August 1914

[Elfdart]

Wilson was the worst president in US history. His meddling in the Great War tipped the scales against Germany. The Germans turned Lenin loose...

Without Wilson, Hitler would have been another multi-talentless artist in Austria and Stalin would have been another police snitch in Georgia. Lenin would have rotted in jail rather than hijacking the Russian Revolution. Thanks Woody!

[fgalkin]

If there's a hell, Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm, Prime Minister Asquith, Prime Minister Clemenceau, Emperor Franz Joseph, and Woodrow Wilson are roasting there together.

No chance that Nicholas is in hell. He was made a Saint recently by the Russian Orthodox Church (or was it a Holy Martyr?).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Martyr. Having the education of a Guards Colonel and the temperment of a 16th century Autocrat could get you a long way in Tsarist Russia, after all. The most (depressingly) amusing thing out of him was probably the orders he gave to poor old Rozhestvensky: "You are not to merely get a few ships to Vladivostok, but rather you are to gain mastery of the whole eastern sea." With operational instructions like that, who's surprised at Tsushima? They sound disturbingly like Philip II's instructions to the Duke of Medina Sidonia.

Yup, that's our last Emperor (not Tsar, you damn Westerners!). I just hope that he doesn't become head of the Russian Angels Brigade and lead it against the Heavenly Chechen Guerillas of Allah. But, then again, Dmitry Donskoy is probably in charge of it, so we're safe.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Gil Hamilton]

The German war aims were the destruction of France and Russia as great powers, the annexation of the channel ports (and Belgium/lux in their entirety) and make the bulk of Europe their vassals.

With that sort of power they would have stopped there and Imperial Germany was a rather tyrannical regime, whilst not as efficient as the Nazi's they still went to town of the Belgian civilians.
I expect that validation of their ideas about German superiority and that force was the correct way to go about things are not going to give rise to anything less ugly and probably something far uglier than imperial Germany.

That's the thing, Imperial German didn't have the means to do all that and a quick victory in the Marne, followed by a German-favorable treaty wouldn't have changed that. As Marina pointed out after you post, Imperial Germany wasn't that bad when it came to the powers of the time and wasn't the worst thing that happened to Germany. However, the Nazis, who were a direct result of Germany's defeat and the peace of post-WW1 Europe, were the worst thing that happened to Germany. That's the thing. Had the seeds of WW1 been quickly and efficently won by Germany, history would remember it as a pissant little conflict, one of many between France and Germany, and the horrors of the twentieth century such as the Holocaust and Communism could have been avoided. There may have been other mistakes made and other horrible nations that could have formed to commit atrocities, but hundreds of millions of lives were lost indirectly because of the Great War; a pissant conflict that turned into a gigantic clusterfuck.

[Uraniun235]

Wilson was the worst president in US history. His meddling in the Great War tipped the scales against Germany. The Germans turned Lenin loose...

Without Wilson, Hitler would have been another multi-talentless artist in Austria and Stalin would have been another police snitch in Georgia. Lenin would have rotted in jail rather than hijacking the Russian Revolution. Thanks Woody!

As if he could have foreseen it.

[fgalkin]

Wilson was the worst president in US history. His meddling in the Great War tipped the scales against Germany. The Germans turned Lenin loose...

Without Wilson, Hitler would have been another multi-talentless artist in Austria and Stalin would have been another police snitch in Georgia. Lenin would have rotted in jail rather than hijacking the Russian Revolution. Thanks Woody!

Bullshit. Wilson was opposed to assfucking Germany via the Versailles treaty, if he had it his way, Germany would not be broke, and Hitler would not have come to power. Also, even if the Germans never set Lenin upon Russia, the monarchy was been in trouble anyway. Nicholas abdicated without any help from Lenin, you know.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

our links are something of a mixed bag (even contradicting one another), the second one asserts that the Serbians were too willing to risk a war when faced with the ultimatum which is pure rubbish, Wilhelm regarded their response to be a great victory for A-H, Grey said the ultimatum was the strongest he had ever seen, Wilhelm expressed that to go to war after Serbia’s response would immediate turn public opinion against A-H etc.
The primary evidence shows what that link is professing to be the truth is nothing more than starting with a theory and casting events in a light which best suits the theory.

Well, two of the links might have been of dubious quality, because I only did a quick reference, but one of them was an .edu, which is pretty reliable, and the points I presented are the ones i've learned. If it were the other way, why wouldn't the curriculae change? It would seem counter-productive to their intent to educate, wouldn't it?

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just suprised, that's all. Doesn't make sense why there is such a strong conflict, and the majority of sources say otherwise.

The idea that the people were itching for a war is false, that they supported their government in a war (which was just in at least Britain's case) shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.

I don't think the people themselves wanted war, rather the governments, which is what is usually taught. Even today if you don't support the goverment, even in a dubious war, you are labled unpatriotic and sometimes traitors. It also doe say very FEW were going against the tide. Perhaps the editor was one of those people.

It is also a general consensus, from what I have learned so far, that many people believed the war (falsely) would be short, and that contributed to a more laxed feel. SOme saw the storm comming while others didn't.

I don't think the war was inevitable for cultural/social reasons ("militarism") but rather due to the political alignments at the time.

I dont think that was the sole cause either, but one of them. Had they not been so fanatic about neo-colonialism and had they not increased their militaries so drastically, there would have been fewer tensions. The political alignments didn't help the situation either.

Had the seeds of WW1 been quickly and efficently won by Germany, history would remember it as a pissant little conflict, one of many between France and Germany, and the horrors of the twentieth century such as the Holocaust and Communism could have been avoided. There may have been other mistakes made and other horrible nations that could have formed to commit atrocities, but hundreds of millions of lives were lost indirectly because of the Great War; a pissant conflict that turned into a gigantic clusterfuck.

What made the mentality of the allies different from the mentality of Germany? They assraped Germany in their peace treaty, why wouldn't Germany have done the same? WW1 wasn't just between France and GErmany. The entire system of alliances created a huge web of belligerants, and quick victory was not a characteristic of WW1. Strategy and technology of the time didn't permit it.

[Xenophobe3691]

What made the mentality of the allies different from the mentality of Germany? They assraped Germany in their peace treaty, why wouldn't Germany have done the same? WW1 wasn't just between France and GErmany. The entire system of alliances created a huge web of belligerants, and quick victory was not a characteristic of WW1. Strategy and technology of the time didn't permit it.

The only people who wanted to Assrape Germany were the French, and mainly due to on obsessive need for revenge in the face of humiliation during the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent loss of Alsace-Lorraine. The nature of the reparations was such that Germany would have a hard time getting back on its feet, if not staying down. The Germans didn't want that, they would've demanded reparations only for the cost of war, just like in 1870.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The only people who wanted to Assrape Germany were the French, and mainly due to on obsessive need for revenge in the face of humiliation during the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent loss of Alsace-Lorraine. The nature of the reparations was such that Germany would have a hard time getting back on its feet, if not staying down. The Germans didn't want that, they would've demanded reparations only for the cost of war, just like in 1870.

Ahh. NOw that you mention it, yea. France would be pissed Well then. That's settled. I forgot the French were holding a grudge. That seems very silly.

[TheDarkling]

That's the thing, Imperial German didn't have the means to do all that and a quick victory in the Marne, followed by a German-favorable treaty wouldn't have changed that.

Didn't they?

With France beaten who was going to stop them?

They weren't fighting a war for fun, the objective was to secure Germany both militarily and economically and for that they needed to dominate the continent.

If the Germans win at the Marne France is likely forced to surrender and the Germans won't be moderated by American influences in their desire to prevent a nation beat on revenge getting it.

Or as Germanys own chancellor put it

“The general aim of the war is security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time. For this purpose France must be so weakened as to make her revival as a great power impossible for all time. Russia must be thrust back as far as possible from Germany's eastern frontier and her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples broken.”

Belgian doesn’t come off well either

“At any rate Belgium, even it allowed to continue to exist as a state, must be reduced to a vassal state, must allow us to occupy any militarily important ports, must place her coast at our disposal in military respects, must become economically a German province.”

Nice of him to at least consider keeping it a decapitated puppet state mainly because he doesn’t want all those non Germans as part of the Reich.

Luxembourg doesn’t get off so lightly though

“Luxemburg. Will become a German federal state and will receive a strip of the present Belgian province of Luxemburg and perhaps the corner of Longwy.”

So what of the rest of Europe?

“We must create a central European economic association through common customs treaties, to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland "sic", and perhaps Italy, Sweden and Norway. This association will not have any common constitutional supreme authority and all its members will be normally equal, but in practice will be under German leadership and must stabilise Germany's economic dominance over Mitteleuropa.”

Holland not being belligenernt of course surley won’t get the boot, right?

“Holland. It will have to be considered by what means and methods Holland can be brought into closer relationship with the German Empire.”

Yeah, I wonder what “methods” those will be.

A huge Europe run for German interests alone with no military force to stop the Germans doing whatever they liked.

As Marina pointed out after you post, Imperial Germany wasn't that bad when it came to the powers of the time and wasn't the worst thing that happened to Germany.

They weren't bad compared to Russia or Nazi Germany but the military and the Kaiser had far to much direct power and influence beyond that (the Kaiser set policy which led to war and directed his Chancellor accordingly).

However, the Nazis, who were a direct result of Germany's defeat and the peace of post-WW1 Europe, were the worst thing that happened to Germany. That's the thing. Had the seeds of WW1 been quickly and efficently won by Germany, history would remember it as a pissant little conflict, one of many between France and Germany, and the horrors of the twentieth century such as the Holocaust and Communism could have been avoided.

History would remember it as the war that brought about the domination of Europe by a barley democratic regime (within Germany) which didn't even have that fig leaf in the various theoretically independent territories.
History would also remember it as Britain’s missed opportunity to prevent subservience at the hands of Germany a decade or two down the line.

There may have been other mistakes made and other horrible nations that could have formed to commit atrocities, but hundreds of millions of lives were lost indirectly because of the Great War; a pissant conflict that turned into a gigantic clusterfuck.

I don’t disagree that we would have been better off without the first world war I just question whether a few years of Nazi occupation is worse than decades of Imperial German occupation and the stifling of democracy on the continent.

[Dahak]

They weren't bad compared to Russia or Nazi Germany but the military and the Kaiser had far to much direct power and influence beyond that (the Kaiser set policy which led to war and directed his Chancellor accordingly).

Wilhelm II didn't have really the influence, and was a glorified figurehead.
He was not the brightest bulb, and wasn't interested that much in politics or had the knowledge to do so. He preferred to spend a great deal of his time on the hunt or on holidays.
He felt a great connection towards Great Brittain, and was devastated and puzzled why they would join this war. Same goes for Russia.

And once the war started, the military had the control over it.
That's why Wilhelm feared Hindenburg that much and was not installing him for so long.

[Patrick Degan]

I don’t disagree that we would have been better off without the first world war I just question whether a few years of Nazi occupation is worse than decades of Imperial German occupation and the stifling of democracy on the continent.

Hmm, let's see... economic domination of the Continent and both France and Russia neutralised on the one hand (the Imperial plan).

Slave-labour, death camps, experiments, genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced resettlement, and the reduction of whole national populations to serfdom (the Nazi plan).

I'm not really 100% certain, but this seems a no-brainer.

[TheDarkling]

Well, two of the links might have been of dubious quality, because I only did a quick reference, but one of them was an .edu, which is pretty reliable, and the points I presented are the ones i've learned. If it were the other way, why wouldn't the curriculae change? It would seem counter-productive to their intent to educate, wouldn't it?

Education is not so easy, most High school text books would have you believe the treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW2 because it was too harsh whilst text books beyond that level (and the actual evidence) shows the case is otherwise.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am just surprised, that's all. Doesn't make sense why there is such a strong conflict, and the majority of sources say otherwise.

It was politically convenient to have shared responsibility, the same thing happened with Versailles being blamed for giving the Germans no other choice than to start throwing undesirables into ovens.

I don't think the people themselves wanted war, rather the governments, which is what is usually taught. Even today if you don't support the goverment, even in a dubious war, you are labled unpatriotic and sometimes traitors. It also doe say very FEW were going against the tide. Perhaps the editor was one of those people.

Then why was Asquith crying when he learnt war was inevitable?

From the memoirs of Prince Lichnowsky (here after referred to as The Prince).

" Mr. Asquith also, when I called on him on the 2nd August to make a last effort in the direction of expectant neutrality, was quite broken, though absolutely calm. Tears were coursing down his cheeks. "

Hardly sounds like a man eager for war, nor does the fact that members of the British cabinet resigned over the matter indicate the government was chomping at the bit.

It is also a general consensus, from what I have learned so far, that many people believed the war (falsely) would be short, and that contributed to a more laxed feel. SOme saw the storm comming while others didn't.

That is fairly accurate, many people didn't know what they were getting themselves into but that still doesn't mean everybody wanted a war, Britain tried to prevent exactly that.

Again I quote the Prince’s memoirs

"Serbia responded favourably to the British efforts, M. Pasitch had really agreed to everything, except two points, about which, however, he declared his willingness to negotiate. If Russia and England had wanted the war, in order to attack us, a hint to Belgrade would have been enough, and the unprecedented Note would not have been answered. "

I dont think that was the sole cause either, but one of them. Had they not been so fanatic about neo-colonialism and had they not increased their militaries so drastically, there would have been fewer tensions. The political alignments didn't help the situation either.

Britain wasn't in favour of increasing our military, Churchill asked the Prince for an agreement so many times that he had it removed from eth agenda.

Britain was all for arms limitation and achieved an understanding with the other naval powers except Germany which would have none of it.

"I replied that for technical reasons it would be difficult to agree to his plan. What was to become of the workmen who were engaged for this purpose, and what of the technical staff? Our Naval programme had been decided on, and it would be difficult to alter it in any way. On the other hand we had no intention of exceeding it. But he reverted to it again and pointed out that the sums used for enormous armaments might better be employed for other and useful purposes. I replied that this expenditure too benefited our home industries."

"Through interviews with Sir W. Tyrrell, Sir E. Grey's principal private secretary, I managed to have the question removed from the agenda without causing any ill feeling, although it was again referred to in Parliament, and to prevent any official proposal being made. It was, however, a pet idea of Mr. Churchill's and the Government's, and I think that by entering upon his plan and the formula 16:10 for battleships we might have given tangible proof of our goodwill, and strengthened and encouraged the tendency (which already prevailed in the Government) to enter into closer relations with us."

What made the mentality of the allies different from the mentality of Germany? They assraped Germany in their peace treaty, why wouldn't Germany have done the same? WW1 wasn't just between France and GErmany. The entire system of alliances created a huge web of belligerants, and quick victory was not a characteristic of WW1. Strategy and technology of the time didn't permit it.

Germany would have done far worse, the Allies asked for some coin (which Germany could afford as Keynes later admitted), arms limitation and some territorial readjustment (which was by and large fair).
Versailles wasn't the massively harsh treaty it is made out to be and it is a pity the French desire for harsher terms wasn't paid off.

[TheDarkling]

Hmm, let's see... economic domination of the Continent and both France and Russia neutralised on the one hand (the Imperial plan).

Slave-labour, death camps, experiments, genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced resettlement, and the reduction of whole national populations to serfdom (the Nazi plan).

I'm not really 100% certain, but this seems a no-brainer.

Europe (western Europe at least) suffered for half a decade and Britain only got bombed, Imperial German domination would have lasted for decades and would have serious set back democracy (if not outright destroyed/prevented it on the continent).
Let us also not forget that the Germans had no problem burning down towns in Belgium to get their point across, any resistance in their new Empire is likely to lead to a similar response (I also think that a victory over everybody else would only reinforce Prussian militarism and ideas of Racial superiority which isn't going to make than anymore friendly).

I also doubt things will go well for the various non White people imperial Germany gets its hands on when they decide to rebel.

[TheDarkling]

Wilhelm II didn't have really the influence, and was a glorified figurehead.
He was not the brightest bulb, and wasn't interested that much in politics or had the knowledge to do so. He preferred to spend a great deal of his time on the hunt or on holidays.

Indeed he didn’t have a clue but to say he had no power is untrue, he was supreme in setting national policy because his was the diplomatic voice.
True he was easily manipulated but he still had to manipulated rather than bypassed (at least until things began to decay during the war).

He felt a great connection towards Great Brittain, and was devastated and puzzled why they would join this war. Same goes for Russia.

I think the Daily Telegraph affair shows he didn't really have a clue about what Britain's concerns were.

And once the war started, the military had the control over it.
That's why Wilhelm feared Hindenburg that much and was not installing him for so long.

Well the military was also a very strong force, something else that very really bodes well.

[Patrick Degan]

Hmm, let's see... economic domination of the Continent and both France and Russia neutralised on the one hand (the Imperial plan).

Slave-labour, death camps, experiments, genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced resettlement, and the reduction of whole national populations to serfdom (the Nazi plan).

I'm not really 100% certain, but this seems a no-brainer.

Europe (western Europe at least) suffered for half a decade and Britain only got bombed, Imperial German domination would have lasted for decades and would have serious set back democracy (if not outright destroyed/prevented it on the continent).

Let us also not forget that the Germans had no problem burning down towns in Belgium to get their point across, any resistance in their new Empire is likely to lead to a similar response (I also think that a victory over everybody else would only reinforce Prussian militarism and ideas of Racial superiority which isn't going to make than anymore friendly).

I also doubt things will go well for the various non White people imperial Germany gets its hands on when they decide to rebel.

And all this supports your notion that Imperial Germany would have been as bad as Nazi Germany... how, exactly? Do please present your evidence that the Imperial government was planning a systemised racial extermination programme and national serfdom in the East.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Then why was Asquith crying when he learnt war was inevitable?

From the memoirs of Prince Lichnowsky (here after referred to as The Prince).

" Mr. Asquith also, when I called on him on the 2nd August to make a last effort in the direction of expectant neutrality, was quite broken, though absolutely calm. Tears were coursing down his cheeks. "

Hardly sounds like a man eager for war, nor does the fact that members of the British cabinet resigned over the matter indicate the government was chomping at the bit.

That's why I am suprised that they are ignoring such a wealth of information and primary sources when they make textbooks and lectures. I doubt the professors have some hidden agenda. It makes me think there has to be some catch to it. But, Pirmary sources are usually more accurate than secondary, unless something's wrong with them.

And all this supports your notion that Imperial Germany would have been as bad as Nazi Germany... how, exactly? Do please present your evidence that the Imperial government was planning a systemised racial extermination programme and national serfdom in the East.

I think this depends upon how one interprets what he is saying. Obviously, I don't think he is saying they are as bad as Nazi Germany. I even think he stated directly the opposite. He is saying Nazi Germany was worse, but it's evil lasted shorter than the evil of being under the consistant heel of the German Empire.

The word anti-Semitism was coined about 1879 to denote hostility toward Jews only. This hostility is supposedly justified by a theory, first developed in Germany in the middle of the 19th century, that peoples of so-called Aryan stock are superior in physique and character to those of Semitic stock.

Many explanations of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism have been advanced. One theory, widely accepted by social scientists, suggests that anti-Semitism is nurtured in periods of social instability and crisis, such as those existing in Germany in the 1880s

Although legal reforms put an end to discrimination on religious grounds, hostility, falsely based on racism, grew. Racist theories that had been formulated during the preceding decades provided the basis for a new grouping of anti-Semitic political parties after the Franco-Prussian War and the economic crash of 1873. The German political scene was marked by the presence of at least one openly anti-Semitic party until 1933, when anti-Semitism became the official policy of the government under National Socialism (Nazism).

It's not like racism, hatrened, and anti-semitism were unique to Nazi Germany, The German EMpire also harboured these feelings, but it wasn't economic, PC, or political possibly at the time to enforce en mass, especially because they were defeated. Losing pissed them off more and gave them a reason to exploint scapegoats for their problems.

All in all, I don't think they would have gone into the mass-exterminations like the Nazis unless something serious happened. IF, however, they tried to revolt or rebell under German Imperial domination, they might very well have used that as an exuse. They would be seen as evil agitators causing problems for the Empire. That's speculative, however, because we don't know how Germany would have delt with isurgents, rebels, and trouble makers in the occupied areas, while it is known directly what the Nazis did.

Neither would have been good, but Nazis definitly worse.

There were growing problems in Germany, like there were in many other nations; Germany, however, was fairly stable according to the author, but if triggered, bad things would happen.

Already before 1914 the country's "militaristic" character and its assumed desire for expansion created concern in Europe. No wonder historians have tried to find continuities in German political culture and foreign policy, something linking the violent form of German unification in 1864-1871, the undemocratic character of the Bismarckian constitution (in force 1871-1918), the failure of democracy (1918-1933), and the orgy of crime and violence unleashed by the "Third Reich" between 1933 and 1945.

The authoritarianism of the imperial government (in power 1871-1918), the stress on order, the veneration of war and all things military, the reigning antiliberalism, and the presence of racism have served to compare Germany unfavorably with its western neighbors. Why did Germany not choose the path to parliamentary democracy, which France adopted in the 1870s and which Britain developed step by step in the nineteenth century? Did the anti-liberal character of Bismarck's constitutional settlement as well as his violent management of German unification predispose Germany toward repression, foreign aggression, and violence?

They weren't some passive lame-duck. They were hard, calculated, and militaristic, and they wanted you to do what they said, how they said it, and when they said it. If they had won, they probably would have gone and done whatever suited their social order or political desires.

Note: The lecture notes DO say it was not eveyone in germany, but primarily the elite and the government officials.

Visit Edu

To sum it up, people all over Europe identified more strongly with their nation and its prestige and started to watch the foreign policy of the diplomats more carefully than before. Impressed by Darwinist ideas they came to see the situation of their nations as a crude alternative of expansion or decline, hegemony or submission, and this ideology increasingly shaped foreign affairs.

Some radical nationalists got so infuriated about the loss of land in Africa that they formed a new organization to propagate colonial expansion. The Pan-German League, as the new organization was called, soon started to put forward integrative nationalism. Although its membership remained unimpressive (20-40,000 members, mostly industrialists, businessmen, lawyers, teachers, and some Protestant ministers), it became an influential pressure group for foreign political success and expansion. Several powerful industrialists funded the Pan-German League and helped it to conquer a strong position in the press. Teachers tried to instill a new generation of students with arrogant nationalism. From now on every foreign political failure and every half-hearted diplomatic initiative was sure to be extensively criticized by this small but vociferous group.

The radicals weren't directly a threat, but they stirred the pot and agitated for nationalism. In addition, they used a trickle-down method to spread their ideas through government education and foreign policy. The small groups had power.


This has more to do with an earlier topic. Darwinism (social brand) and it's impact on leading to ww1.

visit edu 2

[Jean Paul]

WWI stands in stark contrast to WWII, in that while in WWII there is the undenialbe, visceral evil of Nazi Germany and the holocaust and all associated horrors, and the just, fairly honorable allies responding to that - in WWI OTOH no side was really "the goodies" or "the baddies". They all just fell over each other like dominos because of those stupid alliance-blocs. All it took was one assasination, and the whole house of cards came crashing down, and you have trenches, the somme, millions slaughtered etc.

Once it was going though, I think the most stupid decision of the war was at its end: Namely the unbearably harsh reparations penalties imposed on Germany that fueled the rise of Nazism after the crash of '29.

I don't think communism will be stopped by the lack of WWI. The Russian revolution was already on course ever since Russia got twatted by Japan in '06. A lot of russians were pissed about the Tsar flinging them like cannon fodder into this war in the ass end of nowhere way out east. The discontent would have broiled over into open rebellion sooner or later. WWI was simply a catalyst that made it occur when it did.

[RedImperator]

Wilson was the worst president in US history. His meddling in the Great War tipped the scales against Germany. The Germans turned Lenin loose...

Without Wilson, Hitler would have been another multi-talentless artist in Austria and Stalin would have been another police snitch in Georgia. Lenin would have rotted in jail rather than hijacking the Russian Revolution. Thanks Woody!

As if he could have foreseen it.

There's plenty of other reasons to despise Wilson. And if he couldn't have forseen the Russian Revolution, he damn well should have known his meddling was going to drag us into a war we didn't want and didn't need.

[TheDarkling]

And all this supports your notion that Imperial Germany would have been as bad as Nazi Germany... how, exactly? Do please present your evidence that the Imperial government was planning a systemised racial extermination programme and national serfdom in the East.

I made it rather clear they weren't going to be as bad as the Nazi's, what I said quite clearly was that they would have no doubt lasted far longer and thus Western Europe wouldn't have enjoyed 60 years of Democracy.

I also said that it is likely that Imperial Germany would have gotten worse rather than better and that this doesn't bode well for the various non whites in the new enlarged German empire (or the whites really).

So we have the freedom of a few hundred million (including the Germans themselves) Vs the lives of a few Million, I myself much prefer the freedom especially since it is my nation that is on the line (in the hypothetical).

[TheDarkling]

That's why I am suprised that they are ignoring such a wealth of information and primary sources when they make textbooks and lectures. I doubt the professors have some hidden agenda. It makes me think there has to be some catch to it. But, Pirmary sources are usually more accurate than secondary, unless something's wrong with them.

Check out the material at the world war one document archive, it backs up what I am saying.

Nationalism did it, is a weak and simplistic argument design as a cautionary tale, Just as Versailles tells a tale about harsh treaties and Munich tells a tale about appeasement.

All three of the above are woefully inaccurate and have been distorted in order to turn history in a morality tale so that we can learn from it.

I think this depends upon how one interprets what he is saying. Obviously, I don't think he is saying they are as bad as Nazi Germany. I even think he stated directly the opposite. He is saying Nazi Germany was worse, but it's evil lasted shorter than the evil of being under the consistant heel of the German Empire.

Exactly.

All in all, I don't think they would have gone into the mass-exterminations like the Nazis unless something serious happened. IF, however, they tried to revolt or rebell under German Imperial domination, they might very well have used that as an exuse. They would be seen as evil agitators causing problems for the Empire. That's speculative, however, because we don't know how Germany would have delt with isurgents, rebels, and trouble makers in the occupied areas, while it is known directly what the Nazis did.

We do know actually, in Beglium they were disgusted that the Belgians would fight against them and so the policy of "frightfulness" was employed which essentially involved random executions in order to quell descent (more than one Belgian town got burnt to the ground).

These atrocities are overlooked however because allied propaganda made it much larger than it was (bayoneting babies) and so alleging imperial German atrocities was seen as backwards.

They weren't some passive lame-duck. They were hard, calculated, and militaristic, and they wanted you to do what they said, how they said it, and when they said it. If they had won, they probably would have gone and done whatever suited their social order or political desires.

Note: The lecture notes DO say it was not eveyone in germany, but primarily the elite and the government officials.

The people didn't really get a say because it was a virtual autocracy with a few social reforms to buy off the people.

Visit Edu

To sum it up, people all over Europe identified more strongly with their nation and its prestige and started to watch the foreign policy of the diplomats more carefully than before. Impressed by Darwinist ideas they came to see the situation of their nations as a crude alternative of expansion or decline, hegemony or submission, and this ideology increasingly shaped foreign affairs.

Foriegn policy has always been shaped in that manner, still is for that matter.

The radicals weren't directly a threat, but they stirred the pot and agitated for nationalism. In addition, they used a trickle-down method to spread their ideas through government education and foreign policy. The small groups had power.

But these are mainly German examples, I have no problem labeling German nationaslitic and militaristic, A-H was to a lesser degree as was Russia.
France was willingly to bend when necessary (Fashoda) whilst Britain was dead set against war.

This has more to do with an earlier topic. Darwinism (social brand) and it's impact on leading to ww1.

Social Darwinism may have been en vogue but it wasn't some overwhelming influence driving men wild, the war was caused by Prussian aggression.

[Patrick Degan]

And all this supports your notion that Imperial Germany would have been as bad as Nazi Germany... how, exactly? Do please present your evidence that the Imperial government was planning a systemised racial extermination programme and national serfdom in the East.

I made it rather clear they weren't going to be as bad as the Nazi's, what I said quite clearly was that they would have no doubt lasted far longer and thus Western Europe wouldn't have enjoyed 60 years of Democracy.

Except Imperial Germany wasn't an absolute dictatorship as Nazi Germany was, nor would they have simply ruled France as a satellite. And Britain was certainly a democracy, as was Switzerland, and Italy, and Norway, and Sweeden, and Denmark.

I also said that it is likely that Imperial Germany would have gotten worse rather than better and that this doesn't bode well for the various non whites in the new enlarged German empire (or the whites really).

Sheer speculation.

So we have the freedom of a few hundred million (including the Germans themselves) Vs the lives of a few Million, I myself much prefer the freedom especially since it is my nation that is on the line (in the hypothetical).

Germany could not have conquered Britain on its best day, and I find it amusing your dismissing the real deaths of nearly 30 million people which did ensue in the Second World War as opposed to your speculative enslavement of the Continent under a government which showed none of the Nazis' propensities toward genocidal violence. Particularly as Imperial Germany showed they didn't have the capacity to conquer and dominate the Continent in three years of bloody stalemate on two fronts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The radicals weren't directly a threat, but they stirred the pot and agitated for nationalism. In addition, they used a trickle-down method to spread their ideas through government education and foreign policy. The small groups had power.

It's nothing at all about Social Darwinism at all. Nationalism as a concept is completely unrelated to Social Darwinism. Nationalism favours the unification of a particular body which is perceived as ethnically or culturally similiar. No Pan-German was going to argue that a Swede, for example, was racially inferior to him, but he would certainly not want to include Sweden within Germany. The Pan-Germanists were the continued advocates of the "Large Germany" of 1848--IE, the inclusion of the German speaking areas of Austro-Hungary into the Second Reich.

Certainly they would also have been quite pleased if Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were also added to Germany, as they were perceived as being ethnically German and basically Prussian in outlook by the majority of the German populace for various historical reasons. Another really big deal to consider is that there is, in fact, a sizeable German minority in Belgium--which was historically ruled by the Germanic Habsburg family for most of its history. Beyond that, Luxembourg is in fact a German State and was part of the old Holy Roman Empire.

The annexation of Luxembourg and part of Belgium to Germany would made perfect sense in those days. The potential elimination of the Belgian state is not a terribly big deal--the French and Dutch parts might have just been provided to those respective countries, perhaps to compensate France for the loss of the rest of Lorraine (assuming German diplomacy was cognizant of the need to prevent another revanch movement), which would likely be the limit of German interests in a victorious and short conflict. One has to remember that to this day Belgium has problems staying in one piece, which is pretty big considering the general tenor of the European continent. And besides, they annexed the majority of Luxembourg, which used to be much larger and was, again, German.

Quite frankly Imperial German behavior was not only largely the same as that in the other nations of Europe to enemies, but its internal policies were often far, far better and more participatory. Even in the Third Republic the chaos of government coalitions and the general domination of politics by an elite offered little or no improvement in terms of the actual participation of the people, and in Imperial German at least the Bundesrat represented the interests of states instead of being merely an instrument of autocracy, which is all that could be offered for the UK's House of Lords before it was limited to delaying rather than vetoing legislation just a few years before the war. Beyond that, Germany from 1871 had universal manhood suffrage, which was not a component of most other European countries' parliamentary election schemes, even the UK, at that time.

In colonial matters the Second Reich, though brutal, also developed extensive infrasture in its colonies which today sees some of them better off than most of the rest of the continent--Tanzania immediately comes to mind, where the Germans even remain rather popular thanks to the actions of Lettow-Vorbeck. Granted, there were atrocities--but nothing even approaching the scale of the genocide that Belgium conducted in the Congo. "Brave little Belgium", quite frankly, had the most sordid past of any of the colonial powers and probably deserved what it got in WWI.

[TheDarkling]

Except Imperial Germany wasn't an absolute dictatorship as Nazi Germany was, nor would they have simply ruled France as a satellite. And Britain was certainly a democracy, as was Switzerland, and Italy, and Norway, and Sweeden, and Denmark.

The German war aims made it rather clear that those nations (with the exception of Britain and to a degree France) would end up robbed of their independence in reality even if they remained independent in theory.

Sheer speculation.

What else would one expect when speculating on a what if?

Germany could not have conquered Britain on its best day, and I find it amusing your dismissing the real deaths of nearly 30 million people which did ensue in the Second World War as opposed to your speculative enslavement of the Continent under a government which showed none of the Nazis' propensities toward genocidal violence. Particularly as Imperial Germany showed they didn't have the capacity to conquer and dominate the Continent in three years of bloody stalemate on two fronts.

And you are speculating that an imperial victory won't lead to even more death because speculation is the only option possible for events that never happened.

Imperial Germany did show themselves to open to the slaughter of civilians for little reason they just didn't get quite as caught up in it as the Hitler and friends did.

As for Britain, who long do you think we could have held out against an aggressive naval power with ports along the entire European coast and harnessing the might of the bulk of Europe.

On the subject of Imperial Germany not being able to conquer the continent, the POD was a swift German victory, I suggest you try to stick to the issue at hand instead of careening off (complaining about speculation indeed ).

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's nothing at all about Social Darwinism at all.

I am not saying it was the "be all end all" cause of the war, and I didn't say Nationalism and darwinism were the same. I only meant that SD did have a role to play in created a tension atmosphere and reason for war. That is true.

I know the difference between Darwinism and Nationalism.

Darwinism was applied ona national level, and they falsely fell into the idea that "bigger and badder = more powerful = better chance of survial. Suvival was also thought of as a big competition. This was a general mentality of many (not all, as was pointed about about ENgland). They perverted the science and combined it with a strong sense of nationalism.

Social Darwinism may have been en vogue but it wasn't some overwhelming influence driving men wild, the war was caused by Prussian aggression.

That's exactly right. It was a background tension setter and shaper of mind-sets. There was no ONE cause of the war, but a series of links in a chain.

[Patrick Degan]

Except Imperial Germany wasn't an absolute dictatorship as Nazi Germany was, nor would they have simply ruled France as a satellite. And Britain was certainly a democracy, as was Switzerland, and Italy, and Norway, and Sweeden, and Denmark.

The German war aims made it rather clear that those nations (with the exception of Britain and to a degree France) would end up robbed of their independence in reality even if they remained independent in theory.

Bullshit. Germany's vision encompassed Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland, with only Luxembourg being outright annexed, and the neutralisation of France and Russia. They had no plans to invade Switzerland (an unrealistic proposition given the natural obstacle of the Alps and Switzerland's own army which was quite capable of closing off the passes), Italy, (they'd have had to go through the Austro-Hungarian Empire first) or any of the Scandanavian countries. As it was, in 1914, their only real war aim was to roll-up the French army and capture Paris in what they hoped would be a quick victory just as they enjoyed in 1870. They might have gotten it if Von Molkte hadn't fucked up the Schlieffen Plan.

Sheer speculation.

What else would one expect when speculating on a what if?

Some actual evidence of the attitudes to which you attribute to the Imperial German government to back your little what-if. It's already been pointed out that Germany was in many ways no worse, and in some ways a little better, in their conduct as a colonial power in that time than their main rivals.

Germany could not have conquered Britain on its best day, and I find it amusing your dismissing the real deaths of nearly 30 million people which did ensue in the Second World War as opposed to your speculative enslavement of the Continent under a government which showed none of the Nazis' propensities toward genocidal violence. Particularly as Imperial Germany showed they didn't have the capacity to conquer and dominate the Continent in three years of bloody stalemate on two fronts.

And you are speculating that an imperial victory won't lead to even more death because speculation is the only option possible for events that never happened.

Nice way to duck the point.

Imperial Germany did show themselves to open to the slaughter of civilians for little reason they just didn't get quite as caught up in it as the Hitler and friends did.

And the historical evidence for Imperial death-camps and systematised genocidal slaughter exists where? Elsewise, you've just given us a nice little Golden Mean Fallacy.

As for Britain, who long do you think we could have held out against an aggressive naval power with ports along the entire European coast and harnessing the might of the bulk of Europe.

You tried floating this nonsensical bullshit with Perinquus several months ago and it's no more valid today than it was then. Imperial Germany was in no position to conquer the whole of Europe, and their fleet could be and actually was quite effectively blockaded simply by the British stationing their fleet at Scapa Flow. Nevermind the fact that Germany never quite got the concept of sea power as a strategic instrument and was reluctant to risk the destruction of its mighty battleships for the blow to German morale such a disaster would entail. And as for Britain's resources, it had the whole of its empire to draw upon and would have gotten additional material aid from the United States had it come down to it. As, in point of fact, it actually did.

On the subject of Imperial Germany not being able to conquer the continent, the POD was a swift German victory, I suggest you try to stick to the issue at hand instead of careening off (complaining about speculation indeed ).

EDIT: The only "swift victory" Germany was aiming for was against France and not the whole bloody Continent. And as according to this little quote of yours:

So we have the freedom of a few hundred million (including the Germans themselves) Vs the lives of a few Million, I myself much prefer the freedom especially since it is my nation that is on the line (in the hypothetical).

it is you who is talking about Germany conquering Europe wholesale and stifling democracy for 60 years. You opened the door to attack on this point and it's far too late for you to try to close it now.