freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:50pm:


My thats a loaded question FD. There are about a thousand different possible scenarios that fit under the heading "if the Germans had won": define "winning" - was it defeat and occupation of all her enemies? Or only some, and reach agreeable terms with the others? Was it defeat of her enemies but withdrawal with the annexation of pieces of claimed territory like the Franco-Prussian war?

But if you are envisaging a scenario where Germany completely overruns the civilized world and dismantles all democratic institutions and builds a new German world order - then you are dreaming. In my view, the only realistic scenario where "the Germans had won" is one in which they obtained favourable terms from Britain and France vis-a-vis their imperialistic ambitions outside Europe, and fair access to outside markets.
Defeat and submission of Russia would probably be expected - but thats a case of a despot defeating a despot.

In short, I think European democracy would have worked out fine in the event of the Kaiser winning the war.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:50pm:


consistently or always?

Quote:


So the German Empire defeats France and Britain, and forces them to be nice?

Quote:


Why would the west and east be so different?

Quote:


I can't think of a war where we fought against democracy. Can you?

I am not asking you who they defeated. I am asking you what the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if they had won in Europe. You cannot use the fact that the actual outcome was a 'stalemate' as evidence for what they would have done if they had won. That's like claiming that Germany's only intention was to establish democracy in Germany, because that is what ended up happening.

I am not sure whether this is simple naivete on your part - that an old fashioned empire defeating the new European democracies would have been neutral for democracy, or a desperate attempt to knock the achievements of our soldiers and what they have fought to protect. To the Muslim, anything that undermines western values is a good thing, even if that includes insisting our soldiers did nothing for democracy and the German Empire had benign intentions for Europe.

You can ask questions too Karnal. I might even answer them, if I can figure out what you are on about.

Here it is in the form of a statement. Both Gandalf and TC set out to deliberately mislead with their claims about democracy in the German Empire. Gandalf's insistence that German victory in either world war would have been benign for democracy is delusional. Contrary to what Gandalf has claimed, our troops did fight for freedom and democracy and their actions have made the world a freer and more democratic place.

Quote:


You mean they kept losing the wars, rather than conquering them? Yes I can see how this might be a bit confusing for someone who cannot tell the difference between winning and losing a war. Is Germany's loss merely an expression of a different form of imperialism?

Quote:


Right. A central European empire only wanted to dominate central Europe, and feared being surrounded by their neighbours.

Quote:


Crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

The conflict emerged from tensions regarding German unification. In his memoirs written long after the war, Prussian Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck wrote: "I always considered that a war with France would naturally follow a war against Austria...I was convinced that the gulf which was created over time between the north and the south of Germany could not be better overcome than by a national war against the neighboring people who were aggressive against us. I did not doubt that it was necessary to make a French-German war before the general reorganization of Germany could be realized."

Germany barely existed at the time. Bismarck's strategic ambition at the time of the franco-pruissian war was to create an empire out of those disparate states. All empires start small. This does not mean they are not empires. It does not mean that whatever size an empire reached was the only size it's leaders ever wanted to achieve. This is no less stupid than your argument that Germany would have not done anything to France if they had won WWI because there was a military stalemate.

Quote:


You don't have to occupy a country very long to destroy the democracy. If you occupy it long enough to defeat their army, that's about how long it takes.

The Kaiser was not some kind of ideologue who worshipped the status quo. He used the franco-prussian war to seize power over a broad group of nation-states. The only status quo he sought to preserve was his own grip on power. That was threatened by WWI. He realised that a victorious France and Britain would probably set up a proper democracy. He was not as naive as you.

When an emperor is under threat, they seek to maintain the status quo. However it is pure delusional naivete to equate this with doing nothing more than maintaining the status quo when they find themselves victorious over several nieghbouring countries.

I have challenged you several times already to come up with a single credible historian who shared your naivete that a victorious Germany would have been no threat to the emerging democracies in Europe. You claimed they agreed with you. Your argument is nothing more than a more convoluted version of insisting that what actually happened in WWI is the ultimate guide to what would have happened if the Germans had won.

The Kaiser spent his career undermining democracy to maintain his grip on power. It is inevitable that had he won, he would have, at best, set up undemocratic client regimes in conquered countries.

The Kaiser also appeared to think that Africa was part of central Europe and would have expanded his empire there, if given the chance.

Africa?

Do you mean to say the Kaiser would have expanded his empire into all the African colonies Britain and France had set up as proper demokracies?

Please explain, FD.

It’s hard to say what would, or should have happened, G. One thing, however, is certain: Germany now outperforms every other European state economically.

If Hitler had kept his nose out of everyone else’s business, Germany would almost certainly have become the dominant European -and world - power much earlier. It would also not have had to rely on multinational organizations like the EU and IMF to do so.

Germany’s destiny is not yet achieved, but its place in the EU holds it back from world domination, just as it was intended by players like France.

WWI was a purely imperial war. There was no Freeedom attached to it. WWII was different. Hitler had to be stopped. However, the liberatory motives of the war changed at the Bretton Woods Conference. Here, at the end of the war, WWII became purely imperial - this time, in the US’s favour.

Bretton Woods established the new form of empire the US became. By siezing and keeping the world’s gold reserves in WWII, the US dollar became the currency for global trade. This, along with US  manufacturing dominance after Germany was quashed, gave the US its hegemony. It’s why the US never had to militarily occupy the countries it came to colonise.

But what makes a colony? Certainly not military occupation - most in the British empire, for example, ceeded rule voluntarily. British governors in most cases were little more than figureheads - like many elected presidents of peripheral ex-colonies today.

A colony exists for its labour and resources. The real power-holders in any colony are those who control the wealth. A colonial administration or elected government does little more than broker the contracts and skim the profits.

This is why it matters little whether Mother pours the tea, or a Suharto or a Marcos or a Mubarak. The reason these military rulers succeeded is they were able to keep their populations down. The reason they succeeded is they actively surpressed Freeedom, and were rewarded by the global military and business community for doing so.

By isolating Germany and keeping them away from the spoils of colonialism, the allied powers helped to make Germany smarter. If Germany had won WWII, it most likely have become bloated and inefficient, but who knows? Even communism did not hold Germany down for long. Angela Merkel was an Ostie - a chemical engineer and member of the Communist Party. East Germany was an advanced technological nation, despite its political system, which of course held it back.

These skills are the legacy, I think, of Bismark. But like many countries, Germany struggles between two opposing sets of values: old boy militarism the one side, and on the other,  the best philosophy of the Enlightenment and European revolutionary period, post-1848.

For thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer, these sides were inextricable - Nazism is the telos of the Enlightenment.

For me, I’m unsure. Germany today is a very enlightened, environmentally responsible and prosperous country. It has some of the lowest emissions in the world, some of the highest wages, and it is still a manufacturing giant. It is as close as a large industrial population can be to being a genuine democracy.

Maybe its defeat in war did it some good. Maybe it did us all some good. In the short term, it definitely did the US some good, but in the long run, with competing German exports and the common market of the EU, it may not be so good for the US at all.