Adolf Hitler's mother seriously considered having an abortion but was talked out of it by her doctor. Do you have an 'If only' that made a big impact to the world we know today?
Adolf Hitler's mother seriously considered having an abortion but was talked out of it by her doctor. Do you have an 'If only' that made a big impact to the world we know today? For the first part of the question, you should try Stephen Fry's novel "Making History" about a time traveller who stops Hitlers birth. As a novel, it's fun. If only - Hitler hadn't declared war on America (Roosevelt would then have had a hard time convincing the country to get involved in the European war when thy were baying for Japanese blood)
If only Einstien hadn't been Jewish. Then he would have not left Germany and given us key information on the development of the atomic bomb as well as the theory of realtivity and other such matters that drastically racked the world of scholastics.
Do you have an 'If only' that made a big impact to the world we know today? Sure. If the British had not intervened in August of 1914, a continental war might not have become a world war. JT
Sure. If the British had not intervened in August of 1914, a continental war might not have become a world war. JT How so?
Sure. If the British had not intervened in August of 1914, a continental war might not have become a world war. JT Please explain. Maybe you would also like to say that about Britain's intervention in 1939.
How so? This is exactly the thesis of Niall Ferguson in his book The Pity of War: Explaining WWI (Perseus, 1999). Ferguson, a Fellow in Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford, set himself ten questions to answer, questions such as: Was the war inevitable? Why did Germany's leaders gamble on war in 1914? Why did Britain's leaders decide to intervene? Why did men keep fighting when conditions on the battlefield were so wretched? In the process of answering these, he examines the commonly held assumptions about the Great War, and endeavors to overturn them. Had Britain not intervened there would have been no world war, according to Ferguson, and no Versailles, and we can all extrapolate from there. Fascinating ideas he brings to the table. Imagine a certain Austrian corporal spending the rest of his days on a Vienna street corner eking out a living selling postcards of his watercolors to tourists. Peter: I don't understand your question about 1939. Have I said something offensive? If so, I certainly did not intend to. JT
His thesis not accepted here: http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/journal_of_interdisciplinary_history/v031/31.2ferris.html Ferris, John 1929- "The Pity of War (review)" Journal of Interdisciplinary History - Volume 31, Number 2, Autumn 2000, pp. 254-256 The MIT Press Excerpt One would like to condemn The Pity of War, but that would not be fair; one would like to praise it, but standards cannot be forgotten. Its weaknesses outweigh its strengths. The great problem is its thesis: Germany started World War I but Britain caused it; English intervention alone made war disaster; and everyone would have gained had Germany won quickly and cheaply. This argument rests on an account of diplomacy that varies between incompetent and perverse. Like Alan J. P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London, 1961), Ferguson treats German policy solely as a condition for, and not a cause of, events. The Germans acted because others made them do so; since they did not motivate their own actions, whatever they did was unavoidable, thus irrelevant for analytical purposes. He overloads causal responsibility on Britain. He minimizes all evidence of German prewar hostility to Britain, because it reflected just a sense of impotence. He treats Germany's preparations for war as irrelevant because they failed. He reads Lord Grey's foreign policy as did the less measured school of German authors between 1914 and 1945, and he has mastered neither the literature nor the archives on prewar diplomacy. Ferguson also misunderstands the nature of the prewar Triple Entente and of Edward Grey's policy, which was to use the balance of power to...
In the process of answering these, he examines the commonly held assumptions about the Great War, and endeavors to overturn them. Ferguson, along with the rest of us is armed with hindsight which is a great asset. History cannot be changed, we have to live with it.
In the process of answering these, he examines the commonly held assumptions about the Great War, and endeavors to overturn them. Ferguson, along with the rest of us is armed with hindsight which is a great asset. History cannot be changed, we have to live with it. Hi Peter, Is this response to JT or my post?
Sure. If the British had not intervened in August of 1914, a continental war might not have become a world war. JT If the British had not intervened in both wars, there may not have been a free world to defend.
In the process of answering these, he examines the commonly held assumptions about the Great War, and endeavors to overturn them. Better contemporary analyses of WW1 have been made by Gordon Corrigan in "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" and John Moser in "The Myth of the Great War"
I know the title of the thread is "If only" - but a comment was made sometime back about Winston Churchill. He was walking in New York either 31 or 41, when he narrowly missed being mowed down by a New York cabbie. Imagine the turn of events that would have resulted in.
This is exactly the thesis of Niall Ferguson in his book The Pity of War: Explaining WWI (Perseus, 1999). Ferguson, a Fellow in Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford, set himself ten questions to answer, questions such as: Was the war inevitable? Why did Germany's leaders gamble on war in 1914? Why did Britain's leaders decide to intervene? Why did men keep fighting when conditions on the battlefield were so wretched? In the process of answering these, he examines the commonly held assumptions about the Great War, and endeavors to overturn them. Had Britain not intervened there would have been no world war, according to Ferguson, and no Versailles, and we can all extrapolate from there. Fascinating ideas he brings to the table. Imagine a certain Austrian corporal spending the rest of his days on a Vienna street corner eking out a living selling postcards of his watercolors to tourists. Peter: I don't understand your question about 1939. Have I said something offensive? If so, I certainly did not intend to. JT Interesting point considering the English and French had been arch enemies for many centuries. The royal heads of Germany and England were related. What did England gain from WWI other than the loss of her Empire and status as a world leader? The loss of prestige as her former colonies America and India beat her economically. Might the world have avoided all the deaths of WWII??? Yes gentlemen, I'm wearing a Kevlar vest.
Interesting point considering the English and French had been arch enemies for many centuries. The royal heads of Germany and England were related. What did England gain from WWI other than the loss of her Empire and status as a world leader? The loss of prestige as her former colonies America and India beat her economically. Might the world have avoided all the deaths of WWII??? Yes gentlemen, I'm wearing a Kevlar vest. It's true that England and France had been arch enemies for centuries. Even now, there's residual emnity. Hitler was well aware that the English were not Germany's natural enemy, and this is why he made his famous "last appeal to reason". It was also, some theorists suggest, why he ordered Hans Guderian to halt his tanks short of the beaches of Dunkirk, so enabling the British Army to remain largely intact and a viable instrument with which to continue to police Britain's Empire, of which Hitler was an admirer and advocate. However, it is wrong to suggest that Britain lost her empire in the aftermath of WW1. The "Jewel in the Crown", India, didn't achieve independence until 1947, and the American Colonies had already been lost way back in 1776 - that's what the American War of independence was all about! Moreover, Britain's position as a world leader - politically and economically - was more secure in 1918 than it had been in 1914, whilst the USA similtaneously reverted into its former position of isolation. And at the end of WW2, Britain, together with Russia and the USA, emerged as a world superpower. Admittedly, Britain's membership of that club didn't last long - as a country we had been virtually bankrupted by financing the war - but to suggest the waning of Britain's fortunes was attributable to its involvement in WW1 is a very dubious theory, unsupported by the facts. -
However, it is wrong to suggest that Britain lost her empire in the aftermath of WW1. The "Jewel in the Crown", India, didn't achieve independence until 1947, Yes, but the movement for independence became more vocal and militant as a directly result of the war. The promises of some sort of autonomy, or even Dominion status had been promised in return for the vast Indian contributions to the the war effort. However, not only was this then withdrawn (London was for it but the VIceroy and the British in India were totally opposed to any further Indian encroachment into the seats of power), but British rule became more oppressive with the Rowlatt Act, and culminating in the Amritsar massacre. So Britain had lost India as a direct consequence of WW1 and its immediate aftermath - they just didn't know it.
I know the title of the thread is "If only" - but a comment was made sometime back about Winston Churchill. He was walking in New York either 31 or 41, when he narrowly missed being mowed down by a New York cabbie. Imagine the turn of events that would have resulted in. Didn't he have a heart attack then as well (1941/42?), which was all hushed up for morale purposes? Just remember something from a TV series about Churchill's Bodyguard
