The qualitative difference there is only an expression of your opinion on the underlying issues. War of any temperature is a struggle between good and evil. You can’t get people to sacrifice their lives, literally or figuratively, over matters of minor import. Which end of the egg you crack is always a matter of the gravest import in such circumstances.
You don’t need to justify your level of participation here. It has no bearing on the discussion. You should learn some rude phrases to respond in kind to suggestions to the contrary.
It is extremely difficult to slander or libel the pre-WWII German state. Also, the stated goals of megalomaniacs and mobs are a tool, not a goal.
Interesting speculation, but speculation none-the-less. Also, the term Democrat and it’s derivatives are not binding on the results. Political parties rarely call themselves the Social Tyrants.
Your basic premise that somehow the world would have been better off had Germany prevailed in WWI can’t be substantiated based on speculation of later events in the hypothetical timeline. As others pointed out clearly, Germany was a state that believed in notions of superiority and practiced aggression against other countries. It required two crushing defeats to disabuse them of those ideas to a tolerable degree. If the first loss was insufficient to quench their desires, a victory would have stoked them.
If Germany had won WWI, there would have been still a monarchy there and whatever would have happened …well it would be different now. Better or Worse who know?
No Islamic…what? Well the Ottoman Empire where Allies of Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Link
Would the world economics still have crashed when they did in 1929? Link
Maybe? Who knows… and if the dog wouldn’t have chased its tail, it would have caught the fox.
…or people in Europe would have never learned after WW2 that war is a thing that should be avoided and we would still have wars in Europe.
You’re confusing occupation and transfer of territories, the september program (though I dont take it at face value, in the sense, that it is probable that it would have been a victorious Germany’s actual demands following WW1, but it might also not have been, it is pure speculation, not facts) states actual transfer of territories. What you’re refering to is occupation, definitely not the same thing.
Demands that came gradually, IIRC. Since France couldnt do anything against it… But France couldnt have done much against a supremely victorious WW1 Germany neither.
Except much of France and almost all of Eastern Europe was occupied by Germany in the real World War I and it is not particularly noted for its brutaility. Indeed Germany sponsered the creation of new Eastern European nation states.
Germany planned to create a Polish state out of the Russian Polish territory, thus they may while not exactly beloved by the Poles, still perhaps tolerated.
Again with the growth of Social Democratic-Liberal political power, the more extreme imperialism of the Wilhelmine era will start to be curbed.
The Social Democrats remained commited to guaranteeing a constitutional republic throughout its existence, thus it is unlikely at the best that it will turn autocratic .
“To a tolerable degree”?!?!, World War II essentially neutered Germany of any aggressive ideals-see the complaint after a German airstrike in Afghanistan killed some civilians last summer.
My point was that you can’t tell a book by its cover, not that the Social Democrats were interested in autocrasy. They did advocate nationalization of industry and funding WWI. Take a look at the some of the current regimes that call themselves Democratic and/or Republics.
I am confusing nothing. Military occupation of an indefinite duration, as was the case for Germany in France 1940-44, amounts to a de facto, if not de jure cession of territory for the vanquished. The Nazis had absolutely no timetable for withdrawal from French terrirtory - had the war lasted another decade or two, they would still have been there in Paris and Le Havre and Bordeaux. This is contrasted with a proposed cession by the Kaiser of a truly minuscule proportion when compared to the 1940 settlement. Of course, any proposal for what territorial demands a victorious Germany would have made in 1915 are hypothetical - but, unlike you, I am at least basing my conjecture upon what the German government in September 1914 actually said on the subject.
What demands? I have no idea what you are talking about. The Nazis from 1940-44 actually did systematically plunder the wealth of the French nation, used hundreds of thousands of its citizens as slave laborers in the Reich, rounded up its Jewry and sent it to the gas chambers, and used its soil and airspace as a theatre for both offensive and defensive military operations.
None of these actions would have been unforseeable for an astute observer of Nazi Germany from 1933-39, or even those who simply read Mein Kampf. There is no analogue for the Kaiser’s Germany. Moreover, we actually have evidence of what sort of demands a victorious Second Reich would have imposed upon a prostrate France - the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871. At that time, Germany made nowhere near the sort of sweepingly brutal demands which you would hypothetically impute to a victorious Germany in 1915.
One could easily say the same things about the United Kingdom and France of the same period, if you changed the phrase “two crushing defeats” to “two exhausting victories”.
Well, precisely no, contrary to the september program, Nazi Germany didnt ask for any transfer of colonies or territory except Alsace-Lorraine. Besides that would mean restriciting ourselves to only France. They apparently wanted to absorb Luxemburg and Belgium as well. Did Nazi Germany actually do that?
You still havent made any point concerning the occupation of France vs the seizing of its territories neither. De jure they stayed French.
The territorial demands of the September program to the Allies in the West were harsher than the territorial demands of Nazi Germany (BTW the reason that I take the September program with a pinch of salt is not because it wouldnt reinforce my points. It actually does. It’s just because it is impossible to know if those would have been the final demands of a victorious Imperial Germany. Maybe they would have been more lenient that what the document tends to indicate).
If you dont remember your own points, it’s going to be hard to communicate.
The transfer of French workers to Germany was not a condition of the armistice. It came later, So those things you have alluded to could have very well been enacted by Imperial Germany even if it had at first only considered imposing and restricting itself to the demands of the September program.
Hard to say no when you got no more military or means to defend yourself.
What’s that even supposed to mean? France did try to negotiate the conditions of the 1940 treaty, and were told they were to be taken as they found it or there would be no peace agreement. You make it sound as if the French had any room for negociation. The only thing they got was keeping their Navy.
Treaty of Franfurt as a lenient treaty? Then I guess we can all scratch that conversation and amble off to other topics. If the Versailles Treaty was incredibly harsh (which seems to be the OP starter) what’s to say of a Treaty whose main provision is the transfer of two major regions of France?
All the examples of Treaties we’ve been talking about where Germany is in a dominant position, that is the Treaty of Frankfurt, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty or the September program (technically not a treaty but the project of a treaty) show the same streak of exorbitant demands and further German domination. Germany had no intention of going back to a pre war situation, and Imperial Germany was as greedy as the Nazis were in that respect.
Thinking that the Nazis are an aberration or an accident of history that a few less articles in the Versailles Treaty would have averted is childish. That’s my take, granted you have yours, but none of what you said here establishes your vision as the correct one.
This whole discussion is totally hypothetical …because if Germany would have won WW1… EVERYTHING would be different… Germany might still have been a Monarchy or would have developed a proper one instead of this Weimar mess… The US might not have been pushed to develop the A-Bomb in the Manhattan project when it did… and they wouldn’t have the need uses an A-Bomb on Japan…maybe Germany and the US might have fought together against the Japs … WW2 may have been 10 years later and the Japs would have had the A-Bomb…or Germany… or God knows who…
NO, it is not childish at all
If France and Brittan wouldn’t have messed up so badly or reacted to badly in like stripping Germany off all its assets when the economy crashed in1929, Germany would not have been so desperate and chaotic… and guess what happens in chaotic times? Fundamentalists get to power much easier than during normal/stable time.
Also a news flash: Germany is not at fault or the cause of WW1 - alone…the other powers wanted it as much as the Germany. Germany committed atrocities and so did the others in WWI.
France and Britain didn’t mess up, they rightfully punished a country that plunged a whole continent into the world’s bloodiest war. Look, the British lost 20,000 men on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, with another 35,000 injured. The males of whole villages and towns were wiped out. One day, one battle, out of many many more raging along that front. France’s north east was turned into a wasteland, more like the surface of the moon than that of a developed country. You bet your life France and the UK were going to seek reparations, and put limits on the armed forces of the century’s most bellicose nation.
Let’s put it this way. You’re attacked by a neighbour who prevents you from working. You seek reparations through the court system, and obtain compensation for what you’ve been through. Are you seriously claiming that, if the neighbour consequently goes apeshit and shoots up a shop because he has to pay for his crime, that you are in any way responsible, or messed the situation up?
I think he meant the underlying reasons. The attacking country (Germany) thought it had valid reasons. Right or wrong reasons they might have been, however the whole of Europe was a powder-keg waiting to go up.
You are aware how WW1 started, right? Germany did NOT declare war on France or Brittain. They declared war on Germany, because Austria declared war on Serbia- Russia. Germany was an Ally of Austria.
The British did not want Germany to become another colony power, that’s why they joined and told Germany to stay put… well it’s really complicated as such. They where all at fault for WW1
But that is because whoever was willing to clobber the Hun in those occupied parts simply moved to the remaining free parts to join the actual, official fight & armies. Partisan action makes little sense when there’s an actual logistic powerhouse, coordinated infrastructure & hierarchy and so forth that you can easily get involved with.
The nature of the game changes when the whole army is soundly beaten, the whole country disarmed and dismantled and the government subdued.
Puppets for freedom ! I’m sure the locals were enthused
But that’s the thing. You seem to figure out a most optimistic scenario, assume it’s a near certitude and start projecting new optimistic scenarios from there. That didn’t work all that well for the Bush administration, if you remember ;).
Again with the optimism. Especially considering this very imperialism and the principles it embodied would likely have been strenghtened by victory. Even more so if, as you assume, this victory brings immediate prosperity and wealth to the Germans themselves - why change what seems to work so well ?
As a citizen of a country directly neighbouring Germany, I’m absolutely fine with that. How is that a bad thing, exactly ? I’d be more than happy if every country and ethnic group in the world had its aggressive ideals neutered.
Yes, I’m aware. You’re presumably unaware of Germany turning a regional war into a World War by needlessly invading France, Luxembourg and Belgium—something it had no treaty obligation to do—and bringing the UK, along with its empire, into it, before the US finally got involved.
Oh, Germany and France where no buddies at this stage… they have a long history of going to war with each other… This era, after WW2 is the longest ever peace in Western Europe.
I am in no way saying Germany was innocent by any messure, but neither is France. They all wanted war for whatever individual resson.
War was the thing to do in those days…a common thing to do…as in a solution to a problem… which it is, but not in the longrun… as it demonstrated with what happend afterwards.
…neither can I say if Germany would have been a nicer Winner than France, since they did not win, we will never know… My guess is, properly not, but certainly history would look differnent and certainly there would not have been Nazi’s in Germany… but then they might have develped in some other country
They didn’t ask for any colonies because of the continued existence of the Royal Navy.
Yes. The Nazis actually did annex Luxembourg (unlike the Kaiser in WW1).
And an expansion of the area of ostensible annexations beyond that of France in a comparison of the natures of Wilhelmine and Nazi Germany really does not favor your argument. Nazi Germany formally incorporated into the Greater German Reich and directly politically administered the following regions after it rose to power in 1933: Saarland, Austria, Bohemia & Moravia, Memel (from Lithuania), Alsace-Lorraine, roughly half of pre-war Poland, and roughly half of Slovenia.
“This Pan-Germanic empire was expected to absorb practically all of Germanic Europe into a greatly expanded Reich, initially including the Netherlands, at least the Flemish parts of Belgium and France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and at least the German-speaking parts of Switzerland as well as the already enlarged Germany itself.”
This is comparing apples with hand grenades. “The territorial demands of the September program to the Allies in the West were harsher than the territorial demands of Nazi Germany,” is nonsense, because you are comparing a (hypothetical) peace settlement with a provisional military settlement.
Sure, and you could also say they were going to buy every Frenchman a house with a butler. I am comparing what Wilhlemine Germany actually did and said it planned to do vis-a-vis what Nazi Germany actually did and said it planned to do.
There are orders of magnitude of difference between the two regimes’ behavior and plans.
Yes, the Treaty of Frankfurt was a relatively lenient territory. Its major provisions were the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany and the imposition of a 5 billion Franc war indemnity.
By contrast, in the Treaty of Versailles Germany would have to agree to the following terms (even as the British blockade of its ports was maintained, with resultant extreme civilian hardship):
the trial of its Head of State (Kaiser Wilhelm II) and others as war criminals
acceptance of sole responsibility for the War
the occupation of some its most valuable and productive territory, the Rhineland, for a period of 15 years
the abolition of conscription
the limitation of its armed forces to 100,000 troops
the prohibition of all submarines, armored vehicles, and military aircraft
the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Northern Schleswig, parts of Upper Silesia, Eupen-Malmedy, most of Posen and West Prussia, the Memel Territory, Danzig, the Saarland (one of its most important coal-producing regions) and ALL of its colonies
reparations in the amount of 226 billion Reischsmarks (later reduced to 132 billion Reichsmarks)
Relative to what? The last continental power prior to WW1 to achieve near hegemony was Napoleonic France. I don’t think you really want to go down that road.
This is false, as you have been repeatedly shown.
No, thinking that there was something unique to pre-WW1 German society and culture relative to its European peers that would have indicated that Nazi Germany was an inevitably destined phenomenon is actually what is puerile about your arguments as such.
