[Spin]

I beleive he meant the IVF when he said "their equivalent"

Yes but he said during and forgot about the UVF.

[RedStorm]

Very previous rebellion in Ireland had failed the same would of happened Britain army would of been to large it would of not been demobilised so no need for Black and tans to make up for lack of numbers in Ireland so there would be more support for British keeping the peace if a independent south was promised.

[Al Khabir]

there probably would have been a violent revolution like the one in Russia.

There's quite a difference between the condition in Russia and the condtions in Germany. For a start, Russia had faced uprisings for years, her industry and agriculture were backward and infrastructure was practically non existant. Germany was a modern state, ruled by a strong autocrat, rather than the pathetic Nicolas the second.

Most importantly, Germany's army, after a successful war, would have been strong and proud, and as we all know the Russian revolution would have been easily crushed had the army sided with the Tzar, as they had before.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

I think the Great Depression was inevitable. Somebody would have been paying war reparations to the "victorious" country. Hyperinflation would have occured in Europe. THe countries where it did would probably have adopted communist ideologies as the capital system was to blame for mass starvation and poverty. The Marshall plan was inevitable. They'd probably have ended up helping France, or one of the other "losing" countries. And maybe I was thinking about the Weimar Republic (not the Reichstag). But even if it didn't exist, there probably would have been a violent revolution like the one in Russia. But these are all just postulates, like any idea presented on this thread.

It doesn't really matter if the great depression was inevitable or not; while we will debate the root cause, the fact of the matter is neither the Weimer republic nor the hyperinflation would have occured in Germany after WWI if it won. In fact, Many people would have been more than content in Germany and would not have turned to an alternative system of government.

It matters greatly if the Great Depression was inevitable or not. Capitalism was the cause of it, and people saw socialism and communism as alternatives to getting out of the Depression. People were already forming communist parties in Germany, France, Russia before the war. They wanted the monarchs out. Because they won the war their Kaiser imposed upon them doesn't mean they still would want him. Millions died for what some call "the Family War," as all the monarchs were related. More reason to want them out.

However, we can not detmine whether or not there would have been hyperinflation in France, England, and possible America(depending onif your scenerio included their existance in the war or not). The obvious cause of hyperinflation was the mass overproduction of monmey by the government, which is believed to have happened because The Weimer Republic wanted a quick way to cover the tribute without spendning their money. The question is whether or not England and France would chose the same course of action; at this time, England had a huge industrial sector and probably would have paid the tribute off through tasxes, although the added stresses would dhave pushed for a slightly more interventionist government. In France, on the other hand, I doubt they would have come out as clean. The tribute would have been a burden on their government, and it's debatable whether or not they would have opted for inflation or taxes.

Hyperinflation was also caused by the stock market crash. Some governments felt that if they pumped out more money it would solve their problems. Germany would probably have demanded war reparations from France, Britian, Russia, etc. The US would probably have felt obliged to adopt the Marshall plan or something similar to it. And after the stock market crashed, the country the US was aiding would have sunk deeper and deeper into debt. People around the world would have been starving due to capitalism and people wanted to get out of it. This is why I believe Socialist and Communist parties would have grown in support around the world.

If the economy did take a turn for the worst, I doubt France or England would have become communist anyways. In most nations who's economy failed after WWI, we see a rise in dictatorship. With the exception of russia, all nations became Facist and reactionary. If things turned for the worst, England would have handed more power over to the prime minster and passed increasingly conservative and authoritan bills; France would most likely come under rule of another dictator determined to create a Empire. America, on the other hand, could have become Socialist; however, I still believe the policy of "Normalcy" would have been prevelent throughout the 1920's.

The primary Fascist that arose after WWI was Hitler. If Germany had won the war, he would have had no political platform. Communists in Germany, as I've previously said had close to half the seats in the Weimar Republic (or whatever it was called at the time) and with no violent opposition (Hitler's lackeys) would have just kept gaining support. If Germany fell to communism/socialism, and had won the war, they would have had more sway in Europe and other countries would most likely soon follow. That's my reasoning to believe socialist and communist ideologies would have flourished had Germany and it's allies emerged victorious from WWI.

[glinert]

You most definitiely if we assume that the war would have been quite more or as violent would see communist uprisings in Britain France and United States and probably communist takeovers in many of these. Russia would most definitely have fallen to communism and we woujld have been communist if Germany hadwon orlost.

If you have read novel called, "Johnny goes with his gun" novel written directly after WWI about how fact that war seemed to have been engineered almost so that rich gained money wilhe poor people died in trenches you will understand why commmunist revolution in western countries would have been inenvitable after loss of war.

I have feeling that first of all Ottomoan ampire would have held together and possibly or most likely taken back barts of Balkans it have lost previoously. Germany would set up control directly over much of border territories and then set up "European commonwealth" in rest of Europe. It probably would have been set up in states that it took control over.

Most likelty name of this organ ization would be one in which all states supposed to cooperate and have freedom but in reality they all would be German puppets.

France would be very powerless after war and much of its colonial holdings would be handed over. Same with Britain.

With such losses WWII would have been inevitable but in WWII moral highground this time would would have been harder to have been achieved by Allies.

[Al Khabir]

That's my reasoning to believe socialist and communist ideologies would have flourished had Germany and it's allies emerged victorious from WWI.

There's quite a difference between the condition in Russia and the condtions in Germany. For a start, Russia had faced uprisings for years, her industry and agriculture were backward and infrastructure was practically non existant. Germany was a modern state, ruled by a strong autocrat, rather than the pathetic Nicolas the second.

Most importantly, Germany's army, after a successful war, would have been strong and proud, and as we all know the Russian revolution would have been easily crushed had the army sided with the Tzar, as they had

[Garibaldi]

Actually, Kaiser Wilhelm II was a pretty poor ruler. However, his army was well run and he happened to have a strong industry. Probably the best thing he did was inflate the ego of Germans, but this was at the expense of his foreign relations.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

That's my reasoning to believe socialist and communist ideologies would have flourished had Germany and it's allies emerged victorious from WWI.

There's quite a difference between the condition in Russia and the condtions in Germany. For a start, Russia had faced uprisings for years, her industry and agriculture were backward and infrastructure was practically non existant. Germany was a modern state, ruled by a strong autocrat, rather than the pathetic Nicolas the second.

Most importantly, Germany's army, after a successful war, would have been strong and proud, and as we all know the Russian revolution would have been easily crushed had the army sided with the Tzar, as they had

I know there's differences (I'm not an idiot). The two people who devised Communism on paper were German. German Communist parties existed since the 1800's. That's also why Lenin took a different method on Marx's theories to include the fact that Russia was mostly agriculture.

And I don't think any army, even in victory, is proud to lose millions of lives. There still would have been fury towards the Kaiser, like their were towards all monarchs for their stupid war.

[Garibaldi]

You assume too much; the Germans knew they were justified and experienced victory, there's no way there was going to be a revolution. And just because two Germans invented communism doesn't mean the rest of the nation was that dumb... After all, there was also a German named Frederich Neitzsche.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

You assume too much; the Germans knew they were justified and experienced victory, there's no way there was going to be a revolution. And just because two Germans invented communism doesn't mean the rest of the nation was that dumb... After all, there was also a German named Frederich Neitzsche.

This WHOLE thread is based on a hypothetical situation! It's kind of hard to assume things that nobody knows for sure would or would not happen. I'm aware of Frederich Neitzsche, haven't been able to pick up any of his books, but I've been meanig too. I think his ideologies agree with me on many points (so I've heard); as he talks about the death of religion. There still would have been communists or socialists in Germany even if they had won the war. Especially during the Great Depression.

[Garibaldi]

True, there's always gonna be socialists and communists, and it's likely that the Great Depression, if it did occur, would have given them a boost in numbers; however, the main source for the boost of communists in Germany was the hyperinflation of the 1920's. If Germany never lost the war, then Germany wouldn't have had hyperinflation.

Also, most nations who had a poor economy turned to Facism or another highly authoritian form of government. So, it's more likely for France or England to have turned Facist that Communist in the event losing the war had an extremely negitive effect on their economy.

[Utopian_Anarchist]

True, there's always gonna be socialists and communists, and it's likely that the Great Depression, if it did occur, would have given them a boost in numbers; however, the main source for the boost of communists in Germany was the hyperinflation of the 1920's. If Germany never lost the war, then Germany wouldn't have had hyperinflation.

Also, most nations who had a poor economy turned to Facism or another highly authoritian form of government. So, it's more likely for France or England to have turned Facist that Communist in the event losing the war had an extremely negitive effect on their economy.

Did hyperinflation occur elsewhere? I thought it did (if I remember my history classes from 5 years ago correctly).

Exactly. In Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Viet Nam they all turned to authoritarian forms of socialism (or collectivism). That's part of the reason these countries never became true communist countries, because the authoritarians were happy with their power and didn't want to give it up (as they would have to, because communism requires no classes). Communism was intended for already industrialized countries with the bourgeois and the proletariat. Russia and China (I'm not sure about Viet Nam's, N. Korea's, Cambodia's prior systems of government. They were still monarchies, right?) had the nobility and the serfs, because they lived under feudalism still. That is yet another reason these countries haven't been able to impose communism, in it's true sense, yet.

[Looter]

We would have decent Sausage and Cheese and we wouldnt have the bloody British Queen!

[Utopian_Anarchist]

We would have decent Sausage and Cheese and we would have the bloody British Queen!

If the world didn't have more communist movements (including Germany); I think Germany would have taken many of Britain's Commonwealths if they had won WWI. We would have The Kaiser on our currency along with his kin. Assuming, once again, that communist movements hadn't occured .

[Maksym]

Actually, this is completely incorrect. The English word "slave" comes from Slav, but the word slav is the indigenous name of the slavic peoples - slavenski/slovenski narodi. The word is derived from the word for word "slovo" (which is the direct root of the names Slovenia, Slovakia etc). The word slav used to mean "intelligible" because the slavs differentiated between themselves and other tribes by their ability to comprehend their speech. This is why the slav name for Germans is derivced from "njemac" - meaning "the mute".

I believe too much attention is being placed upon words that appear similar but are totally unrelated. Assuming the word “slave” in the English language is derived from the word Slav, then should not Slavs still be living in England? A large quantity of Slav’s would have needed to have been enslaved by the English for this connection, but no traces of Slavs can be found in England. The only other possibility for the Slavs to have vanished is if they mixed with the English and lost all cultural and linguistic connections to their homeland. If the Slavs were mixed with the English then the English culture should have elements of Slavic culture and language. England has no Slavic influences indicating this theory about slave deriving from Slav is false.

It is more likely the word slave is derived from the Latin word for slave, “Middle English sclave, from Old French esclave, from Medieval Latin scl vus, from Scl vus”

The Slavs were not weak in the middle ages. Kyiv Rus was the largest and strongest state in Europe. On numerous occasions the Slavs brought the Byzantine Empire to its knees, forcing large amount of tribute and favourable trade routes. Also the only recorded Slavic state to be conquered by any Germans or Western Europeans was the Wends, who founded Berlin and Leipzig.

[fastspawn]

scl vus, comes from Sklabos, means "slav" in Latin and Late Greek respectively. so how does that change the initial content of what Stjepan said?

And the explanation of Slavic strength is flawed because the few instances of strength against a weakened Byzantine Empire is not enough reason to justify what the Slavic people underwent under the HRE. This enslavment was the root cause of why Slav and Slave came to be.

[Maksym]

scl vus, comes from Sklabos, means "slav" in Latin and Late Greek respectively. so how does that change the initial content of what Stjepan said?

And the explanation of Slavic strength is flawed because the few instances of strength against a weakened Byzantine Empire is not enough reason to justify what the Slavic people underwent under the HRE. This enslavment was the root cause of why Slav and Slave came to be.

Where did all of these slaves go then? In America the descendents of slaves are clearly visible in modern society.

The strength of Western Europe is flawed. England was not even a nation at the time. This is simple 19th century bigotry to justify the expansion of Germany and enslavement of Slavs, which was attempted in WW2.

[fastspawn]

scl vus, comes from Sklabos, means "slav" in Latin and Late Greek respectively. so how does that change the initial content of what Stjepan said?

And the explanation of Slavic strength is flawed because the few instances of strength against a weakened Byzantine Empire is not enough reason to justify what the Slavic people underwent under the HRE. This enslavment was the root cause of why Slav and Slave came to be.

Where did all of these slaves go then? In America the descendents of slaves are clearly visible in modern society.

The strength of Western Europe is flawed. England was not even a nation at the time. This is simple 19th century bigotry to justify the expansion of Germany and enslavement of Slavs, which was attempted in WW2.

We are talking about medieval time period here, not the 1500s.

You yourself have said the original word was scl vus, which is Sklabos or Slav.

When you talk about Nations, are you referring to a modern nation-state?
Where does your defination end and where does it begin? because Modern nation-states can only emerge with centralization of power onto a single seat.

[Maksym]

scl vus, comes from Sklabos, means "slav" in Latin and Late Greek respectively. so how does that change the initial content of what Stjepan said?

And the explanation of Slavic strength is flawed because the few instances of strength against a weakened Byzantine Empire is not enough reason to justify what the Slavic people underwent under the HRE. This enslavment was the root cause of why Slav and Slave came to be.

Where did all of these slaves go then? In America the descendents of slaves are clearly visible in modern society.

The strength of Western Europe is flawed. England was not even a nation at the time. This is simple 19th century bigotry to justify the expansion of Germany and enslavement of Slavs, which was attempted in WW2.

We are talking about medieval time period here, not the 1500s.

You yourself have said the original word was scl vus, which is Sklabos or Slav.

When you talk about Nations, are you referring to a modern nation-state?
Where does your defination end and where does it begin? because Modern nation-states can only emerge with centralization of power onto a single seat.

The point is no traces of these huge amounts of Slavs can be found in Western Europe. Where did they all go? So then Sclavus must be a coincident since the Latin language is much older then the 6th century AD, when Slavs appeared in modern history.

I am not talking about the modern-nation state. Before 1066 England was not a united nation and could not have the ability to enslave huge amounts of Slavs.

[Maksym]

If Germany and Austria-Hungary has won WW1 then Europe would have been placed under Germanic hegemony. Throughout history this desire for German hegemony over Europe has been demonstrated. The Holy Roman Empire, United State of Europe and now the European Union are all examples. Frankly it would have saved many lives if the Germans had just won WW1.