[Ned the Great]

My Opinion: The Allies were the best in my opinion, because they were fighting to stop the expansionism of Austria-Hungary and Germany. The Central Powers are ruled out because they had the Ottoman Empire on their side, which wiped out thousands of Armenians (no offense to any Turkish people). The allies also had Winston Churchill, Theodore Rosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, some of my favorite leaders, on their side.

[Smallfrog]

Quote

Winston Churchill, Theodore Rosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson

No no NO

Winston Churchill was nothing in WWI but an extremely incompetent admiral. Lloyd George was the Prime minister at the time.

Roosevelt had very little to do with it.

And doesn't Clemenceau get a mention?

And in WWI there was no clear cut of who was in the right/wrong, but in fact it might be better to come down on the side of Germany, which was fighting to free itself from the continued French arrogance aimed at them. The whole power struggle was no-ones fault (or everyones), and the result of tension building since the Franco Prussian war.

[Andre27]

Smallfrog, on Jan 20 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

No no NO

And in WWI there was no clear cut of who was in the right/wrong, but in fact it might be better to come down on the side of Germany, which was fighting to free itself from the continued French arrogance aimed at them. The whole power struggle was no-ones fault (or everyones), and the result of tension building since the Franco Prussian war.

I have to agree here. One has to wonder what would have happened if Austria and Germany had won World War One. Would the Russian Revolution have happened and without the German/Austrian defeat in WW1 would the nazi's have gained much support in post war (WW1) Germany?

[Smallfrog]

andre27, on Jan 20 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

I have to agree here. One has to wonder what would have happened if Austria and Germany had won World War One. Would the Russian Revolution have happened and without the German/Austrian defeat in WW1 would the nazi's have gained much support in post war (WW1) Germany?

The Revolution happened in 1917 as a result of Russian defeats, so yes it would have happened. Peace was agreed in late 1917 giving Germany a huge amount of land etc, which was used to make Poland, Czechoslovakia and the other new states after the war. (i know they where not new in the sense that they where original, but they hadn't existed in 1914. And Yes I know Czechoslovakia was new. Shut up)

However, the third Reich wouldn't have appeared if Germany had won WWI, as the Third Reich came from the desperation caused by the long term effects of defeat, so the second Reich would have remained for a while at least.

[Ned the Great]

Theodore Rosevelt was a leading advocate for US entry in the war. His sons also fought in the war. From what I have heard, the Germans conquered Alsace-Lorraine from France in the Franco-Prussian war, so they were the agressors. France just wanted their land back.

This post has been edited by Ned the Great: 20 January 2008 - 08:29 AM

[Smallfrog]

Ned the Great, on Jan 20 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

Theodore Rosevelt was a leading advocate for US entry in the war. His sons also fought in the war.

And? He is still not a significant figure as you made out.

Quote

From what I have heard, the Germans conquered Alsace-Lorraine from France in the Franco-Prussian war, so they were the agressors. France just wanted their land back.

50 years of French attacks on Prussia ends with the Prussian victory in that war. Your European History needs work. Especially as only one of those provinces is actually French, and the other was occupied by France prior to the war and the German confederation had a better claim to t.

This post has been edited by Smallfrog: 20 January 2008 - 08:32 AM

[Ned the Great]

I never said that Theodore Rosevelt was a major figure. I simply said that he was on the allied side.

What do you mean that Germany has a better claim to Alsace than France. Alsace was part of the Frankish controled Holy Roman Empire in the 800's, and then became a duchy in France, although the dukes of Alsace had a degree of independance until the 1600's.

Also, if you think I don't know very much about European History, you must be mistaken. I doubt most people have even heard of Alsace or the Franco-Prussian war. At least I know more than the average person.

[Buller]

The Holy Roman Empire wasnt french in any way. And the French were the aggressors in the Franco-Prussian war.

[Ned the Great]

Under Charlemagne the Holy Roman Empire was French. Other than that, it was more German or Austrian.

[Smallfrog]

Ned the Great, on Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

What do you mean that Germany has a better claim to Alsace than France. Alsace was part of the Frankish controled Holy Roman Empire in the 800's, and then became a duchy in France, although the dukes of Alsace had a degree of independance until the 1600's.

My point exactly.

Quote

Also, if you think I don't know very much about European History, you must be mistaken. I doubt most people have even heard of Alsace or the Franco-Prussian war. At least I know more than the average person.

Who was the first chancellor of Germany? Which nations led the war against France in 1812? What was the last absolute monarchy of Europe? What was the name of the dynasty that ruled Austria Hungry in its final days? What where the political effects of the battle of Königgrätz? If you don't know the answer to those questions, you cannot discern who was in the right at WWI.

[Ned the Great]

Anyway, we're getting away from the point. I still won't side with the Central Powers as they almost wiped out a whole ethnic group.

[Smallfrog]

Ned the Great, on Jan 20 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

Anyway, we're getting away from the point. I still won't side with the Central Powers as they almost wiped out a whole ethnic group.

They did? If we are referring to an age group, yes. If we are referring to the poles and other minorities killed, that was the Russians and their policy of russiafication, and they where on the allied side.

Remeber, this is WWI, not WWII.

[Andre27]

Smallfrog, on Jan 20 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

The Revolution happened in 1917 as a result of Russian defeats, so yes it would have happened. Peace was agreed in late 1917 giving Germany a huge amount of land etc, which was used to make Poland, Czechoslovakia and the other new states after the war. (i know they where not new in the sense that they where original, but they hadn't existed in 1914. And Yes I know Czechoslovakia was new. Shut up)

However if Germany had managed to win in 1915-16 then the (mostly German supported ) Russian Revolution might not have happened. Prior to WW1 Russia was already in the transition process to a more modern industrialized nation.

If not for the war which acted as a catalyst...
With Germany on the winning side in WW1 would the Great Depression have taken place and if so, how would it have affected Russia.

Could the Great Depression in this situation have sparked a communist revolution in the 1930's instead of in 1917?

[Ned the Great]

Answers to SmallFrog's questions:
1. The first Chancellor of the German Empire was Otto Von Bismark.
2. If you are talking about the Napoleonic Wars, then Britian, Austria, Prussia (Germany), and Russia. However, that was a different war, which I could agree with you that the French were bad.
3. Technically the Vatican, but if were talking non-theocracy then Austria-Hungary.
4. Hapsburg-Lorraine.
5. All of Germany was unified except Austria.

[Ned the Great]

Smallfrog, on Jan 20 2008, 03:04 PM, said:

They did? If we are referring to an age group, yes. If we are referring to the poles and other minorities killed, that was the Russians and their policy of russiafication, and they where on the allied side.

Remeber, this is WWI, not WWII.

The Ottoman Empire, which was on the Central Powers side, wiped out thousands of Armenians.

[Veneke]

That is quite true Ned the Great. The Armenian massacres though were performed during the war, as a direct result of it. You cannot base a justification of war on the acts of a country during war-time, the justification must come prior to the declaration. You are trying to read history backward, which always gives a wrong interpretation.

Also, I'm afraid I have to call into question in how any war can be "right". Justified, perhaps, but right? Few, if any, wars are right.

I believe the Englishman Betrand Russel once said that "War does not determine who is right, but only who is left."

[Smallfrog]

andre27, on Jan 20 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

However if Germany had managed to win in 1915-16 then the (mostly German supported ) Russian Revolution might not have happened. Prior to WW1 Russia was already in the transition process to a more modern industrialized nation.

There had already been a revolution before the start of the war in 1905, following a series of defeats at the hands of the Japanese. Sooner rather than later the Romanov's where doomed. However, it may have been that the government would have remained provincial and survived the Bolshevik uprising in October, following the total failure of Russia in the 1917 summer campaign, before the storming of the winter palace in October.

Quote

If not for the war which acted as a catalyst...
With Germany on the winning side in WW1 would the Great Depression have taken place and if so, how would it have affected Russia.

Too many variables

Quote

Could the Great Depression in this situation have sparked a communist revolution in the 1930's instead of in 1917?

Possibly.

Quote

Technically the Vatican, but if were talking non-theocracy then Austria-Hungary.

Austria had a parliament during the rule of the Hapsburg's. I was referring to the Romanov's who retained total power (despite the parliaments wishes) until February 1917.

[Daver]

Central Powers were the good guys. As per your question in the other thread, no Austrian-Hungarian Empire wasn't trying to take over Serbia, they were trying to to take over territory on their southern border to expand their empire and Serbia had the same planes but were too slow.

Some Serbian terrorist got mad and killed the Arch-Duke. The Central Powers jumps on Serbia after it's gov't didn't hand over the terrorists and then the Allies retaliated.

[Ned the Great]

Was I right on the rest of your questions SmallFrog?

[King Penchuk]

No one in the Great War was right. Every imperial power wanted an excuse to start a war because they all figured they'd win in a matter of weeks (like the Franco-Prussian War). There were no "good guys" or "bad guys" there were just people.

Since the fall of Napoleon a major war like this was just being begged to happen. Britain was angry that Germany was building a navy and wanted to destroy Germany. France wanted revenge for their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. Austria wanted to control the Balkans. Germany wanted to build an empire and crush everyone in their way etc.

Every side was wrong. Unlike World War 2, the first World War was started by equally ridiculous imperial powers who just wanted to have a go at one another.