Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2014, 01:31 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,770,017 times
Reputation: 1930

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
Why not? Revolution had been the air of Russia since the late 1800's. It's not as if Russians suddenly became revolutionary in 1917. There only reason that the Russian government had not been toppled is because the previous rebellions had been squashed. Whether Russia won or lost the war, the revolutionary spirit would still be ever-present. Territorial gains or loss, or attainment of national prestige would not solve the crushing poverty and overbearing oppression under which the Russian peasant lived. Only political change could dissuade revolutionary fervor, and a Russian victory would not have solved any of the peasant's grievances.

The presence of revolutionary activity directly relates to the level of autocracy exerted by a government. The countries with the most progressive governments - France and Britain - are the ones who did not see massive social and political upheaval, while those governments intent on staunch conservatism and closed to change - Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Italy - saw mass revolutionary activity. For example, France, the most progressive major power, did not see the massive social and political upheavals that these other countries saw, despite suffering more than Germany through the war. Germany on the other hand, saw communist revolution within her borders, and Bavaria even declared independence.

All in all, it is highly unlikely that revolutionary activity would have been quelled with a different outcome to the war. The gains of the Russian or German governments did not solve the fundamental grievances expressed by their peasant classes. They wanted freedom and representation, not more territories or national pride.
Yes, revolution was in the air in Russia for a while, but it is worth noting that up to late 1917 or so, Bolshevism doesn't appear to have been particularly popular even among revolutionary-minded Russians. In fact, there were two revolutions in Russia in 1917, and the Bolsheviks only succeeded in the second one because the Russian Provisional Government was perceived as being incompetent in dealing with World War I. Without World War I as we know it, the Romanovs might still eventually get overthrown in Russia, but the Provisional Government which will be created afterwards might actually be able to last, which in turn would mean no successful Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

 
Old 05-27-2014, 01:33 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,770,017 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
1. I mean that WW1 temporarily derailed the labor movement and in a victory "won on the backs of the working man" they would have looked to assert their influence and achieve their aims.

2. I would actually count their "empowerment in victory" as the catalyst that helps spur the social democratic and labor movements into greater action. A victory in the Germany of ~1915 was perfect for the creation of class warfare.

3. I think my premise is as probable as any other.
1. Agreed, though I am not sure how successful they would have been at this due to the possible opposition of the German military.

2. Maybe, though I also wonder if Lebensraum in the East would have at least somewhat placated some of these German workers.

3. Maybe.
 
Old 05-27-2014, 01:57 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,770,017 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
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, the 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!
 
Old 05-28-2014, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
553 posts, read 593,243 times
Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
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.
It didn't take us long at all to deal with France's meddling in Mexico. When General Sheridan arrived in Washington General Grant met him with the order: "Take 25,000 men and go to the Mexican Border."
Sheridan at first thought he'd have a day or two to enjoy the victory parade, but Grant was firm and Sheridan's force headed to the Mexican Border without even enjoying the parade at the end of the Civil War.
 
Old 05-28-2014, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
553 posts, read 593,243 times
Reputation: 569
Germany actually came quite close to winning World War I. The two sides had been pretty evenly matched in a stalemate when Russia collapsed and withdrew. The Germans transferred these men to the Western Front where they would have overpowered the French and British. Only the timely arrival of the Americans prevented this. But even our arrival might not have been enough had Britain withdrew from the fight as well--and the British came very close to doing that because German submarines were sinking so many of the ships that brought food to England that country was nearly starved into submission.

There is no reason to believe everybody would have to have learned German. Europeans had been fighting and conquoring one another for centuries and a monarch was much more interested in collecting taxes from his new subjects than in having a chat with them. Anyone pursuing higher education would need to have been fluent in German, of course, but the common peasant need not be bothered by it.

Germany was chiefly interested in expanding their boundaries to the east and in acquiring colonies in Africa and Asia. The countries of Latin America would not have become official colonies of Germany, but commercial interests and the existence of sizeable German immigrant communities would have amounted to much the same thing. The Germans would likely have avoided conflict with the United States--not because America was a Power to be feared but because there was no need to confront America, there was quiote a sizable German-American community, and America was largely insignificant as a World Power and had a policy of trying to get along with whoever was in charge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top