Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Thoughts on World War I and II
If the United States and Britain had not been so adamant in their belief of the total annihilation of Nazi Germany we could have allowed Communism to be destroyed by the Germans, instead our pitiful alliance with Stalin resulted in several proxy wars, all those in Korea and Vietnam killed more or less in vain, and countless trillions of dollars wasted on defeating the Soviet Union, a socialist system doomed to collapse.
But this leads us back to World War I. If the United States had never been involved, the Germans would have conquered what they wanted and formed a power on continental Europe. Instead, the businesses in Britain saw Germany as a threat and went to war against the Second Reich for virtually no reason. The battle was for the French, not for the British, and definitely not for the Americans. If Britain and America had not gotten involved it is likely there would not have been a Communist Revolution in Russia, no Treaty of Versailles, and thus no Nazi Germany to fight World War II with.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Filed under: Politics
No World War, no USSR, probably.
No Versailles, no WWII, absolutely.
No US involvement in the Big One, no Versailles. A more equitable truce would have been achieved after the (most historians presume) prolonged stalemate.
Our involvement, as always, only made things worse.
In the final analysis, “What IF?” style like the old Marvel Comics, the dual monarchy of Austria and Hungary, the Czar’s of Russia, and the Hohenzollern’s of Prussia, could not have survived into the mid-twentieth century without continent-wide revolution. These autocratic aristocrats were all heading for a fall, so it’s not like we “saved the world” by our participation. Shit was gonna happen. Kinda like the Mid-East today.
I suspect that we would have had some incarnation of communist / authoritarian Russia whether we intervened in the World Wars or not. The fall of the czar system was inevitable, due to pressure from other revolutions and changes across the West, if only because Russia wanted to play ‘progressive’ and follow along. Plus, I don’t think the Nazis could have defeated Russia. Probably, we would have seem Europe sectioned off into two fascist, warring supra-empires, similar to those in 1984.
Sadly, I think the atomic bombing of Japan was largely motivated by a desire to force surrender before the Russians got there. The anti-communism race certainly caused its own share of turmoil.
I sincerely doubt that Germany would have won WWI had the US not intervened. They would likely have had some degree of success had the Brits stayed out. Of course, the Brits staying out of a war is as likely as my waking up rich, young and handsome one of these mornings.
In the absence of Wilson getting his way, WWI would probably have stalemated, with maybe a slight advantage to the French, Brits et al. It was the US involvement that tilted it to the point that made the Treaty fo Versailles possible, which in turn made the Weimar inflation inevitable, which made Hitler possible.
The costs of WWI made a lot of empires fall, but then falling is what all empires eventually do. As Terry states, that was gonna happen anyway.
I have many more thoughts on this topic, but I lack the energy right now to beat them into shape. Given the minimal coherence of the preceding 3 paragraphs, I have to assume it would only get worse. So maybe I should just go to bed.
What could very well have happened is the complete decimation of Europe to where the whole place rise up under an Adolph of some sort. Who knows? But it’s does serve as an inkblot test; to see if you think America has been a good influence through history or a bad one.
I’ve been places where America has had very little political or military influence (east Africa). Trust me; it isn’t better off for it. You might want to ask the Zimbabweans or Congolese about it at the moment, and the Rwandans last decade.
However, if you want to consider future impact, you might want to spend 20+ minutes here (guest login will do) to see one of the most professional and informative presentations I’ve ever seen by a blogger. Slanted, yes; but the seven scenarios are all valid possibilities.
“No Versailles, No WWII absolutely….”
For a compelling look at the Treaty of Versailles and its immense
consequences down to the present day, DO have a look at my
fascinating new book — “A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the
Price We Pay Today” published by Wiley and available at Amazon.com and
most bookstores !
The author (myself) — executive editor of Forbes.com and a veteran
foreign correspondent for The New York Times and CBS News is also
available for speeches and lectures!
Best,
David A. Andelman
david@ashatteredpeace.com
Mike - Sub-Saharan Africa suffers to this day from the artificial borders imposed by European colonial powers for their own efficiency. If you put several disparate ethnic groups together in a politcal unit, the sniping among them makes it less likely they will unite & rise up against the colonial power. That reduces the cost to garrison the place. It’s an efficient business model for a colony, but a poor political model for a nation. That’s why those countries have typically been ruled by strongmen like Mugabe and Idi Amin. The Europeans created a series of countries (not nations) where, left to their own devices, the two lead cases are dictatorship and failed state.
Given our track record, I can only envision that increased US interference there would make things worse. Am I missing something?
Lamont is right on a major factor of the third world’s problems being from Europeans creating borders that wouldn’t have come about had the natural course of events taken place.
The Europeans and Americans have brought foreign investment to many places and helped to relieve some areas, but in so many cases the corrupt governments that arise squander foreign aid and incite rebellions and wars than end up destroying what was built up.
The only way third world countries will ever become like the United States is to leave them alone and let capitalism take its course. You cannot force a people to be free–if people want Communism then let them have it in their borders, they are the only ones that will suffer forit.
You’re missing a lot. It wonderful you think things were so full of love and peace before the Europeans showed up; hardly. Those ethnic groups were at constant war with each other before Europeans got there and only European superior firepower syopped it while they were colonies. Now that the European influence is pretty much gone, they’ve merely gone back to the olds ways, just with better weaponry. In some places- like Uganda- certain tribal conflicts have ended because they were forced to live together. Not all, but many.
Try reading the history of the Zulus; they didn’t get to be the fierce warrior race they were just practicing up for Europeans. Same in the Sudanese.
Actually, Rwanda did have a unique bit of European mucking with it. The French ended up splitting up one people into two; those with more than ten cattle and those with less. Thus arose the Tutsis and the Hutus. But nearly all other conflicts have arisen fro pre-Europeantribal feuds that have been going on for a millenium.
Sorry, but Europeans are not the only source of war and conflict; they’re the only ones who keep excellent records on them.