Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj
True.
1. Not really. The British owned Canada, which they expanded to the Pacific ocean. Then there was Belize, and numerous islands in the Caribbean.
2. Not to mention the French attempt to conquer Mexico and install a puppet;
3. the French meddling in Brazilian affairs.
4. America invoked the Monroe Doctrine when protesting the Spanish attempt to assert control over the Dominican Republic, and Spain simply ignored them.
5. Britain meddled and the affairs of Argentina and the La Plata region and came to control much of it's economy.
6. In the 1890's Britain's Lord Salisbury even declared the Monroe Doctrine illegitimate.
7. The Monroe Doctrine was just a set of words which were violated time and time again.
8. Germany simply didn't have the capability to project power across continents like the aforementioned countries.
9. To top it off, what would Germany have to gain by trying to extend power into Latin America - especially since in your scenario there would still be Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and Japan?
10. The United States is the last great power in the world, save Japan, which would have come into a cold war with the Germany in your scenario. Even if Germany did become some sort of incredible power and dominator of all of Europe (I find this extremely unlikely) would she not have a cold war with Britain or Russia rather than the United States on the other side of the world?
11. Yes, it didn't stop them from setting up military garrisons and exerting a level of control over the populace that rarely affected the common native. It also didn't stop their colonial ventures from being a burden on their economies and a financial net loss. The ability of Germany to project military power on a far away country with a modern military like say, Argentina or Colombia, is extremely doubtful.
12. What about it? All evidence suggests that Germany would not have gone on a warmongering rampage, but would have simply expanded her borders and influence as victorious European had always done. A victorious Germany would see herself still surrounded by increasingly hostile competitors, who now would have many more grievances than in 1914. How would she defeat Britain? What about Russia ten years on, a rump state France, Italy and the United States? What about the other countries of Europe - is it likely that they would sit back and watch themselves become increasingly dominated by Germany - a country that attacked and annexed neutral Belgium?
13. Fair enough - if the Germans had the potential to become a superpower following an unlikely victory in WWI. But again, t he only contemporary evidence illustrating possible German plans for a victory illustrate a Germany that is far from being a super power, let alone a superpower that would have been ready to engage in hostilities with the United States on the other side of the world.
14. Yes. Liulevicius, Vejas Gabriel (2000). War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I. pp. 281-294.
15. Fair points. However, it in the event that Germany emerged victorious, it is likely that she would simply face a new coalition. Except this time, who would be her allies? Britain, a weakened France, Italy, Russia, and the US would all detest Germany. After all Germany was perceived as a warmonger before and during WWI, how would she be perceived if she won and annexed new territories? Any European country interested in maintaining their independence would join the coalition against Germany.
16. Economic problems caused by WWI, a changing society, and a rigid and inflexible government. This is literally the recipe for revolution. Remember that every single country in Europe faced widespread instability during this time period. Only three European countries directly involved in the war didn't see their governments topple: Belgium, Britain and France.
17. Regardless of what they could or couldn't achieve, these political forces would have contributed to large-scale instability and the rift between the common people and the ruling elite.
18. NJGoat's suggestion is quite realistic. It is virtually impossible to imagine a Germany that isn't rife with social, political, and even economic instability.
19. Interesting debate Futurist.
20. You should take a look at this forum: Historum - History Forums. You will find much more stimulating discussion there compared to City Data. Many there have degrees in history or are studying the subject.
|
1. British control of Canada (or at least of parts of Canada) pre-dated the Monroe Doctrine, though. Therefore, I am not sure that it should count for this.
2. Yes, but that attempt on France's part failed, and in addition, the U.S. couldn't do much about this at least in large part due to the fact that we had a civil war in the early 1860s and needed some time to recover from it afterwards.
3. Is this a reference to what Gaston, Comte d'Eu did in Brazil? Or is this a reference to something else, and if so, then to what?
4. When exactly was this? I need to do more research on this.
5. But did the U.K. ever attempt to conquer any territories from Argentina after the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine?
6. Yes, that border dispute with Venezuela was a case where Britain appeared to have wanted to violate the Monroe Doctrine. That said, the U.S. already appears to have been sufficiently strong and/or intimidating by that point in time to successfully pressure Britain to agree to arbitration of this border dispute.
7. Your point here appears to have some merit.
8. But could Germany have tried developing this capacity, though? Also, I am assuming that the U.S.S.R.
did have this capacity after World War II in real life--am I correct in this assumption?
9. Well, what exactly did Germany have to gain by building a large navy and threatening the U.K. before World War I? Not much, if anything, but it is worth noting that Kaiser Wilhelm II wasn't always exactly a rational, strategic thinker. The same rationale/reason could also apply here.
10. This might actually be a good point on your part. Germany would probably be unable to decisively defeat Britain or to permanently keep Russia down, and thus, it will need to deal with these countries before it makes any serious attempts to threaten the United States. Of course, if the U.S. shows a preference for Britain and/or for Russia over Germany (such as by giving Britain and/or Russia more loans or something like that), then Kaiser Wilhelm II might try retaliating by doing something provocative in the Western Hemisphere.
11. I wasn't necessarily talking about German military power here, though, but rather about having Germany provide support (money, weapons, et cetera) to countries in the Western Hemisphere which opposed U.S. imperialism.
12. This appears to be a good point here.
13. The Septemberprogramm only talked about Europe and about European colonies, though. It did not say anything at all, either in the affirmative or in the negative, in regards to the Western Hemisphere.
14. Thanks; I will try finding and reading this later.
15. This also appears to be a good point here. After all, not even Germany could withstand a very large coalition of countries against it.
16. Good point, though it is worth noting that Britain, Belgium, and France were all on the
winning side in this TL's WWI and, unlike Russia, stayed in WWI until the end. In this scenario, Germany, rather than these three countries, would be on the winning side of WWI.
17. This also appears to be a good here here.
18. Yeah, I might be tempted to agree with you here.
19. Thank you, and likewise to you as well.
20. Will do in the near future!