sillygoose
Well-known member
He advocated war in 1916. Wilson ran on not going to war Hughes ran on going to war.
What would you have done differently from real life in the post-World War I peace settlement?
- Thread starter WolfBear
- Start date
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I doubt it'll be enough to cause trouble. Germany's immediate problem was communist revolution. That danger, I've tried to minimise -- and keeping the Kaiser is part of that. The far right only became a true threat when things really went to the dogs in the 1920s, and I think that the "no humiliation, no reparations" principle will avoid that effectively.
If the Greeks have it, they'll be wary and they'll rely on your protection. That keeps them... well, "dependent" is such a nasty word. Let's say it keeps them honest.
Meanwhile, if the Turks have it, they may try closing the Bosphorus in a power-play, especially since theyll be pissed about their empire being dismantled anyway.
When specifically did Hughes advocate war? Do you have a link, please?
They didn't in real life. Though in real life they were also able to undo the worst aspects of the Sevres Treaty.
I mean, Attaturk wasnt bitter about it OTL. Guess it depends on if hed remain in charge.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I mean... I do propose cutting off Armenia and Kurdistan, and driving the Turks off Cyprus completely. I think they might be pissed about that.
As cynical as this might sound, a neutral observer could say that the Turks would "deserve" whatever came to them in Armenia in this TL since they were (or at least their government was) previously responsible for the Armenian Genocide.
Also, off-topic, but can you please respond to this thread of mine:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
I just aproach it from the other side. It's not about what the Turks deserve as supposed punishment, it's about what the Armenians deserve: their own country, dignified and independent.
I'll actually have to think about that. Difficult question!
That makes sense. Just make sure that the Armenians are the majority there. And what about Georgia and Azerbaijan?
Well, my own calculation was based on these factors:
1. Preventing Communism in Russia.
2. Preventing Nazism in Germany and thus World War II and the Holocaust.
3. Removing as many Ukrainian nationalists as possible from Russia in order to increase the odds of Russia permanently keeping the rest of its empire together.
4. Promoting national self-determination whenever and wherever realistically possible, such as with the post-World War I peace settlement.
sillygoose
Well-known member
You can do your own google search you know.
1916 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Hughes was limited in how far he could push war during the election due to the popularity of neutrality.
You can do your own google search you know.
1916 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
Hughes was limited in how far he could push war during the election due to the popularity of neutrality.
Prepardness != being a warmonger, which is why I was asking about this.
sillygoose
Well-known member
He didn't say only preparedness he said greater mobilization. Which really wasn't necessary unless you're planning on going to war, because of as 1916 the war was not a threat to US security and if act it made the US safer because the Euros were beating each other to a pulp and the Entente was financially bleeding themselves to the profit of the US.
I think that he wanted to have the US be ready to go to war if necessary but that's not necessarily a belief that war was 100% imminent--only that it's better to be prepared for this than to be caught with one's pants down!
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Georgia should be independent (I rank this under the Caucasus states, which I mentioned as decoming independent). Azerbaijan can go either way, between independent and going to Persia as well. (Just like with the Kurds, there's already a lot of Azeris actually within the borders of Persia.)
You don't understand, @WolfBear -- when you're English or American, you're a filthy Anglo and that means you're always automatically 100% Machiavellian evil, and all your decisions have to be interpreted in that light. That's how @sillygoose views history, and anyone who disagrees must be an evil Anglo who is also a narcissist and who can't read.
(Never mind that all four of my great-grandfathers fought for the Kaiser, and a whole bunch of my great-granduncles died for the Kaiser -- my bias must be anti-German, since I don't ascribe evil motive to everything any Anglo ever did, and since I don't happen to believe that Wilhelm II was an innocent victim of British propaganda, who also didn't even influence Germany policy in any way whatsoever, no sir!)
In short: you'll never get a fair reading from some people, because they want to believe that e.g. Hughes must have had ill motives. (And again, I don't even like Hughes, and I actually think the USA should have stayed out of the war.)
Too Utopian.
Sometimes countries behave in ways that give another countries a legitimate causus belli. Imposing severe penalties for declaring war - especially if done automatically - just means in practice that you'll have un-declared wars.
sillygoose
Well-known member
When you start building lots of hammers you start looking for nails to use them on.
During the height of the Cold War, the USA and the USSR each had over 10,000 nuclear warheads.
That's rather a lot of really big hammers. But there was a distinct lack of mushroom clouds.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Yeah that take isn't totally a strawman. Not at all.
What was so wrong about Germany building a fleet strong enough to defend themselves from the 3 hostile powers nearby that outnumbered their fleet by more than 3:1? Why was Britain entitled to a 2:1 superiority so they could drop a blockade on Germany whenever it wanted? Wilhelm was besides the point.
I honestly don't care about what your heritage is, I'm half British BTW if you want to go down that path. Where your ancestors came from doesn't matter to the discussion at hand or what opinions you hold. Your claims about 'fair read' apply to you more than anyone after the nonsense you wrote above.
Hughes took a pro-war stance and demanded a military build up. Given the position of the US in 1916 and the negotiations to end the war in 1916 what logic would a military build up and pro-war stance have other than to work toward US entry into the war?
I see no amount of discussion is going to achieve anything with you, since you're just quadrupling down on the standard narrative of events despite all your protests to the contrary about how you totally really don't think its accurate.
sillygoose
Well-known member
MAD. You're ignoring all the proxy wars the US and USSR fought during this period though and how close we came to nuclear war repeatedly before someone was willing to back down.
Edit:
Also don't forget the impact both world wars had on the thought patterns of politicians who lived through one or both of them. In 1916 the US hadn't participated in a massive war since the US Civil War and the last one they fought in the Spanish American War had gone very well for the US at low cost. After both WWs the prospect of nuclear was something people who lived through WW2 could actually understand the consequences of, which is why it was the Soviet leaders who backed down first when there were building tensions (Cuba Crisis) since they experienced heavy levels of destruction first hand.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Well-known member
You really hate it that I so easily turned your own boasts, your own links and your own words against you, huh?
That's okay.
sillygoose
Well-known member
Turn what? You just kept repeating the same pablum and think that somehow means you won the argument.