A Crossroads in History

[Flyby PC 23]

I recently came across a quiet story about Winston Churchill, who was supposed to have said that the US becomming involved in WW1 was a complete calamity. He later denied saying it, but the subject matter is explosive.

 

The premise is, that if the US had kept itself detached and outside the conflict, then the warring parties, the UK, France, Russia and Germany were so utterly war weary by 1917, that they would have settled for peace. The attitude adopted by the US to become involved made the war a winnable proposition for the Entente side, as proved to be the case, which lead to the humiliation of Germany leading in turn to WW2.

 

Peace in 1917 would have perhaps changed the course of the Russian revolution.

 

 

Imagine how different our world would have been with peace in 1917. No Communism, no Nazism, no Fascism, and millions of lives spared.

 

 

Please don't assume for a minute that I'm inferring any responsibility for these consequences on the US, but the prospect of peace in 1917 was very real indeed, and a moment in history when everything changed.

 

 

 

With no communism, there's no space race. No cultural revolution in China. No atomic bomb.

 

 

This is the gist of the statement Churchill denied saying..

 

 

"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."

Edited May 30, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

Interesting idea, Flyby.

Difficult to imagine in detail, where we would be now.

But one thing is pretty certain: that conflict and clash of big industries (cause that's what it mainly was) had to happen, one way or another.

A peace too early might have only postponed the problems, and another war might have come 7 years later or so.

 

Maybe the difficult situation of balances in Europe would have led to all this, one way or another;

until the relative strenths of all opposing industrial nations was recognised and understood by all.

 

 

What I find very pityful is the loss of so many good men on all sides.

The most interesting question for me is, how differently we might have evolved, if they hadn't died so young.

[MikeDixonUK 5]

It's hard to think about what might have been had certain things not happened, on the one hand you could say that had people not died then the world would have more artists and doctors and the like, but then on the other hand, if a chap called Adolf Hitler had died in the great war then he would have been one of the glorious dead, and people would wonder what could have come of this young painter had the cruelty of war not snatched away his life.

 

It's easy to say that if bad things hadn't happened then the world would be a happy place, but it's not as simple as that - history is history, could things be better or worse had they not happened, who knows?

Edited May 30, 2012 by MikeDixonUK

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I agree Mike... Changing History probably merely puts off the inevitable...Suppose Hitler hadn't done what he did?... who can say whether or not an even worse situation would have developed?

 

I know it's a truly ghastly thought...but, because of some Nazi Experiments, medical science actually moved forward at an astonishing rate..and we have had the benefit of that, and the appalling suffering of hundreds/thousands/millions of people is the very high price paid.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever, that we would still have had the benefit of that, without such slaughter..but it perhaps would not be quite as far advanced as it is today?

 

Who knows

[+Gunrunner 313]

Reminds me of a joke...

 

A time traveler walks into a bar...

 

"Bartender, a round of beer for everyone, I'm paying ! I'm back from 1932 Germany when I killed Staubmann"

"Staubmann, who's that bloke ?"

"Oh ! Of course, my sweet, innocent friend, you can't know, thanks to me there has been no World War II, no million of Jews killed, no atomic bomb, you've known peace, all because I killed Staubmann..."

"Oh, we've had that alright and you meant Hitler didn't you ?"

"Hitler ? Another one ! It's the eighth time that happened, how many more Germans will I have to kill ?"

[Hasse Wind 46]

Here's my take on things without American involvement in WW1:

 

Hindenburg and Ludendorff, the German masterminds of the Eastern front, were confident that Russia could be knocked out of the war in 1917. They were right. With the collapse of Russia in 1917, Germany and Austria-Hungary could move large forces to the Western and Italian fronts and prepare for major offensives that could lead to victory for the Central Powers and finally bring the bloody war to an end. France was exhausted after years of brutal offensives and the aggressive defense of Verdun. Britain, the dominant naval power of the day, was still not strong enough on land to alone challenge Germany and her mighty army, arguably the best in the world at the time. Italy, the most important ally of Britain and France, was weak and unpredictable compared to them, and incapable of meeting the threat posed by the combined might of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

 

Without any American support, the British and French armies are unable to stop the German offensives, launched by armies that have received strong reinforcements from the Eastern front. It is by no means an easy and bloodless victory for Germany, but in the end Paris falls, with it the morale of the French army and people collapses, and the remaining British forces are withdrawn from France, to save them from being trapped by the advancing Germans. With French defeat thus becoming a certainty, it is only a matter of time before the war in the West ends in German victory. Thanks to her naval might, Britain is practically untouchable, but now she faces the threat of ever more dangerous German surface and submarine warfare, with Germany having excellent access to the Atlantic from the newly conquered French ports.

 

Then it is Italy's turn to fall. Alone, the Austro-Hungarian army is not strong enough to beat the Italians, but with German help and the political effects of the French collapse, it is not difficult to knock Italy out of the war.

 

The Central Powers are now in a position to dictate harsh peace terms on their defeated opponents. Europe will have to experience the results of a German version of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty will make sure that France will never again be strong enough to threaten Germany, and Austria-Hungary will rise to a new dominant position in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Both Germany and Austria-Hungary (and their ally Bulgaria) will reap great economic benefits from the areas annexed in 1918 from greatly weakened Russia. It's very likely that soon the Central Powers will launch a new war in the East, in order to destroy the young Communist state of Lenin and then install a pro-German monarchy to rule weakened Russia.

 

***

 

Or perhaps the French and British armies were strong enough to stop the German offensive in the West, even without American support, and there was a stalemate leading to a negotiated, not dictated, peace treaty. We will never know!

[Hauksbee 103]

...and no Versailles Treaty. No extended sea blockade which caused starvation. No "Stab-In-the-Back". Probably no abdication by Wilhelm II. No stumbling Weimar Republic

[Olham 164]

Good analysis, Hasse Wind.

 

But I'm glad it didn't happen.

I'm an individualist, and I love to see individual countries, all with their own life style.

I'm glad the French are behaving French, and the British are crazy - arhm, also unique.

 

No, seriously - the variety in Europe makes Europe interesting.

If everyone would behave more or less like the Germans, we might have a very orderly world -

but how boring, how humourless would it be?

 

Then I would have to move and become an Englishman. If they would have me, that is.

[Hasse Wind 46]

I don't think even a decisive German victory could have wiped away the national characteristics of the various European peoples, but it certainly would have created a Europe sharply divided between pro-German and anti-German nations. The latter would have been more or less powerless to do anything, but the feeling of animosity would have been tangible. Not a very healthy atmosphere to live in!

 

It is one of history's great tragedies that anger and bitterness and vindictiviness were the guiding emotions behind the Treaty of Versailles. If the treaty had been much more moderate and sensible and not blamed Germany for absolutely everything, things might have been very different for everybody.

[Olham 164]

Yes, true. And I guess, by now that is understood by the most.

Sad, that another World War had to happen, before they all did.

[SFP1Ace 33]

No freedom to Polish & other Central European nations...

[JFM 18]

Good stuff, Hasse.

 

Here's the elephant in the room: Millions of lives would have been spared had there not been a war for the US to join in the first place.

 

The US declared war in 1917 but we had no appreciable impact until the following year, other than causing certain strategic reactions (e.g., The Amerika-programm). Had the war ended and a peace treaty signed in 1917, why is it assumed said peace treaty wouldn't have been just as harsh for Germany as the Treaty of Versailles in 1919? In 1917 would Germany not have to accept the War Guilt Clauses, not give up territories, not pay reparations? What, in 1917 Entente would have said, "Okay, good try, but better luck next time! Now, off you go!"? I seriously doubt it.

 

Communism and Fascism weren't the result of US involvement in WW1. They were already in place, whether the US fought in WW1 or not. Also, US involvement did not cause Hitler's hatred for Jews and desire for Lebensraum, two of the strongest engines of his foreign policies.

[Hauksbee 103]

Had the war ended and a peace treaty signed in 1917, why is it assumed said peace treaty wouldn't have been just as harsh for Germany as the Treaty of Versailles in 1919? In 1917 would Germany not have to accept the War Guilt Clauses, not give up territories, not pay reparations?

I'm assuming here that you mean 'if America had not not intervened'. In 1917 both sides were nearly bled white. Absent the United States, I can't see who would be in a sufficiently strong position to dictate terms of peace, draconian or otherwise. And America wasn't just poking its nose in other peoples business. The hot-button issue was unrestricted submarine warfare culminating in the sinking of the Luisitania. Worse yet, the Zimmerman Telegram, in which Germany is trying to coax Mexico into harrying the U.S. on the southern border to take the heat off Germany, with the promise of restoring California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Germany. That sort of thing has to be answered.

[Hasse Wind 46]

And let's not forget the financial side of things. Trade relations with Germany were nowhere near as important to the United States as the economic ties to the Entente countries, especially Britain and France. There was some protesting from the US when Britain started to blockade Germany, but nothing particularly serious, because German trade just wasn't all that important to the US.

 

In so many ways, it would have been against American interests to see the Entente powers lose.

[JFM 18]

Yes, Hauksbee, that's what I meant. And good points, although wasn't the territory to be restored to Mexico, not Germany?

[+hgbn 91]

No one can tell how history would had turned out if the US didn't intervene in 1917. Since anything and anyone would had to take different paths. I and I speak only for my self now. Is happy how history turned out. The village I'm living in is Danish but was snatched by the Prussians in 1864 and would had probably remained that way, if the Germans hadn't lost WWI. My wife's great grand dad was forced to fight on the German side WWI and fell in Russia. A similar fate could had happen to my Granddad. Whom was born in this very village ( a KZ camp survivor. We never knew, not even my grandma until 3 weeks before he died 6 years ago. When he suddenly told he returned with Bernadottes white buses ) . Who knows I could have failed to exist since my grandma was from a different part of Denmark and they would probably not had met each other being divided by the border.

Edited May 30, 2012 by hgbn

[Flyby PC 23]

The decline of the British Empire would have taken a different course too, but that's a can of worms all by itself.

 

I'm not so sure that Fascism and Communism were inevitable by 1917, but perhaps they were.

 

It's a hard one to call whether we live in a better world because of what happened, or whether the better world was destroyed.

 

 

I don't think the issue of Jews was an issue for the Nazis in their early years. Hitler himself didn't start out as an antisemite, but the Nazi ideology needed a scapegoat for people to hate and the Jews fitted the criteria. I don't believe the grotesque proportions and extermination which their hatred of the Jews came to become was a founding principle, not in the beginning anyway. Having someone to hate has a very unifying effect on a population you're trying to influence. To be an 'us' you need a 'them'. It's not a pleasant subject, but antisemitism didn't begin with the Nazis. It was already well established throughout Europe for many years before the Nazis came along.

 

 

 

I should point out, the issue of American involvement was a matter which Churchill was alleged to have raised. The speculation about peace in 1917 wasn't my own.

[lederhosen 7]

Salute

 

 

 

well, one could see why some counties view America as "Satan's" home town.

 

Eventually it came down to losing all the loans IF Germany had won. The average Joe probebly didn't care what happened "Over there", but big industies, and politics, and good ol propagander did.

WW1 was not, and will not be the last war were someone buts in and never realy cares about the loooong term problems that they cause.

 

But then, everything we do has a negative effect some where else (cause and effect). Try and tell the world to stop driving/flying etc to stop Global warming and see what happens.

 

 

 

Led

[Bullethead 12]

I recently came across a quiet story about Winston Churchill, who was supposed to have said that the US becomming involved in WW1 was a complete calamity. He later denied saying it, but the subject matter is explosive.

 

I'm sure he denied saying this; I find it hard to credit him making such a statement. I mean, Churchill's on record many times saying how he wanted the US in and was doing all in his power at the Admiralty to make that happen. The whole Lusitania thing was largely his doing, for example.

 

I personally don't think the US entry into WW1 combat was in any way decisive. By the time US troops were finally in the line in enough strength to be noticed at all (mid-late 1918), the war had already been decided; only the end date was in doubt. So if the US entry did anything, it was merely to hasten the inevitable conclusion. Where the US played a major role was in providing huge quantities of supplies and equipment to the Entente, which would have continued whether or not US troops ever set foot in Europe.

 

What defeated Germany IMHO, and what ultimately brought in the US, was the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany. Once Germany failed to capture French Atlantic ports in 1914, her fate was sealed up between Dover and Scapa Flow, and she was going to collapse no later than 1919. To get to the blockade, which was out beyond the Shetlands, the High Seas Fleet had to go through the Grand Fleet, and it was incapable of doing that. So from the Race to the Sea on, Germany had only 2 options for victory: inflicting a 1940-style defeat on France to acquire the Atlantic ports, or starving the UK out with U-boats. The former wasn't attempted until 1918, the latter was tried twice in 1915 and from 1917 on, but failed both times.

 

Prior to the war, the Germans made no plans for dealing with the long-term effects of a British blockade because they, along with everybody else, believed the war would be too short for that. When the war proved to be of indefinite duration, the Germans had to scramble to deal with the blockade. To begin with, Kaiser Bill maintained the belief in a short war, if not with outright victory then a negotiated settlement. Thus, he refused to risk his navy, of which he was exceptionally fond. Thus, he frittered away the High Seas Fleet's best chance of beating the Grant Fleet. By then, the blockade was beginning to hurt so Germany had to do something. Thus, Germany tried unrestricted U-boat warfare in 1915, but lacked the number of submarines to make it decisive, and backed off a US sabre-rattling over things like Lusitania. So in 1916, Germany reverted to trying to break out with the High Seas Fleet. After Jutland showed this to be hopeless, they tried U-boats again in 1917.

 

Germany's decision to use U-boats again in 1917 was a desperate, calculated gamble. If this didn't work, then the war was lost. The Germans knew the U-boats would bring in the US but they also knew it would take over a year before US forces would be significant. In that time, they hoped to achieve land victory on the Eastern Front while starving the UK out of the war and breaking the blockade. Once that happened, they assumed France would throw in the towel. And they came very close to success with this strategy, thanks mostly to British refusal to adopt convoys until it was almost too late. Once the U-boats failed and the US was on the way, only then did the Germans attempt a direct land victory over France in early 1918. These Kaiserschlacht battles were stopped without much direct US battlefield intervention, and that was that.

 

 

 

 

[Flyby PC 23]

I agree it doesn't sound like the thing Churchill would say, but the reporter tried to sue Churchill when he denied saying it, but got nowhere because he was the British PM. Even if he did say it, it still seems like it lacks wider context.

 

I know Churchill did find the Americans frustrating. My favourite quote on the subject from Churchill was "The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without them".

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

He also said, "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities!"

[Olham 164]

I don't think the issue of Jews was an issue for the Nazis in their early years. Hitler himself didn't start out as an antisemite...

Sorryyyyy????!!!

I have not read "Mein Kampf" myself, but the Nazis mostly had.

The author Adolf Hitler wrote this before he became "Reichskanzler", and he declared the Jews as the common enemy in his book.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

My favourite quote on the subject from Churchill was "The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies is fighting a war without them".

Sounds to me like another opposite quote from Napoleon: "The only thing worse than fighting a war against a coalition is fighting a war within one".

[Hauksbee 103]

Yes, Hauksbee, that's what I meant. And good points, although wasn't the territory to be restored to Mexico, not Germany?

Sorry. I was unclear. Yes, the territories were to be returned to Mexico. It was their carrot from the Kaiser to take the stick to America. It seems there was more ferment in Pacific politics than is commonly seen in films and education. Japan was poking around in the waters off Mexico, seeing what they could see. Both England and Japan were casting a coveteous eye on Hawaii before annexation by the U.S. A good account of our drift to war is Barbara Tuchman's book, "The Zimmerman Telegram".

 

PS: I just re-read my original post. I was not merely 'unclear', it was a positive brain-fart. I did say 'Germany'. Apologies.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Hauksbee

[cptroyce 0]

If Churchill did say that..which he denied..he clearly changed his point of view entirely, when WW2 commenced.

 

 

 

Don't believe history defines America's entry into the war as 'butting in" to others affairs, (almost three years after it began), as someone posted above.

The resumption of unrestricted U-Boat warfare and the Zimmermann telegram seemed to be the sufficient tipping point. President Wilson couldn't even get the US congress to arm US merchant ships; that being done by executive order.

 

 

Bullethead's analysis seems to be spot on to me.

 

 

Royce