I disagree. I think it is likely Britain/France would still have won.
I agree that World War I is underappreciated. I know this since I have had several relatives involved in WWI, but not so much in WWII. Two of my great-grandfathers participated in Arab revolts against the Ottomans, as well as several great-granduncles (including two who died).
I admit that the movie Lawrence of Arabia does bring the Middle Eastern theatre to light at least a bit, which is one of reasons why I like that movie. Although I have also taken interest in the incidents involving Hussein ibn Ali and Ibn Saud, ancestors of the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian royal families respectively.
Anyone else know stuff about the Middle Eastern theatre? I hope I can write a report on it for school one day.
I think in they end they were better placed to fight a long war, especially as the German experience wore down and they relied on volunteers/conscripts. I expect it would have taken a lot longer though. I don’t know anything about German morale but I’d guess as aggressors they would become tired of a war where nothing is gained quicker than those fighting to avoid loss. On the other hand, the British had even less vested interest in it than Germany. Does anyone know how apathetic Germans and Britons eventually became about the war? Was there any question in Germany of just withdrawing, or in Britain of just letting the continentals have it out? Imagine the headlines in the Daily Mail!
[hijack]
In the movie, Lawrence clearly envisioned a postwar united and independent Arabian kingdom (including all Arab lands east of Egypt, presumably) with its capital at Damascus, under the rule of Prince Faisal. (But His Majesty’s Government couldn’t allow it . . .)
Did Lawrence (or Faisal), historically, really want that?
Is there any plausible AH where it might have happened? (Of course, Faisal still would have needed to conquer the House of Saud. And then there’s the question of whether the Kingdom of Arabia would have included Palestine . . .)
[/hj]
In support of this, consider how the US was viewed before each war. Before WW I the Allies wanted more manpower, but it wasn’t so important, and the Germans obviously didn’t care enough about us to not torpedo ships.
Before WW II Hitler did not want the US involved,and even Yamamoto knew it was a mistake. Churchill, upon hearing of Pearl Harbor, knew that the British would win the war. And the US immediately became dominant, as opposed to being a junior partner in 1917.
Since my post 5 years I ago I watched Wings a really good WW I movie which was not antiwar - or not very. It avoided the trench problem by being set in the air and by being set near the end of the war.
I’ve also found a book that kind of discusses a non-WW I world. Jack Finney’s sequel to Time and Again involves an attempt to stop WW I, inspired in part by a bleed through of artifacts from a non-WW I universe. However I don’t think he was nearly radical enough in the changes that would have happened, and there are actually just hints. I think a no-WW I alternate universe would be a lot more interesting than a Germany wins one. No one would think that the US would be very affected, for instance.
That is perfectly the opposite of what actually happened. Germany shelved unrestricted submarine warfare for a substantial portion of the war specifically to avoid U.S. belligerence, and only resumed it when they felt they simply didn’t have any other choice.
That is, again, not at all true; the U.S. was not “immediately dominant.” The war with Japan was an extremely narrow matter for a year, at least, with Japan, and the central battle of that year was a flip of a coin. Germany was far too powerful to be directly opposed by U.S. force of arms for longer than that.
There is an excellent museum in Kansas City dedicated solely to WWI. If you’re ever near that city I suggest you go.
I’d guess what Voyager meant was that the US immediately became the dominant member of the Allies. I do doubt that a little, though, considering that the Soviet Union wouldn’t have been too keen on that and the other members had already been fighting for years and so would have had a better understanding of the situation.
Quite right. And the Soviet Union had not that long ago been an ally of Hitler, so despite their resources (which got supplemented by the British and Americans) they were not likely to be dominant. Churchill never trusted Stalin in any case.
Although there are claims to the contrary about Lawrence, from his writings I believe he did and Faisal was expected to be King. This is the reason the Arabs revolted, the failure of this goal is why the House of Saudi came to power in 1922. Palestine would have been a part of this country. WWI pretty much set up the current mess in the ME, the Countries were set up according to the wishes of the European powers with little regard for the wishes of the Arabs themselves. Faisal and Abdullah got Iraq and Transjordan(Jordan) as a kind of consolation prize, Lebanon was separated from Syria because the French wanted a nominally Christian led state and we have a huge mess because of it. I believe that most of the 20th century’s conflicts can be traced back to WWI. Ferdinand Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles (to paraphrase) this is not a peace treaty, this is an armistice for 20 years. He was off by a few days BTW. Of course these are my opinions, but they are supported by the facts. Let the hole poking commence
Capt Kirk
Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T. E. Lawrence is an excellent place to start, that’s where I did