02-04-2002 21:43									#121
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I thought that was the '61 World Series Game 7 homer against the Yankees?

	02-04-2002 22:15									#122
	Suffering from ads?

It's possible we'll get a quicker war with the USA staying out.

Think about it. Germany knew that it had to strike now, as its allies were collapsing. In Germany there would have been a confrontation between the Socialist (SPD) and more conservative forces. Before the war, the SPD was the largest fraction of the Reichstag (Parliament). Either there would have been a lot of reforms which would have changed Germany into a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain or a revolution would have happened.

Austria-Hungary would have either exploded into a variety of nations, or turned into a federation. Either way, its relations with Germany worsen.

The Ottomans are continuing to weaken. Expect their survival up until the 30's, but by 20 they're no longer a major power.

In contrast, Russia was undergoing rapid industralization, at a pace equal (if not greater than ) the 5 year plans, with less bloodshed. Britain was pulling ahead in the naval race, and the USA was still increasing its lead over the other nations in terms of industrialization, although the final one had very little influence.

France, of course, was France.

	03-04-2002 00:07									#123
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Faeelin In contrast, Russia was undergoing rapid industralization, at a pace equal (if not greater than ) the 5 year plans, with less bloodshed.

Which was made possible by massive quantities of French capital. Russia was, full all intents and purposes, a French colony.

	03-04-2002 00:47									#124
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Some comments:


Weapons Sales

The United States sold goods(or tried to) to both the Allies and Central Powers during the first few years of WW1. American ships bound for the Netherlands whose goods would ultimately reach Germany were seized buy the British, citing a American precedant of nabbing ships bound for Mexico with Confederate goods during the (un)Civil War.

The Schliffein Plan

Was not right-heavy enough. And then Moltke the Younger compunded it by moving a Army unit from the "Right wheel" to Bavaria to aid in a expect French attack.

The SP was also doomed because it didn't factor in the professional and very experience British Army. The 80,000 Man BEF was worth thrice the numbers of draftees. Soldiers who had been fighting colonial wars all their adult lives proved to know a bit more about tactics than some German farmer.

Winning the War

Could Germany have won if the United States had not entered? Short answer "no", long answer "Yes, but..." Germany would have to display some innovative thinking, and thus far they hadn't. The Most innovative Army of the war were the Brits, who led a tank rush at Cambrai with spectacular results.

The German Navy had repeated Mutinees after the Battle of Jutland. The Surface fleet was a non-isue.

	03-04-2002 01:11									#125
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes, Germany did know that in 5-10 years, there would be no way it could fight a 2 front war (this doesn't mean they started the war... and I don't believe that they did). Russia was rapidly industrializing, and by 1920 probably would have been very strong. There may have been a bourgeois revolution, but any Communist revolt would have never succeeded (for one, Lenin would still be in Switzerland).

The Schlieffen Plan was a smart plan. And yes Von Moltke took a lot from it. He transfered armies to the left side, because it was afraid the left part would be overrun (which didn't happen at all... the left side overran the French and even pushed into France, when they were supposed to fall back). Moltke also took 2 armies and transfered it to Russia, but by the time they got there, Tannenburg had already been won and the Germans were having no problems with the Russian Army. Basically Moltke the Younger weakened the right arm by 3 armies for nothing, and that was what probably cost Germany the war.

quote: Your comment about international law was silly and wrong. Just take it back and we can trun to beating you for other stupidities.

quote: Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

Your point? And the reason we did so, was because it was too costly to try to run the British blockade to trade with Germany. We didn't trade with Germany because we didn't like them, but because we couldn't.

	03-04-2002 03:05									#126
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Was not right-heavy enough. And then Moltke the Younger compunded it by moving a Army unit from the "Right wheel" to Bavaria to aid in a expect French attack.

That, and several divisions were sent to East Prussia, but battles on both fronts were fought with them in transit, making their transfer pointless.

quote: Could Germany have won if the United States had not entered? Short answer "no", long answer "Yes, but..." Germany would have to display some innovative thinking, and thus far they hadn't.

I would argue that without the USN, Germany had a good chance of forcing Britain out of the war with their U-Boats.

quote: Your point? And the reason we did so, was because it was too costly to try to run the British blockade to trade with Germany. We didn't trade with Germany because we didn't like them, but because we couldn't.

Exactly so - the Brits were denying free trade, thus we should not have sold weapons to them either, nor should we have whined at Germany for trying to stop our arms sales when Britain did the same thing, with more success.

	03-04-2002 03:20									#127
	Suffering from ads?

But the British didn't blow our ships out of the water.... that was a big difference in public opinion.

If we didn't trade with either, our economy would have been sunk.

	03-04-2002 03:22									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: But the British didn't blow our ships out of the water....

Neither did the Germans.

quote: If we didn't trade with either, our economy would have been sunk.

I'm not talking about food, etc - I'm talking about direct war material.

	03-04-2002 03:26									#129
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm not talking about food, etc - I'm talking about direct war material.

The distinction is meaningless in general wars, David.

	03-04-2002 03:38									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

No it isn't - Imran's argument was that no trade would have wrecked our economy, I informed him I was referring to weapons and other direct war tools.

	03-04-2002 03:46									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Imran's argument was that no trade would have wrecked our economy, I informed him I was referring to weapons and other direct war tools.

And I'm telling you that in a general war, such a WWI, the distinction between what is and isn't a direct war tool becomes irrelevent.

If I had been Germany, shipments of food, oil, etc. would have been the first to be sunk.

	03-04-2002 03:55									#132
	Support Apolyton

Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets. We are morally justified in selling the former, but never the later.

	03-04-2002 04:11									#133
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets.

From who's standpoint? Remember, you're argueing that Germany was justified in attacking unarmed ships because the cargo they carried would have otherwise been used to aid the war effort of the British. Given that standpoint, on what objective basis do you support sending any material to any belligerant when thier total resources were dedicated to the war effort.

	03-04-2002 04:13									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets. We are morally justified in selling the former, but never the later.

It's the same as giving them bullets. All we were doing was freeing up resources for th' Kruats.

Now, What Germany should have done prior to WW1, was offer it's Pacific Island possesions to Japan after the war, on the stipulation that Japan attacks Russia in Siberia. Might be a better deal than they were getting out of their alliance with England.

	03-04-2002 04:17									#135
	Support Apolyton

The distinction I make is that food and medicine preserve life, and cannot be used as ofensive weapons, while weapons take life and can easily be used offensively.

	03-04-2002 04:20									#136
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The distinction I make is that food and medicine preserve life,

Which allows the UK to keep more of its soldiers alive, and ... well you can see where I'm going with this.

	03-04-2002 04:23									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I do, which is precisely my point - regardless of secondary effects, the primary purpose of food is to sustain life. What one does with that life is out of our control, but that does not make selling food immoral. It would have been better if we sold to Germany too, though.

	03-04-2002 04:32									#138
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I do, which is precisely my point - regardless of secondary effects, the primary purpose of food is to sustain life. What one does with that life is out of our control, but that does not make selling food immoral. It would have been better if we sold to Germany too, though.

David, I don't know where you get this idea that we were not selling stuff to Germany. We were. In fact, one of the primary reasons for us to stay out so long was that Britain kept on stopping American Ships that were bound for Holland(but held Goods for German agents in the Netherlands).

When we gripped about it, Britain cited a Precedent America had set during the Civil War, in which the USN had stopped British ships heading for Matamoros because we knew dang well the goods on board were heading straight into Confedereate hands.

	03-04-2002 07:48									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't think you can accurately predict what was going to happen to Russia before 1920 if there hadn't been a war. It's not just that other European nations were investing in Russian industry, they were actually building their own industries in Russia. Czarist Russia lacked the quantities of educated engineers and businessmen needed to exploit its own resources, and the mentality of the upper classes actively discouraged young men with the capability of obtaining such an education from doing so. Russia was still psychologically stuck in a bygone age.

Compounding the lack of interest by the educated classes was the monumental corruption of the Czarist government. You may have heard that when Russia mobilized only half of the infantry troops at the front had rifles. This wasn't due to industrial inadequacy. The government had paid for an adequate number of weapons, but the money went into the pockets of various Romanovs. There is nothing to indicate that this condition would have changed, the Duma was too weak to do anything about it. Of course it is also possible that if the people became increasingly disgusted with the lame Duma and the idiot Czar ther sould have been political unrest. In the short turn that would hve weakened the Russian military.

The only things that I know would have changed for the better with regards to the Russian army if the war had been delayed a few years is that the fortifications in Poland would have been completed and more heavy artillery would have been added at the corps level. These events might have made some difference, except, well, we're talking about Czar Nicky's army aren't we?

	03-04-2002 08:48									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Actually, I think there were army reforms of some kind in Russia due to be finished in 1917. I don't know what they actually were, but they scared the Germans enough that some of them thought they should launch a pre-emptive attack on them.

With regards to the Russian Revolution and the Hapsburg Empire, just because they did fall apart doesn't mean it was inevitable. WWI could have been averted at almost any stage - if the Austrians hadn't attacked the Serbians, if the Russians hadn't attacked the Austrians, if the Germans hadn't attacked the Russians. Anyway, the Revolution occurred largely because of all the shortages in Russia created by the war. Without the war, there would have been no revolution. And the war did not have to happen - while almost any kind of incident could potentially escalate to war, it could still be averted.

	03-04-2002 10:29									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The main reforms I mentioned - finish the border forts and upgrade the artillery. What wasn't addressed was the pilfering of army funds by the Grand Duke, Czar Nicky's uncle.

Europe wanted a war very badly. It was too deeply ingrained in the culture. I have some old books and etc, of my Grandmother's that date back to before the war. You really wouldn't believe the stuff they fed their kids then. She had a coloring book owned by her little brother. It had pictures of soldiers in uniform from various nations. Each picture was accompanied by a short ditty about military virtues and some vague references to how they represented exemplary national "traits" of their homelands. The history books in her collection, discussing what was then "recent" history, were so blatantly racist and chauvinistic they seemed more like books the Nazis would have used. Yet remember that these were American books. The nations of Europe had much stronger military traditions and were utterly unapologetic about them. By the second decade of the twentieth century the peoples of Europe really could hardly wait to send off their handsome young men dressed in their dashing uniforms if only for the opportunity to have a really grand parade.

	03-04-2002 11:01									#142
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you haven't studied the situation in Russia prior to the war, then yes, you can say there wouldn't have been a revolution. This is a long way of saying you don't know what you are talking about. From 1912 on unrest was growing in Russia. There were many strikes in 1913 and 1914. Byt mid-1914, Russia was in a pre-revolutionary situation, and had there been no war, it is very likely a revolution would have occurred in the next year or so. It may or may not have been successful, but it was in the cards. Frankly, the war only set back the work of the Bolsheviks by a year, since by late 1915, strikes had reached pre-war levels again.

GeneralTacitus, there would never be a bourgeois revolution in Russia. Although the bourgeousie had allied with the revolution in 1905, they quickly turned against it when the saw the workers were prepared to go all the way, and not limit themselves to simple bourgeois demands. They quickly resumed their loyalty to the Czar and maintained that loyalty even after his abdication.

	03-04-2002 11:34									#143
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets.

But there was prevention of that as well, especially when the aim was to starve the members.

And che... without a war, the revolution wouldn't have been as successful at all. But yeah, there would have been an uprising (whether it would have reached full-fledged revolution is open to debate).

	03-04-2002 12:09									#144
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Wars are not the only triggers of revolutions, however, it is almost always a catastrophe that triggers one. It is generally the state's inability to cope with a catastrophy that leads to the delegitimisation of its authority and destabilization. Sometimes this is a war, such as in Russia in 1905 and gernaally in Europe from 1917 to 1926. In Nicaragua it was an Earthquake. In Chicago it was the Great Fire. In the gernal uprisings in Europe in 1848 it was a famine followed by an economic failure.

Russia was headed towards economic trouble in 1914, and while the war accelerated these problems greatly, there is almost always a sure of loyalty and patriotism when war starts, which bought the country some breathing space. Obviously not enough, as the country wasn't capable of maintaining food production with ten million peasants on the front lines.

	03-04-2002 13:36									#145
	Got spare money?

quote: In Chicago it was the Great Fire. In the gernal uprisings in Europe in 1848 it was a famine followed by an economic failure.

There was a revolution in Chicago? What general uprisings in Europe?

OK Che, about the Russian Revolution. You are right in a sense, I have not done in-depth research on this, however I am not just talking out of my arse.

The 1905 Revolution started off mainly as a peaceful demonstration led by Father Gapon to the Winter Palace. Soldiers opened fire on them and naturally this pissed the people off. There were a great many strikes throughout Russia, along with numerous assassinations (I'm not sure who was killed though). The pressure from this forced the Czar to dismiss numerous ministers and appointed Count Witte as Prime Minister. He made peace with Japan, allowing Russia's more loyal troops to return home and put down the uprisings - there was a general strike in St. Petersburg and an armed insurrection in Moscow during 1905. These were crushed. Although the Revolution failed, Russia nown had a parliament (the Duma).

In 1914, while Russia did have economic difficulties, the Bolsheviks in particular were having great problems. The party was relatively small, with only 5-10 thousand members, and was full of police informers. Nicholas II had apparently regained his popular support. Although there were many social divisions and political and economic troubles, revolution was certainly not inevitable. The war set it off.

The March Revolution (which ousted the czar), consisted of a series of strikes, riots and defections by the garrison of Petrograd. It culminated in the Czar abdicating. The Romanov Dynasty ended when the Czar's brother refused to accept the crown. The Bolshevic Revolution was only able to take place because of the March Revolution. Without it Lenein would have stayed in Switzerland, with most of the other Bolshevik leaders also in exile. Moreover, the Provisional Government very weak when faced with revolution. It had the same problems that destroyed czarism, while at the same time it didn't have the capacity to repress the Bolsheviks. If Lenin had tried to set off a Revolution with Nicholas II still in power, he might well have been executed. One other factor that helped the Bolsheviks was General Kornilov. He was appointed C in C of the Russian army by Kerensky, with orders to restore army discipline. He wanted stronger government generally, and when Kerensky wouldn't implement it, he began marching on Petrograd, claiming Kerensky had ordered him to do so. Kerensky thought he was attempting to launch a coup, and therefore called upon the citizens of Petrograd to defend the city against him. To aid him in this, he released the Bolshevik leaders from prison and allowed Lenin back from Finland (he had moved against the Bolsheviks after publishing evidence that Lenein was an agent of Germany). Although Kornilov's army was stopped by railroad workers and never actually reached the city, the Bolsheviks got the credit for 'stopping' Kornilov. Additionally, they were both at liberty and armed.

With regards to food shortages. These were in fact caused mainly by the problems of transporting food from the countyside to the cities, due to the demands of the war. Without the war, obviously these problems would not have occurred. Morover, even if there would have been an uprising without the war, it's quite possible the army would have put it down. One of the factors that caused the revolution was that the army was no longer loyal to the czarist government - it couldn't be used against the revolutionaries, largely because of the conditions created by the war.

OK, enough typing, I can't think what else I should have mentioned.

EDIT: It was the March Revolution, not the April one.

	03-04-2002 21:44									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Che,

The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

	04-04-2002 01:11									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lonestar Che, The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

Actually, the oft ignored Great Labor Uprising of 1877 would be closer to the truth. In Chicago, pitched battles were fought with the military. The GLU was sparked by the economic crash of 1873. There is a reason, however, that Chicago was known as Red Chicago, and part of that had to do with the inability or rather, unwillingness, of the government and the "community leaders" to provide enough relief and work for the hundreds of thousnads made homeless just before winter by the Great Fire (notice how everthing was Great in those days? ).

The general European uprising refers to a series a major confrontations with governement following the Russian Revolution, such as the revolutions in Bavavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and later the one year Red Republic of Hungary (which was overthrown by a Romanian invasion). There was a massive general strike in Great Britain which nearly toppled the government, the largest yet strike wave in the US (including a general strike in Seattle, to which Lenin sent a letter of solidarity), and so on.

Oh, wait, not that uprising. Okay, in 1848 there was a series of revolutions in France, followed shortly by revolutions in western Germany, Hungary, and elsewhere. The Prussian Kaiser was overthrown, and Karl Marx helped lead a radical bourgesois government in the Rhineland (IIRC), before Russian troops intervened sqaushing the revolutions and restoring the Kaiser. In France, the workers pushed too far too fast, and were overthrown. Shortly thereafter, Louis Napoleon set himself up as emperor of France.

	04-04-2002 01:15									#148
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The closest thing to a revolution in Chicago was "The Haymarket Square Incident."

A revolution probably would've happened if it wasn't for the gov't crackdown (IIRC, some 80000 workers were involved).

quote: What general uprisings in Europe?

Huge uprisings all across Europe. France (one revolution that suceeded to some degree), Austria, Russia, Prussia, the Italian states, the other German states, Denmark, etc. all had to deal with uprisings. It was only through the rulers' solidarity (the "Holy Alliance") were the revolutions crushed.

	04-04-2002 01:46									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Beat ya by three minutes.

	04-04-2002 05:17									#150
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Re: those uprisings, I thought you said 1948. My bad .

Never heard about Karl Marx having led a government anywhere, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. All I can say is that it obviously didn't last long. I don't think that the Prussian Kaiser was actually overthrown, but your definition may be different from mine, mine being that he would have lost power and not been able to reclaim it.