I Blame Woodrow Wilson for this Entire Mess

I’ve heard that some historians consider the period between 1914 and 1991 (collapse of the Soviet Union) to be “the Little 20th Century”. Have any of you sat for a moment and wondered how our world would be like if we (U.S.) had not gotten involved in the Great War of 1914-1918 and allowed the great powers of Europe to bleed each other to death?

Germany may have won, or not. Hitler may not have come to power. No WWII. No 1919 expeditionary force sent to the Soviet Union. No Cold War. Would the powers of Europe have had enough power to gerrymander the middle east? Would we, instead, have to deal with Imperial Japan? Would that have been our Cold War?

Sometimes I think that 1914 was the histoical nexus of this modern era (that, or the French Revolution). And I wonder if that’s where be slipped into the “mirror universe” ala Star Trek where brutality (and diabolical overacting) is the coin of the realm.

Or maybe it’s just me.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Haven’t heard of “the little 20th century” before. Although it does seem apt, in a way, since there weren’t many world-changing events in the remaining 22 years. But then again “the little 20th century” is 78% of the 20th century, so “little” appears to be a bad choice of words.

IMO, the events you listed are too interdependant to ask “what if…” I think one could ponder the ramifications of WWI’s outcome if the US hadn’t gotten involved. That’s about it. It’s clear that WWI was, in part, the impetus for WWII. The end of WWII signaled the end of colonialism which affected areas of the world other than the middle east.

I don’t recall if WWI had any affect on Lenin’s rise to power in Russia, or the October Revolution of 1917. What your logic leaves out is the rise of the Bolsheviks and their influence not only on all of Europe but on the decisions of the US for the next 80+ years.

This is like asking the question, “What would have happened if not for Martin Luther?”

Never claimed to be a history major, so flame away if I don’t know what I’m talking about…

It’s clear that WWI was, in part, the impetus for WWII.

In part for Europe, true. There was already a pattern of Japanese imperialism in Asia that had nothing to do with WWI though. So the thought of a cold war with Imperial Japan is interesting… (though wold they have gotten the bomb, and would any war be cold or hot?)

“I wonder if that’s where be slipped into the “mirror universe” ala Star Trek where brutality (and diabolical overacting) is the coin of the realm”

If you think that’s when the brutality started, I think you’re forgetting most of the previous history of Mankind. The world has always been engulfed in wars. There have been virtually no periods of time when someone wasn’t fighting someone else for major power.

I guess it’s just me, then. But what about the diabolical overacting?

“But what about the diabolical overacting?”

I guess you’d have to explain what you mean by that for me to comment.

Vladimir Illiych Ulyanov (Lenin) was in exile in Austria(?) before the war. When Russia declared war on the central powers, Lenin found his way back to Russia; surely with help from agents of the Austro-Hungarian(?) Empire.

The thing about it is, although Russia has historically had an antagonistic relationship with Great Britain, I think Lenin had a neutral-to-slightly-favorable opinion of the U.S. As our brand of capitalist-imperialist exploitation wasn’t nearly as wretched as that of Europe.

Come 1919, however, when we (UK and USA) sent an expeditionary force to fight against the reds in the Russian civil war…Well, it all went downhill from there.

Now…About Martin Luther…

Nevermind. Bad joke on my part.

True about Japan & WWI. There are those who believe Japan’s military buildup and attack on Pearl Harbor were self defense responses to perceived US aggression. Either way, if they started it or we started it, it seems doubtful there would have been a cold war with Japan.

There are those who believe Japan’s military buildup and attack on Pearl Harbor were self defense responses to perceived US aggression.

Not from what I’ve read…

There may be many good sources, but this is one book I’ve read… pretty interesting persecptives on the conflicts in Asia from the '30s onward

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394734963/002-0966742-7456032?v=glance

Obviously slowguy in not a Star Trek afficianado.

Not from what I’ve read…

I’ve listened to people who were quite vehement in this belief. Could be they didn’t have a clue what they were talking about. That would be a first.

What were some of the perspectives offered in this book? Sounds interesting.

The book is called the Pacific War because the author (who is Japanese) sees the war in Asia/Pacific as being quite distinct, and an extension of the Sino-Japanese hostility that came to a head with the Manchurian Incident in 1931, the occupation of Manchira by the Japanese Army, and creation of the puppet state of Manchuko. Although not dealth with extensively, you can also think of this as simply one more event in the jostling for power in the region that had been going on between Russia, Japan, and western powers (with Korea and China often being caught in the middle) for several decades. But the US was not really a major factor here… the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in response to our oil embargos but that was 5 years after formal war with China had started, and 11 years after the Manchurian Incident.

I found this on the Web…

http://www.biography.ms/Imperialism_in_Asia.html Japan

Japan started developing imperial ambitions in the late 19th century, ambitions that would one day culminate in the cataclysm of World War II. Initially, Japan was fortunate to escape the fate of other Asian nations, having been forced by Commodore Perry in 1853 to open its doors to trade. Similar arrangements followed with all of the European powers.

The Meiji Restoration of 1868 led to administrative modernization and subsequent rapid economic development. Japan had little natural resources of her own and needed both overseas markets and sources of raw materials, fuelling a drive for imperial conquest which began with her defeat of China in 1895. Taiwan, ceded by the Qing Empire, became the first Japanese colony.

In 1899 Japan won the great powers’ abandonment of extra-territoriality, and an alliance with Britain established it in 1902 as an international power. Its spectacular defeat of Russia in 1905 gave it the southern portion of the island of Sakhalin, the former Russian lease of the Liaodong Peninsula with Port Arthur (now Lüshunkou), and extensive rights in Manchuria. In 1910, Korea was annexed to the Japanese empire.

Japan was now one of the most powerful forces in the Far East, and in 1914 it entered World War I on the side of Britain, seizing German-occupied Kiaochow and subsequently demanding Chinese acceptance of Japanese political influence and territorial acquisitions (Twenty-one Demands, 1915). Mass protests in Peking in 1919 coupled with Allied (and particularly U.S.) opinion led to Japan’s abandonment of most of the demands and Kiaochow’s return (1922) to China.

Japan’s rebuff was perceived in Tokyo as only temporary, and in 1931 Japanese army units based in Manchuria seized control of the province; full-scale war with China followed in 1937, drawing Japan toward an overambitious bid for Pacific hegemony which ultimately led to defeat and the loss of all its overseas territories after World War II (See Japanese expansionism).

Actually, this page is better - read this:

http://pacific-war.biography.ms/

Obviously slowguy in not a Star Trek afficianado.

He missed something:

http://www.barbaraluna.com/st_CENTER_phaser.jpg

Obviously slowguy in not a Star Trek afficianado.

It was the one were Spock was really, really cool

http://www.stdimension.org/Guide/sttos/tos039.jpg

Oooh sexy!!! and dangerous!!!

http://www.startrek.cz/startrek/dily/obrazky/39-3.jpg

These guys just didn’t get it …

http://puvodni.startrek.cz/povidky/mirror3.jpg