Australia, New Zealand and WWI

[Jon_in_london]

This thread is a bit of a 'what if' thread based on the 'ANZAC Dawn Service' thread in Community.


http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39210&pagenumber=1

In this thread Reprise said:

It's always interesting to read the op-ed pieces on ANZAC Day and see the politics of the day reflected in them. This year, several commentators have drawn parallels between Australia's unquestioning support for Britain and its allies in WWI and Australia's unquestioning support for the US and its allies in Iraq.


Suggesting the ANZACS were somehow in error in their efforts to support Britain.

To which I replied:

This pisses me right off. To suggest that a British defeat in WWI would not have had a monumentally negative impact on Australia and NZ is unfathomable.


I was then reprimanded for bringing politics into a thread that should have been commemorating those who gave their lives so valiantly. Point taken, fair enough.

AUP then replied:

Australians went off, as the naive people they were, to fight for king and country. Too bad they didn't think enough about if the king and country they went to die for was involving them in a war that was worth starting, and was basically about empire flag waving. The empire they died for was gone in less than 30 years. The war that was started went on to fester into WWII.


Now, I would like to hammer this out because Im sick of this nonsense. I also stated in the thread that WWI was a straightforward showdown between millitant nationalist monarchy and democracy. While I accpet that it certainly wasnt 'straightfoward' its certainly what it turned into by 1918.

Does anybody who dismisses WWI as simple senseless slaughter actually pause to think about what would have happened if Germany had won? Does anybody stop to think what would have happened if, by 1918, A millitant nationalist absolute monarchy had achived a state of complete and total millitary and industrial hegemony, not only in Europe, but in the world?

Do people like AUP stop to think would the consequences of the inevitable German naval supremacy might have been?

[Mr Manifesto]

A bit too much of a 'what-if' scenario for me, I'm afraid. Presumably, if the Germans had won, there wouldn't have been a treaty of Marsielle (pardon my French) which gave Hitler the platform he needed to rise to power. So, perhaps the Nazis would never have come to be if the Germans won in WWI.

My two bits.

[bangdazap]

"We have to reserve the right to bomb the *******." - Llyod George in 1932. Touchdown for democracy.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
A bit too much of a 'what-if' scenario for me, I'm afraid. Presumably, if the Germans had won, there wouldn't have been a treaty of Marsielle (pardon my French) which gave Hitler the platform he needed to rise to power. So, perhaps the Nazis would never have come to be if the Germans won in WWI.

My two bits.

And change 'Marsielle' to 'Versailles'.

stupid feckin' treaty anyway...

[Giz]

OK, I think you're getting a bit hung up on the Treaty of Versailles.

Firstly, was it incredibly harsh? A Diktat as the Germans complained?
- Well, yes it was a diktat - in that the Germans, having lost the war, had to accede to the Allies demands rather than having an equal say at the peace conference.

Was it so harsh? Well, it enshrined the principal of self-determination and this resulted in some (less than 10%) of German territory being lost. As this was (for example) Alsace-Lorraine going back to France etc this shouldn't be too controversial. The harsh bit might have been the reperations, but they were progressively peeled back so that by the time the great depression hit they had virtually disappeared. It was the Great depression that destabilised post-war Germany, NOT the reparations.

Remember, Germany had just; (mainly) started a world war, been the main combatent of the world war, and lost a world war. To expect say France (having lost 1.4 million dead out of a 40 million population) to come to the peace conference in a spirit of disinterested forgiveness seems, well, inhuman.

Germany had shown how it would handle peace treaties in 1917 with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The largest annexation in history - the baltic states, poland, western russia, the Ukraine. For the Germans to complain bitterly about Versailles illustrates two points: (1) Hypocracy, (2) Disbelief that they lost (the Generals reports to the Reichstag having been "upbeat" even as late as September 1918 when the Allies "100 days" counter offensive was well under way, made reports of abject defeat a mere two months later hard to to swallow.

As for the militant nationalists versus democracy debate. .. Germany in WW1 wasn't as bad as the Nazis (it would be quite hard to achieve that) but they were still "the bad guys". Say take the thousands of French women taken from occupied France as sex slaves, or the 130,000 belgians taken to work as slave labour in 1914 (released in 1915, as skeletal figures - eerily similar to footage of WW2 concentration camp victims- in 1915 after US protests), widespread looting and brutality in Poland etc...

So on the one hand:
Allies, self determination, some repayments for war losses.
Central powers, Annexations, enslavement.


I presume i'm just quibbling over details Mr M?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Giz
OK, I think you're getting a bit hung up on the Treaty of Versailles.

Firstly, was it incredibly harsh? A Diktat as the Germans complained?
- Well, yes it was a diktat - in that the Germans, having lost the war, had to accede to the Allies demands rather than having an equal say at the peace conference.

Was it so harsh? Well, it enshrined the principal of self-determination and this resulted in some (less than 10%) of German territory being lost. As this was (for example) Alsace-Lorraine going back to France etc this shouldn't be too controversial. The harsh bit might have been the reperations, but they were progressively peeled back so that by the time the great depression hit they had virtually disappeared. It was the Great depression that destabilised post-war Germany, NOT the reparations.

Remember, Germany had just; (mainly) started a world war, been the main combatent of the world war, and lost a world war. To expect say France (having lost 1.4 million dead out of a 40 million population) to come to the peace conference in a spirit of disinterested forgiveness seems, well, inhuman.

Germany had shown how it would handle peace treaties in 1917 with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The largest annexation in history - the baltic states, poland, western russia, the Ukraine. For the Germans to complain bitterly about Versailles illustrates two points: (1) Hypocracy, (2) Disbelief that they lost (the Generals reports to the Reichstag having been "upbeat" even as late as September 1918 when the Allies "100 days" counter offensive was well under way, made reports of abject defeat a mere two months later hard to to swallow.

As for the militant nationalists versus democracy debate. .. Germany in WW1 wasn't as bad as the Nazis (it would be quite hard to achieve that) but they were still "the bad guys". Say take the thousands of French women taken from occupied France as sex slaves, or the 130,000 belgians taken to work as slave labour in 1914 (released in 1915, as skeletal figures - eerily similar to footage of WW2 concentration camp victims- in 1915 after US protests), widespread looting and brutality in Poland etc...

So on the one hand:
Allies, self determination, some repayments for war losses.
Central powers, Annexations, enslavement.


I presume i'm just quibbling over details Mr M?

You haven't addressed, as far as I can tell, what would have happened if Germany had won the war.

[Jon_in_london]

The major point is that the Germans would most probably have annexed large parts of north-eastern France. This is France's industrial heartland with an abundance of coal and iron. Witht this in Germany's possesion- well, it a gaurentee that Germany would have become the dominant global naval power. Of course that wouldnt affect Aus or NZ at all would it! :rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
The major point is that the Germans would most probably have annexed large parts of north-eastern France. This is France's industrial heartland with an abundance of coal and iron. Witht this in Germany's possesion- well, it a gaurentee that Germany would have become the dominant global naval power. Of course that wouldnt affect Aus or NZ at all would it! :rolleyes:

You seem hung-up on the idea that Germany was pre-destined to commit Eeeeeeevil. You haven't demonstrated that this would be so. For all we know, WWII could have been the world vs the USSR- at least, based on the arguments you've provided.

So, until you provide something a little more substantial in the what-course-would-Germany-have-taken-had-they-won-the-war department, it just seems to me that you're cranky because it's been suggested there was no point going half-way around the world to die for your country.

[Michael Redman]

What is meant by Germany "winning" WWI? Defeat of the UK? Invasion and subjugation of the UK? Defeat of the US? What about Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? Or just Germany owning a lot of France? It's hard to know what the consequences would be without knowing the fate of the other participants.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You seem hung-up on the idea that Germany was pre-destined to commit Eeeeeeevil. You haven't demonstrated that this would be so. For all we know, WWII could have been the world vs the USSR- at least, based on the arguments you've provided.

So, until you provide something a little more substantial in the what-course-would-Germany-have-taken-had-they-won-the-war department, it just seems to me that you're cranky because it's been suggested there was no point going half-way around the world to die for your country.

The problem is that Germany didn't start the war with a "shopping list" of demands. German ambitions were fluid, and reflected at any time how well their armies were doing (plus a bit more!)

For example, as in my post above, at the start of the war Germany harboured some ambitions concerning parts of Poland. Following successes in 1915 on the East Front they wnated all of Poland. When Russia collapsed in 1917 their demands were multiplied several fold (never try to negotiate with the Kaisers Germany from a position of weakness).

This pattern of ever increasing demands incidentally aided Germany's defeat as numourous opportunities to split the Tsar from the entente via a mild peace with Russia were ignored. When Germany did get peace in the East it was too late (and their new territories were so vast they left (from memory ) at least half a million troops garrisoning it).

As a thought experiment Mr M, take the following items:
1) German demands are proportional to their succeses and show no "natural limit"
2) Germany was willing to enslave French & Belgian civilians during the war.
3) Suppose a Western Front victory for Germany. This would presumably include peace between Germany and Britain.
4) Germany becomes a world power, expands it Navy (or acquires the Royal Navy).
5) Australia...

(As a further aside, in 1914 most Australians felt themselves to be British, not just "Commonwealth" but England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand - properly part of the home country. It wasn't seen as going across the world to help a bunch of foriegners)

[Mike B.]

Excellent thread.

I think WWI is rarely looked at in any but the most superficial manner.

I have no doubt mental images of Earl Haig sending Canadians to their death in the mud of 3rd Ypress sticks in the crawl of some of the commonwealth nations.

However, Jon raises some interesting points.
What would have happened?

I think huge parts of France would have been demanded. Belgium would have been taken permenantly.

Northern Italy may have been given to Austria-Hungary.

anything else?

Australia benefitted like the US did for decades. Big oceans around us and the Royal Navy to make sure nothing to serious happened that we would be threatened.

[a_unique_person]

You do have to ask, though, why a war? The constant refrain in Australia was "The Empire". I can remember the maps of the world we had at school, with all the bits of the British Empire coloured pink. Don't kid yourself, it may have been a war between a monarchy and a democracy with a monarch as head of state, it was about empire.

[Giz]

Mike, I'd tend to agree.

AUP, "I can remember the maps of the world we had at school, with all the bits of the British Empire coloured pink. Don't kid yourself, it may have been a war between a monarchy and a democracy with a monarch as head of state, it was about empire."
- Well, it's going to be tough arguing against a schooldaze memory like that but I understood the man British motivations to be:

1) Maintain the balance of power in Europe (which Britain has been doing since the days of Phillip the 2nd (of Spain))

2) Maintain Belgian neutrality (as guaranteed by UK, France, Germany in 1839), because keeping the Channel ports of the Low Countries out of the hands of the major European powers has been viewed as essential since Elizabethan times.

3) The Entente had created a situation where the French, while not specifically promised help had deployed they're forces in anticipation of British involvement (i.e. the French fleet was massed in the Med leaving the Channel bare with the idea that the RN - which had pulled out of the Med - would cover it). Not honouring expectation would leave Britain with few friends and a lot of grudges in a post war world - the last thing Britain would have wanted post German victory would be a quisling French state signed up to support German pressure on "perfidious Albion".

To keep it simple though AUP, the main difference I guess is that we didn't annex Hannover when we had the chance.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Giz:
The harsh bit might have been the reperations, but they were progressively peeled back so that by the time the great depression hit they had virtually disappeared. It was the Great depression that destabilised post-war Germany, NOT the reparations.

Just as an aside Niall Ferguson claimed recently that the Germans have paid as much in EU transfers than they ever would have in reparations.

2) Maintain Belgian neutrality (as guaranteed by UK, France, Germany in 1839), because keeping the Channel ports of the Low Countries out of the hands of the major European powers has been viewed as essential since Elizabethan times.

From what I've read this was the preeminent reason that Britain went to war: the thought of the German navy stationed in Ostend or Calais.

A German victory would have meant the survival of the Ottoman Empire. How would the Middle East look today if that happened?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You do have to ask, though, why a war? The constant refrain in Australia was "The Empire". I can remember the maps of the world we had at school, with all the bits of the British Empire coloured pink. Don't kid yourself, it may have been a war between a monarchy and a democracy with a monarch as head of state, it was about empire.

And of course, Australia had nothing to do with "The Empire"


PS- Christ AUP! How old are you!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Giz

This pattern of ever increasing demands incidentally aided Germany's defeat as numourous opportunities to split the Tsar from the entente via a mild peace with Russia were ignored. When Germany did get peace in the East it was too late (and their new territories were so vast they left (from memory ) at least half a million troops garrisoning it).


Bear in mind though Giz, it wasnt 'too late' by very much! The Germans came within a fag-paper of splitting the French/British armies in 1918.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
And of course, Australia had nothing to do with "The Empire"


PS- Christ AUP! How old are you!

Didn't Germany have a presence in Oceania and New Guinea in 1914? In which case Australia would have had an interest in seeing German colonial ambitions thwarted.

[reprise]

http://www.statelibrary.vic.gov.au/slv/resources/ww1/images/conscript.jpg

Certainly the call to arms in Australia was phrased in terms of supporting Britain rather than defending Australia itself (although our presence in Turkey was to support one of Britain's allies - Russia - rather than to directly defend British interests).

I'm not sure that a strong naval fleet was as much of a threat to Australia in 1914 as people might believe. It would certainly have been possible to capture Sydney and/or Melbourne but the vast distances between our major populations centres would have given plenty of time for the other capitals to prepare to defend themselves. Maintaining supply lines would have been a logistical nightmare.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Didn't Germany have a presence in Oceania and New Guinea in 1914? In which case Australia would have had an interest in seeing German colonial ambitions thwarted.

Germany had colonies in Samoa, Micronesia, New Guinea, Nauru, Palau and Samoa.

Im sure they have loved to "tie your kangaroo down, sport!"

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
Im sure they have loved to "tie your kangaroo down, sport!"

I suppose Rolf Von Harris has a certain ring to it.