So.... the USA sits out. Lets say hypothetically germany discovers the BFG and just beats britain and france. Why is this bad? Germany gets some new territory. The people still live under a lame government. Democracy is actually probably worse. If we lived under monarchies we'd be way richer now :I
Anyway, my history is not very good (BFG is WWII i know). Can any history buffs offer me thoughts on this subject?
What's worse, having 40% of your income taken away but living rather comfortably anyway, or 1% of your income taken away but you live in a backward shack, hoping the next harvest is big enough to get you though the winter (literally, like, you will die. not be a lil cold, but still have food to eat like you would now)?
This is pretty shoddy reasoning, Epicurus.
As I understand it, the argument for monarchy over democracy is that the principal-agent problem is far more pronounced in a democratic government. There is also something to be said for the head of government not feeling pressure to redistribute money so as to gain the support of enough voters.
william sums up my feelings on the subject.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
@Epicurus
As far as, "Whats worse, having 40% of your income taken away..." goes, I believe you might be confusing the benefits offered by liberalism with those brought forward by democratic governments. A monarchy with a liberally minded monarch would have low taxation rates and high rate of growth. Similar, it is conceded that a monarchy is a horrible social arrangement in that a King could have bad habits, and so mismanagement of his estate is possible. That however shouldn't be taken to mean that a totalitarian democracy would be much better. In the former case you can hope that the king is ousted by the nobility or another rival taking advantage of the whole mess. In this scenario you'd see relatively less resources taken up by the noblemen fighting, than in a civil war that would occur in a democratic state that would quickly turn to a total war. While noblemen will no doubt go to war to try to get the Kingship for themselves, or their allies, they will only pursue the attempt as long as it turns out a profit for them. The peasant fighting for "justice" on the other hand will be more willing to lose it all for his side.
To clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of a monarchy, but rather in favor of the state with the more liberal elements (low taxation, few regulations ect.)
I agree, which is why my argument generally settled around the "king has no accountability" aspect. That was just thrown in there at the end.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
World War 1? Not important, we should have stayed out. World War II? Important. Ironically, if the Germans didn't lose WWI, WWII might have not existed. Then again, we don't know how that would've effected other countries.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
If Germany had won a decisive victory it would have been able to enforce all of its war aims. You would have a similar situation you had with the Germany mastery in Europe in 1940 or the French mastery in 1811. France would lose her great power status and be crippled in some way, eg by having to demilitarise and pay large reparations.
Belgium, Romania and reduced Serbia would become satellite states. Poland also would become a German sattelite. The Baltics would be annex outright. Belarus and Ukraine would become German colonies. Ottoman Empire would keep its hold on the Middle East and annex the Caucasus. Austro-Hungary in my opinion would survive the war, but soon enough there would arise great internal turmoil. Depending on the severity of it Germany might respond by annexing Cisleithania and letting the Hungarians have Transleithania. The German military would launch an expedition to remove the Bolsheviks from power in Russia and to in their place install their puppets. It would either cause the Russians to rally around the Bolsheviks, or more likely the Germans would be initially successful only for there to be rebellion of the patriotic forces against the puppets soon after. In general I think this redrawing of borders and relations in Europe would be quite volatile and ultimately unsustainable. I think France would reconcile itself to not being a power and remain broken, but all accross East Europe there would drag on a low intensity conflict of basically everyone against the Germans and the Hungarians. Depending on how Germany chose to deal with it (it was very brutal in quashing resistance in its African colonies ) it could turn very ugly. Versailles borders receive a lot of flak, but the borders as drawn at Versailles were on the whole much more just than the borders as they existed before World War I. Also they were much more just than what borders would be drawn in the event of a German victory. (With exception of course, in Macedonia, Alsace...) If you think the dictated peace of Versailles was bad, just take a glance at the dictated peace of Brest-Litovsk. (And no, it was not meant as a temporary settlement.)
Anyway yours is a strange question. Why the outcome of WWI mattered can not be answered in general terms. Once embroiled in it its outcome was important for the Belgians or the Serbs, the Bulgarians or the Turks, but it was not important at all for the Argentinians, the Chinese or the Americans.
The contribution of the United States to WWI has always been the subject of much debate.
Military speaking it was not as important as some historians believed, though it gave a very welcome moral boost. French and English troops remarked it was good to finally see men who looked like proper soldiers and behaved as such. It should also be remembered that the previous allies obtained by the Entente proved a complete disappointment: the Italians were bogged down and suffered a catastrophic defat in 1917 (requiring the rushing in of French and British divisions to bolster the front until the Italian army could be reorganized), the Rumanians were utterly defeated by Mackensen's lightining offensive before they could prove of any value and the Portuguese... let's just say the value of their troops can be gauged by the fact that the "Michael" offensive of 1918 hit the hardest in a sector held by two of their divisions for a reason. And let's not forget how Russia "shamefully" abandoned her allies after suffering a catastrophic string of defeats, most of which were caused by her Western allies themselves: the Kuropatkin Offensive, launched to "take the heat of France" in the aftermath of Verdun was an unmitigated disaster while the Brusilov Offensive, launched in response to pleas from Italy, despite initial successes against the demoralized and badly led Imperial armies, ended up being one of the most costly mistakes of the war, sapping Russia of her last strength. By contrast the Americans seemed to possess a competent leader in Pershing and his continuous refusals to "lend" parts of his forces to the Western Allies until they could be fielded as a whole added to the moral effect.
The "Michael" offensive of 1918 was Germany's last gamble. It would have ended bad even without US troops. Germany was on her "last legs" on the internal front and put everything at stake to gain an acceptable peace. Losses quickly rose to unacceptable levels (both because Germany was starting to lack in manpower and because the heaviest losses felt on elite units) and Foch's determination to "strike the iron while it was hot" did the rest. General Ludendorff commented that the war was lost on the 8th August 1918 when, for the first time in the war, whole German units surrendered to an Anglo-French counterattack after offering only token resistance. Plainly put Germany had no fight left in her, US troops or not.
Under an economical point of view the US entry into the war was of much, much bigger importance. The steady flow of supplies at rock bottom prices originating from the US did wonders, both to the war effort itself and to Allied moral. Rations could be improved when US grain, meat, tobacco and coal began to flow into Allied ports: this in turn led to increased productivity and, much more critically, galvanized morale. It has been suggested that improved rations did even more to improve the morale than the inspired leadership of Foch and Pétain. The US industry was also gearing up to build ammunitions and the Entente knew very well that even if the US didn't supply a single soldier they could crush Germany in 1919. It was no secret that while economic conditions in France, Britain and Italy were improving Germany was worn out and the old Hapsburg Empire was in a state of complete chaos. When Prince Max of Baden approached President Wilson in 1918 to negotiate an armistice, Wilson turned him down. Sure, Wilson was a callous, odious man, but he knew very well Germany was on the verge of collapse and why sit at the peace table when you can obtain a lot more in a few months time?
Marko, I'm just not sure why it matters to say, french people, if the french government gets replaced by another government. They're both lame.
Sieben: Too bad all the modern monarchies are essentially resource states. We don't have very good compare and contrast between old monarchies and new democracies.
Too bad all the modern monarchies are essentially resource states. We don't have very good compare and contrast between old monarchies and new democracies.
Dubai is the furthest country I can imagine form being a resource-state, and its by far the most successful state I know off, both for the King’s POV and of the citizens. Also Monaco and Lichtenstein would not seem to be resource-based economies. Burma and Malaysia too (although Malaysia is more a British type-monarchy than a real monarchy).
So its really just Saudi Arabia and Qatar that give rise to this image.
As for comparisons here’s all than one needs: if gigantic and democratic France could really compete with the tiny and monarchic Monaco than why would it pressure it to extend french tax rules to Monaco?
I dont understand that last bit about monaco
If you live in Monaco, you still have to pay French taxes, even if all your assets are held and used in Monaco. Practically France has intimidated Monaco into renouncing its right to compete with its own tax regime.
That a 60-million strong country find itself threatened by this tiny plot of land having its own tax system is the clearest sight of the potential of that place, beyond being all casinos for the rich. I feel Monaco could easily become the next Hong Kong without this treaty with France.
Pardon my post then, I take full fault for misreading.