A world without the USA - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#1121352
The US is a symptom. Imperial capital is the problem.

-TIG :rockon:
By dktekno
#1121375
the citizens of the Mideast countries have a different opinion. We sure prefer to be leaded by a dictator than to be leaded by a group of war criminals who believe that God has chosen them from among the whole world.


But many dictators ARE war criminals who believe that God has chosen them from among the whole world.
By Goranhammer
#1121450
You're only a war criminal if you lose. Winner never have to say they're sorry.
By Falx
#1121456
But imagine a world without a western, modern minded superpower to take care of the problems in the world and act as a world police.


Haha, we'd have had a cure for cancer by now if the dominant world power was modern minded rather than stuck with a medieval mentality towards bio-research.
User avatar
By Verv
#1121939
I think that it is foolish to deny the contributions that the US has made when it comes to modernization of the world and the defeat of fascism and Communism (though some people here view Communism as a good thing...).

But to say that the US has always done the right thing is also wrong. No one and nothing is perfect.

I'd say that people need to be careful when they pick out small parts of history and act like the misconduct of the CIA and misguided policy 30-40 years ago means "the US is the worse country ever," and I'd also advise against saying the US is the greatest country ever based on actions it did from similar periods so long ago when everyone else was still contributing alongside of them.
User avatar
By Looter
#1121983
We should at least give a World without America a try, see if it works out, if it doesnt we could bring the US back. Without America we could see which of the Worlds problems it doesnt cause, and we could solve them rather than focusing on destroying America.
We tried that with Russia, used to be America blamed them for all the Worlds problems, now without the Soviet Union the World has many more problems, so Putin is restoring his country. Perhaps Americas critics exagerate the negative effects of America, now we can find out. I can understand why Americas boosters would be against that.
By Shade2
#1122034
If WW1 had been won by Germany, Hitler would probably never have risen to power, since it would have remained a very authoritan constitutional monarchy in which the Nazi Party would have had no chance (with the Kaiser, there no-one would have percieved to need to have a führer).
/quote]
And ? It's not like Hitler invented Lebensraum, concentration camps and plans to exterminate population of non-Germans in Central and Eastern Europe. Those were ideas and methods of Germany in WW1. They were to be implemented on massive scale after victory in WW1.
Without Hitler, there probably wouldn't have been a second world war.

Why ? I could forsee a second world war supported against Germany by panslavist fascist-monarchic Russia allied with Britain against German controlled central Europe plagued with uprisings , Japanese fight over Asia against weakened Russia etc. The Second World War was the result of consequences of creation of German state that was spared after WW1(unlike Austro-Hungary, to Germany Treaty of Verseilles was very very light, not harsh enough) and its continued expansionism towards eastern and central Europe. Hitler was just one of many who expressed such ideas. If not him, another would take similiar course.

Further, the Kaiser still would have seen the problems of strikes, Communist fighting, mutiny both militarily and in parliament as well as starvation across Germany; all which would have put greater pressure on the Kaiser to bring more Democratic change.

Ah, not unlike uprisings, mutinies brought more democratic change to other military dictatorships or countries like Bolshevik Russia ?
User avatar
By 87522
#1122047
They were to be implemented on massive scale after victory in WW1.


Source?

I could forsee a second world war supported against Germany by panslavist fascist-monarchic Russia allied with Britain against German controlled central Europe plagued with uprisings , Japanese fight over Asia against weakened Russia etc.


If Germany had won in WW1, it would have defeated both Britain and Russia (which is unrealistic, but I was originally just pointing out a flaw in dktenko's thought experiment), and there would hardly have been another war against those nations - at least not for territorial reasons, as Germany would probably have kept a part of western Russia and thus have had enough "Lebensraum".

As for a war in Asia - that would hardly have qualified as a world war.
User avatar
By Praetor
#1122053
We should at least give a World without America a try

we could bring the US back

We tried that with Russia

Who is "we"? Must be a pretty powerful organization if you toppled a superpower and nonchalantly think you could topple another and bring it back up from the ashes.
User avatar
By Citizen J
#1122431
If you asked those nations and states that had contact with the Roman Empire in it's latter half, I'd say they thought the same thing of Rome as much of the world thinks of the United States today.

We fought imperialism for our freedom, and now we're fighting for our imperialism in the guise of freedom.
*shakes head*
By imagicnation
#1122498
Germany Treaty of Verseilles was very very light, not harsh enough


:eek: So a debt that couldn't be paid off until 1988, losing 1/8th of their territory (including ALL overseas colonies), a limitation on its armed forces to 100,000 soldiers, no tanks or aircraft, no battleships and the largest industries in Germany (near the French border) occupied was not harsh enough? Bloody 'ell, remind me never to let you near a peace treaty.

The Second World War was the result of consequences of creation of German state that continued expansionism towards eastern and central Europe.

Due only to the Allies inabilities to stand up to Germany. May I remind you that Germany had an economy that had gone to shits, an army that you couldn't even call a home guard and a ban on all offensive weaponry (no tanks, aircraft, airships, submarines, heavy artillery or poison gas). The Second World War was a result of unresolved rifts, treaties, ideologies and grudges that were still held from the 19th centuary.

Ah, not unlike uprisings, mutinies brought more democratic change to other military dictatorships or countries like Bolshevik Russia ?

Germany wasn't a dictatorship and there were many movements in Germany that wanted greater Democratic powers given to the people. Further, the Communist uprisings would have been putting a great amount of pressure on the Kaiser, possibly even forcing him to bring more Democratic change.
User avatar
By droodle
#1122532
1) let's assume the revolution never happened, and that GB was still in control of North America.

* It would have been a tad easier to topple Napoleons regime. They would probably have conquered the remains of France's empire in the Mississipi valley.
*Alaska would still be under Russia's control
*Spain (and later, Mexico) would control the west of modern day USA, as well as Florida.

*France and Germany would be less eager to fight due to GB hegemony. Actually, Germany did not exist before conquering Paris. Prussia may have chosen to make a deal with AustroHungary and attack Russia (or vice versa). All guesses after that date (even whether WW1would happen) are useless.
By Shade2
#1122962
losing 1/8th of their territory (including ALL overseas colonies),

You forgot to add one little, small, insignificant minor, quite unimportant word.
Conquered territory. Conquered for example in Partitons of Poland.

was not harsh enough?

Of course not. After all Germany again attempted to conquer Europe. If you want to look at "harsh" treaty looke at Brest-Litovsk Treaty imposed on Russian Empire by Germany.
If Allies would be as harsh towards Germany, it would be divided according to pre-1871 borders, or split up like Austro-Hungary. If Germany would be divided into Rhine Confederacy, Bavaria, Brandenburg etc it could perhaps be enough to stop its imperialism.


The Second World War was a result of unresolved rifts, treaties, ideologies and grudges that were still held from the 19th centuary.

Yes, ideologies like Pangermanism which aimed at conquering non-German people in Central Europe and creation of German Empire up to Crimea.
Germany wasn't a dictatorship

http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Aspre ... t-War.html
As the war struggled on, the generals gained power over policy, in effect political power. The autocratic basis of government eventually gave virtually free rein to the self-publicizing strong-men, Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Asprey labels this a military dictatorship.


Further, the Communist uprisings would have been putting a great amount of pressure on the Kaiser

Kaiser was nobody important. The power was in military-industrial complex of Germany. Perhaps they would be tempted to fuel their production in forced labour camps, that they already created in Poland during World War I.



Source?

Immanuel Geiss, Der Polnische Grenzstreifen, 1914- 1918: Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Kriegszielpolitik im ersten Weltkrieg (Lubeck, 1960)




If Germany had won in WW1, it would have defeated both Britain and Russia (which is unrealistic, but I was originally just pointing out a flaw in dktenko's thought experiment), and there would hardly have been another war against those nations - at least not for territorial reasons, as Germany would probably have kept a part of western Russia and thus have had enough "Lebensraum".

As for a war in Asia - that would hardly have qualified as a world war.

1-I doubt Germany could defeat Great Britain in decisive way, rather I believe it could perhaps force it into an armstice by defeating France and Russia. Great Britain would try to erode Germany's position, which would be quite easy-there will be a lot of unhappy subjects in Central Europe. Also no doubt Russia would rebuild itself in one way or another, instead of working with Germany as in real life, this time working with France and Britain. Sooner or later it would try to regain Belarus, Baltics and Ukraine with British and French help. Germany itself will be tied down by constant uprisings in Poland and AH which it will have to police or allow to disintigrate.
As to Asia-potential war with between Russia, Britain and USA against Japan and Germany I would call a world war...
By Maas
#1123027
If Allies would be as harsh towards Germany, it would be divided according to pre-1871 borders, or split up like Austro-Hungary. If Germany would be divided into Rhine Confederacy, Bavaria, Brandenburg etc it could perhaps be enough to stop its imperialism.

Yeah sort of like what became after WWII.
Oh wait, that just lasted, what... about 40 years?
Let's see... what happened roughly 40 years after WWI?
Hey... it's WWII!
User avatar
By 87522
#1123036
Shade2 wrote:Immanuel Geiss, Der Polnische Grenzstreifen, 1914- 1918: Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Kriegszielpolitik im ersten Weltkrieg (Lubeck, 1960)


Maybe you can provide some links to websites with a similar content?

I don't know about "plans" to exterminate non-Germans that were to be implemented after WW1 (I'd also like you to specify what kind of non-Germans you meant. Poles? Russians?)

By the way, it may interest you to hear that after WW1 concentration camps were erected in (surprise!) Poland.

wikipedia wrote:Following the First World War concentration camps were erected for German civilian population in the areas that became part of Poland, including camps Szczypiorno and Stralkowo. In the camps the inmates were abused and tortured.
After 1926 several other concentration camps were erected, not only for Germans, but also for Ukrainians and other minorities in Poland. It included camps Bereza-Kartuska and Brest-Litowsk. Official casualties for the camps are not known, however it has been estimated that many Ukrainians died.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... mps#Poland


the omniscient Shade2 wrote:I doubt Germany could defeat Great Britain in decisive way, rather I believe it could perhaps force it into an armstice by defeating France and Russia. Great Britain would try to erode Germany's position, which would be quite easy-there will be a lot of unhappy subjects in Central Europe. Also no doubt Russia would rebuild itself in one way or another, instead of working with Germany as in real life, this time working with France and Britain. Sooner or later it would try to regain Belarus, Baltics and Ukraine with British and French help. Germany itself will be tied down by constant uprisings in Poland and AH which it will have to police or allow to disintigrate.


I highly doubt you are qualified to make such elaborate predictions. You should als consider that, without the brain drain caused by Hitler scaring away German-Jewish scientist, Germany would probably have been the most technologically advanced nation in the area - I could even have developed nuclear weapons. Thus I doubt Britain, France (which would have been defeated twice in a row in this situation) and the USSR (which had it's own problems at that time) would have risked another war of this scale.

Shade2 wrote:As to Asia-potential war with between Russia, Britain and USA against Japan and Germany I would call a world war...


I was refering to a war between Japan, Russia and the USA, which wouldn't have been a world war.
By Shade2
#1123056
Maybe you can provide some links to websites with a similar content?

It is a fairly available book.


I don't know about "plans" to exterminate non-Germans that were to be implemented after WW1 (I'd also like you to specify what kind of non-Germans you meant. Poles? Russians?)

I didn't write about extermination in terms of WW2, it was more in line with creating artificial famines and expulsions to reduce Polish and Jewish population from annexed territories.
Although not widely known, the knowledge of this plans exists
For example:
The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War
The Germans initially planned to annex only a `frontier strip' of Polish territory (from which, however, Slavs and Jews would be cleared)
page 211
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0192893 ... eader-link


C. Walcott on German Military Rule in Poland, September 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_walcott.htm
"Starvation is here," said General von Kries. "Candidly, we would like to see it relieved; we fear our soldiers may be unfavourably affected by the things that they see. But since it is here, starvation must serve our purpose. So we set it to work for Germany. By starvation we can accomplish in two or three years in East Poland more than we have in West Poland, which is East Prussia, in the last hundred years. With that in view, we propose to turn this force to our advantage." "This country is meant for Germany," continued the keeper of starving Poland. "It is a rich alluvial country which Germany has needed for some generations. We propose to remove the able-bodied working Poles from this country. It leaves it open for the inflow of German working people as fast as we can spare them. They will occupy it and work it. "Then with a cunning smile, "Can't you see how it works out? By and by we shall give back freedom to Poland. When that happens Poland will appear automatically as a German province.


By the way, it may interest you to hear that after WW1 concentration camps were erected in (surprise!) Poland.

The infamous name they now strike is often the result of German policies , while it was used to name all camps where people were gathered for relocation like German occupying soldiers for example that were to be sent back home.

You might be interested that slave labour camps in Poland were made during its occupation by Germany in WW1:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/pol ... speech.htm
At the outbreak of the war, 250,000 Polish workmen happened to be in Germany. In accordance with military orders, they were forbidden to leave the territory of the German Empire. This order was completely illegal and contrary to the principles of international law, which admit only such aliens to be interned who might be summoned to the enemy army.

You can easily imagine the condition of these people who now for two and a half years have been separated from their families. They have simply become victims of exploitation on the part of their employers, who now that the workman cannot leave his place of employment pay only as much as they choose.

(...)
Nor can I remain silent on the point that recently the Central Labour Office has instituted with the help of the local authorities in the Kingdom of Poland a regular hunt for people.
Thus, for instance, towards the end of November, 1916, i.e., after the Manifesto of November 5th (the Proclamation of Polish "Independence"), a free entertainment was announced in the theatre. The lights were put up in the theatre, but when the public had assembled the theatre was surrounded by soldiers, men fit for work were caught and handed over to the Central Labour Office.

Further, the Minister of the Interior has issued an order that subjects of the Kingdom of Poland can be employed only in big or middling undertakings and not in small ones. The result of this order is that the police remove hairdressers, bakers, tailors, etc., from their workshops and send them to the farmers.


These orders are supposed to help the farmers who suffer from a lack of labour, whilst in reality they burden the farms with workmen, some of whom are weak and others incapable of doing the work, and who, anyhow, are unwilling to do it.

As it is seen Hitler didn't invent anything new really. Just sharpened the knife Germany made a long time ago.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... mps#Poland

Yawn, and how do I know this wasn't written by a Neonazi revisionists ?



I was refering to a war between Japan, Russia and the USA, which wouldn't have been a world war.

Oh, sorry, just four continents involved. Surely not a war world.
By Shade2
#1123062
Maybe you can provide some links to websites with a similar content?

It is a fairly available book.


I don't know about "plans" to exterminate non-Germans that were to be implemented after WW1 (I'd also like you to specify what kind of non-Germans you meant. Poles? Russians?)

I didn't write about extermination in terms of WW2, it was more in line with creating artificial famines and expulsions to reduce Polish and Jewish population from annexed territories.
Although not widely known, the knowledge of this plans exists
For example:
The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War
The Germans initially planned to annex only a `frontier strip' of Polish territory (from which, however, Slavs and Jews would be cleared)
page 211
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0192893 ... eader-link


C. Walcott on German Military Rule in Poland, September 1917
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_walcott.htm
"Starvation is here," said General von Kries. "Candidly, we would like to see it relieved; we fear our soldiers may be unfavourably affected by the things that they see. But since it is here, starvation must serve our purpose. So we set it to work for Germany. By starvation we can accomplish in two or three years in East Poland more than we have in West Poland, which is East Prussia, in the last hundred years. With that in view, we propose to turn this force to our advantage." "This country is meant for Germany," continued the keeper of starving Poland. "It is a rich alluvial country which Germany has needed for some generations. We propose to remove the able-bodied working Poles from this country. It leaves it open for the inflow of German working people as fast as we can spare them. They will occupy it and work it. "Then with a cunning smile, "Can't you see how it works out? By and by we shall give back freedom to Poland. When that happens Poland will appear automatically as a German province.


By the way, it may interest you to hear that after WW1 concentration camps were erected in (surprise!) Poland.

The infamous name they now strike is often the result of German policies , while it was used to name all camps where people were gathered for relocation like German occupying soldiers for example that were to be sent back home.

You might be interested that slave labour camps in Poland were made during its occupation by Germany in WW1:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/pol ... speech.htm
At the outbreak of the war, 250,000 Polish workmen happened to be in Germany. In accordance with military orders, they were forbidden to leave the territory of the German Empire. This order was completely illegal and contrary to the principles of international law, which admit only such aliens to be interned who might be summoned to the enemy army.

You can easily imagine the condition of these people who now for two and a half years have been separated from their families. They have simply become victims of exploitation on the part of their employers, who now that the workman cannot leave his place of employment pay only as much as they choose.

(...)
Nor can I remain silent on the point that recently the Central Labour Office has instituted with the help of the local authorities in the Kingdom of Poland a regular hunt for people.
Thus, for instance, towards the end of November, 1916, i.e., after the Manifesto of November 5th (the Proclamation of Polish "Independence"), a free entertainment was announced in the theatre. The lights were put up in the theatre, but when the public had assembled the theatre was surrounded by soldiers, men fit for work were caught and handed over to the Central Labour Office.

Further, the Minister of the Interior has issued an order that subjects of the Kingdom of Poland can be employed only in big or middling undertakings and not in small ones. The result of this order is that the police remove hairdressers, bakers, tailors, etc., from their workshops and send them to the farmers.


These orders are supposed to help the farmers who suffer from a lack of labour, whilst in reality they burden the farms with workmen, some of whom are weak and others incapable of doing the work, and who, anyhow, are unwilling to do it.

As it is seen Hitler didn't invent anything new really. Just sharpened the knife Germany made a long time ago.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... mps#Poland

Yawn welcome to Wikipedia-a place any Nazi, nationalist, communist, revisionist can edit.How do I know this wasn't written by a Neonazi revisionists ?

Official casualties for the camps are not known

LOL, actually they are known, and from a a overall number of people deteined in Bereza Kartuska (16,000) in its time, 3 died, 2 due to health conditions and 1 comitted suicide. In 1939 12 German saboutors were executed. The camps for "Ukrainians" weren't made for Ukrainian minority but members of terrorist organisation OUN which staged murders of officials. Bereza Camp was made after they murdered Polish Minister of Internal Affairs, Bronisław Pieracki.



I was refering to a war between Japan, Russia and the USA, which wouldn't have been a world war.

Oh, sorry, just four continents involved. Surely not a war world.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1123067
Had the US not existed, the entirety of North America would be owned by the British Empire. It would have meant that the great resources of that continent would have entered the struggles of WW1 and WW2 much earlier, in 1914 instead of 1917 and 1939 instead of 1941. This would have likely made both conflicts a good deal shorter, instead of having Americans wait until the situation nears disaster before intervening.
User avatar
By 87522
#1123079
Wow, you just listed examples of realpolitik-policies that were pretty common at that time.

Anyway, it hardly qualifies as "plans to exterminate population of non-Germans in Central and Eastern Europe". And in your first post you wrote that "concentration camps and plans to exterminate... were to be implemented on massive scale after victory in WW1" and thus obviously writing about "extermination in terms of WW2"

Oh, and

educe Polish and Jewish population


save your implicit winks at anti-semitism.

Jews experienced a period of legal equality from 1848 until the rise of Nazi Germany. In the opinion of the historian Fritz Stern, by the end of the 19th century, what had emerged was a "Jewish-German symbiosis," where German Jews had merged elements of German and Jewish culture into a unique new one. A higher percentage of German Jews fought in World War I than that of any other ethnic, religious or political group in Germany.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... 5-1930s.29


Yawn welcome to Wikipedia-a place any Nazi, nationalist, communist, revisionist can edit.How do I know this wasn't written by a Neonazi revisionists ?


Oh, I forgot. Poles would never, ever do things like that. I could doubt the accounts of Frederick C. Walcott as well.


Oh, sorry, just four continents involved. Surely not a war world.


No, the US and Russia fighting against Japan is not a war world.[/u]
By Shade2
#1123121
Anyway, it hardly qualifies as "plans to exterminate population of non-Germans in Central and Eastern Europe".

Which I didn't write and you invented.




And in your first post you wrote that "concentration camps and plans to exterminate... were to be implemented on massive scale after victory in WW1" and thus obviously writing about "extermination in terms of WW2"

Those are your words not mine.


save your implicit winks at anti-semitism.

Huh ? The Oxford publication mentions Jews also as targets of planned ethnic cleansing by German Empire. What are you saying ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... 5-1930s.29

Yaaaaaaaawn.Another wikipedia source ? I feel sorry for you if you base your knowledge on history on what a nationalistic teenager writes.
A non-teenager resources like scholary reviews paint different picture
http://www.historycooperative.org/journ ... r_146.html
Yet the vital issues of this volume, as of its companions, are changes in Jewish collective self-understanding and the degree of Jewish acceptance or rejection within German society. In the imperial German period, these translate into Jewish variants of the broader phenomena of national consciousness and "nationalization of the people," and of national minorities' relation to politically dominant majorities. In my view, this volume, like the whole series, required more thoroughgoing theorization under these headings. As volume three now stands, its impressive empirical strengths clash, often jarringly, with generalizations and judgments to whose acceptance the reader has not been led by explicit, step-by-step analysis. Nor do these volumes always escape the fallacy, to which studies of nationalism are peculiarly susceptible, of assuming what needs to be proven: the existence of the national community as a self-aware, willing collectivity. 2
In Richarz's rich chapters on demography, social structure, and women and family, stress falls on the German Jews' urbanization and embourgeoisement, accompanied by outstanding success in business and men's rapid mobility through higher education into the professional elites. Shadowing these developments were steeply rising rates of religiously mixed marriage in a setting of spreading "secularization" and a significant rate of strategically motivated baptism. For these phenomena, negative from a Jewish religious or national perspective, no sustained explanations emerge, apart from anti-Semitic pressures. But unless ingrained anti-Semitism is to be taken for granted, as in the blanket characterization of imperial Germany as "an anti-Semitic society" (p. 102) and "one that continued to reject [the Jews]," thus figuring (despite anti-Semitism's obvious importance) as an explanatory diabolus ex machina, the reader needs to be concretely shown how and why anti-Semitism achieved these negative effects.


I advise you in future to rely more on scholary resources rather then at teenagers clicking away in Wiki.



Oh, I forgot. Poles would never, ever do things like that.

Actually I have seen Polish nationalists also at work on Wikipedia.
I could doubt the accounts of Frederick C. Walcott as well.

He is far more credible then a anon teenager on Wiki.


No, the US and Russia fighting against Japan is not a war world.[/u]

Sure, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, Britain engaged in war doesn't make it a world war-welcome to bizzaro world.

Crooked judge you say? Perhaps because he was...[…]

When under the Articles of Confederation, maybe. […]

You have a bad idea on how politics work one degr[…]

I think you can keep the money without being charg[…]