Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What if the Germans had won the first world war?
Options
Comments
-
-
Because that was the post-war scenario being discussed by the German planners. Make no mistake: Germany's post-war objectives were considerably more extensive than those of any other power, excepting perhaps RussiaWurzelbert wrote: »what makes you think so? you seem to presuppose germany was essentially “evil” in some way then, like so many in today’s world who grew up with the post-war winners’ version of history…
Yeah, that makes little sense. In the first place, most of eastern France was at some point or another part of the HRE and part of the Kingdom of Lotharingia and Francia. Calling these lands "historically German" (as if Metz, with its connections stretching back to the Gauls and the Merovingians, was a German city) is deeply disingenuous. Ditto with the Low Countriesyou are aware that alsace-lorraine is historically german (just look at the place names) and was first annexed by france when the old german empire was down for good after the 30-years war, right? similar story with the low countries, just a tad more complex and a little different…
Secondly, nationalist delusions aside, the German Empire was not a successor state to the HRE. It's borders were different, its basis of legitimacy and the HRE was never an ethnic nationstate in the same sense as the 'Second Reich'. There was even a gap of almost seven decades between the two!
Finally, all this was centuries before the Franco-Prussian war. By 1870 the region was politically and culturally French, regardless of language. Post-annexation, every single federal election in the region (every one!) returned the pro-French Autonomists as the largest party. Trying to justify Bismarck's cynical border manipulation on the basis of the Thirty Years War is ridiculous0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »yes and none of those wars was specifically about alsace-lorraine…
But it changed hands in each of them.0 -
Wurzelbert I propose a dual alliance to provide mutual aid in the event of attacks by 'cerastes' and 'Reekwind'.0
-
Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »Wurzelbert I propose a dual alliance to provide mutual aid in the event of attacks by 'cerastes' and 'Reekwind'.
haha, yeah0 -
Advertisement
-
Because that was the post-war scenario being discussed by the German planners. Make no mistake: Germany's post-war objectives were considerably more extensive than those of any other power, excepting perhaps Russia
well, even that article speaks of it as “more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy”...many things are discussed, especially in times of war, that’s normal.
in order to understand where these guys were coming from one needs a profound knowledge and understanding of at least 1200 years of european and especially german history and the geo-strategic situation in europe throughout the centuries...and there are no clean cuts in history, historical events and developments linger in the collective memory of peoples and nations.Yeah, that makes little sense. In the first place, most of eastern France was at some point or another part of the HRE and part of the Kingdom of Lotharingia and Francia. Calling these lands "historically German" (as if Metz, with its connections stretching back to the Gauls and the Merovingians, was a German city) is deeply disingenuous. Ditto with the Low Countries
Secondly, nationalist delusions aside, the German Empire was not a successor state to the HRE. It's borders were different, its basis of legitimacy and the HRE was never an ethnic nationstate in the same sense as the 'Second Reich'. There was even a gap of almost seven decades between the two!
Finally, all this was centuries before the Franco-Prussian war. By 1870 the region was politically and culturally French, regardless of language. Post-annexation, every single federal election in the region (every one!) returned the pro-French Autonomists as the largest party. Trying to justify Bismarck's cynical border manipulation on the basis of the Thirty Years War is ridiculous
i think you may be getting a few things mixed up here, gauls, merovingians and all...not like gaul is (historically) a synonym for france and not like the merovingians were gauls, let alone french in today’s meaning of the word. they were franks, and the franks were germans (germanic tribes) who had moved into and conquered parts of gaul after the roman collapse as it was there for the taking.
france and germany as we now know them both really began with charlemagne’s three grandsons and the treaty of verdun in 843.
the middle kingdom quickly fell apart and most of it ended up in the east-frankish kingdom which then became and expanded into the hre (the first german empire) as the imperial crown went with the german kings.
alsace-lorraine officially became part of the german (east-frankish) kingdom in 870 and remained german until 1680 or so, i.e. was german for some 800 years before the french annexed it when they could.
i am aware that modern popular history in many countries finds it fashionable to claim the hre was somehow not german, but that is yet another erroneous tenet in the aforementioned winners’ version of history. like telling people germany did not exist before 1870. have heard it all.0 -
And hence I didn't refer to it as an official set of objectives. The value of the Septemberprogramm lies in illustrating how the German political and military elite were thinking during the war and what direction their ideas for the post-war period were heading. There can be little question that the basic aims expressed in the document (security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time; France must be so weakened as to make her revival as a great power impossible for all time; Russia must be thrust back as far as possible... and her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples broken) was sincereWurzelbert wrote: »well, even that article speaks of it as “more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy”...many things are discussed, especially in times of war, that’s normal
But if you want an example of what actual German peace looked like, without hypotheticals, then look no further than that inflicted on Russia. Brest-Litovsk was severe enough to make Versailles look generous: the seizure of a vast swathe of eastern territory, containing millions of souls, to be directly annexed or populated by German vassal kingdoms. Now that was a harsh peace.
Meaning what?in order to understand where these guys were coming from one needs a profound knowledge and understanding of at least 1200 years of european and especially german history and the geo-strategic situation in europe throughout the centuries...and there are no clean cuts in history, historical events and developments linger in the collective memory of peoples and nations.
This is getting silly. To stick with the example of Metz: Gaul is a synonym for France. The area around Metz was a Gallic settlement long before the arrival of Romans or Franks. When the Franks did arrive Metz lay right in the heartland of the Empire (Francia) for centuries; the Merovingians predominately ruling from and being active in what is now modern France.i think you may be getting a few things mixed up here, gauls, merovingians and all...not like gaul is (historically) a synonym for france and not like the merovingians were gauls, let alone french in today’s meaning of the word. they were franks, and the franks were germans (germanic tribes) who had moved into and conquered parts of gaul after the roman collapse as it was there for the taking
That is, this city that you believe was "historically German", has connections going back to France (or at the very least the lands west of the Rhine) millennia before Bismarck decided to bolt it onto the German Empire.
Now none of this is particularly relevant (tracing historical claims through the centuries is a pointless, if entertaining, waste of time) except to rubbish the notion that Germany had some superior right to these lands. It did not.
Yeah, the idea that national or territorial differences suddenly sprung up from 843 is primary school history.france and germany as we now know them both really began with charlemagne’s three grandsons and the treaty of verdun in 843.
The idea that, for example, the territories of Lotharingia (which was never more than an artificial polity) were German just because the Ottonians won a war is silly. This says absolutely nothing about the ethnic and cultural composition of the region but assumes that because it was ruled by a 'German' Emperor then it was German. Arguing that one automatically follows the other is silly; arguing that this provides grounds for annexation centuries later is just apologism.
I suppose that Bohemia and Italy were also 'historically German' and we're lucky that Bismarck didn't look to incorporate them into the Reich?
Then you'll have to explain how it was that the HRE never considered itself to be an ethnic nationstate. Or are we to believe that the French, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Czechs, Swiss and Poles (with the myriad customs and tongues) are all somehow 'German'? Is it a "winners' history" to believe it ludicrous that all these lands have been 'stolen' from the rightful rule of an entirely different German state?i am aware that modern popular history in many countries finds it fashionable to claim the hre was somehow not german, but that is yet another erroneous tenet in the aforementioned winners’ version of history. like telling people germany did not exist before 1870. have heard it all.
Somebody should tell Enda Kenny that Ireland is now able to trade its Celtic heritage into governance of all the lands once inhabited by Celts :rolleyes:0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »the kaiser was a grandson of queen victoria who was herself half german etc…
I remember reading somewhere (would appreciate confirmation or refutation) that Victoria von Hannover was a native German speaker and never quite lost her German accent. Although she was born and raised in England, her mother (the parent from whom it is generally accepted children are most likely to adopt their first language) was German as were three of her four grandparents.
True, her father and his father were both born in England but her paternal antecedents before that were all German (or Huguenot) as far back as her great great great great great grandmother Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I.
"Vee are not amused" is probably how she would have pronounced it.0 -
Snickers Man wrote: »I remember reading somewhere (would appreciate confirmation or refutation) that Victoria von Hannover was a native German speaker and never quite lost her German accent. Although she was born and raised in England, her mother (the parent from whom it is generally accepted children are most likely to adopt their first language) was German as were three of her four grandparents.
True, her father and his father were both born in England but her paternal antecedents before that were all German (or Huguenot) as far back as her great great great great great grandmother Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I.
"Vee are not amused" is probably how she would have pronounced it.
Her governess was German.
A big deal is made of the royal family's German heritage (usually in Ireland for some reason) but the fact most of the European royal families are of German descent seems to get ignored.
I believe she was cousin to the Tsar as well as grandmother to almost an entire generation of royals around Europe.0 -
Interestingly, as an aside, when the monarchs of Europe wanted to correspond with each other in the lead up to war, they famously did so via English0
-
Advertisement
-
kumate_champ07 wrote: »how so?
I wonder how the Middle East would look
Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey.
In Iran, you would see Shah Pahlavi senior expand ties with Germany to counter Soviet expansionism. Pahlavi would rule until his death with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi then ruling until he dies in the 1980s with Reza Pahlavi being the current Shah. There would be no 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini would remain an obscure cleric and there would be no Iran Iraq war.
Saddam would rise up in Iraq but without the cold war, he would probably stay within his Iraqi borders and would still be the leader of Iraq to this day.
Saudi Arabia would be exactly as is. America, Germany and Russia would remain global superpowers with America and Germany being very close allies since the 1930s. Russia would be a sort of rival but not like the cold war.
Israel would probably not exist. British Palestine would probably end up a part of Syria. The Middle East in general would remain very peaceful and prosperous. There would be no violent jihad or 9/11. bin Laden would be just an ordinary developer and Zawahiri would remain a doctor.0 -
BuilderPlumber wrote: »Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey.
In Iran, you would see Shah Pahlavi senior expand ties with Germany to counter Soviet expansionism. Pahlavi would rule until his death with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi then ruling until he dies in the 1980s with Reza Pahlavi being the current Shah. There would be no 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini would remain an obscure cleric and there would be no Iran Iraq war.
Saddam would rise up in Iraq but without the cold war, he would probably stay within his Iraqi borders and would still be the leader of Iraq to this day.
Saudi Arabia would be exactly as is. America, Germany and Russia would remain global superpowers with America and Germany being very close allies since the 1930s. Russia would be a sort of rival but not like the cold war.
Israel would probably not exist. British Palestine would probably end up a part of Syria. The Middle East in general would remain very peaceful and prosperous. There would be no violent jihad or 9/11. bin Laden would be just an ordinary developer and Zawahiri would remain a doctor.
think that sounds reasonably realistic, given the traditionally good german-arab relations free of colonial resentment. not sure russia woud still be a major power, though due to its sheer size it probably would somehow...
would israel exist or not is an interesting question...maybe the (relatively few) israelis would just live in palestine – in whatever state or territory - peacefully with all other palestinians, the major jewish exodus to palestine certainly would not have taken place and we would not see that extreme level of hatred and all the more recent wars in the region would not have happened...
i think the timing of that hypothetical german victory would also be an important factor in all that...early vs. late in the war, before vs. after the russian revolution, before vs. after active us involvement etc.0 -
Very interesting article on Pre-war Berlin
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25635311...The Kaiser imagined that war would unite his loyal subjects. On the very eve of war - the morning of 4 August 1914 - he announced that from that moment he recognised no political divisions, no political parties. "From this day on, I recognise only Germans," he said.
It is true that the citizenry (or many of them) were ecstatic. Bands played patriotic tunes ceaselessly in the cafes. The actress Tilla Durieux wrote breathlessly, "Every face looks happy. We've got war! One's food gets cold, one's beer gets warm. No matter - we've got war!" The Association of German Jews proclaimed that every German Jew was "ready to sacrifice all the property and blood demanded by duty
That was the atmosphere on the eve of war, exactly 100 years ago. Berlin, this city, seemed like the ebullient capital of a confident nation growing into an imperial power. It was a false impression. Behind that facade were divisions that would crack very quickly.
On 9 November 1911, August Bebel, the Marxist politician who was one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party, rose in the Reichstag and made this speech, warning about the route down which Germany was hurtling: "There will be a catastrophe. Sixteen to 18 million men, the flower of different nations, will march against each other, equipped with lethal weapons.
"I am convinced," he went on, "that this great march will be followed by the great collapse."
At which point, laughter broke out in the chamber. Bebel picked up: "All right, you have laughed about it, but it will come. What will be the result? After this war, we will have mass bankruptcy, mass misery, mass unemployment and great famine."
".0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »yes and none of those wars was specifically about alsace-lorraine…
Actually I would question that, Hitler was in part driven by the 'unfair' Treaty of Versailles and the 'November Criminals' who signed it. The re annexation of Alsace Lorraine was part of the Lebensraum expansionist policy and the reversal of the treaty.0 -
Actually I would question that, Hitler was in part driven by the 'unfair' Treaty of Versailles and the 'November Criminals' who signed it. The re annexation of Alsace Lorraine was part of the Lebensraum expansionist policy and the reversal of the treaty.
from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...so the western allies (mainly the french) came up with the eu after ww2 and later with the euro...basically with the same agenda as versailles, just in more covert and outwardly less aggressive and objectionable form...
the alsace-lorraine question was certainly one of many german grievances post ww1, though hitler fully realised that actual “living space” could only ever be found in the east...the alsace was mainly an issue deeply rooted in franco-german history...0 -
I'd question this. The Ottoman Empire had been in relative decline for centuries without collapsing. It was a century of increasing meddling from the Great Powers (culminating in Sèvres) that ultimately brought the Empire to an end.BuilderPlumber wrote: »Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey
While a Central Powers victory might see some Austrian aggrandisement in the Balkans (although limited by its internal contradictions and German reluctance), I could easily see an Ottoman Empire survive the war intact, albeit as a German client state. A Berlin-Baghdad railway would only increase the strategic importance of the region, facilitating further German interests in the Middle East and beyond and necessitating increased political presence in Istanbul
What exactly did Germany expect would happen on losing the war? A return to the status quo? A slap on the wrist for devastating northern France? Germany got lucky: it could have been dismembered completely (like the other two eastern empires) or had a third of its population stripped away (like the treaty it inflicted on Russia).Wurzelbert wrote:from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...
Versailles "backfired" because Britain and, to a lesser degree, France were unwilling to enforce its mechanisms, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with constraining an expansionist Germany. Doing the latter correctly would have been a much better security against another world war than relying on an unrepentant German elite0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...so the western allies (mainly the french) came up with the eu after ww2 and later with the euro...basically with the same agenda as versailles, just in more covert and outwardly less aggressive and objectionable form...
the alsace-lorraine question was certainly one of many german grievances post ww1, though hitler fully realised that actual “living space” could only ever be found in the east...the alsace was mainly an issue deeply rooted in franco-german history...
Hmmm, there are some sweeping statements there, Alsace was most certainly to be part of the German expansion both geographically and economically, the region is rich in minerals, coal etc and there were programmes in place to relocate German citizens there.
I dont think the establishment of the EU or euro were designed or introduced purely to limit Germany, economically or militarily. A different discussion alotgether0 -
Taking into fact that Germany lost both the first and second world wars and despite of this has gone on to become one of the strongest and dominant members of the EU is even a bigger ponderible in my opinion. How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....0
-
Because as soon as it surrendered, it became a very important ally of the West.
The mistakes of Versailles had also been recognised.
Japan hasn't done too bad.either.0 -
The answer is in the question. Germany was in a position to attempt conquest of Europe twice and do well today precisely because it is "one of the strongest and dominant members" in Europe. Since 1870 it has always been one of the most populous, powerful and advanced nations in Europe.Taking into fact that Germany lost both the first and second world wars and despite of this has gone on to become one of the strongest and dominant members of the EU is even a bigger ponderible in my opinion. How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....
Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully0 -
Advertisement
-
The answer is in the question. Germany was in a position to attempt conquest of Europe twice and do well today precisely because it is "one of the strongest and dominant members" in Europe. Since 1870 it has always been one of the most populous, powerful and advanced nations in Europe.
Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully
Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars. As a country it lost practically all the advances it had made. After WWW2 I agree that Germany made huge economic advances with the help of allied money that promoted post war reconstruction however it remains that Germany lost two world wars within a very short historical period. It's perhaps not imaginable if they had won either war.0 -
Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully[/QUOTE]
I say this with the greatest of respect, honestly but that's a very simplified view in its entirety. I dont place the blame at the feet of Germany for the outbreak of the first world war. Austria had a huge hand to play and were encouraged 'lets say' by Germany to invade Serbia after the assassination of the Archduke. The often mistreatment of non Austrian subjects within the Austrian dominion for decades helped flourish an animosity towards them and no less from Serbia. There were many nations who had a hand to play in the outbreak of the First World War. Imperilaism and the promotion of nations, through expansion and subjugation was as great a factor for the outbreak.0 -
[...]How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....
maintained and (much of it) rebuilt...and with wealth and the largest population come a certain power and influence almost automatically...not just after ww2...
like they said after 1871, germany had an awkward size, too large to be but one among equals in europe yet not big enough for true european hegemony either...that’s really what caused all the fuss in the past 100 years and in fact the past dozen or so centuries in a number of ways...when germany began to overtake britain in economic output around 1900, the alarm bells rang in london and elsewhere as the „balance of power“ was shifting and that had to be prevented at all cost...
numerous attempts have been made at cutting germany down to size and many have succeeded, and they are still working on it, or to quote john f. kennedy (in the 30s) “the germans are really too good - that’s why people conspire against them”... or as henry kissinger put it in 1994 “ultimately two world wars were fought in order to prevent a dominant role of germany in europe”...and some here might remember how people like mrs. thatcher and mr. mitterand fought tooth and nail to prevent german reunification some 25 years ago, west germany was just the right size for them both to control...only after the euro had been agreed on did they reluctantly acquiesce to what they saw they could not prevent anyway...0 -
Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars. As a country it lost practically all the advances it had made.
yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...After WWW2 I agree that Germany made huge economic advances with the help of allied money that promoted post war reconstruction [...]
true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...
true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?
Perhaps not that so much went wrong but that much more of Germany's economic wealth generated during the wars remained in individual and corporate hands than has ever been credited. The industrialists and and indeed most of the population knew the writing was on the wall in 1944/45. There was of course all the war booty that had been gathered across Europe during the drive for German expansion. How much of this has really been accounted for? It remains somewhat of an enigma0 -
This is a fairly insightful book on German economic recovery, doesn't answer all your questions but gives an insight into the rebuilding of the Germany economy pre the Second World War
http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Recovery-1932-1938-Studies-History/dp/0521557674/ref=pd_sim_b_3/185-6456618-03009570 -
Perhaps not that so much went wrong but that much more of Germany's economic wealth generated during the wars remained in individual and corporate hands than has ever been credited. The industrialists and and indeed most of the population knew the writing was on the wall in 1944/45. There was of course all the war booty that had been gathered across Europe during the drive for German expansion. How much of this has really been accounted for? It remains somewhat of an enigma
well, germany was economically strong and wealthy at the beginning of the 20th century already…and i am sure that compared to the destruction and plundering of germany, to the cost of rebuilding almost all its major cities, infrastructure, factories and everything, and the wiping-out of the german economy, currency and all, any “war booty” that might still somehow be unaccounted for in german hands is negligible…impossible to get accurate numbers, unfortunately…and there are always some who profit in wars, no question…0 -
Let's not overstate things: German capital stock was relatively unscathed after WWI - it suffered less direct damage than, say, France and was immensely better off than Russia. Even after WWII, the destruction of capital stock was far from total - IIRC West Germany lost less than 20% of its industrial assets. The mass dismantling of industry by the Allies never happened on the scale first proposed, outside of East Germany.Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars
With capital stock preserved, it was matter of rebuilding using the technology, institutions and skilled workers that modern Germany has always possessed. And it's always easier to rebuild than build from scratch. That's universal - northeast France (which surely suffered more than any one German region) was rebuilt in a decade following 1918; the Soviet Union had largely recovered from its own shocking losses by 1950 (plus the WWI recovery).
So economic shocks and disasters are just that: shocks. Once the basics of the economy are preserved then they can eventually be rebounded from. That's very different from a long decline or stagnation
Went wrong? Both enjoyed decades of outstanding economic growth following the war. They don't call them the les Trente Glorieuses for nothing...Wurzelbert wrote:true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »maintained and (much of it) rebuilt...and with wealth and the largest population come a certain power and influence almost automatically...not just after ww2...
like they said after 1871, germany had an awkward size, too large to be but one among equals in europe yet not big enough for true european hegemony either...that’s really what caused all the fuss in the past 100 years and in fact the past dozen or so centuries in a number of ways...when germany began to overtake britain in economic output around 1900, the alarm bells rang in london and elsewhere as the „balance of power“ was shifting and that had to be prevented at all cost...
numerous attempts have been made at cutting germany down to size and many have succeeded, and they are still working on it, or to quote john f. kennedy (in the 30s) “the germans are really too good - that’s why people conspire against them”... or as henry kissinger put it in 1994 “ultimately two world wars were fought in order to prevent a dominant role of germany in europe”...and some here might remember how people like mrs. thatcher and mr. mitterand fought tooth and nail to prevent german reunification some 25 years ago, west germany was just the right size for them both to control...only after the euro had been agreed on did they reluctantly acquiesce to what they saw they could not prevent anyway...
I read somewhere, it was to do with germany's geographical location, maritime trade had to pass through a narrow few points, which could be controlled or affected by the royal navy, landlocked in a manner of speaking, without some independantly controlled outlet to resources or trade outside its immediate borders Germany could be affected by a trade blockade.
Im not sure why they didnt take a more aggresive military stance with their surface naval forces during WW1 or a more combined effort (with aircraft and subsurface craft) in world war 2. Im sure there were constraints and its easy to look back and question why things turned out certain ways or what if there was some other outcome.Wurzelbert wrote: »yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...
true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?
maybe it was the mindset, Britain had not been defeated militarily, even if it might have been on its own, although it did posess strengths superior to Nazi Germany militarily. In the face of their own possible military defeat Britain was able to pull out all the stops to hold off a potentially victorious adversary, in the same view, Germany which had been defeated had to take a new view at meeting challenges and building anew after the war, not something necessarily seen as essential in Great Britain post war, which may have led to them undermining their own advantages? even if they were economically in hock to others.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement