# We needed to fight World War I **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2002, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060 "2002-04-28T04:44:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Kahuna_Burger)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/41 "2002-04-30T18:38:46Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by John Corrado \* \*\ ***Big Kahuna Burger** : From [http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/facts/facts\_about/02\_02.html](http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/facts/facts_about/02_02.html) In other words, as I said- about the same as the British monarchy of eighty or so years previous. We’re not arguing that Germany was a democracy; that’s your own straw man. We’re arguing that Germany’s government was not the repressive autocracy you claim it to be, and certainly in relations to _some_ of the Allied Powers (Russia, Italy), it wasn’t. [http://www.thealegreen.berks.sch.uk/history/alevel/asnsoc.htm](http://www.thealegreen.berks.sch.uk/history/alevel/asnsoc.htm) > [@](#): > > Bismarck had been able to run the country during his time as Chancellor as the old Kaiser had been relatively weak. However, the new Kaiser was determined to rule as an autocrat himself. Consequently, Bismarck was forced out and the following Chancellors lived under Kaiser Wilhelm’s shadow unable, for the most part, to impress their will on policy. Considering the constitution of Germany allowed the Kaiser to appoint and dismiss the Chancellor this situation is hardly surprising. Even if it wasn’t very repressive it still was an autocracy. > [@](#): > > By that token, the French-Prussian War of 1870- where the monarchy of Prussia fought the Republic of France- was a win for monarchy, and we should have intervened on the side of France. That war was over Alsace-Lorraine, this was over a continent > [@](#): > > Italy was on the _Allied_ side, the one that won. How was the Versailles treaty so repressive towards the victors that it threw Italy into fascism? We didn’t give them anything for fighting so well against Austro-Hungary. That’s one of the reasons Mussolini gained popularity ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/42 "2002-04-30T19:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Even if it wasn’t very repressive it still was an autocracy. But that’s just it-it WASN’T an autocracy! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/43 "2002-04-30T20:12:00Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Bismarck had been able to run the country during his time as Chancellor as the old Kaiser had been relatively weak. However, the new Kaiser was determined to rule as an autocrat himself. Consequently, Bismarck was forced out and the following Chancellors lived under Kaiser Wilhelm’s shadow unable, for the most part, to impress their will on policy. Considering the constitution of Germany allowed the Kaiser to appoint and dismiss the Chancellor this situation is hardly surprising. > > Even if it wasn’t very repressive it still was an autocracy. In the _exact_ same way that the British government was an autocracy, run by a non-appointed executive (Monarch) who had veto and appointment power over the legislature (Parliament) which was half-full of landed aristocrats who were in the Parliament by title. > [@](#): > > That war was over Alsace-Lorraine, this was over a continent Which gives us what province to interevene? You still haven’t given a _compelling_ reason why the United States had _any_ interest in what happened in Europe. Economically, both sides were major markets for us, so it didn’t matter whether the Brits or the Germans won. Politically, we had abided monarchies in Europe for one hundred and fifty years and would do so for another fifty. ---
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/44 "2002-04-30T22:30:43Z")
Melan, some good points. But, surely the Austrian Empire was beyond saving and Self-Determination - ie independence for the nations within the Empire - one of the 14 points? And I think the French deserve some sympathy. Theyd clearly been eclipsed by German, their manpower decimated, and the north of their country devastated. What were they supposed to do? Shake hands and hand continental supremacy back to Germany? Anyway, the focus on Versailles can ignore the substantial moves towards the rehabilitation of Germany in the 20’s. I just dont think you can look at Weimar politics and see Hitler as an inevitability. ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Big\_Kahuna\_Burger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Kahuna_Burger)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/45 "2002-04-30T22:42:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Corrado \* > In the _exact_ same way that the British government was an autocracy, run by a non-appointed executive (Monarch) who had veto and appointment power over the legislature (Parliament) which was half-full of landed aristocrats who were in the Parliament by title. [http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon60.html](http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon60.html) > [@](#): > > George ascended the throne in the midst of a constitutional crisis: the budget controversy of 1910. Tories in the House of Lords were at odds with Liberals in the Commons pushing for social reforms. When George agreed to create enough Liberal peerages to pass the measure the Lords capitulated and gave up the power of absolute veto, resolving the problem officially with passage of the Parliament Bill in 1911. By 1911 it was a constitutional monarchy. > [@](#): > > Which gives us what province to interevene? You still haven’t given a _compelling_ reason why the United States had _any_ interest in what happened in Europe. Economically, both sides were major markets for us, so it didn’t matter whether the Brits or the Germans won. Politically, we had abided monarchies in Europe for one hundred and fifty years and would do so for another fifty. I’ll try to find an online source for this, but my history teacher said the ratio of investments in Allied vs Central Powers was something like 1 billion to 20 million. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/46 "2002-04-30T23:09:47Z")
> [@](#): > > By that token, the French-Prussian War of 1870- where the monarchy of Prussia fought the Republic of France- was a win for monarchy, and we should have intervened on the side of France. Actually the Franco-Prussian War was between the Kingdom of Prussia and its monarchical allies and the French Second Empire of Napoleon III; the Third Republic was formed in France pretty much as a direct result of the French defeat in the war. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/47 "2002-04-30T23:19:08Z")
A shocking disgrace, I know, for a _Moderator_ in Great Debates to be dragging the dictionary definition into a debate, but… > [@](#): > > [autocracy](http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/A0534000.html): **1**. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism. **2**. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power. – [_American Heritage Dictionary_](http://www.bartleby.com/61) Really, it would be more accurate to refer to Germany in 1914 as a [“constitutional monarchy”](http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/C0590600.html)–“a monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation”. (By contrast, most modern “constitutional monarchies” are simply democratic republics which still like to dress up as monarchies on ceremonial occasions.) The powers of the German emperor in 1914 were not as restricted as those of the British king, Britain by that point being well along on the road to democratic republic in fancy dress clothes, but the German Empire was hardly ancient Persia or Tsarist Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2002, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/48 "2002-04-30T23:31:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Big Kahuna Burger \* > \*\* > > [http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon60.html](http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon60.html) > > By 1911 it was a constitutional monarchy. > \*\* Well, except what the bill did was allow the house of commons to override a veto by the lords if the bill passed 3 seperate votes…so, commons passes a law-lords veto it-commons pass it-lords veto-commons pass it, it’s law. While that’s better than the old system, it’s not like it stripped the lords of power. The king still had the power (even though he didn’t use it) to veto a law and dismiss the Prime Minister. Also, turning to Germany. only the Reichstag could approve spending bills, so the Kaiser had to come and beg them for money. In fact, WWI came close to almost not happening, because the Socialists in the Reichstag almost didn’t vote for war credits. They ended up doing so, but there was a chance they wouldn’t. Germany was a constitutional monarchy too, even though the Kaiser admittedly had more power than the King of England. It’s hardly the black/white thing you seem to make it out to be. Germans were passionate about politics, and tended to be politically informed and active. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060/49 "2002-05-01T02:12:46Z")
People probably think of Imperial Germany as an autocracy because Willy WISHED it was. He was a huge show off and loved to strut around and act like he was God’s gift to Germany. So, people see him and think-autocrat. That was hardly the case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-needed-to-fight-world-war-i/106060.md?page=2)