would have happened had Wilson followed a course of true neutrality instead of the pro-Allied Powers pseudo-neutrality that he followed.  Without American loans or purchases of American arms, the Allies would have realized by 1916 that they weren't going to win the war on the battlefield.  However, Germany is hurting enough that it is in its interests to seek peace as well.  A likely peace settlement would see Europe's boundaries largely unaffected save in the balkans where Montenegro and Serbia would have to give up their gains in the First and Second Balkan Wars earlier in the decade to Albania and Bulgaria.  Serbia and Montenegro would receive a status similar to that of Belgium and the Netherlands as a small country that all the major powers have pledged to go to war over if someone else violates their neutrality.  The Ottomans regain the Dodecanese from Italy.  Germany  would have gained territories in Africa, with most of French Equitorial Africa joining Kamerun (save for a small portion along the banks of the Congo being joined to Belgium Congo) and South Africa ceding Walfish Bay to German South West Africa.  The Czar likely would have had to cede Poland to the Central Powers.  Considering that most of the fighting took place on Allied territiry, I can't see reparations as being large, even if they were exacted.

Of course it is possible that the Allies would have refused terms sch as these.  In that event, the war in east would have largely proceeded ilargely as it did in reality until the Czar abdicated in 1917.  The Kerensky government having fewer prospects of eventual victory would likely have signed a peace with the Central powers, but would have to cede the  quasi-independence of Finland and Lithuania as well as Poland as well as cede Bessarabia to Rumania (with the Allies unable to present as good an inducement for entering the war on the Allied side as they did in OTL, Rumania likely joins the Central Powers in 1916.) and the Transcaucus region to the Ottomans.  Italy likely gets knocked out of the war in 1918 due to the inability of France and Britain to spare the troops that kept Italy from defeat in OTL.  Likely Italy has to cede its entire colonial empire back to the Ottomans from who they nominally had acquired most of it from.  The desire to restore friendship with Britain is likely to lead to Geramny to not be too harsh with France, but the Germans will take Belfort and a good deal more of France's colonial empire than what I described above.  Germany does not have the naval force with which to defeat the Royal Navy in 1919 and war-weariness will be affecting the homefront even as it did in OTL.  So in exchange for peace, reparations will be kept at a minimum if at all.

In short, I'd expect a Central Power victory to see territiory to change hands, but the crushing effects of reparations would be kept to a minimum, enabling grudges to be eased sooner.  Of course, Europe will still have the fun of dealing the effects of the inevitable collapse of the Habsburg Empire, which potentially sparks WW II, and the Armenians will be even less numerous than they are in OTL, so I don't see American non-entry in The Great War as being a solution for all of our problems, but three of the great problems of the 20th century would either not have occurred or been greatly delayed.
1.  Lenin would not have the opportunity to come to power in Russia.
2.  The Shoah would not have happened.
3.  The current turmoil in the Middle East would not exist.  Not only would the Zionists been less successful in emmigrating to the area with it remaining in Ottoman control, they would have had less incentive to do so.  In short, there would be no State of Israel to serve as a focus of dispute.