damn goober, pass it around dude...don't bogart...

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

As though treaties were ever considered binding
on Germany by the Nazi government!

And I am not obliged to limit my source material
to the treaty.

For example, here is a link to Nuremberg providing
testimony on German intentions and behavior in
Alsace-Lorraine and elsewhere on the pre-war border area:

Trials of German Major War Criminals: Volume 5

(from link, emphasis added):




No, sorry, you are wrong and must not have have
not read the treaty very carefully yourself.

Here is what the treaty says:

The Avalon Project : Franco-German Armistice : June 25, 1940

(from link):



Addressed.




Because they had a gun at their heads.




I cut one leg out from under you, and here
you cut the other leg out from under yourself.




BBC - WW2 People's War - A Last Appeal to Reason by Adolf Hitler

Not that I want to bother with anything Hitler said,
but the text of his "appeal" is not in readable format.

Hitler, having conquered the most productive area of
western Europe, now wanted free reign to dominate
central Europe and conquer the USSR as well.

He wanted the UK to sit by and watch Germany
become hegemon of the entire continent.

Thank God Great Britain chose to stand against him.




Big fucking deal.




Ridiculous. See above.




I have had enough of you and Hitler.

It is over.

Goodbye.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

If we had stayed out of WWI the allies would of won without us. After all the war was pretty one-sided by the time the United States had troops on the ground and poised to be over. The problem was, we couldn't stay out of the war forever, after all we were involved if only because we were supplying the British. So of course we were dragged into it by the British & Germans.

__________________
I don't pretend to know everything, educate me, and I'll try to educate you. Shouting matches and insults aren't going to convince me.

And I believe, or reasons which I have elaborated
in detail, Germany was so much the foremost aggressor
that the others are immaterial.




You are trying to limit the case to Austria-Serbia,
and that is unsupportable.

The system of alliances guarenteed an Austro-Serbian
war could not be confined to Austria and Serbia.

Furthermore, Germany had had its sights on France
for decades. France was the real target for Germany,
and the Austro-Serbian conflict was merely an excuse
to break France.




Baloney.

Germany could have repulsed any attack by Russia
and France combined and done so easlily.

I have read of the concerns of the German military.
I find it hard to believe they could have so greatly
underestimated their own power short of serious delusion.




Now that is really odd because I have the book,
I have read it twice, and I missed the parts about
Germany's sincere diplomacy.

Of course they passed diplomatic notes back and forth.

But the fact is Germany had been bullying France
for decades, Germany was spoiling for a fight with
France, and Germany decided in 1914 that the time
was ripe to go ahead and start the fight.




Well, Austria's centuries-long expansion in the Balkans
was not totally right. It would have done best to leave
Bosnia-Herzegovena to some fate other than annexation.

Serbia's support of terror was totally wrong, but not
wrong enough to justify the risk extension of war to
Germany, France and Russia.




Go for it.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

Survival of Weimar is irrelevant to the your premise.

It would not matter what government Germany had
if WW2 could have been averted despite Versailles.

Versailles would have worked if it had been enforced.

Germany could not rearm and go to war without control
of the Rhineland, and it could not control the Rhineland
without having military forces there. Versailles prohibited
Germany from stationing such forces.

Well, when in 1936 the German military reoccupied the
Rhineland in violation of Versailles the French alone
could have easily evicted them. In fact, the German
occupying forces had orders to retreat immediately if
the French took action.

France and the UK would have been within their rights
to remain in occupation of the Rhineland from 1936
in perpetuity as long as Germany had a government
which did not accept Versailles to the letter. It was
within their power to do so in 1936.

So it was not the terms of the Versailles treaty which
led to WW2 as much as the fact France and Germany
did not force Germany to abide by it.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

Sometimes war is the only means left for a nation to redress wrongs commited against it by another nation. War is a necessary evil and not all declarations of war are wrong.

I am not trying to limit it, but simply point out that Germany was right and just in its support of its Austrian ally.


How do we know this Viking? Because you say so?

The fact of the matter is that the Russians, and their French allies, had numbers (in both men and equipment) on their side, as well as technology in some cases. To allow both countries to fully mobilize and take the initiative would have been a massive risk. Keep in mind that while the combined German armies had crushed France in 1870, the German army of 1914 had seen no real combat since then. Furthermore, the French army of 1914 was not the French army of 1870. Germany could simply not take the risk of allowing Russia and France to be the first to strike, and thereby seize the initiative.

So, what makes their diplomacy insincere in your eyes? Is it simply a matter of personal opinion?

You are correct, there were circles in Germany (the General Staff in particular) who were pushing for a war with France. Why? Because they saw that the gap (mainly quality) between the French and German armies was decreasing. They knew that their window to strike was closing.


I would agree with you had they (Serbian nationalists) not shot the crown prince.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

All right and justice were nullified by the assurance
that the conflict could not be kept local.




The history books say so.

In the West Germany massacred every attempt 1914-17
by the French and British to break through its front.
If France had been the only opponent in the West, and if
the front had been half as long it would have been even
easier for the Germans. The French would not have been
able to win enough ground in which to bury their dead.

In the East against Russia I can rest my case with one
word: Tannenberg.




Addressed above.




The Russian army was gravely underequipped, and its
transportation system was a mess.




In what cases? I recall reading that the French 75mm
gun might have been the best field piece of 1914, but
Germany had good guns too, and it had a lot of them




The Russians did take the initiative in 1915 and they were
slaughtered at Tannenberg. In the West the French would
have had no alternative other than frontal assault against
prepared defences. They would have fared no better than
the Russians who at least had room to manoevre.




Keep in mind that in 1864 the Prussian army had not seen
combat since Waterloo. Then after a small action against
Denmark it swept all before it against Austria and France.

And keep in mind that while Germany and France had
identical populations in 1870, Germany had 30 million more
than France in 1914.




What was so different?




Addressed above.




I have found my copy of Deadnaught by Robert Massie,
have you found yours?

On page 857 (1991 ed. hardcover) we find the Kaiser saying
this to the Austrian Foreign Minister:

"If his majesty Franz Josph demands some thing, the Serbian government must yield, and if she does not then Belgrade must be bombarded and occupied until his majesty's will is fulfilled. You may rest assured that I stand behind you as any ally and am ready to draw the sword."

This exchange took place on 10/26/13, long before
anyone had hurt a hair on Prince Ferdinand's head.

Germany had no intention of conducting sincere diplomacy.
On the contrary it gave Austria a blank check come what may:
no negotiation, no compromise, no solution short of war.



I do not believe the German army was losing any ground
to the French army, and I challenge you to document your
assertion.




So- one man's life is worth risking the lives of millions
to you, huh?

That is a hairbrained attitude to take.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord, deliver us.

Hello TSGracchus,

I know we have our differences, but this is an interesting thread you started. Being an avid reader of Science Fiction and history, among other things, I have always been interested in alternative history stories. Have you read any of Harry Turtledove's alternative histories?

Amazon.com: Harry Turtledove: Books

He has written alternative histories of the American Civil War -- the Union and the Confederacy end in stalemate. From that he goes on with an alternative history of WW I with the Union becoming an ally of Germany and the South joining forces with Britain. He also has written alternative histories of WW II. My fun favorite is his "what if" aliens attack Earth in the middle and at the height of WW II when all sides are engaged and fighting, after Pearl Harbor but before D-Day.

Good thread, obviously since it did not sink like a stone, and tashi deleks,

M

I sounds like you're pretty well versed in your European history. So I had to go back and brush up a little. These types of questions are always interesting because one never really knows how cause and effect will play out. Even though you didn't tread in that arena, I agree that America-bashers use these parlor games to gratify their dislike for America.

As I recall President Wilson had a stroke during the negotiations of the Versailles Treaty. He did indeed want easier terms. And if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons Germany's coup was successful is because the allies signaled they would deal fairly with Germany if she surrendered. The Germans had been at war for four long years and were ready to have done with it. Germany was also very fractured politically. There were communists, socialists, monarchists, democrats, and everything in between. So the opposition parties used the unpopular war to gain advantage over Kaiser and bring themselves to power.

(FEEL FREE TO DIFFER IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE)

So the new government in Germany abandoned the war effort expecting even handed treatment. The problem came when France undermined the treaty by playing politics and imposing harsher terms than America wanted. And, when Wilson became disabled, they used that to their full advantage. The French imposed reparations on Germany for the war. This caused economic turmoil in Germany. It also lead to the runaway inflation. As I recall there were items of contention about who controlled the assets in Alsace-Lorraine. Plus the area of the Ruhr Valley was operated by Germany but most of the output was taken as war reparations too.

So the Germans did have a point when they claimed they were cheated by the Treaty of Versailles. On the other hand, they were at war and expecting the French to play nice was very naive. So, now we come to your original question: What if America had stayed home? I think the Germans would not have had an excuse to abandon the war and the coup would not have happened. France and Germany would have been forced to negotiate. And as such, they would have come to more even terms. Reparations would not have been an issue and the depression would not have been or at least not have been as severe.

So, in some regard our intervention did more harm than good. We lost a lot of good men, and didn't really resolve anything. But who's to say they would not have gone to war again at a later date, but this time without the leadership of Adolf Hitler. They might have actually made some sane decisions at crucial times such as not attacking Russia. In times of defeat, a good leader would have saved his army rather than let it be annihilated at Stalingrad. A good leader would have sued England for peace right after Dunkirk and played on the anti-war sentiment in England at that time. They would have used the anti-war sentiment against the allies just as it was used against them in WWI.

Let me make a current observation based on a historical perspective. First, we see that meddling with good intentions doesn't always work. If we have faith in ourselves to be self-governing, we should have faith in others to make their own decisions. In that regard, we needed to restore some order to the Middle East for our own security. Our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was nothing like our involvement in WWI. But we see politicians using anti-war sentiment very effectively to gain political advantage. Unfortunately the citizenry doesn't have the historical perspective of some and can fall prey to an anti-war emotion appeal. We have to be prepared to see our actions through to a successful conclusion, whatever that is and however long it takes. If we don't, we risk fomenting future problems of those who distort history like Hitler did regarding the Versailles Treaty.

RJ

An important consideration. If we look at how the Weimar Republic was formed, how the German revolution took place, it was very much a product of the military defeat, but the question remains whether some sort of constitutional republic -- probably a constitutional monarchy similar to Great Britain rather than a full-fledged republic similar to France -- could have eventuated.

Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This chaos, which presumably wouldn't have happened absent the military defeat, led to the overthrow of the Kaiser, the abolition of the monarchy, and the creation of the republic which eventually became Nazi Germany -- one of many historical examples of a fledgeling republic suffering chaos and eventually a dictatorship after a revolution; the same thing happened in France at the turn of the 19th century.

I agree with everything here except that the depression wouldn't have happened. The Great Depression was a global breakdown of laissez-faire capitalism. The collapse of the U.S. economy dragged the world down with it. However, I do agree it would not have been as severe in Germany without the Versailles treaty. That's what led to the hyperinflation which was a specifically German outcome.

I don't think the Germans could have won overwhelmingly enough to impose similarly harsh peace conditions on France. But I could be wrong. Someone with better knowledge of military strategy might examine the situation. One way in which I might be wrong is this: mobility had been restored to the front by the development of new tactics and the invention of the tank, so the western front in 1918 did not bog down into trench-warfare stalemate the way it did in 1914-16. Suppose the German offensive, using troops released from the eastern front, had succeeded in breaking through? Could they have achieved a 1940-like outcome? If they did -- bear in mind these were not the Nazis -- would they have imposed such a harsh peace on France, or would they have settled for "Let's get this bloody mess over and done with and have peace on decent terms."

There is a possible indicator in what was done in the peace negotiations with Russia. But not a certain one.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, two important observations. First, while the Germans demanded substantial territorial concessions from Russia, the territories to be ceded were ones already occupied by German troops, and also ones that were not part of Russia proper; no actual Russian territory was demanded (nor ceded even in the harsher treaty that actually ended the war after Russia refused to make peace on the terms offered). And second, the Germans were negotiating probably without taking the threat of the United States into consideration, so that this may be taken as a genuine indication of what a victorious-but-weary Germany might offer in the way of peace terms.

A similar offer on the western front -- the cession by France of territories occupied by German troops and not part of France proper -- might include the reaffirmation of German ownership of Alsace and Lorraine (which Germany had controlled before the war started, seized in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870). Reparations might also have been demanded, since otherwise Germany would be coming out of the war with no gains at all to show for it. I cannot imagine Germany in 1918 demanding continued occupation of half of France as was imposed in 1940, nor France accepting that condition. But again, I could be wrong, if the German victory were truly overwhelming. I invite other thoughts on the subject.

Possibly, but the question of "why" emerges. In the case of Nazi Germany, we know why. Germany was angry about the harsh peace terms and the collapse of the German economy; the Germans threw their support to Hitler, who restored the economy and rebuilt the military, and Hitler had an amazingly ambitious and brazen goal of conquest to the east. It's something rather unique in modern history. His intention was to conquer European Russia, murder all the Russians living there (I'm not making this up, it's in Mein Kampf), and fill the empty territory with German colonists who would in one generation breed a vast and powerful German nation, which could then dominate the world. This is such a weird goal that no normal government would aspire to it, any more than the equally weird ambition to annihilate all the Jews.

Given that Germany would not be run by a lunatic, and that she would be fairly satisfied with her situation having won the last war, what reason would she have had to go to war again so soon? Well, it's hard to predict these things. And we may also extend the "what-if" a bit further. Suppose she did not? Suppose there was no European theater of World War II. Would Europe today be as peaceful as it is? Was it the appalling bloodletting of the two World Wars together, back to back within a single lifetime, that finally convinced that most bellicose of all corners of the globe to adopt the ways of peace? Would it be more like its old fractious self today without that experience?

I agree with all of this except that Hitler DID sue for peace with England after Dunkirk. Actually, he never wanted to go to war with England at all. He considered the English to be ethnic Germans, and had an idea of ceding rule of the seas to the British while the Germans would be the dominant power on the European continent. That the Anglo-German war went on after