I'm grateful that nations can't be thrown off the Security Council. If they could, we probably would have been booted by now.

8/28/2006 4:43:37 PM

Quote :

"This in and of itself would not have prevented the next big war, which, to my mind, was inevitable. Obviously, Germany wasn't the only one to go fascist -- in order to prevent Italy and Japan from taking that tack, you'd have also had to give them all the stuff they thought they deserved after the war, which would have meant taking away from somebody else, and then all those somebodies just would have been all the more pissed off and you'd have to sit on them all the harder Second, it isn't as though WWII had to be against fascism. The bolshies were around by then, too, and they were at least as ideologically opposed to us as Hitler was. Without Hitler to keep them in check, we may have gone at it with them (remember the game Red Alert? ) Besides, we couldn't have gone after the Germans much harder. They'd surrendered. It probably would have been just as bad if, after their total capitulation, we just said, "No, we're gonna keep shooting you even when you're waving white flags.""

I agree with you as far as the USSR taking Germany's place in WW2. Italy and Japan on the other hand would have been delt with on seperate occations if at all. Italy's power was spured by the fact that Germany was so close and the Nazis were so apeshit. Japan had been invading Asia for a decade before WW2. What makes you think anyone would have given a shit if they didnt bomb pearl harbor and if they never joined the Axis powers. Japan would have taken over most of China and Korea and most likely been a huge pain in the ass a few decades down the road.

and as for as going after the Germans "hard" we did. We just left them afterwards and charged then with billions of dollars worth of damages and comp. This makes people mad.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 5:38 PM. Reason : oh and this thread has gone pretty long without getting fucked up, so dont just say the UN sucks]

8/28/2006 5:37:20 PM

Quote :

"It probably would have been just as bad if, after their total capitulation, we just said, "No, we're gonna keep shooting you even when you're waving white flags.""

But that is not what happened. Germany never surrendered, Germany was never occupied, it just signed a peace treaty to the effect that it gave up trying to win. The German people never saw the allies coming, didn't suffer the horror of French and English troops on the streets of Berlin, to them losing the war was never "real", all abstract. This is no way compared to the state of Germany after WW2, where most major cities lay in ruins, every German was forever scared by the memory of war and where it leads. To truely defeat an enemy you must first convince them they started the war and then make them suffer unspeakable hardship because of the war.

Near the end of WW2 the Japanese tried to surrender several times, each time we refused until they agreed to an unconditional surrender. I believe this was the application of a lesson learned at the end of WW1. We knew we needed to occupy the country, to direct it towards a peaceful future.

Secondly, the rise of fascist hitler was a direct result of German economic mis-management after WW1 which might have been prevented by the imposition of an occupational authority continuing into the 20's.

8/28/2006 6:18:15 PM

Quote :

"Germany never surrendered, Germany was never occupied, it just signed a peace treaty to the effect that it gave up trying to win."

Oh, sure, sure. But its obvious that the gerries were willing to submit to some truly humiliating peace terms, so I don't think it's hard to believe that they would have just surrendered if we had rejected the idea of a nice little treaty, even before we got terribly far into Germany itself.

Of course, it might not have happened that way, either, but it's awful damn hard to say.

Quote :

"To truely defeat an enemy you must first convince them they started the war and then make them suffer unspeakable hardship because of the war. "

We basically did this. War guilt was part of the treaty and the economic woes Germany went through were pretty fucking terrible.

Quote :

"Secondly, the rise of fascist hitler was a direct result of German economic mis-management after WW1 which might have been prevented by the imposition of an occupational authority continuing into the 20's."

"Might" being the operative war. What was our huge motivation to make sure everything in Germany was honky-dory, economy-wise? We sure didn't give a shit when most of the allies were pumping them for reparations. And even if we wanted to do a good job, we could have fucked up (see our own Great Depression).

Basically, then, what you're saying here is that Hitler wouldn't have come to power if everything in Germany was peachy, and I agree with you.

Quote :

"This makes people mad."

So does occupation, as I'm sure I don't need to tell either of you given our current military situations in the world.

Quote :

"Italy and Japan on the other hand would have been delt with on seperate occations if at all."

Sure, but who's to say who else might have joined them in this radically different-looking history? Or whether either side might have had more success in the slightly longer term if they didn't have their ally starting fights with everybody all the time? Like you say:

Quote :

"Japan would have taken over most of China and Korea and most likely been a huge pain in the ass a few decades down the road."

Agreed, a solid possibility. I'm not saying that WWII would have happened at the same time it did in our timeline, or in a necessarily similar fashion, but I don't know that there's any way we could have ended WWI that didn't leave us with another big war to fight in the Twentieth Century.

8/28/2006 9:44:49 PM

The UN is a joke because it could never declare war against anybody. The UN is proof that the international political scene is an anarchy. If there was truly going to be a body of government that rised above the jurisdiction of nations, the UN would be far more aggressive. For now it is relegated to cleanup duties, like a shitty RP.

8/28/2006 10:20:14 PM

ha well I have to agree with you on that but giving the UN more power is something many people would puke on their bibles over.

8/28/2006 10:26:45 PM

Quote :

"the economic woes Germany went through were pretty fucking terrible"

Not entirely. Yes, the economy was mobilized for war, and the people actually on the front were killed/starved/etc. But in an age before widespread aerial bombardment, the vast majority of Germany was not touched. The average German Civilian was not substantially worse off during WW1 than American's were during WW2. Yes, rationing was more severe, but hunger was no where to be seen. It was an oddity of the war just how much effort the German government put forth to shield the citizenry from the realities of the war.

Quote :

"but I don't know that there's any way we could have ended WWI that didn't leave us with another big war to fight in the Twentieth Century"

My favorite alternate reality does not involve WW1 taking place at all.

And Stalinist Russia would not invade Europe for the fun of it. It is an old tradition in Russia that the ruler's only thought is to maintain power (stems from the psychological belief that the Russian Empire was always on the verge of collapse, even after it collapsed). Invading Europe does not re-enforce Stalin's Power since Russia could lose the war.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/28/2006 10:40:02 PM

^ i think you ment WW2...

and if you do then yes I agree with what the USSR would have done but a war with Japan might have been inevitable since they were all fucking crazy.

8/28/2006 11:41:58 PM

^ No, I meant WW1. If WW1 had not taken place Russia would not have suffered a revolution, ruling out a world war against Russian Communism. If WW1 had not taken place the British Empire would not have suffered financial ruin which would have helped the world maintain the Sterling Standard (Hard Gold Standard abandoned in 1916), preventing the trade imbalance crises of the late 20s and the financial collapse of the 30s. A strong trading Britain would have also tempered the 1930 trade war.

In America no WW1 would have dramatically slowed the rise of statism in this country, from which Mussolini and Hitler drew a lot of intellectual and financial support.

All in all, WW1 was not inevitable, Germany did not need the war. But Germany's government became convinced its enemies were mobilizing (which they were not), and the only chance of survival was a first strike. According to the timetable, a very short time after Germany went to war, the conflict which started the whole fracas was over in a stalemate. So, if everyone had just waited there would have been no need for the war. Of course, if Francisco Ferdinand had not been assassinated...

The great depression might have been inevitable, all my "What-Ifs" might just postpone it. But a politically stable country can weather a depression without the rise of fascism, but Germany was not politically stable at the time because of WW1.

Of course, if only William McKinley had not been shot...

8/29/2006 9:12:57 AM

Quote :

"The average German Civilian was not substantially worse off during WW1 than American's were during WW2."

I was referring to the postwar years, with all the inflation and suffering and whatnot. It's not quite the horrors of firebombing, but I think it's hard to set a specific level of devastation that would have made them knuckle under for good.

Quote :

"And Stalinist Russia would not invade Europe for the fun of it."

No, but they would conceivably invade to bolster communist supporters, or out of paranoia with all of Western Europe under the sway of the Allies.

Quote :

" edit post The UN is a joke because it could never declare war against anybody."

Right, but isn't it quite likely that it has also helped prevent wars? Is it not possible that it was instrumental in keeping the Cuban Missile Crisis from developing into a war?

Quote :

"All in all, WW1 was not inevitable"

I disagree with you there. I don't think the political situation in Europe was sustainable -- Germany may not have wanted to go to war just then, but they were beefing up their military and causing major tension with England for a while. Frankly, after the unifications of Germany and Italy, I think a massive war in Europe (and thus, the world) was not avoidable.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2006 1:59:38 PM

Quote :

"Right, but isn't it quite likely that it has also helped prevent wars? Is it not possible that it was instrumental in keeping the Cuban Missile Crisis from developing into a war?"

What kind of revisionist BS is this..?

8/29/2006 2:11:30 PM

The UN: "Come on you guys.. seriously. Seriously you guys, stop fighting, I'm not joking around this time. PLEASE stop fighting, will that do it? God Damnit, I'm going back to feeding Africa, screw you guys."

8/29/2006 2:12:19 PM

well throwing around the weight of the UN only goes so far when the people fighting are african warlords.

8/29/2006 9:51:15 PM

Quote :

"What kind of revisionist BS is this..?"

The U.N. and similar organizations were essential to getting world opinion behind us solidly enough for us to get away with the blockade.

Quote :

"Seriously you guys, stop fighting, I'm not joking around this time."

Well, that seems to have gotten us quite a few ceasefires in its time, most recently in Lebanon.

8/30/2006 11:10:44 AM