| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133119
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 11:34am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I found myself today thinking about the American entry into the First World War, which came very late in the game. The War began in 1914, but American forces were not on the ground in Europe until 1918. It is now widely believed that it was those troops who brought with them the Flu virus that would go on to kill 100,000,000 people, world wide, in the years immediately following the War. President Wilson himself succumbed to the Flu, while he was in France for discussions of reparations to be paid by Germany after the War. Wilson was originally strongly opposed to reparations, but after his bout with the Flu he changed his mind, and voted for crushing, punishing penalties to be paid by Germany. Many historians attribute his change of mind to the Flu, which left many of those who survived it mentally altered. It was anger over the crippling reparations that gave birth to the German mindset that eventually gave us Hitler, and the Second World War.Now, let's tweak a small detail. Supposed the Yanks had entered the conflict as soon as it started? This would almost certainly have shortened the War, but, more significantly, it might have meant there would not have been a Flu epidemic. A general view now is that the Flu started on a pig farm in Oklahoma, and it was men who worked on that farm being brought into the Expeditionary Forces that introduced the virus into an ideal environment for breeding. If America had come into the War when everybody else did, it would have been BEFORE the Flu virus got started, and those men would likely have been shipped overseas BEFORE they were infected. No Flu means no change of mind for Wilson (presumably), and so no reparations paid by Germany. No reparations, no crushing debt, no outrage and anger ---- and no Hitler? And without Hitler, no Second World War?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Hunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5178
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 1:15pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Interesting. If that alternate scenario had played out, would Hitler now be famous for his Art, instead of his politics?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Chris Durnell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1235
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 1:33pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
The more likely scenario is that Wilson changed his mind on reparations for the same reason he changed his mind on a lot of things - he was willing to sacrifice almost everything in order to establish the League of Nations. Extremely ironic given that America never joined the League.
Many historians now admit that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were not so draconian or unusual as has been claimed. Clearly, the Germans imposed a far harsher peace on Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and Germany's previous surrender terms to the French in 1871 had extremely harsh reparations as well (Versailles had far worse reparations, but mainly because of the vast destruction to northern France and Belgium).
The problem was not the terms of the Treaty itself, but the difference between what Germany thought it was going to receive when it agreed to an armistice in 1918, and the actual terms of the treaty.
First, Germany expected a fairly lenient peace - "a peace without victors" in terms of Wilsonian rhetoric. From their point of view, they had done some very nice things - they got rid of the Kaiser, established a democracy, and agreed to stop fighting at a time when their armies were still on foreign soil. And the armistice was to cease fighting, it was not a surrender.
If the Allies had pushed Germany to surrender right there and then, they would either have had to negotiated surrender terms that Germany would have accepted, or Germany would have continued to fight, and probably collapse by 1919 as the Allies pushed into the Rhineland with their planned spring offensive. At that point, the Germans would have accepted what terms they could get. In either of these cases, Germany would have realized they lost the war. At this point, if a similar treaty like Versailles was imposed, it likely would not have cause as much trouble for reasons I will shortly explain.
Instead, the Allies just accepted an armistice. When the Treaty was revealed many months later, the Germans were furious as they would never have agreed to such terms in 1918. They would have continued to fight (and eventually be defeated). They literally believed the Allies had double crossed them by implying a more lenient peace than they had intended.
When the terms were revealed, the German government (now ruled by Social Democrats) originally intended to fight rather than accept the treaty. However, the German military revealed that they could in no way stop the Allies, and that Germany would be doomed to an even worse fate. However, the military was prepared to fight (and thus more or less destroy their country) simply to preserve their "honor." Rather than accept this, the civilian government accepted the peace. This both saved Germany, and preserved the military's "honor" as it was not their decision.
However, that strange set of circumstances is what lead to the "stab in the back legend" - the legend that Germany was not defeated in WWI, but only betrayed. This is what enabled Hitler to rise to power. The terms of the treaty by itself would not be sufficient if not for the belief by Germans that they were essentially "tricked" and "betrayed" into it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Derek Gardner
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 August 2008
Posts: 402
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 3:05pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I'm more interested in whether America should have entered the war in the first place.
Gore Vidal deemed Wilson one of the great fools of history, averring that without our intervention, the Great War may very well have ended in a stalemate, thus forestalling the rise of fascism in the decades to come.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6832
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 4:01pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Interesting. If that alternate scenario had played out, would Hitler now be famous for his Art, instead of his politics?
I don't think he would have, he would have just been a mediocre non famous artist, hating those better than he was and bitter about his lot in life.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
William Roberge
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 11303
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 4:08pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
"For want of a nail..." keeps coming to mind.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Chris Durnell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1235
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 5:26pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Gore Vidal deemed Wilson one of the great fools of history, averring that without our intervention, the Great War may very well have ended in a stalemate, thus forestalling the rise of fascism in the decades to come. |
|
|
That's the problem - we don't know if WWI would have ended in stalemate or a German victory. Without the promise of American intervention (and the first arrival of troops), it is certainly possible that Allied morale would have collapsed with the German 1918 Spring Offensive (an offensive that in a few weeks caused the Germans to advance farther than the Allies had in years). If that happens, then Germany becomes the dominant power in Europe, and hence the world.
Since Germany was an avowed militarist semi-autocracy, this would not have been in American interests. The USA, like Great Britain, was a flank power in Europe. Both countries had a strong incentive to not see any one power to be dominant in Europe. As long as Europe was not dominated by any one power, but countries are safe from invasion. But if any one country can dominate Europe, then the possibility for invasion happens (more so for Great Britain, than the USA, but the same principle applies).
If the decision is to be made between American involvement and German dominance, than intervention is likely the right choice. If it is stalement, than intervention is probably a mistake. Unfortunately, no one could know beforehand the most likely scenario.
Edited by Chris Durnell on 17 October 2010 at 9:22am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paul Kimball
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2189
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 6:11pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
With no world war II, so many people would've lived different lives, I would
guess that many of us wouldn't exist and the world would be different in
more ways that we could possibly imagine
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
No WWII and no A-bomb, and computers would have been developped much later. No A-bomb and no craze about the possible mutating effects of radiation. That pretty much erases the influences for the FF, Spider-Man, the Hulk, and X-Men. No a-bomb and no cold war perhaps. No WWII and no Captain America and his copycats. No WWII and no Israel. Perhaps less tensions in the Middle-East or tensions of a different sort. No WWII and no Berline wall: possibly Europe as economically strong as the US or more. No cold war and no race for the moon ... and none of the collateral discoveries made that found applications in other areas. The great depression may have lasted longer without the machinery of war to stir up businesses into creating jobs. No WWII and millions of people survive who would have been killed otherwise. Possibly no Korean war and no Bay of Pigs incident. Nixon might have won the debate against Kennedy and Watergate never occurred to permanently tarnish American politics. No Kennedy assassination, either. Without the advent of black and whites fighting together against a common ennemy the 60s civil right movements might have been delayed or naver taken placed or might have escalated earlier. WWII seems to have acted as a catalyst driving theory into technology. Our modern technology would probably be very different today. We would probably be somewhat less of an consumerism-obsessed culture.
Edited by Jesus Garcia on 16 October 2010 at 7:01pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ray Brady
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3740
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 6:50pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
If neither the Second World War nor the Spanish Flu epidemic had occurred, what do you supposed the world population would be today?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Anthony Warlow
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 July 2010
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 6:54pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
with no WW2, the US economy would have been crushed by Europe and Asia by the 1960s. We would have had to become part of the British Commonwealth again to get financial assistance from the UK, else learn to speak Chinese and Japanese.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12736
|
| Posted: 16 October 2010 at 7:41pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Failing to see the problem with that...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
