Interesting comment from Nancylebov on my journal, saying that if Germany wins WW1 then Israel doesn't happen, at least not in anything like its current form. Which completely changes the dynamics in the area.
One thing I know nothing about is the attitude of the ruling class in Imperial Germany to German jews. Clearly the nazis didn't invent anti-semitism in Germany, but was it previously just working class prejudice or were the ruling class just as anti-semitic?
Anti-semitic? By modern standards, yes, but we're talking about prejudice rather than persecution here. But a lot less than in other countries. More of a "Not really one of us" attitude rather than anything else.
In a lot of ways, Germany before WW1 was probably one of the least anti-semitic places in Europe, although they did end up trying to keep out some of the flood of refugees from the Pogroms and persecution in Russia.
Wilhelm II had one son who felt Kristallnacht was a good idea, but emphatically did not agree with him. Wilhelm said it made him feel ashamed to be German, if I remember rightly.
As Helflaed says, historically Germany was notably tolerant towards the Jews compared to most other countries (particularly Spain). That's one reason that they had such a large, relatively prosperous Jewish community before WWII.
Hmm. The Lusitania was used as an excuse, not a reason, to push a hesitant US public into a war wirh Germany. US industry was already heavily involved supporting the allied war effort and couldnt afford a British or a French defeat
( ... )
(Long-term lurker, here originally via parrot_knight.)
Following on from various points made above, I agree that Israel doesn’t exist in this history: no Holocaust for world sympathy and a large mass of refugee Jews, but also no British mandate over post-war Palestine means the Balfour Declaration is void if it even gets written. However, Zionism does exist: Hess’ Rome and Jerusalem was published in 1862 (although largely ignored at the time) and Herzl’s The Jewish State in 1896, both in response to antisemitism in Western Europe. The First and Second Aliyot (Jewish mass migration to what is now Israel) were in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, driven by both economic factors and Russian persecution of the Jews
( ... )
Austria-Hungary?khbrownFebruary 18 2013, 20:25:26 UTC
What happens to Austria-Hungary? Does it become part of the new pan-Germanic Reich?
I thought - may be entirely wrong - that the British/French calculations on a war of attrition in 1915-16 were that they would outlast the Germans. Remember also that attacking was much more destructive than defending.
Re: Austria-Hungary?khbrownFebruary 18 2013, 21:12:48 UTC
The French and British calculated they could bleed German manpower dry. The Germans calculated they could bleed the French dry before the British mobilised the manpower of the Empire. Britain calculated right, just. The other two got it wrong.
The collapse of the German army in 1918 and French in 1917 happened at roughly the same casualties suffered to adult population level in both countries. No one else reached those ratios. IIRC the Russian and A-H collapses also happened at similar levels to each other and the Italians were not far behind.
The only historical winners from WW2 were the USA and Japan. Britain probably got a draw. Everyone else lost though the French didnt realise it at the time.
The calculations in 1916 were that attrition would favour the Allies, although I think that by 1917 Haig had changed to the opinion that the French were a mostly spent force and was wanting to wait until the Americans were ready in 1919.
It seems to have been thought that attacking let to a better attrition ratio that defending, although that often changed if the defender managed a decent counter-attack as that seems to have had the advantages of the attack without the disadvantages.
Was there then a Haig calculation that Britain could win prior to US intervention, or that the British should have done the minimum possible to exhaust French, German and possibly US resources?
I cannot see how attacking against machine guns could have been felt to have a better attrition ratio could be true, though am certainly willing to accept that this could have been promoted for propaganda reasons. I'm thinking in particular of the Somme.
Comments 61
Reply
Reply
In a lot of ways, Germany before WW1 was probably one of the least anti-semitic places in Europe, although they did end up trying to keep out some of the flood of refugees from the Pogroms and persecution in Russia.
Reply
As Helflaed says, historically Germany was notably tolerant towards the Jews compared to most other countries (particularly Spain). That's one reason that they had such a large, relatively prosperous Jewish community before WWII.
Reply
Reply
Following on from various points made above, I agree that Israel doesn’t exist in this history: no Holocaust for world sympathy and a large mass of refugee Jews, but also no British mandate over post-war Palestine means the Balfour Declaration is void if it even gets written. However, Zionism does exist: Hess’ Rome and Jerusalem was published in 1862 (although largely ignored at the time) and Herzl’s The Jewish State in 1896, both in response to antisemitism in Western Europe. The First and Second Aliyot (Jewish mass migration to what is now Israel) were in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, driven by both economic factors and Russian persecution of the Jews ( ... )
Reply
I thought - may be entirely wrong - that the British/French calculations on a war of attrition in 1915-16 were that they would outlast the Germans. Remember also that attacking was much more destructive than defending.
Reply
The collapse of the German army in 1918 and French in 1917 happened at roughly the same casualties suffered to adult population level in both countries. No one else reached those ratios. IIRC the Russian and A-H collapses also happened at similar levels to each other and the Italians were not far behind.
The only historical winners from WW2 were the USA and Japan. Britain probably got a draw. Everyone else lost though the French didnt realise it at the time.
Reply
It seems to have been thought that attacking let to a better attrition ratio that defending, although that often changed if the defender managed a decent counter-attack as that seems to have had the advantages of the attack without the disadvantages.
Reply
Was there then a Haig calculation that Britain could win prior to US intervention, or that the British should have done the minimum possible to exhaust French, German and possibly US resources?
I cannot see how attacking against machine guns could have been felt to have a better attrition ratio could be true, though am certainly willing to accept that this could have been promoted for propaganda reasons. I'm thinking in particular of the Somme.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment