Rewrite history…

The thing about Normandy was there were many of them up and down the coast…just that was the biggest. I think if it failed we would have been even more resolved and would have put even more people on the beach…but can you imagine that cost of life, yikes…

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

Had Germany won WWI it is questionable whether they would’ve added any territory at all b/c protecting the territorial integrity is important to ward off other rivals as well such as England.

The “warhawk” fraction in Germany had plans to annex the coal and iron sources of Belgium and northern France.
So, i think we would have seen some annexion, or the creation of a puppet state there.

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

Also while the French gave the Germans part of Alsasce-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War I think that a German WWI victory would have given the rest of Alsasce-Lorraine to Germany

First of all there is no “rest of Alsace-Lorraine” these were merely two countries taken from france and added to Germany. Had Germany won WWI it is questionable whether they would’ve added any territory at all b/c protecting the territorial integrity is important to ward off other rivals as well such as England.

First off, the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave the Germans a considerable amount of territory

But that doesn’t mean they would’ve annexed it into Germany proper. In fact they too probably would’ve resurected Greater Poland but as a german satellite. Direct control would not have been necessary or wise.

At the of the Franco-Prussian War Alsace-Lorraine was a part of France. In my atlas showing the historical French provinces, Alsace and Lorraine are larger than what the Germans took in the Franco-Prussian War. Also,
considering the way the German Empire was at the time, a polish state probably would have been formed as the imperial territory of Poland or something like that. In my German book from 1914 (I got it at a library booksale) Alsace-Lorraine is called an imperial territory.

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

Desire for empire is not, in itself, evil.

Yes it is! Name one empire that hasn’t been built upon slavery and exploitation. Rome had slaves, the British Empire used slaves, and so forth and so on.

Slavery in and of itself is not wrong. The Bible had strict regulations on slavery but it was still condoned. It was even possible to buy your way out of slavery.

Slavery became wrong when it was based on genetics and not actions. Enslaving an enemy soldier as a servant is not wrong. Enslaving a person because they have more or less melanoma in their skin is wrong.

See the difference?

Germany entered the war, at least publically, to support the Austrian-Hungarian government from falling to terrorism and restore order.

No that isn’t true. Germany never intervened in the Serbian situation nor had any intent to. In fact they used the assassination as a pretext for a much wider conflict. It had been coming for years but they still initiated it.

Hence the term “at least publically” in my sentance. Publically they entered the war to help their ally who had been suffering under terrorism. Privately, I don’t know the reasons. I presume they wanted some of the disputed territories on the french/german border.

Russia was the only nation to figure out they were in the wrong and stop,

Funny how they only realized this after 3 1/2 years of fighting, and in which they were on the losing side. In 1915 when the war on the Eastern front appeared to be going well for Russia they were as gung ho as anybody.

Well, they still admitted they were wrong. Russians have always been a little dense. Heck, the put up with socialism for that long only because they refused to admit that capitalism was better - not because they liked socialism. No one LIKES having snow-mobile engines in their cars or no oil to heat their homes or extensive lines for toilet paper. Why do you think the gov’t had to forbid its citizens from immigrating?

So it took em 3.5 years to realize they were loosing and this was not their war to fight AND that maybe they were on the wrong side. They still realized it.

Now, alterior motives for Britian, France, Russia, Italy, etc were the same as for Germany and the Ottomans. They wanted more land. They all wanted more land.

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

In my atlas showing the historical French provinces, Alsace and Lorraine are larger than what the Germans took in the Franco-Prussian War.

Well all counties are reorganized and resized periodically. Just look into the redistricting in England during the 1800s with the “rotten boroughs”. Also, its possible that the borders like most regions are vague and poorly defined.

Don’t have to go that far back. Look at the redistricting of IL prior to the 2004 elections to guarentee a democratic state for Kerry. (not saying it’s wrong, Republicans do it in their states too. Just saying it’s more recent then teh 1800’s redistricting in England is all.)

@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

Well all counties are reorganized and resized periodically. Just look into the redistricting in England during the 1800s with the “rotten boroughs”. Also, its possible that the borders like most regions are vague and poorly defined.

I know that France restructured into departments, but I am refering to the size of Alsace-Lorraine as it was prior to the French Revolution. Go to http://img.www.france.com/maps/france.jpg I admit that Alsace itself by the looks of it was already fully annexed, but there was still a part of Lorraine that was not.
@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:

Probably not. With Alsace-Lorraine there were some marginally Germanic speakers(not Germans but Germanic speakers). To the extent that it was more German than french though is suspect. On the otherhand Poland was Polish and the Germans would not have wanted to integrate Poles within their national identity. Already at this time mass amounts of Eastern migration from Poland was entering Germany and was causing friction. If you suddenly annex this group you must incorporate them within the nationalist framework which would’ve been hard for Germany to do given its political climate at the time. More likely is a Polish superstate composed of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Rumelia and even possibly Latvia would’ve been what they would’ve done. Poland would’ve been strong enough to serve as a buffer against Russia but not strong enough to resist Germany.

Good point. I was unaware of the immigration/ethnicity problem. Now a buffer state does sound much more likely than an annexation.

@Jennifer:

Slavery in and of itself is not wrong.

OMG !

oh boy. :o yeah thats not good.

@Jennifer:

Slavery in and of itself is not wrong. The Bible had strict regulations on slavery but it was still condoned. It was even possible to buy your way out of slavery.

How can a slave get any money to buy himself out of slavery? If you think slavery isn’t wrong then why don’t you work for crappy food and water? Slavery is a horrible thing!

Slavery became wrong when it was based on genetics and not actions. Enslaving an enemy soldier as a servant is not wrong. Enslaving a person because they have more or less melanoma in their skin is wrong.

Melanoma is cancer. Pigment is the word. I guess enslaving enemies is better than sacrificing them to the gods. Oh, and guess how slave traders got slaves? Warring African tribes would enslave their enemies and then sell them to the slave traders! So technically, that slave trade was based on war, not race. It is ok now?

I think I’d have to put Alexander not dying near the top of the list. Then he could have come back and conquered Northern Europe…

I doubt if Alexander would have conquered Northern Europe. He probably would have gone after the Carthigians and/or Romans if he had lived longer.

I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

Joseph earned his way out of slavery and jail to rise into a very powerful positin in Egypt. For an example.

Families could raise the ransom to purchase loved ones out of slavery.

Gladiators could earn their freedom in the ring.

Some slaves were well loved and incorporated into families throughout ancient times. Where do you think maids and butlers came from?

It only became bad in the incarnation of the plantation slaves where slavery was based not on past deeds but rather on genetics and was inherited through many generations without any hope of escape.

However, don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating slavery. I’m just trying to shed some perspective on it.

@Jennifer:

I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

A serious question, although it may sound provocative:

How can one say “Slavery is not inherently evil” and “Bringing Freedom to the population of a country is inherently good”?
How can the second be good if the first is not evil?

@Jennifer:

I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…

@dezrtfish:

@Jennifer:

I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…

maybe if they’re stupid enough . . . :lol:

@F_alk:

@Jennifer:

I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

A serious question, although it may sound provocative:

How can one say “Slavery is not inherently evil” and “Bringing Freedom to the population of a country is inherently good”?
How can the second be good if the first is not evil?

Good question. I don’t exactly have an answer to that, but I can speculate that freeing slaves is good, but being a slave is not necessarily bad anymore then being poor is bad, but it’s still good to give them money.

@cystic:

@dezrtfish:

@Jennifer:

I didn’t say life as a slave was great. I just said, in and of itself, slavery was not evil.

Wow… I’m at a loss… I am not sure what rational explination could exist to justify owning the life of another human. Wow…

maybe if they’re stupid enough . . . :lol:

You borrow $5 million from Joe Blow. You can’t pay it back. Instead of going to jail or having your family impoverished you offer to be his slave until you’ve worked off the debt or he forgives it.

Just one, historically accurate, scenario when slavery is not a bad thing.

You don’t put women and children on the street, the bad man is punished, and it turns out to be a win-win in the end.

It may be a fine line but there is a line between Slavery and indentured servatude. That said, both are pretty f’d up.

@dezrtfish:

It may be a fine line but there is a line between Slavery and indentured servatude. That said, both are pretty f’d up.

Isn’t the terminology a matter of semantics? Being required to work for no pay is slavery, regardless of the circumstances behind it. However, as I mentioned before, buying your way out of debt with enslaving yourself is a noble gesture and not an evil act, while, enslaving a man based only on the color of his skin is a hideious and heinious act.

That’s why I say slavery, in and of itself, is not necessarily evil. It’s more a matter of what is done to the slave, why the person is a slave and what the prospects of the slave is. That is, if the person committed a crime or became in debtted to the master or was captured on the field of battle, forced into a life of slavery (but family was taken care of and they were not slaves - if they existed) and they had the possibility (a hope) of eventual freedom, then that instance of slavery is not evil.

Can someone lock this so she doesn’t further expand on why killing the Jews wasn’t in itself wrong or something even more absurd?