Gone

[GAROVORKIN]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:46 AM, Werthead said:

Effectively, they have to, otherwise NATO collapses and Russia will then think it can press further forward without being stopped (shades of Germany after Czechoslovakia).

More practically, there are tens of thousands of NATO troops in Estonia right now: if Russia invades, NATO troops will die and that will trigger a war regardless. A war that Russia cannot possibly win conventionally, so will be forced to fall back on nukes very quickly.

And once the nukes are unleashed , things will  quickly spiral  out control  and we'll end up with  world war III followed by a new dark age.

[Werthead]

15 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

And once the nukes are unleashed , things will  quickly spiral  out control  and we'll end up with with world war III followed by a new dark age.

Which is in no-one's interests, so it shouldn't happen.

[Shryke]

On 8/16/2017 at 10:10 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You're trying to have it both ways.

If we are applying realpolitik (i.e. we aren't just considering what the Baltic States want, but what is best for NATO) then NATO should have declined - on the basis that it undermined the existing alliance (i.e. forcing NATO to basically start a Third World War in a situation that shouldn't warrant it).

If we are applying a more liberal worldview - any country can join what it wants - then why wasn't Russia itself invited to join? You know, seeing as the Cold War was now over, and NATO no longer actually had any real reason to exist? If we're saying that Russia can't because of history, what on earth is Germany doing in there? If being in NATO requires being democratic under the rule of law, what on earth were Salazar's Portugal (a founding member) and the Greek military junta doing there? What on earth are Hungary and Turkey currently doing there?  

Under realpolitik moving into the Baltics is a brilliant move since it blunts Russian aggression and expansion and cuts off a lot of their power in Europe. There's a reason they picked on the only state on their western border not already a vassal state or a NATO member. Which is the same reason states like Turkey still remain a member too, as they are useful.

From a liberal worldview, Russia wasn't invited to join because the whole point is to protect these countries from Russia. As the Ukrainian situation so aptly demonstrates, it's needed.

The problem with your worldview here is you have basically decided to tell the residents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that they can eat shit and we don't care what happens to them. And then you try and pass that off as some sort of humanitarian concern.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:48 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Which is why NATO should never have expanded in the first place.

Yes.  But we're here.  If NATO expells the Baltics it looks faithless.

[GAROVORKIN]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  But we're here.  If NATO expells the Baltics it looks faithless.

Unlikely to happen .

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Unlikely to happen .

 

Oh, I agree.  Nevertheless.  My point is that if NATO were to attempt, via one mechanism or another, to back out of its commitment to defend the Baltic Republics it would collapse as none of the other States in NATO could then depend upon NATO to stand by its mutual defense commitments.

[IheartIheartTesla]

No, we have way more McDonald's now than we did back then.

[GAROVORKIN]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Oh, I agree.  Nevertheless.  My point is that if NATO were to attempt, via one mechanism or another, to back out of its commitment to defend the Baltic Republics it would collapse as none of the other States in NATO could then depend upon NATO to stand by its mutual defense commitments.

Without Nato Russia would move right in to the void and that would absolutely  not be a good thing for Europe or the US.  

 

[Joey Crows]

On 8/16/2017 at 3:19 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The First World War did not come out of nowhere. If Archduke Ferdinand hadn't been assassinated, it is entirely possible (likely, even) that some sort of general European War was going to come along regardless - the competing interests of the Great Powers saw to that. Even if you avoid the assassination AND have Willy fall down the stairs at some point, you run into the fundamental problems:

• France/Germany hate each other
• Russia and Austria-Hungary are not going to play nicely because of the Balkans
• Russia is rapidly industrialising, which puts the fear of god into British India.
• Political systems everywhere are starting to creak

Good luck resolving those without something going wrong..

Today? The sort of multi-polar power dynamic that marked the pre-1914 world doesn't exist. Politically, and militarily (but not economically), the United States is simply too powerful. China isn't at the stage yet where it can challenge, though on current trends, it will some point this century.

No major world event comes out of nowhere. You're right about that. Although, I'd posit that France and Germany didn't really "hate" each other. Of course they had been at war several decades prior to 1914. But then again, most of Europe had been at war with each other pretty continuously for centuries before. I believe that Germany felt that what they had achieved during the Franco-Prussian War would be lost if they began fighting Russia on their Eastern front. Thus they (because they were imperialistic and looking for more territory) employed a quick strike strategy against France so they could quickly throw forces against Russia without losing Alsace. 

Also, and I'm just speaking from things I think I've read about, Russia in 1914 was not anywhere near industrialising, much less doing it rapidly. They were still primarily an agrarian country with essentially the feudal system still in place. The other European nations were wary of the Russian military because they could theoretically put close to 1 million men in the field. But most of those soldiers were conscripted farmers with no training and inadequate weapons. The lack of quality railways made supplying the army almost impossible. Suffice to say, Russia was one of the least industrialized nations of Europe at the time.

Additionally, I think you're right that political systems were starting to creak. But the resolution of that was in fact WWI and its aftermath. So something did go wrong to make things right (sort of).

As far as today's world goes, I'd say the board has not only tilted, but been flipped entirely. China can't top the US militarily yet, as far as spending and technology is concerned. But it isn't far off, and they certainly have the manpower. But that isn't really what makes a global powerhouse in the 21st Century. Economic might, and cultural pressure are the factors that make and keep allies, both politically and socially. More countries get their goods from China than the US nowadays. And as much as we (in America) like to hold on to the belief that everyone else loves our culture (MTV!!) there is a shift occurring.

Anyway, sorry for the diatribe. This was not so much a direct response to your post as it was a drunken ramble about a topic I enjoy inspired by what you wrote. So thanks! And we're all gonna be nuked soon, so what's it matter....

 

[James Arryn]

On 2017-08-15 at 0:19 PM, Werthead said:

A 94-year-old RAF veteran wrote this, which says much the same thing.

I would say that the world has a lot more interconnections and checks and balances which makes a world war relatively unlikely. But a major, region-shattering conflict with global ramifications is quite possible (most obviously in North Korea, but Iran/Saudi Arabia and Kashmir are other potential flashpoints).

A world war would require a confrontation between the United States and either China or Russia. With China seems extremely unlikely: China is very aware of this danger and has been doing enough dancing to avoid that possibility in the short term (what they do in the result of North Korea heating up has also been made clear: they will leave North Korea to its fate if it starts the war, but it may occupy North Korea, or at least the border regions, if the US invades). A conflict with Russia is more likely because Russia may well overstep a mark by trying something in the Baltic States which they the US or EU will ignore, and then be proven wrong. However, the Russians seem to have woken up to the fact that Trump is unpredictable and have rolled back some of their provocations in that area.

Not altogether sure that interconnections are the prescription against a WWI scenario, which was in many ways a kind of doomsday of dominoes due to interconnections. While arguably Germany and the U.K.were headed towards some kind of decision w/o any connections, it was those same elements (designed to discourage war in the first place) that blew it up into what it became. 

[Jo498]

One is always smarter in hindsight. The people who before 1914 thought that a prolonged war was impossible were not stupid (they were in all probability at least as smart and erudite as similar pundits today). They had good reasons, e.g. the density and complexity of international trade connections of pre-1914 were apparently only reached again after the fall of the Iron Curtain. They were wrong, but so can we be.

All of us who lived through the last years of the Cold War must remember that even a few months beforehand virtually nobody predicted the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Some Conservatives in Germany claimed afterwards that they had never given up the hope for unification but I think that this is largely bollocks. I attended a moderately conservative school in the 1980s and distinctly remember that in history or geography a teacher said that we all knew that the current status quo was going to last. Despite some papers putting "DDR" in scarequotes and our maps still having Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia marked with a fine line and the legend "temporarily under Polish administration". Sure, these regions were not returned but the union of the two German states was deemed as unlikely as getting Silesia back from Poland (although there was of course the difference that politically the latter was not an official goal whereas the former was). We made a school trip to Berlin in June 1989, had some obligatory history talks/lessons/guided tours there and nobody thought the Wall was going to fall. Transit and the GDR border police were as tense and humorless as ever before etc.

There must be lots of other cases were hardly anybody believed something could happen, until it happened

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, Joey Crows said:

Also, and I'm just speaking from things I think I've read about, Russia in 1914 was not anywhere near industrialising, much less doing it rapidly. They were still primarily an agrarian country with essentially the feudal system still in place.

Yes, they were feudalist and backward. Doesn't mean they weren't rapidly industralising too.

Here are some production figures for Russia pre-WWI. Note the tenfold increase in coal and pig iron, and the nearly twenty-fold increase in oil between 1880 and 1913.

[Joey Crows]

6 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Yes, they were feudalist and backward. Doesn't mean they weren't rapidly industralising too.

Here are some production figures for Russia pre-WWI. Note the tenfold increase in coal and pig iron, and the nearly twenty-fold increase in oil between 1880 and 1913.

Interesting stats to be sure. I guess my view on their situation primarily revolves around how their obviously (thanks to your reference) growing capabilities were put to use. Because of the feudalist structure with a Tsar and a noble class controlling those rapidly growing assets, and primarily using them for their own means, less of the infrastructure necessary to industrialize an entire nation was made a reality.

Oil and coal, as well as steel and other manufacturable resources we not pumped back into the nation in the same way other European powers had done. 

So while Russia was in fact increasing their capacity for industrialization, in reality, they made slow progress with respect to their potential. Again, case in point is that during the war, the million or so troops the country had at their disposal were primarily (not always) made to march into the Eastern borders of the German empire. While German troops routinely used railways to traverse the distance between France and Poland.

So I totally understand where you're coming from. I simply don't quite equate resource and production growth with industrialization unless it is actually used to benefit the country as a whole. I think the revolution of 1919 had similar complaints (among many others)  

[Yukle]

WWI is often introduced as having 4 MAIN causes. The MAIN causes are: Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism and Nationalism.

Militarism: An arms race, especially in the area of naval combat and cannons, was contested between Britain and other great powers. Germany and France in particular wanted to dislodge Britain's naval supremacy and kept building larger and larger weapons. The idea that the world's problems would be solved militarily, not diplomatically, was more or less assumed.

Does this seem like the present world? Yes; destabilisation between Iran and Saudi Arabia has led to a cold war in the middle-east, while North Korea is posturing as a militaristic power in order to force the USA's hand in ending sanctions.

 

Alliances: WWI was founded with two great alliances: the Triple Entente (the British, French and Russian Empires) and the Triple Alliance (The German, Italian and Austro-Hungarian Empires). Come the actual battle the Italians didn't stay true to their agreement, but the Ottoman Empire joined the Triple Alliance, who are referred to as the Central Powers, while the USA continued to trade with the Allied Powers. The USA eventually turned in-principle support into military support as their economy was so dependent on a stable and wealthy Allied Powers alliance.

Does this seem like the present world? Yes; even today, most nations don't want to risk stable trade for war. However, once a war breaks out it is in their interests to assist their largest trading partners. This could mean the USA and China will be more likely to support each other, rather than oppose each other - the only exception is that if one can deliver a knockout blow to the other that will result in long-term benefits to the victor.

 

Imperialism: Conquest was the key source of power for the Great Powers. The idea that the "New World" and Africa were there to be exploited was a key foundation of the thinking.

Does this seem like the present world? Yes; imperialism never really ended, it just changed form. European and American corporations continue to hold the wealthy of Africa, exploiting the mineral wealth, propping up paramilitaries and so on. Russia is even returning to the idea of conquest, with its movements into Georgia and Ukraine.

 

Nationalism: The "us" and "them" mentality, whose patriotism led to jingoism, which entrenched racism. While in and of itself fairly innocuous, the idea that nations wanted to "take control" of themselves was partly conquered areas like Serbia wanting to overthrow their imperial powers and partly established nations wanting to justify the carnage of their enemies.

Does this seem like the present world? Yes; the USA seems to be swinging back to the worst of what nationalistic racists has to offer - while not in a majority, it's worth noting that the actual Nazis never had one either (I know that's WWII, but it's still worrying). Meanwhile, the UK wants to be "free" of the EU, while nationalist groups in Tibet and Inner Mongolia want to be free of China. Similarly, the Kurdish people - who were effectively victims of genocide in WWI - aim to finally have their own lands established and have borne the brunt of ISIS attacks in northern Iraq and Syria. They're also still marginalised and attacked in southern Turkey. Those areas are definite hot spots for nationalist movements flaring up, and triggering a catalyst for much greater calamities.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Joey Crows said:

Interesting stats to be sure. I guess my view on their situation primarily revolves around how their obviously (thanks to your reference) growing capabilities were put to use. Because of the feudalist structure with a Tsar and a noble class controlling those rapidly growing assets, and primarily using them for their own means, less of the infrastructure necessary to industrialize an entire nation was made a reality.

The point was that this rapid industrialisation was starting so far behind everyone else. Russia had meaningful factories from the 1890s (without them, there would have been no urban working class to revolt in 1917), and the Trans-Siberian railway. It was this development that lulled everyone into a false sense of security when war with Japan came.

Of course, the First World War, and the Civil War then pretty much wiped out the growth. But I have seen it suggested that had the First World War been delayed another decade or so, British concerns about India (The Great Game), and German concerns about this industrialising Empire on their doorstep, might have resulted in a Britain-Germany-Austria-Hungary vs France-Russia situation.  

[Joey Crows]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The point was that this rapid industrialisation was starting so far behind everyone else. Russia had meaningful factories from the 1890s (without them, there would have been no urban working class to revolt in 1917), and the Trans-Siberian railway. It was this development that lulled everyone into a false sense of security when war with Japan came.

Of course, the First World War, and the Civil War then pretty much wiped out the growth. But I have seen it suggested that had the First World War been delayed another decade or so, British concerns about India (The Great Game), and German concerns about this industrialising Empire on their doorstep, might have resulted in a Britain-Germany-Austria-Hungary vs France-Russia situation.  

Interesting points and I feel like we could go round and round with this for a while. But maybe I'm just obstinate...

Anyway, enjoyed the convo! Always appreciate a quality discussion on history. Cheers  

[Sullen]

6 hours ago, Yukle said:

Meanwhile, the UK wants to be "free" of the EU, while nationalist groups in Tibet and Inner Mongolia want to be free of China.

Everybody always forgets the poor Uyghurs of Xinjiang...

[Yukle]

14 hours ago, Sullen said:

Everybody always forgets the poor Uyghurs of Xinjiang...

Who, I'll be honest, I'd never heard of until just now. I know that China has a lot of ethnic minorities, and even though Han people make up 90% of China, even a minority within China is still a vast population in most cases.

Are they a Chinese minority? Their name sounds as though it is from that region.

[GAROVORKIN]

18 hours ago, Sullen said:

Everybody always forgets the poor Uyghurs of Xinjiang...

The Chinese treat them like 3rd class citizens.

[Hereward]

5 hours ago, Yukle said:

Who, I'll be honest, I'd never heard of until just now. I know that China has a lot of ethnic minorities, and even though Han people make up 90% of China, even a minority within China is still a vast population in most cases.

Are they a Chinese minority? Their name sounds as though it is from that region.

No, they are a Muslim people with Turkic/Mongol roots.