Why so much sympathies for Central Powers?

[trekchu]

By "Leaving the British Empire intact" I didn't mean specifically the colonial Empire (which didn't dissolve until after WW2 anyway), rather I was considering the damage made on the polity as a whole, ie human losses, damage to the economy and so on. While far from an anglophile in any way, I consider the British as the least bad of the XIX century colonial Empires.

I'd say that de-colonisation would have happened anyway, if possibly a little later, but perhaps (without the communist revolutionary imptus) under more ordered forms, spawning more stable and mature countries as a result. It is by no means a foregone conclusion, I readily agree to that. However, avoiding the death of millions of Britons and the damage done to the British economy by the war is a very good thing in and of itself.

As for the Ottomans, I hold them to the same standard as AH and Germany and find them wanting. AH and Germany did not engage in genocide during the war as Turkey did. Therefore I have little sympathy for the Ottoman Empire.

This. Also, as an actual German it's my right and duty to want my country do better, especially if this prevents the Nazis.

"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." - Carl Schurz

 

[Hendryk]

AH and Germany did not engage in genocide during the war as Turkey did. Therefore I have little sympathy for the Ottoman Empire.

So, the Central Powers were cool, except when they engaged in what you label genocide? (which rather betrays your bias; the massacre of the Armenians falls short of the definition of genocide).

Someone who goes out of his way to both praise British colonialism and condemn the Ottomans as perpetrators of a genocide is of questionable objectivity, though it is a position way too often encountered on this board and among the British and American public at large.

 

[trekchu]

So, the Central Powers were cool, except when they engaged in what you label genocide? (which rather betrays your bias; the massacre of the Armenians falls short of the definition of genocide).

Someone who goes out of his way to both praise British colonialism and condemn the Ottoman as perpetrators of a genocide is of questionable objectivity, though it is a position way too often encountered on this board and among the British and American public at large.

How is disapproving of something bad? I for one believe the Victorian era was cool except for all that Imperialism. Does that make me an evil imperialist with a handlebar moustache, Red Coat and Pith Helmet?

 

[Hendryk]

How is disapproving of something bad? I for one believe the Victorian era was cool except for all that Imperialism. Does that make me an evil imperialist with a handlebar moustache, Red Coat and Pith Helmet?

It certainly raises questions about your definition of "cool". What was cool about an era that saw brutal economic oppression of entire populations, the democide of the North American natives, wars waged for profit and jingoistic glory, the rise of modern racism, and more besides?

When I read the novels of Charles Dickens and Emile Zola, the word "cool" is not one that comes to mind.

 

[The Yogi]

So, the Central Powers were cool, except when they engaged in what you label genocide? (which rather betrays your bias; the massacre of the Armenians falls short of the definition of genocide).

Someone who goes out of his way to both praise British colonialism and condemn the Ottomans as perpetrators of a genocide is of questionable objectivity, though it is a position way too often encountered on this board and among the British and American public at large.

Why do you try to dress my position in your own words? Have I said the central powers were "cool"? I have explained why I feel sympathy for them, which is the point of the thread, and "coolness" has nothing to do with it. But sure, if you want to call it that way, yeah, Germany was cool, the AH was cool, Britain was cool, France was cool, Italy was cool. The Ottoman Empire was not cool, because it did commit genocide. Is this really an outlandish position?

 

[Fletch]

Why do you try to dress my position in your own words? Have I said the central powers were "cool"? I have explained why I feel sympathy for them, which is the point of the thread, and "coolness" has nothing to do with it. But sure, if you want to call it that way, yeah, Germany was cool, the AH was cool, Britain was cool, France was cool, Italy was cool. The Ottoman Empire was not cool, because it did commit genocide. Is this really an outlandish position?

He was not quoting you. He was quoting trekchu.

 

[trekchu]

It certainly raises questions about your definition of "cool". What was cool about an era that saw brutal economic oppression of entire populations, the democide of the North American natives, wars waged for profit and jingoistic glory, the rise of modern racism, and more besides?

When I read the novels of Charles Dickens and Emile Zola, the word "cool" is not one that comes to mind.

Cool was the wrong word then. What I meant was that I am supremely interested in this era in spite. Technological advances, the power politcs of the time and the building blocks of the world today.

 

[Hendryk]

Cool was the wrong word then. What I meant was that I am supremely interested in this era in spite. Technological advances, the power politcs of the time and the building blocks of the world today.

OK, fair enough.

 

[Mikestone8]

Actually, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Hitler's lack of promotion was down to his being Austrian instead of a native-born German.

Was it stated as fact, or merely as Adolf's opinion?

Incidentally, I thought he joined the Bavarian Army. Many Bavarian officers, I suspect, would prefer an Austrian to a Prussian.

 

[The Yogi]

He was not quoting you. He was quoting trekchu.

Actually, he was quoting me, se post #142.

In this he also wrote;

Someone who goes out of his way to both praise British colonialism and condemn the Ottomans as perpetrators of a genocide is of questionable objectivity, though it is a position way too often encountered on this board and among the British and American public at large.

Again with the strawmanning. I say that I consider the British Empire as "the least bad of the XIX Century Empires" and you say I "praise British colonialism". If a comparison has to be made between British colonial crimes in the late XIX and early XX century and Turkish crimes against the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks (widely recognised as a genocide by scholars in the field if not by the Turkish state), there's no need of a bias to have the British come out on top (as the lesser evil) by a very broad margin.

For the record, I'm neither British nor American but of mixed Swedish and Castillian descent and living in Sweden.

 

[Mikestone8]

We can also have a thought at how nice it will be to be a Pole, or an Armenian, in this world.

Armenian - Well, honestly I don't see how it could get much worse than OTL. The Allies at Paris paid lip service to the idea of an Armenian state, but soon lost interest once the Turks showed a bit of fight. The only big change is in Russian Armenia, which, if smart, will seek German protection as Georgia did. Don't know if Imperial German rule will be a vast improvement on Soviet rule, but it's unlikely to be any worse.

Pole - Agreed, they cop it badly from the border strip idea, if that isn't aborted by a lack of eager German settlers. However, even OTL a huge number of Poles were expelled from Ukraine and Belarus after WW2, though admittedly they got new homes in Silesia and Pomerania. So overall, a net loss unless the horrendous mortality which Poland suffered in WW2 is butterflied away - which while not guaranteed is certainly possible.

 

[Nugax]

So, four separate areas... one is almost guaranteed not to be as bad as IOTL, while the other three are likely to be roughly the same. Of those three, two could well be better, while it's unlikely that they'll be worse. Is it really that unreasonable, therefore, to say that the world could be a better place than IOTL had the CP won?

Whilst the CP victory world could indeed be a better place, I don't think your optimism is justified in saying that the four areas you mention are as certain to turn out better as you believe.

To begin with lets look at the character of the German political elite: If a quick victory occurs then those who espouse belligerence will be proven correct, and I think the German leadership will be very keen on using military means to secure anything they want - be it in the Eastern Europe or overseas, which won't turn out well. If they win late then the twisting of German politics into essentially a military dictatorship will have been validated and the army will be the dominant political force for a long time, something rather like pre-WWII Japan. The notion that the Whites 'have' to be better than the soviets is pretty laughable considering previous tsarist behaviour, especially with a Germany that will be looking to loot eastern Europe to overcome its calorie deficit, and the idea of German supported Tsar will just set the stage for a nationalist revolution ala-Iran and a very nasty Russian state to emerge. As for Japan why wouldn't the German attempt to court it, considering its really the only credible ally against British sea power (that German will be trying to break for decades after the war). Europe is not self sufficient for an advanced industrial economy due to the need for crucial imports, and a victorious Germany (who trampled over Belgium to no punishment) is not going to sit around and be quiet, or accept the slightest disruption to its overseas interests by 'lessor nations'.

All that said an early CP victory would in my opinion produce a better world, just as an early Entente victory would with less loss of life and treasure and hardening of attitudes all round.

 

[trekchu]

All that said an early CP victory would in my opinion produce a better world, just as an early Entente victory would with less loss of life and treasure and hardening of attitudes all round.

I think we may have reached the core of the matter here. Quicker war = better. CP Victory = different and thus more interesting for all of us.

Both together is a good answer to the OP.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Was it stated as fact, or merely as Adolf's opinion?

Incidentally, I thought he joined the Bavarian Army. Many Bavarian officers, I suspect, would prefer an Austrian to a Prussian.

Couldn't say for sure; like I said, it's something I remember reading years ago, and I don't have the source to hand to double check. I wouldn't be shocked if it was just Hitler's unsupported opinion though; I doubt he would ever accept he wasn't officer material.