Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

angrystaffofficer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 221 posts

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#141

Post by flukus »

Clubber wrote: post #96
vacri wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.

During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the f…

World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#142

Post by caf »

bluejekyll wrote: post #45
badloginagain wrote: post #17

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to lose is a non-starter anyways. From my understanding it was Britain's decision to enter WWI that really shaped the outcome, and that it was far from a foregone conclusion that Britain would enter a continental European war. If the British didn't get involved, Ge…

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

There really was no reason to ever believe the US would ever get involved in WWI.

On the contrary, I think it is exceedingly likely that the US will always intervene (if it has the capacity to do so) if a single military power looks like taking over most of Europe. It's why the US intervened in both WWI and WWII, and created NATO.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#143

Post by woodandsteel »

zeteo wrote: post #120
jcranmer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a…

Correct, if Germany had continued Bismarck's foreign policy [1] then the next war (if it came) would have looked very different. Antagonizing Russia in the Balkans, France in Morocco, and Britain on the high seas were rather gratuitous moves between 1900 - 1914, driven by Wilhelm II's personality more than by any geopolitical factors. It's amazing how much hubris it took to sink the Second Reich. As far as I can tell…

>As far as I can tell, Germany was on track to win the war as late as spring 1917.

So did this fact provide the ground for the belief, which helped lay the groundwork for the success of the Nazi movement, that Germany had lost the war because it had been betrayed by its leadership?

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#144

Post by woodandsteel »

caf wrote: post #137
herewulf wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Britain. We take it for granted today but Britain and France being allies was quite an amazing thing. They had been traditional enemies for about 800 years (let's not forget about the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century either). The Crimean War in 1853 saw them united against a common enemy - Russia. The Crimean War was also significant because Austria-Hungary, though not much of a belligerent, turned on Russ…

In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power. This is because Britain's enduring interest is to ensure that western Europe doesn't unite under one power, as this would threaten Britain itself. Before German unification, the dominant continental power was usually France. (I believe this is also why Britain joined the EU in the first place - it's not a threat if Britain has a…

>In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power.

Without that, the modern era would probably never have happened. That is because one state would have probably converted Europe into an empire, dominated by a single culture and religion, instead of the great competition of ideas and technologies that happened because there were so many independent states.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#145

Post by hackuser »

bluejekyll wrote: post #136
hackuser wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice. That seems like conventional wisdom, but the U.S. started a large military build-up before Pearl Harbor. The military draft began in 1940. And of course the U.S. was actively supporting the UK through lend-lease. There were still isolationists in Washington and even prominent supporters of Hitler in…

No debate on any of those points. But, until Pearl Harbor and the Philippines there was no clear pretext for the US to declare war. And had they not attacked, it's not clear that FDR could have gotten congress to declare war. Some of those prominent supporters were significant industrialists like Ford, they would have fought intervention by all means. After Pearl Harbor, there was no debate.

I've heard that too, but how did the draft, Lend-Lease, and the build-up get passed through Congress before Pearl Harbor if there wasn't sufficient support?

Maybe the first and third were seen as necessary to protect a neutral country? Or being short of declaring war, they were less objectionable? But I'm just guessing ...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#146

Post by r00fus »

Clubber wrote: post #97
r00fus wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the Treaty of Versailles went on to cause the forced repairations and subsequent hyperinflation and depression in Germany leading to the Nazi takeover and WW2.

An interesting anecdote, France weathered the world depression of the 30s much better than other countries because they kept getting reparation payments from Germany.

When I hear this I think of the main plot of the fantasy book "The Magic of Recluse" [1] where the increase of Order (good) came with the resultant increase in Chaos (evil).

The analogy is that the Allied powers could probably have avoided the post-tranquility strife by not asking for The German Empire could not give.

By creating this imbalance, they fed the very outcome they dreaded (another Great War).

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/185253.The_Magic_of_Recl...

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#147

Post by woodandsteel »

emanreus wrote: post #123
Animats wrote: post #28

Germany: too big for Europe, too small for the world. It's worth reviewing the run-up to WWI. The pre-WWI model of Europe, an endless struggle between Great Powers which had gone on for a millennium, is Putin's model of the world. That's because it gives Russia a role in the world. As an economic power, Russia is in 12th place, behind S. Korea. In a peaceful, trade-based world, Russia is a bit player. Especially sinc…

> two superpowers with nuclear overkill capability glaring at each other but not doing much. Those glares killed a lot of people in proxy wars around the globe.

True, but not remotely on the scale of a world war. And it is not as if those other regions were peaceful until the cold war came along. I mean, regular warfare has been the way of the world for thousands of years. The old war is sometimes referred to by historians as the long peace.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#148

Post by afarrell »

flukus wrote: post #140
jonathonf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> England Britain. Along with contingents from most of its Empire. (Saying "England" when you mean "Britain" is like saying "Texas" when you mean "U.S.A.")

Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.

Really? When did the Scots start to develop a notion of having a unique national character that made them non-English?

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#149

Post by woodandsteel »

Animats wrote: post #103
rwmj wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers too (good book). However it's hard to see how the Great Powers "model" applies when everyone has nuclear weapons or can acquire them relatively easily.

Arguably, it stopped applying when everybody got serious firepower in the run-up to WWI. But WWI happened anyway.

One key difference nuclear weapons make is that it is much easier to see beforehand how catastrophic a war would be.

Re: Why 1866 Set the Stage for Two World Wars

#150

Post by hardlianotion »

autokad wrote: post #83
bluejekyll wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is defini…

England definitely slowed Germany down but Germany was decidedly winning. Prior to US involvement, the front line was quite close to Paris. After, it was just over the border of Germany, and then as you said, they knew it was over. US' involvement was huge.

No, the US broke a stalemate. The Germans were near Paris for most of the war - the location of Paris is what makes the Schieffen plan attractive. The US took a year or so to get onto a War production footing, but then her production started to force the issue. In combat, US helped to stem the German 1918 spring offensive, and were most decisive in the final offensive.
Post reply on HN