It being the 90th anniversary of the armistice today it got me thinking how the world would have turned out without WW1.

Obviously on a humanitarian level it was a disaster. A massive waste of life, a whole generation of men being slaughtered - at least in Europe and the British sovereign states. It was the inevetable conclusion of 19th century imperialism and led to the second world war, which in turn allowed the USA to take up it's current position as the dominant global power.

Anway, what are your thoughts on how society would be different today had the first world war not happened?

We would have called World War II World War I, which would have totally fucked up the joke from "Time After Time" when Malcom McDowell is in the pawn shop talking to the elderly Jew.

Hitler would never have been blinded by Mustard Gas, and would likely have become a mildly successful landscape artist.

"Blackadder Goes Forth" would have been set in the Crimean war or Boer War, perhaps.

The novel "All Quiet on the Western Front" would have been called "No, seriously, it's Quiet out here, because there is no war."

Alvin York would have faded into obscurity in Tennessee, and Gary Cooper would have missed a real opportunity to portray him.

Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound, Sherwood Anderson, Waldo Peirce, and John Dos Passos would be nobodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Generation

my teacher always ranted about how WW1 was the most important event in recent history.

WW1 was the reason Germany was stricken by poverty, contributing to Nazism's rise, and eventually the holocaust. This in turn contributed to the middle east conflict we still have today

It was a driving factor in Russia's conversion to communism and thus all of the implications of that.

it removed many monarchies, and tilted power all over the place.

and a few more that i cant think of at the moment

though i reckon that some of the stuff would have happened eventually anyway, but a little differently, or maybe at a different time

We would have called World War II World War I

in fact many historians consider the thirty years´war to be the real first world war. it involved every nation in europe and guess where it took place, yes germany ..

in fact many historians consider the thirty years´war to be the real first world war. it involved every nation in europe and guess where it took place, yes germany ..

if we really want to go down this route then i would call the seven years war the first world war, as it involved conflicts all across the world an not just europe.


and if world war 1 never happened, well it would have eventually. europe was a tinder box for most of that time period. if it was not the arch duke getting killed it would have been someting else. the world powers were itching for war an they would have made it happen one way or another i think.

seven years´ war was after thirty years´ war ..

An epic war would've just occurred later on an even more catastrophic scale as technology developed.

I agree that without WW I, WW II would not have happened in anyway like it did, since Hitler largely came to power by manipulating the resentment over the way Germany was screwed by the Treaty of Versailles.

Wasn't the armistice signed on November 11th, hence why November 11th used to be called "Armistice Day", in hopes that WWI would be the last war ever fought? Then after WWII and a few more, it got its name changed to "Veteran's Day." At least that's what I have been taught.

Lostmyface made a very valid point.

The war would have occurred regardless of whether Franz got shot or not. Europe was in a technological arms race, what with British dreadnoughts, biological warfare, and other innovations in the art of death. The Europeans were clamoring for the War, and an excuse for it would have happened regardless.

And Arms made another good point,

The Treaty of Versailles was pure vengeance by Western Europe and the States against Germany, and ruined the country in every sense. However, the wounds it cut were too deep, and it fostered a deep and seething resentment among the Germans.
This of course launched Hitler's career, and like any good totalitarian state, it had a scapegoat. I needn't say more.

In my opinion, however, Hitler's name would have been just a smear on a pane were it not for the injustice dealt to Germany by the Treaty.

WWII could have been prevented if the United States had not reverted to Monroe-style isolationism after the armistice. Europeans nations refused to act when Germany started to re-arm itself. They remained lethargic as Germany made the Anschluss with Austria, and they laid lax as Germany annexed the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. WWI was unpreventable, but WWII was due to pure mismanagement and lethargy.

I think WW1 could have been avoided, if rash decisions had not been made by both Austria-Hungary and Serbia. If this could have been dealt with diplomatically, then certainly WWII would not have happened and the revolution in Russia is much less likely. Now, some other conflict may have eventually happened, but we can only speculate.

if rash decisions had not been made by both Austria-Hungary and Serbia

tell me the difference to the war in afghanistan ..

I think WW1 could have been avoided, if rash decisions had not been made by both Austria-Hungary and Serbia. If this could have been dealt with diplomatically, then certainly WWII would not have happened and the revolution in Russia is much less likely. Now, some other conflict may have eventually happened, but we can only speculate.

I don't see how the pressures of the times could have been solved diplomatically. You have to understand that Europe was like a bunch of tinderboxes rubbing against each other looking for a spark. The assassination of Franz was just an excuse for igniting war. Europeans had been at each other's throats aince the turn of the century and were looking for an excuse.

WWII, however, could have been solved diplomatically even if WWI occurred. Germany could have been prevented from rearming by putting sanctions and threat on it, and the same could have been done with Japan. WWII was just a result of failed diplomacy on the part of the League of Nations.

Imperialist antagonisms cannot be solved diplomatically. Much less social antagonisms that have built up and lead to revolutions like the October Revolution.

The conflicts that had caused WW1 hadn't been eliminated and they finally broke out again, this time (WW2) much worse.

German Unification was based around the idea of military nationalism. After the Austro-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars 'German's' felt united under a strong Fatherland. This led to a desire for regional power an a culture of warfare supported by the population.

Not to mention the entrance of females into the workplace in places like Britain and other areas of Europe lead to a loss of 'masculinity' for men working in these newly mixed workplaces. These men turned to the military in huge proportions to regain their 'masculinity' and massive support for British interventionism was the result...That is according to gender historians such as Joan Scott.

These are just 2 examples of the countless reasons why WWI probably could not have been avoided. There was a growing culture clash across Europe that looked like it would have to be resolved militarily.

German Unification was based around the idea of military nationalism.

uhm what? this goes back to the battles versus napoleon ..

uhm what? this goes back to the battles versus napoleon ..

So you disagree that it was Unification was a result of the nationalist military policies of Prussia under Bismarck?

diplomatic unification requires a secular need for unification ..

diplomatic unification requires a secular need for unification ..

What does secularism have to do with it?

seculars means common people too ..

seculars means common people too ..

Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
Date: 14th century

1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

2: not bound by monastic vows or rules ; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>

3 a: occurring once in an age or a century b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

...

secular Show Spelled Pronunciation [sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).

5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun

7. a layperson.

8. one of the secular clergy.


1) In everyday use it doesn't, the exception here is layperson, but this is an unecessarily convoluted use of English by an inexperienced foreign speaker. If you meant "common people" you should simply have said "popular".

2) Don't pluralize adjectives.

In short, please, either stop abusing my language or learn to write better English.

In short, please, either stop abusing my language or learn to write better English.

[a] it's not yours per se, you didn't invent it, didn't inherit, and didn't even contribute anything useful to it, saying it's *YOUR* language is just like assholes on TPB saying stuff they'd downloaded belongs to them....

[b] hey, I didn't see Snap-On[TM] went around telling people to stop using their screwdrivers as prybar or something...

[c] ALUMINUMS

[a] it's not yours per se, you didn't invent it, didn't inherit, and didn't even contribute anything useful to it, saying it's *YOUR* language is just like assholes on TPB saying stuff they'd downloaded belongs to them....

What I meant by "my language" is that I'm a native speaker of English, much like you are a native speaker of troll.

What I meant by "my language" is that I'm a native speaker of English, much like you are a native speaker of troll.

[a] so, you acknowledges that by merely "being a native speaker of it" doesn't mean it *belongs* to you, rite ? If so

[b] I mean, just being a native practitioner of assfuck won't automatically gives you the right to dictate someone else how and how not an ass should be fucked...rite ??

[c] I'm not a troll and trolling is just a mere social construct. :mad::mad:

[a] so, you acknowledges that by merely "being a native speaker of it" doesn't mean it *belongs* to you, rite ? If so

[b] I mean, just being a native practitioner of assfuck won't automatically gives you the right to dictate someone else how and how not an ass should be fucked...rite ??

[c] I'm not a troll and trolling is just a mere social construct. :mad::mad:

Go and find a bridge to hide under.

I mean, just being a native practitioner of assfuck won't automatically gives you the right to dictate someone else how and how not an ass should be fucked...rite ??

check and mate ..

check and mate ..

Given that's it's my language you're speaking, it's my ass that you're fucking, fool. And a fine piece of hypocrisy from someone who lectures others when they misuse German. As for having to rely on Methtroll to fight your corner, well, that just about sums you up in a nutshell.

Thread derailment.... Please don't, this topic is quite interesting. :(

*burst open door, walks in.....*

it's my ass that you're fucking, fool.

*:eek:*
|
|
*apologized for the interruption, promply leaves the room*
|
|
*walks away down the hall with mix feeling*
(33% disgusted + 25% ashamed + 27% amused + 15% aroused...wait, no...just curious)

Thread derailment

NO ! It is within the topic, let'me demonstrate...

And a fine piece of hypocrisy from someone who lectures others when they misuse German. As for having to rely on Methtroll to fight your corner, well, that just about sums you up in a nutshell.

Well, should WW1 never happened, Germany would surely "win" over GB in terms of industry and economy, and would became the economic powerhouse of the europe....

So without WW1, German would became the international language and used around the world like how english is used today ....and people would be "butchering" German instead of English....

So, either blame Hitler for loosing WW2 or blame the britfags for going to war with Germany in WW1 in the first place. And if you britfags would just surrender in WW2, Germany and Hitler would own EU and none of this "english butchering" would ever occur.....cos everyone's speaking german...you kno..

E :

Please don't, this topic is quite interesting. :(

Shut the fuck up if you have nothing good to add, new arrival.

actually i do think that WW1 wasnt inevitable at all. sure, it was a powder keg, and yes, there would have been wars, but like the past, it would have been several small wars to relieve the tension in the area.

germany was instrumental in creating a war involving the 5 powers (UK, france, germany, russia, austria-hungary) because of the blank cheque they gave austria hungary. in addition, initiation of the schlieffen plan pretty much dictated that france and the british would join in.

lets say if the germans just sent a few guys to help austria perform some skirmishes on russia, who was aiding the balkan states, it would have been a single front war and they would just have a few land grabs before calling a ceasefire.

so you see a difference between the blank cheque, the entente cordial and the alliance between france and russia?

A whole lot better?

A whole lot better?

Europe needed to blow it's load of young men, the tension was bound to be let off somehow or another, wet dream or furious years long masturbation frenzy.

Europe needed to blow it's load of young men, the tension was bound to be let off somehow or another, wet dream or furious years long masturbation frenzy.

But why did they drag the rest of the world into it.

Canada, Newfoundland and New Zeland in particular.

Newfoundland lost an entire fucking generation because of the war.

Not to mention a whole lot of bright young men who had futures. Not to say they all didn't have futures, but some of they were heaps smarter than Einstein yet still joined because they felt a civic duty and to do their part. EG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley

I really wish it had never happened.

I really wish it had never happened.

there is an old saying in my neck of the woods.

you can wish in one hand an shit in the other, an see which one fills up first.

there is an old saying in my neck of the woods.

you can wish in one hand an shit in the other, an see which one fills up first.

What neck of the woods would that be? The Congo?

But why did they drag the rest of the world into it.

Canada, Newfoundland and New Zeland in particular.

Newfoundland lost an entire fucking generation because of the war.

Not to mention a whole lot of bright young men who had futures. Not to say they all didn't have futures, but some of they were heaps smarter than Einstein yet still joined because they felt a civic duty and to do their part. EG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley

Europe was a fucking mess of complex treaties and allegiances due to a paranoia that was only added to by the thirty years of peace that preceded WWI. Basically when Franz got shot it was an excuse for the Germans to fuck shit up, the French where all like 'we want Alsace Loraine back!', the Brits went along with them and Australia and New Zealand (part of the British Commonwealth) were (and still are) bound to fight for the crown. The US got some ship sunk but the Germans, that was their excuse so they showed up fashionably late and saved the world as usual. Which is far more than the Russians can say who lost millions of men for no good reason, due to poor strategy and lack of supply. They had to pull out in 1918 to have their Revolution. I guess everyone just wanted a piece of the action or had to because of their honor.