War of 1812 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great Britain had been at war with France since 1793 and in order to impede neutral trade with France in response to the Continental Blockade, Britain imposed a series of trade restrictions that the U.S. contested as illegal under international law.[7] The Americans declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812 for a combination of reasons, including outrage at the impressment (conscription) of American sailors into the British navy, frustration at British restraints on neutral trade, and anger at alleged British military support for American Indians defending their tribal lands from encroaching American settlers.[8]
If the US hadn't entered the war I doubt the winner would have been able to impose a peace treaty like Versailles. Possibly there wouldn't even have been a winner. Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.
This breaking of a long tradition of America staying out of European wars, supported by Woodrow Wilson's reneging on his anti-war campaign promises, was a dreadful mistake on the part of the U.S.A., if you ask me...
It would certainly have been much better for the Soviets. No interventions by the US and probably none by Britain either. The Soviet Union might have expanded into east Europe twenty five years sooner. I would like to see Europeans assess the implications for this line of meta-history. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Well, the US staying out certainly would have been bad for France and things would have been much worse for military age men in GB. Russia was undergoing the greatest mass self-demobilization in history, so Germany would have had more, if not fresh, troops available for the western front. It would certainly have been much better for the Soviets. No interventions by the US and probably none by Britain either. The Soviet Union might have expanded into east Europe twenty five years sooner. I would like to see Europeans assess the implications for this line of meta-history.
It would certainly have been much better for the Soviets. No interventions by the US and probably none by Britain either. The Soviet Union might have expanded into east Europe twenty five years sooner. I would like to see Europeans assess the implications for this line of meta-history.
I do not really see this squaring. Would Soviet Russia break the treaty of Brest-Litovsk (instead of the treaty being nullified by the western powers) they would have had a potential to reconquer their lost territoy from Germany but then Germany would not have had that much troops to put into the western front. Or do you mean that Germany would have defeated the western allies and then got attacked by the SU? A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Who knows? But it would have been a very different world. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Bingo. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was decades away in 1917.
No, it was a year away: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, at Brest-Litovsk (now Brest, Belarus) between the Russian SFSR and the Central Powers, marking Russia's exit from World War I.
This created a rather small Russia:
I was wrong however about how it was abolished: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk lasted only eight and a half months. Germany renounced the treaty and broke diplomatic relations with RSFSR on November 5, 1918 because of Soviet revolutionary propaganda. The Ottoman Empire broke the treaty after just two months by invading the newly created Democratic Republic of Armenia in May of 1918. Following the German capitulation, the Bolshevik government (VTsIK) annulled the treaty on November 13, 1918 (the text of the VTsIK Decision was printed in Pravda the next day). In the year after the armistice, the German Army withdrew its occupying units from the lands gained in the treaty, leaving behind a power vacuum which various forces subsequently attempted to fill. In the April 1922 Treaty of Rapallo, Germany accepted the Treaty's nullification, the two powers agreeing to abandon all war-related territorial and financial claims against each other.
But the point remains, a victorious Germany would have created less space for Soviet Russia, not more. I doubt that even Ukraine would have ended up in the Soviet Union considering the earlier treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and its establishment of an independant Ukraine with German bases and grain supplies to the Central powers. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
I think the conditions in Germany during winter 1918-1919 would have severely limited any efforts on the eastern front, had Germany not have been victorious on the western front. Not that the Soviets were in much better shape. France was bled dry. By one account, don't remember the date, a French unit being sent to the front started bleating like sheep, in unison. The French high command was so freaked they marched them off into a field and called in artillery on them. England and the Commonwealth might have supplied more troops, but civilian and military morale had dropped greatly.
I suspect that without the American Expeditionary Force a negotiated peace would have been more likely. The Ottomans were doomed either way. Probably the same for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. One thing is certain--it would have been a very different Europe.
As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Also, the Versailles treaty did not push the nascent USSR's borders eastwards, that would be the Treaty of Riga between the Soviets and the Poles, following the Red Army's defefat in the Russo-Polish war of 1920 (and if they couldn't defeat the rapidly improvised ragtag Polish army, they sure as hell weren't going to do well against the German army, even in its blood drained state).
But then it's not clear to me that the American intervention was decisive. With or without it, the Germans were screwed if their last ditch offensives in the spring and summer failed to end the war successfully. The cumulative effect of the blockade and the slaughter had already brought Germany to its knees. It simply couldn't make it through another winter of war - think of what the state of Germany was in the winter of 1918-1919 even without the need to feed the war machine with fresh flesh and supplies - complete socio-economic collapse. Waging a war of attrition on a mass scale against opponents with larger populations, economies, and better access to resources is not a good idea.
It's actually pretty impressive how well Germany held up in WWI. Its combined population and economic size was much lower than the combined strengths of Britain, France, and the Dominions, while it had to a greater share of its strength outside the Western Front than the Brits. Their military-industrial machine was very, very well run and they managed to keep their losses on the Western Front below those of their opponents. Then again the performance of the other countries was striking as well. Of course you need to try to forget about what exactly this was all about - the mass slaughter of a generation of European men, and the intense effort of everyone else to enable the destruction, if you don't I'm not sure if 'impressive' is really the right word.
French Army Mutinies (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The French armies at Chemin des Dames had suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of April.[2] On May 27, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and returned to the rear.[2] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men "wished their officers no harm"; they just refused "to return to the trenches".[1] The mutinies "were not a refusal of war" simply "a certain way of waging it".[3] In the behind-the-lines towns of Soissons, Villers-Cotterets, Fère-en-Tardenois, and Coeuvres, they refused to obey their officers' orders and refused to go to the Front.[2] On June 1, a French infantry regiment took over the town of Missy-aux-Bois. [2] The mutinies were "widespread and persistent", involving more than half the divisions in the French army.[3] On June 7, General Pétain and Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (the British commander-in-chief in France) had a "private talk": Pétain told Haig that "two French Divisions had refused to go and relieve Two Divisions in the front line".[4] The true figure was over fifty. [5]
The French armies at Chemin des Dames had suffered a steadily growing number of desertions since the end of April.[2] On May 27, those desertions turned to mutiny. Up to 30,000 soldiers left the front line and reserve trenches and returned to the rear.[2] Even in regiments where there was direct confrontation, such as the 74th Infantry Regiment, the men "wished their officers no harm"; they just refused "to return to the trenches".[1] The mutinies "were not a refusal of war" simply "a certain way of waging it".[3]
In the behind-the-lines towns of Soissons, Villers-Cotterets, Fère-en-Tardenois, and Coeuvres, they refused to obey their officers' orders and refused to go to the Front.[2] On June 1, a French infantry regiment took over the town of Missy-aux-Bois. [2] The mutinies were "widespread and persistent", involving more than half the divisions in the French army.[3] On June 7, General Pétain and Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (the British commander-in-chief in France) had a "private talk": Pétain told Haig that "two French Divisions had refused to go and relieve Two Divisions in the front line".[4] The true figure was over fifty. [5]
It was struck down:
On about June 8, the military authorities took swift and decisive action: mass arrests were followed by mass trials. [2] Those arrested were selected by their own officers and NCOs, "with the implicit consent of the rank and file".[1] There were 3,427[1] Conseils de guerre ("courts-martial"), at which 23,385 men were convicted of mutinous behaviours of one sort or another [2]; 554 men were sentenced to death[1]; 49 men were "actually shot"[1]; and the rest sentenced to penal servitude.[2]
Without the German losses on the western front during the hundred days offensive the risk of revolution in Germany would have been less. Without the US involvement, I would put the odds at about even for France or Germany to leave the war due to revolution. And if France had a revolution, I think Germany the Central Powers and Britain would have had come to a peace arrangment. With its two main continental allies gone, I think Britain would have wanted out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
