NationStates Jolt Archive

I stumbled on a site that had photos from WW1.

What was interesting was a comment made by Winston Churchill

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."

http://www.greatwar.nl/index.html

and yet, we see several pictures of FDR, Stalin, and Churchill together during WW II...

I stumbled on a site that had photos from WW1.

What was interesting was a comment made by Winston Churchill

"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government - and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."

http://www.greatwar.nl/index.html

Could I have a specific link, please? Although it honestly doesn't surprise me; he once professed admiration of Mussolini, and even Hitler I believe. The man was a politician and his views ever-changing.

Well... he was right.

Well, they probably would have just gotten taken over by the Soviets and/or Germans anyway so the statement is rather specious. The Germans would have just rebuilt and rearmed and tried again; since they already had taken industrial supremacy in Europe away from England the Allies would have been at a huge disadvantage in the next war, especially if the USSR remained neutral.

Well... he was right.

Yea? Prove it, you can't because the events have already taken place, we'll never know if he was right and worng, so to say that was a moot point.

He was the number one architect of most things Britain did to get the US to join the war (including directing the Lusitania straight into a trap). I honestly can't believe he'd say this.

Well... he was right.

Stay out of the war, and the US would have lost to the Greater German Reich/Expanded USSR within two decades at the longest. Hitler had plans for an invasion of the US and long-range bombings. Couple that with the development of nuclear weapons, which the Nazis nearly developed via heavy water and the Amerika Bomber, as well as the sheer size of the GGR, and US would have either been invaded via South America or been nuked into submission

Same with the Soviets, although perhaps taking slightly longer and without the Amerika bomber, just good old nukes. The US would have had no allies either way, y'see? Oh, and don't forget Japan. They might well have allied with the USSR against the US before turning on the USSR itself.

who cares?

Could I have a specific link, please? Although it honestly doesn't surprise me; he once professed admiration of Mussolini, and even Hitler I believe. The man was a politician and his views ever-changing.

Sorry it's the way they wrote the site.

Scroll down and look for "Why america should have stayed out"

Stay out of the war, and the US would have lost to the Greater German Reich/Expanded USSR within two decades at the longest. Hitler had plans for an invasion of the US and long-range bombings. Couple that with the development of nuclear weapons, which the Nazis nearly developed via heavy water and the Amerika Bomber, as well as the sheer size of the GGR, and US would have either been invaded via South America or been nuked into submission

Same with the Soviets, although perhaps taking slightly longer and without the Amerika bomber, just good old nukes. The US would have had no allies either way, y'see? Oh, and don't forget Japan. They might well have allied with the USSR against the US before turning on the USSR itself.

I think Churchill was referring to the First World War, not the Second.

Stay out of the war, and the US would have lost to the Greater German Reich/Expanded USSR within two decades at the longest. Hitler had plans for an invasion of the US and long-range bombings. Couple that with the development of nuclear weapons, which the Nazis nearly developed via heavy water and the Amerika Bomber, as well as the sheer size of the GGR, and US would have either been invaded via South America or been nuked into submission

Same with the Soviets, although perhaps taking slightly longer and without the Amerika bomber, just good old nukes. The US would have had no allies either way, y'see? Oh, and don't forget Japan. They might well have allied with the USSR against the US before turning on the USSR itself.
This is about the first Great War, chief.

Just read the site. Apparently Churchill dismissed the statement as false, although he did give the interview it was purportedly given in. The chap who said he did sued him, but failed miserably during WWII. I do find it a tad unusual, but he might well have said it - as it does have a certain amount of truth to it - and denied it during WWII to keep US-UK relations firm.

I think Churchill was referring to the First World War, not the Second.

Sorry I thought the 1 in parens showed that. I was trying to stay to the quote.

Should have made a better title.

This is about the first Great War, chief.

Meh. My points about WWII are still valid, as you've bought up that argument before about WWII. As to WWI, Churchill I suppose did have a point (Less reliance on the US and degredation of the Empire, I suppose), but the US did have reasons to join in. The Germans did try and get the Mexicans to invade the US, although I will admit their reasons for joining this conflict are far less numerous and compelling than the second conflict.

although I will admit their reasons for joining this conflict are far less numerous and compelling than the second conflict.
That's because Wilson was even more of an imperialist bastard than FDR.

Meh. My points about WWII are still valid, as you've bought up that argument before about WWII. As to WWI, Churchill I suppose did have a point (Less reliance on the US and degredation of the Empire, I suppose), but the US did have reasons to join in. The Germans did try and get the Mexicans to invade the US, although I will admit their reasons for joining this conflict are far less numerous and compelling than the second conflict.

Nice try at a dodge :D ;)

That's because Wilson was even more of an imperialist bastard than FDR.

I'm not sure I see FDR as an Imperialist really. Wilson perhaps, although I think he hoped to try and bring about an era of world peace, and just sorta screwed it up; nice principles, just enacted badly and didn't take European politics into account. As for FDR, I don't see it. He helped Britain defend itself against a fascist dictatorship, then attacked Japan for attacking the US. Perhaps he bent the rules more than a little with the Lend-Lease Acts, but I don't think that can be seen as imperialism really.

Nice try at a dodge :D ;)

Dodge? That I got the wrong war? I got the wrong war. Happy? That doesn't make my previous post any less valid.

Dodge? That I got the wrong war? I got the wrong war. Happy? That doesn't make my previous post any less valid.
:D

No! No, just seemed like this:

OP: I love Apples

You: You know what? Pineapples are the food of Satan.

OP: What? I was talking about Apples....

You: Oh... *crap- must find a way out while maintaining the illusion that I knew what I was doing all along...* Em, yeah, well.... I still hate pineapples too
*shifty eyes*

I'm not sure I see FDR as an Imperialist really. Wilson perhaps, although I think he hoped to try and bring about an era of world peace,
An era of world peace controlled by a US dominated League of Nations, maybe. He sacrificed everything else he promised the world to create the League. He was mad with power and I'm glad my country rejected Versailles.
As for FDR, I don't see it.
He had the same goals as Wilson, to use a World War to establish the US as the dominate force in the world. The only difference is that he succeeded.

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]I stumbled on a site that had photos from WW1.

What was interesting was a comment made by Winston Churchill...

[QUOTE]

That "quote" would seem *very* out of character for Winston Chruchill given what he had written elsewhere. Given that the title of one of the site's other stories was "How the Germans still worship their dead kaiser" or some such drivel at the time I clicked on the link I suspect the quality of this site. >_<

This wouldn't be the first time a bogus quote circulated on the Net. It sort of reminds me of the bogus Julius Caesar quote that has made the rounds among the leftist moonbats for a while. :rolleyes:

Spring was half over when the US entered and the Russians had given up before the US entered.

That "quote" would seem *very* out of character for Winston Chruchill given what he had written elsewhere. Given that the title of one of the site's other stories was "How the Germans still worship their dead kaiser" or some such drivel at the time I clicked on the link I suspect the quality of this site. >_<

This wouldn't be the first time a bogus quote circulated on the Net. It sort of reminds me of the bogus Julius Caesar quote that has made the rounds among the leftist moonbats for a while. :rolleyes:

Well the wiki mentions the author tried and lost a libel suit and it says he testified before Congress about it.

Haven't looked into it myself.....

Hey guys Did anyone bother to even check a few facts..like the Russian revolution already begun ..1917 ...hehehehe the french army revolt ? The massive German offensive that almost destroyed the Allied armies even with the help of the US..the Allies MIGHT have negotiated a SURRENDER to Germany had the US stayed out if you want to call that peace well OK a big piece of France maybe Did you even Bother to look at the trench lines in FRANCE ..Belgium did not exist unless you consider occuoied by Germany existing...lets Not forget Austriain the EAST and a few zillion other things that make this comment a bit ludicrous ..the Russians were done in the East and germany had already sent the divisions to the west. 1917...hehehehehe

Thats funny stuff .


BTW for those that care .

Add To My Timeline | Use Text View



French army mutiny 4/29/1917 - 5/20/1917
Mutiny breaks out among French army




Russian Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Russian Revolution can refer to the following events in the history of Russia:

The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a series of strikes and anti-government violence against Tsar Nicholas II
The Russian Revolution of 1917, which included:
February Revolution, which resulted in the abdication of Nicholas II of Russia
October Revolution, which was the Bolshevik seizure of power
The Third Russian Revolution was the failed anarchist revolution against the Bolsheviks and the White movement 1918 - 1922
When the year is not indicated in the reference, the term "Russian Revolution", if used as a time mark, usually refers to the October Revolution of 1917, whereas references to the revolution of 1905 always mention the year and references to the February Revolution always mention the month.


http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20index.htm

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20%20pages/great%20war%20map%2018.htm

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20%20pages/great%20war%20map%2017.htm

http://www.richthofen.com/ww1sum2/

If Germany Had Won World War I.....
In a way, this is a more interesting hypothesis than the more commonly asked question about what the world would be like if the Germans had won World War II. Several historians have noted that both world wars should really be considered a single conflict with a long armistice in the middle. If this viewpoint is valid, then the official outcome of the first phase of this conflict may have been important for reasons other than those usually cited.

As a preliminary matter, we should note that the actual outcome of the First World War was a near thing, a far nearer thing than was the outcome of World War II after 1941. While it is true that the United States entered the war on the allied side in 1917, thus providing vast new potential sources of men and material, it is also true that Germany had knocked Russia out of the war at about the same time. This gave the Germans access to the resources of Eastern Europe and freed their troops for deployment to the West. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 actually succeeded in rupturing the Allied line at a point where the Allies had no significant reserves. (At about this time, British Prime Minister Lloyd George was heard to remark, "We are going to lose this war." He began to create a record which would shift the blame to others.) The British Summer Offensive of the same year similarly breached the German lines, but did a much better job of exploiting the breakthrough than the Germans had done a few months earlier. General Luddendorf panicked and demanded that the government seek an armistice. The German army did succeed in containing the Allied breakthrough, but meanwhile the German diplomats had opened tentative armistice discussions with the United States. Given U.S. President Wilson's penchant for diplomacy by press-release, the discussions could not be broken off even though the German military situation was no longer critical. While the Germans were not militarily defeated, or even economically desperate, the government and general public saw no prospect of winning. Presented with the possibility of negotiating a settlement, their willingness to continue the conflict simply dissolved.

The Germans were defeated by exhaustion. This could as easily have happened to the Allies. When you read the diaries and reports of the French and British on the Western Front from early 1918, the writers seem to be perfectly lucid and in full command of their faculties. What the Americans noted when they started to arrive at about that time was that everyone at the front was not only dirty and malnourished, but half asleep. In addition to their other deleterious effects, the terrible trench warfare battles of that conflict were remarkably exhausting, and the capacity of the Allies to rotate out survivors diminished with the passage of time. Even with American assistance, France and Britain were societies that were slowly falling apart from lack of ordinary maintenance. Both faced food shortages from the diversion of farmers into the army and from attacks on oceanborne supplies. Had the Germans been able to exploit their breakthrough in the spring, or if the German Empire had held together long enough for Luddendorf's planned autumn offensive to take place, its quite likely that either the French or British would have sued for peace. Had one or the other even raised the question of an armistice, the same process of internal political collapse which destroyed Germany would have overtaken both of them.

Although today it is reasonably clear that Germany fought the war with the general aim of transforming itself from a merely continental power to a true world power, the fact is that at no point did the German government know just what its peace terms would be if it won. It might have annexed Belgium and part of the industrial regions of northern France, though bringing hostile, non-German populations into the Empire might not have seemed such a good idea if the occasion actually arose. More likely, or more rationally, the Germans would have contented themselves with demilitarizing these areas. From the British, they would probably have demanded nothing but more African colonies and the unrestricted right to expand the German High Seas Fleet. In Eastern Europe, they would be more likely to have established friendly satellite countries in areas formerly belonging to the defunct empires than to have directly annexed much territory. It seems to me that the Austrian and Ottoman Empires were just as likely to have fallen apart even if the Central Powers had won. The Hungarians were practically independent before the war, after all, and the chaos caused by the eclipse of Russia would have created opportunities for them which they could exploit only without the restraint of Vienna. As for the Ottoman Empire, most of it had already fallen to British invasion or native revolt. No one would have seen much benefit in putting it back together again, not even the Turks.

Communist agitation was an important factor in the dissolution of Imperial Germany, and it would probably have been important to the collapse of France and Britain, too. One can imagine Soviets being established in Glasglow and the north of England, a new Commune in Paris. This could even have happened in New York, dominated as it was by immigrant groups who were either highly radicalized or anti-British. It is unlikely that any of these rebellions would have succeeded in establishing durable Communist regimes in the West, however. The Soviets established in Germany and Eastern Europe after the war did not last, even though the central government had dissolved. In putting down such uprisings, France might have experienced a bout of military dictatorship, not unlike the Franco era in Spain, and Britain might have become a republic. Still, although the public life of these countries would have been polarized and degraded, they would probably have remained capitalist democracies. The U.S., one suspects, would have reacted to the surrender or forced withdrawal of its European expeditionary force by beginning to adopt the attitude toward German-dominated Europe which it did later in the century toward the victorious Soviet Union. Britain, possibly with its empire in premature dissolution, would have been forced to seek a strong Atlantic alliance. As for the Soviet Union in this scenario, it is hard to imagine the Germans putting up with its existence after it had served its purpose. Doubtless some surviving Romanov could have been put on the throne of a much- diminished Russia. If no Romanov was available, Germany has never lacked for princelings willing to be sent abroad to govern improvised countries.

This leaves us with the most interesting question: what would have happened to Germany itself? Before the war, the German constitution was working less and less well. Reich chancellors were not responsible to parliament but to the Kaiser. The system could work only when the Kaiser was himself a competent executive, or when he had the sense to appoint and support a chancellor who was. The reign of Wilhelm II showed that neither of these conditions need be the case. In the twenty years preceding the war, national policy was made more and more by the army and the bureaucracy. It is unlikely that this degree of drift could have continued after a victorious war. Two things would have happened which in fact happened in the real world: the monarchy would have lost prestige to the military, and electoral politics would have fallen more and more under the influence of populist veterans groups.

We should remember that to win a great war can be almost as disruptive for a combatant country as to lose it. There was a prolonged political crisis, indeed the whiff of revolution, in victorious Britain in the 1920s. Something similar seems to be happening in the United States today after the Cold War. While it is, of course, unlikely that the Kaiser would have been overthrown, it is highly probable that there would have been some constitutional crisis which would have drastically altered the relationship between the branches of government. It would have been in the military's interest to push for more democracy in the Reich government, since the people would have been conspicuously pro-military. The social and political roles of the old aristocracy would have declined, since the war would have brought forward so many men of humble origin. Again, this is very much what happened in real history. If Germany had won and the Allies lost, the emphasis in these developments would certainly have been different, but not the fundamental trends.



http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm


So please tell me how anyone would believe Churchill said it ..never mind thought it ...unless of course he was blind drunk and had a gun to his head .

I guess anything is possible .

@ Sel Appa

The Russians only abandoned the fight after the October Revolution (that is, after the US joined the war).

@ Ultraextreme Sanity

Rusian Revolution =/= USSR

Churchill's (or whoever said it) points still hold. Of course, I didn't know that France and Britain were ready to make peace in 1917 if the US didn't join the war. That's news to me.