wildly off topic post 3 - what if GB had stayed out of ww1?

Another random counterfactual conundrum.

No offense to the French, but it seems to me if the uk had stayed out and just let the Germans defeat the French (again) the concequences really couldn't possibly have been any worse than what actually happened.

We'd probably just have gotten a German-France union dominating Europe - which seems set to happen anyway given current developments in the EU. And we'd have been spared 80 years of horrors.

No drawn out slaughter in the trenches. No Versailles. No German 'stab in the back' myth. No Hitler. No WW2. No Holocaust. No Bolshevism (Germany would have toppled them in 1917), no stalin, no gulags. No cold war. No Vietnam war hence no Pol Pot. Quite possibly without a cold war and concequent western support for fascist regimes around the world there might have been no growth of muslim fundamentalism (and no 911). No holocaust would likely have meant no Israel so no Israel-Palestine conflict. The Chinese revolution may have occured anyway, as it happened more despite Stalin than because of him, but Pol Pot was largely a product of the Vietnam conflict.

OK a German dominated Europe would be a worrying thing, but could it really have been any worse than the multi million deaths involved in the above events? I suppose its possible a german super power would have bought about a bigger war eventually...

The downside would be likely to be for the unfortunate subjects of the British empire, as Britain wouldn't have been bankrupted by two world wars and might have carried on exploiting them rather longer. But I can't see the empire continuing indefinitely even without external disasters.

I mean, to some extent the last couple of centuries seem to have revolved around repeated botched attempts by the Germans and the French to meld with each other (Napoleon, 1870, two world wars) and now its looking as if they're finally managing to do it entirely peacably. Rather like a warring man and woman who fight with each other so much it makes everyone suspect that deep down they fancy each other. Um, sorry if this is offensive to the French or Germans...it's not entirely serious...

Damn, lets get the Delorean and go back in time! No Hitler, no Holocaust, no Israel/PLO wars.

I really don't think GB could've stayed neutral even if they didn't like France at the time. Read The Guns of August, that explains the intricate and (in light of the slaughter perpetuated for those four years) maddening series of alliances. GB and France became tight due to Germany's admitted warmongering in Morocco and elsewhere, and the Belgians were also close to GB after Waterloo a hundred years previous. So Germany was at fault for crossing into Belguim and provoking Britain to respond.

Now, if Europe hadn't been so hell-bent on alliances in the late ninteenth century and early twentieth, we might not be having this discussion

If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

That's another topic entirely (and one which would kill the board for any non-history buffs :D )

I think the verdict of history has been in favor of the arguement that Versailles was too harsh. It was a failure in that it set up the conditions for another conflict (after all, Germany was punished so severly by the French that Hitler had an easy time getting to power) and fragmented the Middle East into artifical divides that have fueled the conflict there probably worse than beforehand. Nothing good came of that treaty, not the least of which the US must shoulder the blame (the sudden tide of isolationism after our time in the war) for not adopting it. Had the US come into the League of Nations, it's possible that Hitler would remain a shithead in Bavaria, and not the most powerful man in Europe.

So, Versialles was bad. Very very bad

don't forget how Versailles screwed the Balkans

Of course it did. The treaty was orchestrated by the most powerful of the victors, namely USA and Britain, and by the French who would not show any leniency to a Germay that had pushed itself to the edge of economic extinction by fighting the war in the first place. What the fuck did they care about the Balkans?

Incidentally, to take up the point about GB not entering the war:

(a) The would have had to think up a different name for it, and therefore for this thread;

(b) No Nazis, no Nazi imagery, no accusations of being Nazis, no Joy Division?

Originally posted by death of art Of course it did. The treaty was orchestrated by the most powerful of the victors, namely USA and Britain, and by the French who would not show any leniency to a Germay that had pushed itself to the edge of economic extinction by fighting the war in the first place. What the fuck did they care about the Balkans? Incidentally, to take up the point about GB not entering the war:(a) The would have had to think up a different name for it, and therefore for this thread;(b) No Nazis, no Nazi imagery, no accusations of being Nazis, no Joy Division?

Goddam, I hadn't thought of that. They'd probably have ended up calling themselves the smiley happy people or something and played party tunes...

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Are you referring to the screwing over of the Arabs in the peace negotiations? Odd on-topic new order concidence there, Tony Wilson was on a tv show the other night commenting on that very issue, declaring (rightly) that us treacherous Brits are responsible for the whole middle east mess (discussing the recent documentary about Lawrence of Arabia).

Originally posted by death of art No Nazis, no Nazi imagery, no accusations of being Nazis, no Joy Division?

So the Nazis were a good thing then???

Originally posted by 404 error > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Are you referring to the screwing over of the Arabs in the peace negotiations? Odd on-topic new order concidence there, Tony Wilson was on a tv show the other night commenting on that very issue, declaring (rightly) that us treacherous Brits are responsible for the whole middle east mess (discussing the recent documentary about Lawrence of Arabia).

One thing I will never understand is the vicarious pleasure you Brits find in lashing yourselves up, is it an enlightened form of the English Vice? Does it come from canning at public schools also?

Seriously, Britain's behaviour towards its colonies was far from treacherous as you claim to have been and certainly Britain is not "responsible for the whole middle east mess". A lot of factors enter into that equation, just remember people have been viciously fighting in the Fertile Crescent long before Baldie Caesar ever thought of setting sail to what would become England.

The British administration of the Empire was reasonably clean and fair. Most countries had bigger per head rents before decolonisation than they have now and better standars of life for all. Of course it is better been poor and free than not so pooor and dependent, what I am saying is that the British Empire was not the unmitigated disaster many Britons rejoyce in depicting.

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by 404 error

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Are you referring to the screwing over of the Arabs in the peace negotiations? Odd on-topic new order concidence there, Tony Wilson was on a tv show the other night commenting on that very issue, declaring (rightly) that us treacherous Brits are responsible for the whole middle east mess (discussing the recent documentary about Lawrence of Arabia).

One thing I will never understand is the vicarious pleasure you Brits find in lashing yourselves up, is it an enlightened form of the English Vice? Does it come from canning at public schools also?

Seriously, Britain's behaviour towards its colonies was far from treacherous as you claim to have been and certainly Britain is not "responsible for the whole middle east mess". A lot of factors enter into that equation, just remember people have been viciously fighting in the Fertile Crescent long before Baldie Caesar ever thought of setting sail to what would become England.

The British administration of the Empire was reasonably clean and fair. Most countries had bigger per head rents before decolonisation than they have now and better standars of life for all. Of course it is better been poor and free than not so pooor and dependent, what I am saying is that the British Empire was not the unmitigated disaster many Britons rejoyce in depicting.

The Belgians were far more harsh to their colonies.

Britain and France setting the political borders of these current nations in the Middle East and Africa are largely to blame, but I think the largest factors in the current Mid East crisis are the Americans support for Iraq against the Iranis, which led to Saddam's rise, the support of the radical Mujahadin against the Communists in Afghanistan, which paved the way for the radical Muslim rule in Afghanistan, and the American financial support of Israel

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by Budvar Huber> > > > Originally posted by 404 error> > > > > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Are you referring to the screwing over of the Arabs in the peace negotiations? Odd on-topic new order concidence there, Tony Wilson was on a tv show the other night commenting on that very issue, declaring (rightly) that us treacherous Brits are responsible for the whole middle east mess (discussing the recent documentary about Lawrence of Arabia).

One thing I will never understand is the vicarious pleasure you Brits find in lashing yourselves up, is it an enlightened form of the English Vice? Does it come from canning at public schools also?

Seriously, Britain's behaviour towards its colonies was far from treacherous as you claim to have been and certainly Britain is not "responsible for the whole middle east mess". A lot of factors enter into that equation, just remember people have been viciously fighting in the Fertile Crescent long before Baldie Caesar ever thought of setting sail to what would become England.

The British administration of the Empire was reasonably clean and fair. Most countries had bigger per head rents before decolonisation than they have now and better standars of life for all. Of course it is better been poor and free than not so pooor and dependent, what I am saying is that the British Empire was not the unmitigated disaster many Britons rejoyce in depicting. The Belgians were far more harsh to their colonies.

Britain and France setting the political borders of these current nations in the Middle East and Africa are largely to blame, but I think the largest factors in the current Mid East crisis are the Americans support for Iraq against the Iranis, which led to Saddam's rise, the support of the radical Mujahadin against the Communists in Afghanistan, which paved the way for the radical Muslim rule in Afghanistan, and the American financial support of Israel

That's another one! An American blaming the Americans for something which is obviously not their fault. Saddam had risen to power long before the Iran-Iraq war, the Mujahadin were at the time the lesser of two evils (or weevils!) and American financial support for Israel is quite a recent thing. The flaw in your argument is assuming that the Americans are always at fault. Should the West have allowed Iran's islamic revolution to go unchecked, infecting all the middle east? Should we have left the USSR to control Afganistan? Are the Palestinians entirely without blame? Do you think that if we were to remove the american involvement in all those three crises you´ve mentioned the world would be a safer, more prosperous place?

I very much doubt it.

Originally posted by Grigori and don't forget the arbitrary decisions to drop a Jewish State smack in the middle of lands inhabited by Muslims...Couldn't we have just let them set up shop in...oh...Utah???

That brings up an interesting tangent, perhaps: on a TV show a while back Bill Maher made the point that a lot of the more famous "religious types" support the state of Israel...if only because they are convinced that the Lord will rain hellfire and brimstone on the Middle East sometime before lunchtime anyways, thus ending the world and giving them the "paradise" they believe will occur. Having done more than my fair share of scanning the hate-filled visage of Pat Robertson (The "Wheezing Embodiment of Death", to reintroduce an old quote of mine), I can pick up on a lot of Doomsday-style statements on his part that more often than not express little or no care for the actual inhabitants (Israeli or Palestinian) who have to live there. So the next time you see some "higher religious authority" implying the Lord to "protect Israel", what they probably mean is "protect Israel by getting rid of those sand n-ers and Jesus-killers, so as we can move in".

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think Versailles laid the groundworks for much of what's going on today. So do what I do: Blame Clemenceau

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Originally posted by 404 error

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol If the Treaty of Versailles never occurred, then Saddam and Osama would not have existed

Are you referring to the screwing over of the Arabs in the peace negotiations? Odd on-topic new order concidence there, Tony Wilson was on a tv show the other night commenting on that very issue, declaring (rightly) that us treacherous Brits are responsible for the whole middle east mess (discussing the recent documentary about Lawrence of Arabia).

One thing I will never understand is the vicarious pleasure you Brits find in lashing yourselves up, is it an enlightened form of the English Vice? Does it come from canning at public schools also?

Seriously, Britain's behaviour towards its colonies was far from treacherous as you claim to have been and certainly Britain is not "responsible for the whole middle east mess". A lot of factors enter into that equation, just remember people have been viciously fighting in the Fertile Crescent long before Baldie Caesar ever thought of setting sail to what would become England.

The British administration of the Empire was reasonably clean and fair. Most countries had bigger per head rents before decolonisation than they have now and better standars of life for all. Of course it is better been poor and free than not so pooor and dependent, what I am saying is that the British Empire was not the unmitigated disaster many Britons rejoyce in depicting.

Well I didn't go to a public school, though that factor may well have influenced TE Lawrence himself, in more ways than one if the stories are true...

I don't really think Britain is responsible for the WHOLE mess, I just didn't have time to type anything subtle. That would imply inverse delusions of grandeur, for one thing the French are at least equally to blame for the post WW1 events.

Britain's treatment of its colonies was pretty bad, though not as horrendous as, say, Leopold in the Congo, and maybe a bit better than the French and quite a bit better than the Spanish. (Or at least different. The Catholic countries seemed to have a bit less pure racism and a bit more religious chauvanism. They intermarried more but destroyed more temples.) Anyway, the last time I mentioned on a forum that the Brit Empire was bad but not the very worst I got lambasted as being a defender of imperialism. Now I'm apparently being too critical of it!

But my pet gripe has long been how eager people are to add up the totals of everyone who ever died under communism, while being strangely reluctant to total up a similar 'black book' for imperialism, which IMO provided much of the impetus for both communism and fascism in the first place (especially as I think one can make a case for both world wars being partly a German attempt to build an empire in Europe because they didn't have any brown people to boss around).

At least the Brits made an attempt to educate and allow the colonials opportunities to develop governing bodies before Britian cut them loose. Portugal and France often gave the colonies as little as 6 weeks notice to build their own government before they gave them the deed. Political organizations or debating clubs were often illegal in these colonies before the notice of self rule was given.

and don't forget the arbitrary decisions to drop a Jewish State smack in the middle of lands inhabited by Muslims...

Couldn't we have just let them set up shop in...oh...Utah???

Should have given the Jews Bavaria. Bigger area. More liveable. Not a freaking desert of sand and rocks. Fitting punishment for the Nazis and indifferent Germans.

Originally posted by Budvar Huber

Seriously, Britain's behaviour towards its colonies was far from treacherous as you claim to have been and certainly Britain is not "responsible for the whole middle east mess". A lot of factors enter into that equation, just remember people have been viciously fighting in the Fertile Crescent long before Baldie Caesar ever thought of setting sail to what would become England.

The British administration of the Empire was reasonably clean and fair. Most countries had bigger per head rents before decolonisation than they have now and better standars of life for all. Of course it is better been poor and free than not so pooor and dependent, what I am saying is that the British Empire was not the unmitigated disaster many Britons rejoyce in depicting.

REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers. LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers. REG: Yeah. LORETTA: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?! XERXES: The aqueduct?

REG: What? XERXES: The aqueduct. REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah. COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation. LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like? REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done. MATTHIAS: And the roads. REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads-- COMMANDO: Irrigation. XERXES: Medicine. COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh... COMMANDO #2: Education. COMMANDOS: Ohh... REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough. COMMANDO #1: And the wine. COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah... FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh. COMMANDO: Public baths. LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg. FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this. COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? XERXES: Brought peace. REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Budvar, what weapons did Saddam use in the Gulf War??? Many of them were American ones! In Afghanistan the Americans militarily supported the Mujahadin against the Communist insurrection, but as soon as the Communists were defeated, the Americans left, allowin political instability to fester; I do not care for the Afghan Communists overthrowing the Afghan monarchy; my grandfather Golam Rezai was a minister in the Afghan government; as a result of the Communists, my father's family's lands were seized and my family fled here to the States, my family lost everything, but I still have to recognize facts. The United States actions predicated on their domino theory was flawed, for as soon as the Americans thwarted Communism in a state, they left these countries (Afghanistan, Chile, etc.) in a state of political instability making it easier for extremists to rise to power (Pinochet's reign after the US supported coup against Allende ) Are the Palestinians entirely without blame? No, they have committed many terrorist acts to prolong the peace agreements, but why don't history classes cover the Israeli terrorist attacks before 1948 against the Palestinians, why isn't American support of the Israeli government questioned when they continue, according to Amnesty International, to be listed as one of the worst nations in respecting human rights? I have a problem with people not acknowledging both sides of situations. Do I wish the Americans had not taken action against the Iranis? Hell no, but I wish more consideration was taken in dealing with Saddam; same with the Mujahadin, the advocates of the coup of Allende, etc. I can give many more examples of problems stemming of the American foreign policy to quash Communism: El Salvador, Nicaragua... Want me to continue? I am not an America hater; I grew up here, but that does not mean I do not have the right to question stupid actions of former administrations... Vietnam

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol Budvar, what weapons did Saddam use in the Gulf War??? Many of them were American ones! Thanks for taking the time to answer Tristan. The main backers of Hussein have been from the start France, Germany and Russia, and they were the main suppliers of weapons to his regime. Curioser and curioser, as Alice would have it. The monetary flows from the Baath party to Mr. Chirac's own party are well documented and small wonder the French have never seem to be very interested in bringing him to trial, interesting questions could be raised.On the other hand I have no qualms whatsoever about the US supporting Iraq during the Gulf War. The Islamic Revolution had to be contained. Sorry if I sound cynical but I have a realistic view of international affairs. As I said before it's often a question of the lesser of two evils.

In Afghanistan the Americans militarily supported the Mujahadin against the Communist insurrection, but as soon as the Communists were defeated, the Americans left, allowin political instability to fester; I do not care for the Afghan Communists overthrowing the Afghan monarchy; my grandfather Golam Rezai was a minister in the Afghan government; as a result of the Communists, my father's family's lands were seized and my family fled here to the States, my family lost everything, but I still have to recognize facts. The United States actions predicated on their domino theory was flawed, for as soon as the Americans thwarted Communism in a state, they left these countries (Afghanistan, Chile, etc.) in a state of political instability making it easier for extremists to rise to power (Pinochet's reign after the US supported coup against Allende ) ***I share your view there. The reluctance of America to be entangled in nation building is objectionable. It is far easier to overthrow a government than to build a democratic one and America is guilty of often taking the easy way out.*Are the Palestinians entirely without blame? No, they have committed many terrorist acts to prolong the peace agreements, but why don't history classes cover the Israeli terrorist attacks before 1948 against the Palestinians, why isn't American support of the Israeli government questioned when they continue, according to Amnesty International, to be listed as one of the worst nations in respecting human rights? I have a problem with people not acknowledging both sides of situations. Do I wish the Americans had not taken action against the Iranis? Hell no, but I wish more consideration was taken in dealing with Saddam; same with the Mujahadin, the advocates of the coup of Allende, etc. I can give many more examples of problems stemming of the American foreign policy to quash Communism: El Salvador, Nicaragua... Want me to continue? I am not an America hater; I grew up here, but that does not mean I do not have the right to question stupid actions of former administrations... Vietnam

No one denies you the right of criticising any actions of America but you must accept also the right of others to criticise your criticisms. There are so many interesting points you raise that I cannot get into detail in any of them. Suffice to say that to me it has been a very good thing that America has been ready to twarth Communism wherever it raised its ugly head. Would I have liked that communism had always been replaced by clean, democratic accountable governments? why! of course!. Do I think that the good coming from the States since they emerged from the Great War as the main world power far, but really far, outweights the mistakes made? Yes, yes, yes.