| So what do you think the world would look like if Germany won the Second World War. This thread will cover different Alternate History Scenarios. People get confused about the Great War, so I might as well let them discuss the Second World War, since they want to. |
RuneRemDec 3, 2017 11:47 PM
| If it is conquered by the british then you wont probably make this thread. |
"When you made this thread, I cried and screamed" -Swagernator 2017 |
Nyu said: So I seen an alternative history video on the Unites States of Columbia, which is a nation created ot of South America, if it had been colonised by the British. So what do you think South America would be like if colonised by the British. History would unfold in a vastly different way. Spain was a leading world power in the 1500's, but got undermined by horrid economy, resulting from inflation as a result relying too heavily on gold and silver imported from America. In all likelihood, had that happened, Britain would instead ahve been the recipent of that collapse, and North America, which nobody cared about, would have been colonized by someone else, likely France. |
complice said: basically slavery and nazis number one complice said: basically slavery and nazis number one Slavery is bad. WyNdZ said: I recently started a new show called The man in the high castle (Amazon Prime) and it's basically what would happen to the USA and the rest of the world if Germany won World War 2. You might find that show interesting. The Man in The High Castle is quite generic. Fijure said: Nyu said: So I seen an alternative history video on the Unites States of Columbia, which is a nation created ot of South America, if it had been colonised by the British. So what do you think South America would be like if colonised by the British. History would unfold in a vastly different way. Spain was a leading world power in the 1500's, but got undermined by horrid economy, resulting from inflation as a result relying too heavily on gold and silver imported from America. In all likelihood, had that happened, Britain would instead ahve been the recipent of that collapse, and North America, which nobody cared about, would have been colonized by someone else, likely France. Weren't the British more focused on settling America, so I doubt they would make the same mistakes as the Spanish. |
| yeah i wonder if Columbia South Carolina ruled the world all the time |
*peeks over sunglasses* Shitpost.Fetish |
| @Nyu No, in the beginning, under Elizabeth the first, the only interest of the British in America was stealing the gold and silver from the Spanish, that was the cause of the war between them in 1588, colonizing and settling North America came as an afterthought almost a century later. It is safe to say that if the British had colonized America, they'd have gone for the gold just like the Spanish did, and got struck by the same problems of over-extension, leaving someone else with the hard work of colonizing North America. |
Fijure said: @Nyu No, in the beginning, under Elizabeth the first, the only interest of the British in America was stealing the gold and silver from the Spanish, that was the cause of the war between them in 1588, colonizing and settling North America came as an afterthought almost a century later. It is safe to say that if the British had colonized America, they'd have gone for the gold just like the Spanish did, and got struck by the same problems of over-extension, leaving someone else with the hard work of colonizing North America. Seems Britain would have lost their empire as well, but find it amazing Europeans couldn't take over each, so they took over everyone else. |
Nyu said: Fijure said: @Nyu No, in the beginning, under Elizabeth the first, the only interest of the British in America was stealing the gold and silver from the Spanish, that was the cause of the war between them in 1588, colonizing and settling North America came as an afterthought almost a century later. It is safe to say that if the British had colonized America, they'd have gone for the gold just like the Spanish did, and got struck by the same problems of over-extension, leaving someone else with the hard work of colonizing North America. Seems Britain would have lost their empire as well, but find it amazing Europeans couldn't take over each, so they took over everyone else. The era of discovery and colonization is certainly interesting, the most interesting period of world history in my opinion, and there can be no doubt that what drove it was internal colonization between European states. The people living in America originally was kind of structurally disadvantaged from the beginning though, seeing that they lacked domesticable farm animals and territory suitable for trade routes to exchange ideas. The Europeans mostly conquered America at first, it wasnt until the 19th centuries that they started making big landgains in Africa and Asia, and there it was just for a glimmer of history, lasting little more than a century. It is also worth recalling that most of the Middle East and East Asia was never controlled by Europe. |
Fijure said: Nyu said: Seems Britain would have lost their empire as well, but find it amazing Europeans couldn't take over each, so they took over everyone else. The era of discovery and colonization is certainly interesting, the most interesting period of world history in my opinion, and there can be no doubt that what drove it was internal colonization between European states. The people living in America originally was kind of structurally disadvantaged from the beginning though, seeing that they lacked domesticable farm animals and territory suitable for trade routes to exchange ideas. The Europeans mostly conquered America at first, it wasnt until the 19th centuries that they started making big landgains in Africa and Asia, and there it was just for a glimmer of history, lasting little more than a century. It is also worth recalling that most of the Middle East and East Asia was never controlled by Europe. Was Africa and India disadvantaged as well, I get the feeling your trying to downplay the accomplishments of the Europeans. Also they only lost control of Africa and India because of infighting between Europeans. |
Nyu said: Fijure said: The era of discovery and colonization is certainly interesting, the most interesting period of world history in my opinion, and there can be no doubt that what drove it was internal colonization between European states. The people living in America originally was kind of structurally disadvantaged from the beginning though, seeing that they lacked domesticable farm animals and territory suitable for trade routes to exchange ideas. The Europeans mostly conquered America at first, it wasnt until the 19th centuries that they started making big landgains in Africa and Asia, and there it was just for a glimmer of history, lasting little more than a century. It is also worth recalling that most of the Middle East and East Asia was never controlled by Europe. Was Africa and India disadvantaged as well, I get the feeling your trying to downplay the accomplishments of the Europeans. Also they only lost control of Africa and India because of infighting between Europeans. If anything, Europeans were disadvantaged in Africa because they didn't have malaria resistance unlike the natives, that's probably the reason the inner Africa wasn't explored until the invention and spread of quinine, the best medicine to malaria in the 19th century. Truth is though, that Europeans didn't have the ability to conquer the West African kingdoms until around 1800, because they were too powerful, by 1800, the technological difference was too vast though. I'm not trying to downplay anything, only explain it, not everyone is interested in politicizing everything. If you have a genuine interest in history, you will make an effort to understand why Europe got to dominate the world for a short while, rather than just seeing that they did and then state "they were probably superior somehow." India was funny because Britain ended up conquering it almost by accident. After the collapse of the Mogul Empire around 1750, India split up into small kingdoms battling each other, and Britain interfered more and more in those wars to protect their trading interests, and in the end they got all the kingdoms to swear fealty to them. Also, the colonies in Asia wasn't primarily lost because of infighting between Europeans, the war with Japan in the Pacific was more important because Japan demonstrated to the native populations that the Europeans were weaker than they looked, and after the war ended, all the native populations demanded independence, and the European nations were too weak to stop them. |
Fijure said: Nyu said: Was Africa and India disadvantaged as well, I get the feeling your trying to downplay the accomplishments of the Europeans. Also they only lost control of Africa and India because of infighting between Europeans. If anything, Europeans were disadvantaged in Africa because they didn't have malaria resistance unlike the natives, that's probably the reason the inner Africa wasn't explored until the invention and spread of quinine, the best medicine to malaria in the 19th century. Truth is though, that Europeans didn't have the ability to conquer the West African kingdoms until around 1800, because they were too powerful, by 1800, the technological difference was too vast though. I'm not trying to downplay anything, only explain it, not everyone is interested in politicizing everything. If you have a genuine interest in history, you will make an effort to understand why Europe got to dominate the world for a short while, rather than just seeing that they did and then state "they were probably superior somehow." India was funny because Britain ended up conquering it almost by accident. After the collapse of the Mogul Empire around 1750, India split up into small kingdoms battling each other, and Britain interfered more and more in those wars to protect their trading interests, and in the end they got all the kingdoms to swear fealty to them. Also, the colonies in Asia wasn't primarily lost because of infighting between Europeans, the war with Japan in the Pacific was more important because Japan demonstrated to the native populations that the Europeans were weaker than they looked, and after the war ended, all the native populations demanded independence, and the European nations were too weak to stop them. You are clearly tying to downplay Europe's accomplishments as you keep implying they only had a short empire, while ignoring the fact that they lost their empire due to infighting between European powers, we both know Europe would still control a lot of the world today hadn't it been for WW1 and WW2. |
| @Nyu What would I have to say in order to not make you think I'm downplaying it. That Europe only dominated the world for a short while in world history terms is an unquestionable fact, doesn't change the fact that no single civilization has dominated as much of it (area-wise) than Europe, and that The Great Divergence occurred for a reason, meaning there is no question that the scientific and industrial revolutions which has changed the world beyond recognition definitely occurred in Europe. Do you even know that the Pacific War is the Asian theater of World War II? World War I didn't have major consequences for the colonies, it is true that World War II had an important effect though. For the colonies themselves however, it was the war with Japan, not the one with Germany, that was important. What even is your point. |
Fijure said: @Nyu What would I have to say in order to not make you think I'm downplaying it. That Europe only dominated the world for a short while in world history terms is an unquestionable fact, doesn't change the fact that no single civilization has dominated as much of it (area-wise) than Europe, and that The Great Divergence occurred for a reason, meaning there is no question that the scientific and industrial revolutions which has changed the world beyond recognition definitely occurred in Europe. Do you even know that the Pacific War is the Asian theater of World War II? World War I didn't have major consequences for the colonies, it is true that World War II had an important effect though. For the colonies themselves however, it was the war with Japan, not the one with Germany, that was important. What even is your point. If the British and French hadn't been blitzkrieg, they would've been able to defend their colonies in Asia. |
Nyu said: Fijure said: @Nyu What would I have to say in order to not make you think I'm downplaying it. That Europe only dominated the world for a short while in world history terms is an unquestionable fact, doesn't change the fact that no single civilization has dominated as much of it (area-wise) than Europe, and that The Great Divergence occurred for a reason, meaning there is no question that the scientific and industrial revolutions which has changed the world beyond recognition definitely occurred in Europe. Do you even know that the Pacific War is the Asian theater of World War II? World War I didn't have major consequences for the colonies, it is true that World War II had an important effect though. For the colonies themselves however, it was the war with Japan, not the one with Germany, that was important. What even is your point. If the British and French hadn't been blitzkrieg, they would've been able to defend their colonies in Asia. An length, yes, but a large part of the British forces were actually in South East Asia in 1941, and during the Fall of Singapore, a British force of around 100.000 soldiers (even more, possibly, can't remember) were defeated by a much smaller Japanese force who conquered all of Southeast Asia. Britain and France would have won at length yes (like they did) but they wouldn't have been able to stop the first attack, and the first attack inspired the movements for independence that led to the decolonization. |
I wonder how that'd be possible when there is no South American country of Columbia |
  |
| If South America was colonized by the British they would speak English instead of Spanish, Amerindians would be an extreme minority (barely existent) like they are in America, it would have more black people ( British liked black slave labor more than Amerinidian labor and saw no problem in exterminating as much Amerindians as possible while the Spanish used Amerindians for labor and intermixed with them), meztisos (white mixed with Amerindian) wouldn't be the dominant mixed race group in South America but douglas (black mixed with Indians from India) would be, I think Argentina and Chile would be the same white majority but they would speak English instead of Spanish obviously, South America would be more into Cricket like the former British Caribbean which now make up the West Indies cricket team. Guyana is the sole South American country that was colonized by the British so it would act as an example of how South America would be demographically and culturally if it was colonized by the British. Fijure said: Spain got gold and silver from Mexico, Peru and Bolivia not from America. The Aztecs and Incans had a lot of gold and silver and after their conquest the Spanish shipped as much gold and silver from them back to Spain which is what caused inflation.History would unfold in a vastly different way. Spain was a leading world power in the 1500's, but got undermined by horrid economy, resulting from inflation as a result relying too heavily on gold and silver imported from America. Aztecs were in Mexico and the Incans were in mainly Peru(capital of the Incan empire was in Cuzco which is in Peru) and Bolivia. Fijure said: There was trade between different Amerindian groups. The Incans had llamas and alpacas and farm animals didn't matter to feed them since they were good at farming crops and hunting.The people living in America originally was kind of structurally disadvantaged from the beginning though, seeing that they lacked domesticable farm animals and territory suitable for trade routes to exchange ideas. The Incans had terrace farming in the mountains  and the Aztecs had chinampas (floating gardens).  The major disadvantage the Amerindians had was that they had no resistance to the diseases Europeans brought to the Americas which wiped out most of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics "The arrival of Europeans also brought on the Columbian Exchange. During this period European settlers brought many different technologies and lifestyles with them; arguably the most harmful effect of this exchange was the arrival and spread of disease." "Numerous other diseases were brought to North America, including bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and pertussis (whooping cough). Each of these brought destruction through sweeping epidemics, involving disability, illness, and extensive deaths. Native Americans, due to the lack of prior contact with Europeans, had not previously been exposed to the diseases that were prevalent on the distant continent. Therefore, they had not built up internal immunities to the diseases or formed any medicines to combat them. Europeans came into the New World bearing various diseases." http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/impact-european-diseases-native-americans "Contact between Europeans and Native Americans led to a demographic disaster of unprecedented proportions. Many of the epidemic diseases that were well established in the Old World were absent from the Americas before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. The catastrophic epidemics that accompanied the European conquest of the New World decimated the indigenous population of the Americas. Influenza, smallpox, measles, and typhus fever were among the first European diseases imported to the Americas. During the first hundred years of contact with Europeans, Native Americans were trapped in a virtual web of new diseases. " |
DrGeroCreationNov 28, 2017 2:09 PM
 |
| @DrGeroCreation Not mentioning diseases was a mistake, but that was definitely the most important point. However, you are absolutely wrong in claiming that the Amerindians didn't have farm animals "because they didn't need them", in fact that's a ridiculous claim. They didn't have them because they lived in a place where no domesticable animals lived, apart from llamas and alpacas, and these were limited in their usefulness, because while they can carry stuff, they weren't used for labor, and couldn't be ridden for military purposes. Out of around 150 species of large ungulates in the world, only about 18 have been domesticated, only one of these lived in America after the Ice Age, and that's the llama. They didn't domesticate animals because they weren't available, but they would have been useful. As a result, while thier agriculture was about as advanced and efficient as agriculture could get without domesticates, Mesoamerican agriculture was sitll not as labor-efficient as that found for instance in Ancient Egypt, where they had the benefit of the Nile as well as plenty of labor animals. There was trade, but not sufficient trade routes to allow for exchange of ideas in a large scale - the reason why Eurasian societies pulled ahead of the rest of the world was because the geography of Asia and Europe allowed for long distance trade routes (The Silk Road) that allowed for continuous exchange of ideas and resources over large areas. For this reason the horse rapidly spread all over Asia after it was domesticated, and Europe received technology such as paper, the compass and gunpowder from China. Conversely, there wasn't any obvious trade routes between the great civilizations of America, hence why the llama never spread to Mesoamerica, and writing and the wheel never spread from Mesoamerica to the Andes. Since you mentioned diseases yourself, why do you think no diseases developed in America, when so many deadly ones evolved in Eurasia? Why wasn't it the other way around? |
Lux_Lucis said: One of my personal favorites is the fact that Vikings could have colonized Northern America way before it was "discovered" by Columbus and named after Amerigo. Sadly this never happened because a viking woman broke their law (she claimed a house that was seized by a pair of vikings that arrived before she did; by killing the new owners, their wives and kids). She was not executed because she was the sister of their king (konungr). The king, or the highest Jarl present, is supposed to be the one executing a viking woman for a crime (true viking women were scarce and precious) but as a viking he can't kill his own family members (kinslaying was a grave sin). Ordering someone else to execute her was also a bad option since she was both a woman and his sister. This could lead to a shift in power in the future. Stuck in a zugzwang (kill her and you commit a sin/ let her live and you break the rules/ order her execution and risk your position) the king forced a fourth option. He declared the land "not viking" and therefore there was no crime (she did not steal a house from a viking on a viking land, but on neutral land, effectively making it "just a lethal outcome of a random fight"). As a result the land that was no longer viking land, was destined be abandoned.. And belong to no viking in the future (at least no viking under than specific king). They never returned to Canada (they called it Vynland/ Vinland or "fertile soil") again. Their father was Erik the bloody/ Erik the red. And the King and his sister were Leif Erikson and Freydís. Edit: For alternative history just imagine that woman being not a woman or not as hot headed. No crime no punishment / a man would have been executed by order of the king or by the hand of the nearest Jarl (yes despite the blood-ties to the king). They would have had Five centuries (half a millennia!) of dominating North America before the Old World would have stumbled upon its little sister. Or maybe they would have introduced her to it.... Oh well. Edit 2: Came back to mention that Freydis was punished though. She was whipped, branded and banned from Greenland (and Vinland). This isn't true though. The version you told is that of the version of the Saga of the Greenlanders, one of the two Vinland sagas. The other, Saga of Erik the Red, tells a completely different story with Freydis in a different role, and we have no way of knowing which of them is true. We have pretty clear evidence, both literary and physical, that the Vikings kept making voyages to America until at least 1347, long after the Vinland sagas. The reason they didn't colonize it permanently was because they were stretched thin, and didn't have enough people to make colonies that could defend against attacks from the natives long term - they were simply too far away, and didn't have the technology to make sustained crossings to allow the necessary hundreds of people to colonize. |
| Prussia would still be around. |
| If I could choose an alternate History, I would either want to have - the Great or All German Solution being implemented or - the First Reich being implemented correctly as Regnum Teutonicum/Kingdom of Germany, only. Germany and its Allies having won the Great War could mean that Monarchy would have still existed in those Countries. Also, the Middle East would have been way more stable with perfectly functional Railways regularly going from Berlin to Baghdad. edit: @razor39999: The Great War is the historically correct Term for the Retronym "World War I". If Germany + Allies had won World War I, Hitler most likely wouldn't have come to Power in the first Place. |
| I don't know why the world sees Nazi as some super evil mega voodoo magic people. They aren't any worse than any other conquerors in history. I'd be more afraid if USSR controlled Europe or even more, the world. |
 |
razor39999 said: I'm not sure about WWII having been especially mentioned in the OP, but as far as I can recall, the Title was only "Alternate History Thread". He must've edited the title and topic, I swear it was WW2 before. Or was I seeing things? Found the cached Version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O1fQjeBlOkIJ:https://myanimelist.net/forum/%3Ftopicid%3D1686641+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=de Seems to have been originally about British Influence in South America. Godwin's Law is quite amazing to have been proven that early on. |
NoboruDec 3, 2017 5:12 AM
| To all geniuses above spamming about Hitler, nazis and similar things : Great war was WW1, not WW2. There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki |
| we might never then have gotten those sexy nazi uniforms :( a more interesting question: what would the world look like if there was no industrial revolution at all ?? |
 |
Sukebe14 said: To all geniuses above spamming about Hitler, nazis and similar things : Great war was WW1, not WW2. There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki I've been playing Kaiserreich on Hearts of Iron, that's why I changed the thread to the Great War. |
Nyu said: it's not polite to all the people that replied on that topic, you should've created a new thread, no reason to rub people the wrong way when it can so easily be avoided Sukebe14 said: To all geniuses above spamming about Hitler, nazis and similar things : Great war was WW1, not WW2. There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki I've been playing Kaiserreich on Hearts of Iron, that's why I changed the thread to the Great War. |
|
Candy said: Nyu said: it's not polite to all the people that replied on that topic, you should've created a new thread, no reason to rub people the wrong way when it can so easily be avoided I've been playing Kaiserreich on Hearts of Iron, that's why I changed the thread to the Great War. This thread is about Alternate History, which covers many scenarios. |
| There would've probably been another war, since almost every dictatorship falls at some point. There would just be more deaths, the Jews might be extinct and the nazis would rule longer. But at some point, they would fail. |
  “If you live for yourself you’ve only got yourself to blame. So I can’t really blame anyone else and I don’t have any regrets.” list |
aliquae said: There would've probably been another war, since almost every dictatorship falls at some point. There would just be more deaths, the Jews might be extinct and the nazis would rule longer. But at some point, they would fail. aliquae said: There would've probably been another war, since almost every dictatorship falls at some point. There would just be more deaths, the Jews might be extinct and the nazis would rule longer. But at some point, they would fail. The Great War is World War 1, not World War 2. Anyway, why do you think there would be another war and with who. Why do you think the Nazis would fall, they had good propaganda. |
| There would be no anime, all animation would still look like Disney and the storylines would idolize themes of white aryan kids defeating evil Jews. There would be no videogames, but the boardgame industry would thrive. Black people's lives and the lives of all minorities would be far worse off. The media would be entirely tabloid based, the free press would be underground if it was existent at all. Able bodied men who weren't entirely brainwashed by the Nazis would be very rare indeed, same for beautiful women. Sukebe14 said: To all geniuses above spamming about Hitler, nazis and similar things : Great war was WW1, not WW2. There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki I knew that >_> Really though, you might say that Naziism would have rose anyways. I mean, it didn't take much, and even in WWI Germany was definitely fighting for the right to Imperialism. |
xMizu_Dec 3, 2017 10:30 AM
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Sukebe14 said: I've looked a bit through the Wiki and the Moment I saw this Article about "Mitteleuropa", I knew that the whole Scenarios given there were completely off even for an alternative History.There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki Mitteleuropa is the more or less contiguous Area around Central Europe with significant, German cultural Influence. |
Gan_water said: There would be no anime, all animation would still look like Disney and the storylines would idolize themes of white aryan kids defeating evil Jews. There would be no videogames, but the boardgame industry would thrive. Black people's lives and the lives of all minorities would be far worse off. The media would be entirely tabloid based, the free press would be underground if it was existent at all. Able bodied men who weren't entirely brainwashed by the Nazis would be very rare indeed, same for beautiful women. Sukebe14 said: To all geniuses above spamming about Hitler, nazis and similar things : Great war was WW1, not WW2. There is interesting fictional timeline called Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg. http://kaiserreich.wikia.com/wiki/The_Kaiserreich_Wiki I knew that >_> Really though, you might say that Naziism would have rose anyways. I mean, it didn't take much, and even in WWI Germany was definitely fighting for the right to Imperialism. It was Britain and France who controlled 1/4 of the entire world due to Imperialism, they controlled Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so to say Germany was fighting for Imperialism is ridiculous. |
Nyu said: Gan_water said: There would be no anime, all animation would still look like Disney and the storylines would idolize themes of white aryan kids defeating evil Jews. There would be no videogames, but the boardgame industry would thrive. Black people's lives and the lives of all minorities would be far worse off. The media would be entirely tabloid based, the free press would be underground if it was existent at all. Able bodied men who weren't entirely brainwashed by the Nazis would be very rare indeed, same for beautiful women. I knew that >_> Really though, you might say that Naziism would have rose anyways. I mean, it didn't take much, and even in WWI Germany was definitely fighting for the right to Imperialism. It was Britain and France who controlled 1/4 of the entire world due to Imperialism, they controlled Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so to say Germany was fighting for Imperialism is ridiculous. True but Germany got in on the side of Axis because Franz Ferdinand got offed, clearly that indicates they were more so on the side of "Kings and queens" after all WWI is seen as the end of Imperial Europe in many wayzzz |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Nyu said: It was Britain and France who controlled 1/4 of the entire world due to Imperialism, they controlled Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so to say Germany was fighting for Imperialism is ridiculous. They just wanted to be a part of it not put an end to it or anything so it's pretty safe to say that they were fighting for it. It's still pretty stupid, Germany had no chance of winning this war. |
Gan_water said: Nyu said: It was Britain and France who controlled 1/4 of the entire world due to Imperialism, they controlled Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so to say Germany was fighting for Imperialism is ridiculous. True but Germany got in on the side of Axis because Franz Ferdinand got offed, clearly that indicates they were more so on the side of "Kings and queens" after all WWI is seen as the end of Imperial Europe in many wayzzz Germany controlled a couple colonies in Africa, Austria-Hungary had no colonies, Ottoman Empire controlled it's region. They were clearly not the Imperialists, Germany only got it's colonies due to a treaty, they didn't go around colonising places like the British and French. Did these powers prefer Monarchy over Parliament, yes, however that doesn't make them Imperialists, just Monarchists. End of Imperial Europe, ah, like how the British and French took former Germany colonies, like how the British and French took former Ottoman territories.. Before the First World War, Britain and France didn't have colonies in the Middle East until they won the First World War. 149597871 said: Nyu said: It was Britain and France who controlled 1/4 of the entire world due to Imperialism, they controlled Africa, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so to say Germany was fighting for Imperialism is ridiculous. They just wanted to be a part of it not put an end to it or anything so it's pretty safe to say that they were fighting for it. It's still pretty stupid, Germany had no chance of winning this war. Germany was fighting because Austria pulled them into the war, Ottomans were fighting for more territory. Britain and France were fighting prevent Germany from challenging their power. And Russia was fighting for it's reputation. |
RuneRemDec 4, 2017 12:03 AM
Nyu said: 149597871 said: They just wanted to be a part of it not put an end to it or anything so it's pretty safe to say that they were fighting for it. It's still pretty stupid, Germany had no chance of winning this war. Germany was fighting because Austria pulled them into the war, Ottomans were fighting for more territory. Britain and France were fighting prevent Germany from challenging their power. And Russia was fighting for it's reputation. Well, I totally blame Austria-Hungary for starting it but that still doesn't change the fact that Germany and Italy wanted a colonial empire. |
149597871Dec 4, 2017 12:17 AM
149597871 said: Nyu said: Germany was fighting because Austria pulled them into the war, Ottomans were fighting for more territory. Britain and France were fighting prevent Germany from challenging their power. And Russia was fighting for it's reputation. Well, I totally blame Austria-Hungary for starting it but that still doesn't change the fact that Germany and Italy wanted a colonial empire. Britain and France should of shared their colonies with their fellow Europeans, instead of keeping everything to themselves. |
| What do people think how the war would of went and soviet would be like post war if the Germans weren't racist to Europeans. I think the people of the Soviet Union would continue to help them and rise up against Communism. I could see the Colonies of western Europe being redistributed between all European nations, so everyone gets a fair share. I could also see an organisation like the European Confederation coming to power to prevent more European wars and to rebuild Europe. I could also see Europe having a cold war with America, as Europe would be nationalist and control a lot of the world, whereas America would be democratic and support freedom. The environment would also be better of as the Nazis were Environmentalists. |
More topics from this board
» What type of people naturally gravitate towards you?VabbingSips - Sep 4 |
43 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» If some scientists theorize that many women have big butts to attract males... why do some males have big butts naturally? ( 1 2 )Absurdo_N - May 31 |
57 |
by rohan121
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» What's your "niche interest"?TheBlockernator - Sep 6 |
12 |
by Nette
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
» Worst philosophiesJaniSIr - Sep 6 |
49 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
41 minutes ago |
|
» Do you still carry cash on you, or is that out of date? ( 1 2 )Retro8bit - Sep 5 |
68 |
by oooo3333
»»
53 minutes ago |