Quote:And I have challenged you several times already to adequately define a "victorious Germany". Until you can, its simply absurd to try and explain what this meaningless phrase would mean for democracy in Europe.
It's quite simple Gandalf. They win the war. There is only one way to do that.
Quote: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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.This was before the German Empire even came into existence, and before Bismark started winding back the democratic institutions inherited from the French.
Not that he necessarily would have expanded more into Africa. He may have preferred a mostly European Empire.
Quote:But regarding his 'civilized' neighbours, the kaiser - and especially Bismark generally played by the rules of 19th century liberalism - don't interfere (too much) with the sovereignty of your civilized neighbours.
Crap. He had already built an empire by swallowing his neighbours. He was winding back democracy, whereas the clear trend in the rest of western Europe was towards greater democracy. The German Empire was a backwards force. It was a return to old fashioned conquest, and victory would have enabled that to be taken much further.
Bismarck used the Franco-Prussian war to help expand Prussia into an undemocratic empire. in doing so he wiped out a lot of the gains towards democracy that had already been made as a result of the French, and that would have been made. It is a deliberate act of self delusion to pretend the empire would have acted differently to every other empire in history.
Quote:There is nothing to suggest that Bismark's intricate and delicate system of alliances and deterrences was anything other than a strategy to consolidate Germany's status as the central power, and protect itself against allied attack.
Except of course the clear pattern of such empires throughout history. Emperors consolidate their internal power so they can focus on projecting it outwards, not because they have some ideological adherence to the status quo.
Quote: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 have gone the same way as Russia.
Quote: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.
Crap. The world powers would have traded with these countries regardless. They kept their own populations down because that is what oppressive regimes do for their own benefit, not because some foreigner is rewarding them.
Quote:Even communism did not hold Germany down for long.
It's the other way round. Like term, it would have stifled the economy, just like in Russia.
Quote:Maybe its defeat in war did it some good. Maybe it did us all some good.
Of course it did.
Quote: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.
Everyone benefits through trade liberalisation. The US may not always lead, but if the world economy grows that much, it will still be better off. This is why Chinese liberalisation is such a good thing for the global economy, despite the fact that they compete.
Quote:Hitler had to be stopped because he was threatening the existing Anglo-French dominated world order. While the colonies were rapidly dissapearing, the rise of Hitler and the start of WWII was still very much a function of Germany reacting to being denied a "fair" share of the big global exploitation pie.
Why does it not surprise me that even the most liberal Muslim tries to downplay Hitler. Hitler had to be stopped because he wanted to achieve what Muhammed had - a thousand year Reich - and he was just as devious as MUhammed in achieving it.
Quote:It was the first time in history in which the victor imposed reparations on the vanquished for the cost of the war.
Crap. Muhammed did this all the time. In one case, he confiscated all the land and property, but allowed the vanquished to work the land provided they pay a 50% tax on everything produced. Other times he simply slaughtered the men and took the women as sex slaves. What made this almost unique was that the 'punishment' did not involve a long term occupation.
Quote:And remembering of course that it was this same Prussian elite that formed the backbone of the nationalistic, militaristic culture that drove German unity, and her subsequent imperial ambitions in the late 19th century.
You mean the same Prussian elite who had no imperialist ambitions in WWI?
Forum
Pages: 
local Muslim celebrates ANZAC day (Read 10399 times)
