Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
The Turks had to get the Armenians out of there to win because they were aiding the Russians; ethnic cleansing was integral to the war effort. Germany could afford to wait until it wasn't in total war mode anymore.
Views on Niall Ferguson's analysis of WW1
- Thread starter Caesar Australis
- Start date
The Turks had to get the Armenians out of there to win because they were aiding the Russians; ethnic cleansing was integral to the war effort. Germany could afford to wait until it wasn't in total war mode anymore.
Don't underestimate the German penchant for law and order. - Once peace had been made, forceful arbitrary cleansing would have become impossible. - A law would have to be made in the Reichstag, with directions for its execution added by the ministry of the interior, etc. - Quite a complicated procedure, and only possible if the conservatives and the Alldeutsche had a majority in the house, which is highly unlikely.
In case of a Polish-German war, however, there are good prospects for the implementation of a border strip.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
Germany had become a military dictatorship by the end of the war. If the Border Strip couldn't pass the Reichstag, which is not a given, then it would never have to face it. Just label it a purely military affair; was there any parliamentary oversight over the German army's actions in Belgium, or in South-West Africa a decade earlier?
Given all the militarist, nationalist, imperialist bullshit that even the Social Democrats went along with once the war began, I have my doubts about Germany's parliamentary democracy, such as it was, taking a stand against "a defensive measure that the German people is entitled to after all the efforts and sacrifices it had to make during the war imposed upon it," or whatever they decide to sell it as.
The idea that Germany was an evolving parliamentary democracy before the First World War does not seem tenable to me. There was universal suffrage for Reichstag elections, popular involvement in politics with pressure groups, rising support for the SPD and some dissenting voices against an excessive Weltpolitik (Herero Uprising). But I think that the presence of these democratic factors created more tension by placing them into a predicament into which they couldn't operate effectively. The discretionary forces of the 1871 constitution reigned supreme, there was no principle of parliamentary sovereignty when the Chancellor could ignore Reichstag resolutions and was only responsible to the Kaiser. Considering that the Kaiser himself was highly militaristic and could direct the overall direction of policy, Germany was a very militaristic state before the First World War. The army was, in Bismarck's term, a "state within a state", responsible only to the Kaiser and capable of reactionary behaviour through its own arbitrary will (Zabern Affair, declarations of martial law). Spending on the army was unsustainable economically, but there was no way that the deficit could have been reduced because of conservative pressure which blocked proposals such as the introduction of a land tax. Popular involvement in politics was polarising society, through the increasing power of the trade unions or the increasing power of nationalist pressure groups like the Agarian League and the Navy League.
German militarism was entrenched in the constitution, in the Kaiser and the elites, and the barriers to peaceful constitutional change make Ferguson's notion of a benevolent Germany capable of creating a European Union look ridiculous.
German militarism was entrenched in the constitution, in the Kaiser and the elites, and the barriers to peaceful constitutional change make Ferguson's notion of a benevolent Germany capable of creating a European Union look ridiculous.
Last edited:
By the end of the war, neither the Kaiser nor the other petty monarchs had any popular support (see the late 1918 rapid demise of all of them), nor had the conservative elites any chance of gaining a majority in any parliament. - Thus, it was the day of the democrats (socialists, catholics, liberals) - whether they really would have grasped the opportunity no one knows, but the possibility existed.
Ludendorff and Hindenburg would have shrunk to marginal roles once peace had arrived. To believe that they had a popular base simply dismisses the moods of the day. The Germans just were fed up with the war and wanted peace.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
The only things I have to say to this that weren't already in the post you quoted are: (1) the fate of a regime that lost a war does not reflect upon its fate had it won, and (2) I said power, not support.
Though it is not clear to what extent that would survive the war. The Kaiser certainly disliked Ludendorff, and wasn't the most forgiving of men. Ludendorff depended for his position on the support of Hindenburg, but Hindenburg only needed him for his (supposed) military skills, which would be far less of a consideration with the return of peace.
Nor was the army unanimous about the border strip. General Hoffman, in particular, went on record against it, and by some accounts had the Kaiser half-persuaded when H&L butted in. If it is not a fait accompli by the time the shooting stops, I'd say there is a fair chance (though not an absolute certainty) that it never gets carried out.
Germany was a fully functional democracy with a constitutional monarch and a chancellor to be elected by the Reichstag by the end of the war.
It had been a kind of silent military dictatorship before, because everybody acquiesced to III. OHL, who promised victory if their demands were fulfilled.
But in the end, the Imperial Chancellor demanded - and Wilhelm II. executed - the sacking of Ludendorff, which took place in Berlin without any military uprising etc. following suite.
Not a strong indication for a potent miitary dictatorship.
Last edited:
Faeelin
Banned
But this was when the Germans were starving and defeat was all but certain, no? I think it's certainly possible that things would have been different in the event of victory.
Does this mean it wouldn't be tried, though? Admittedly this is not anything knew; The Tsars pursued a campaign of Russification as well.
Of course, one question I have is how does a German Hetamate differ from British Iraq.
Faeelin
Banned
I suppose the example that I always think of is Japan. They had universal suffrage, a healthy democracy in the 1920s. Yet the military seized power in the 1930s and directed the nation into armageddon. What makes Germany's military any different, given their lack of respect for democracy that we saw in OTL?
1. Dunno about political stuff but data I have suggests that Schlieffen plan became a substitute for German foreign policy period. (Rather than limited intervention to prop up ailing Austrian empire they jump into France and Belgium - Hell if Mars had invaded Poland they probably would've attacked France by way of Belgium and Holland? first)
2. Can't see it - France was becoming friendlier with more interests in common with Britain and Germany was becoming more hostile to British interests on the continent and overseas.
3. Rude noise - An almighty Germany with naval bases across the channel and the second most powerful navy in the world and possibly a captured French fleet is pretty nightmarish from the British perspective.
4. I think this is true but can't say for sure.
5. Attacking France by way of Belgium is not a defensive thing to do. Germany decided to make war to sort out problems in the Austro Hungarian empire, this is military aggression isn't it?
6. Don't know but quite possible - kinda like the feeling regarding a Warsaw Pact invasion of Germany circa 1970s 80s.
7. Propaganda may have had a lot of effect on the US which was a major contributor to eventual allied victory.
8. Dunno but seems unlikely considering Britain's economy was very much intact post war.
9. Depends on which part of the war you talk about. Initially the germans had the edge in arms and equipment e.g. grenades, mortars, artillery and ammo stockpiles. By 1918 the best force to fight with was probably the BEF although the AEF would probably have eclipsed the BEF if it had got the time.
10. Depends on which campaign you look at.
11. Definitely true - war's a job maybe not a good job but still just a job.
12. Don't know but am skeptical as always what is and what is not humane in conflict gets a little ludicrous at times.
13. False - so far as I know the reparations were dropped after the first payment was made in order to give the new Germany a chance to get back on it's feet.
Giggle giggle giggle - let's see the war begins because the Austro Hungarian empire is coming apart because guess what? A whole bunch of nationalist types don't wanna be part of the empire anymore. Therefore the solution to this and the way to gain peace in our time is military conquest - what could possibly go wrong? Jesus did this guy not notice that empires based on military conquest have a nasty habit of falling apart?
2. Can't see it - France was becoming friendlier with more interests in common with Britain and Germany was becoming more hostile to British interests on the continent and overseas.
3. Rude noise - An almighty Germany with naval bases across the channel and the second most powerful navy in the world and possibly a captured French fleet is pretty nightmarish from the British perspective.
4. I think this is true but can't say for sure.
5. Attacking France by way of Belgium is not a defensive thing to do. Germany decided to make war to sort out problems in the Austro Hungarian empire, this is military aggression isn't it?
6. Don't know but quite possible - kinda like the feeling regarding a Warsaw Pact invasion of Germany circa 1970s 80s.
7. Propaganda may have had a lot of effect on the US which was a major contributor to eventual allied victory.
8. Dunno but seems unlikely considering Britain's economy was very much intact post war.
9. Depends on which part of the war you talk about. Initially the germans had the edge in arms and equipment e.g. grenades, mortars, artillery and ammo stockpiles. By 1918 the best force to fight with was probably the BEF although the AEF would probably have eclipsed the BEF if it had got the time.
10. Depends on which campaign you look at.
11. Definitely true - war's a job maybe not a good job but still just a job.
12. Don't know but am skeptical as always what is and what is not humane in conflict gets a little ludicrous at times.
13. False - so far as I know the reparations were dropped after the first payment was made in order to give the new Germany a chance to get back on it's feet.
Giggle giggle giggle - let's see the war begins because the Austro Hungarian empire is coming apart because guess what? A whole bunch of nationalist types don't wanna be part of the empire anymore. Therefore the solution to this and the way to gain peace in our time is military conquest - what could possibly go wrong? Jesus did this guy not notice that empires based on military conquest have a nasty habit of falling apart?
It's certainly possible - just imho not inevitable - even from a 1918 PoD.
By 2011 standards, very little. In 1918, the fact that the Ukrainians were white and the Iraqis not would have seemed a major difference. Frex, the British concentration camps in South Africa would probably have passed with little comment had the inmates been coloured.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Not much, in my opinion. I bring it up in relation to claims that the Germans would only be saving eastern Europe from the wicked Soviets and granting self-determination to all.
I can't believe people still buy into this. If it was Versailles that caused Hitler to take power, why were the Nazis a fringe party as late as ten years after the treaty was signed? Every single moderate and right wing party in Weimar Germany was anti-Versailles.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Quite. The Nazi regime was caused by Versailles - in the same way that it was caused by Locarno and Bismarck and Martin Luther and Arminius and the evolution of man. The Nazis banged on about it in their rhetoric, but they banged on about a lot of things that didn't even exist.
Nothing in history has a single cause, but it's easy to imagine scenarios in which Versailles is signed and the Nazis never gain power.
On the other hand it's impossible to imagine a senario in which there was no humiliating schanddiktat of versailles and the nazis still take power.
Has such a claim been made?
My own guess, FWIW, is that they would invoke self-determination when it worked in their favour, and ignore it (conveniently discovering that strategic or other factors took priority) when it didn't. However, I wouldn't say that this would be hugely different from the attitude of the Allied peacemeakers.
Last edited:
Versailles itself didnt cause the rise of the Nazis. However, it did create a political situation in which the Nazis were able to gain power. Do you think some corporal from Austria and his pub party would have ever gained supreme power in the Second Reich?
Yet Ludendorff never amounted to anything in postwar Germany.
Nor was this merely because he lost the war. So did Hindenburg, but that didn't stop him becoming President as soon as the German right had got its breath back. Ludendorff also ran in the same election, but his vote was zilch compared to Hindenburg's.
Ludendorff's "rise" was an historical accident due to Hindenburg's (perhaps mistaken) reliance on his military skill, rather than to any particular appeal or following of his own.