1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

Discussion in 'World History' started by Flying Pig, Jan 22, 2017.

  1. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,610
    Location:
    Moscow
    Eh. It was less about how wealthy the respective countries were and more about the political costs of funding those programs. In both Germany and Britain, state debt-to-GDP ratios declined between the 1860s and early 1910s. German chancellors were relatively conservative in their funding requests to the Reichstag and were also constrained by the size of the army budget, which made the part of the pie for the navy smaller than it was in Britain (which barely spent anything on its tiny army). In addition, German federal taxation powers were very limited, and efforts to expand them caused a political crisis in 1912. That said, the British also ran into severe difficulties with their armaments and taxation, with the so-called People's Budget - which was partially a navy expansion - precipitating tremendous fallout that eventually included a civil war in Ireland.

    While German steel production was more than sufficient to meet the requirements of the new navy (in contrast to the Second World War, where steel production was the primary limitation on the Nazi war economy), the actual shipbuilding industry in Germany was very limited, and much of the money devoted to naval construction actually went to plant and training rather than building ships. Britain, which possessed the largest shipbuilding industry in the world, did not suffer this constraint, and thus money spent on ships in Britain went further than an equivalent amount of money spent in Germany.

    So the Germans had a lot of obstacles to overcome in the naval arms race which made it very impractical for them to think about building up to British numbers. They never actually planned to build up to British numbers, but rather to build a fleet large and powerful enough to make a British attack on it not worth the trouble. Germany's military leaders in both the army and navy assumed incorrectly that the Royal Navy would have to mount a close blockade of German ports to avoid international condemnation, which would leave it vulnerable to even a smaller German fleet that was much closer to its bases.
     
    caketastydelish, HSC and innonimatu like this.
  2. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    on the French versus British in Colonial Fighting from the last page , one can also invoke the "traditions" . The French were all over the globe for a century or two before the Germans . Any self styled Sultan in Asia or King in Africa would know his grand-grand-grand father was once bribed by the French and they had their spies who could arrange for his precious throat slit , but practically no one knew the Germans , and well the first Germans were nothing like polished ...
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  3. HSC

    HSC Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2019
    Messages:
    4
    I'm not seriously proposing this, however if you view the First World War as a German defensive war, and that if Germany could do everything right diplomatically and still draw a coalition of great powers around her that want to carve her up, then might as well break out of your encirclement and assert your hegemony while you can, no? If not, then at least arm to the teeth and vigorously support your allies under any and all circumstances since if you don't (and lose) the histories will write that you did anyways and paint you as the aggressor. To be clear this isn't my opinion but I'm trying to give the perspective of someone like Falkenhayn or Moltke with the hindsight we have now.

    I agree.

    Interesting idea. It should also be pointed out that the Russian government could draw very different conclusions than it did historically. For example they could have concluded that if Russia could not even beat the "yellow peril" then there would be no hope in a war against Austria-Hungary, much less Germany, thus Russia would seek a non-aggression pact (or alliance) with the two and keep on focusing on Asia, encroaching on China and rearming for round 2 with Japan. Just a thought.

    What are your thoughts on historians stressing that a different crisis would provoke a war if Franz Ferdinand escaped his assassination? For example, McMeekin gives the example of a regional war between Greece and Turkey which could've exploded into a wider war. Or do you think it unlikely with the historical July Crisis being the "perfect storm" of circumstances that allowed Europe to slide into war?
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  4. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,610
    Location:
    Moscow
    Maybe, but the goal seems to have been more to seek an arena in which Russia could get achievable, easy foreign policy victories. Both Izvolskii and Sazonov seem to have sold their respective policies as that rather than an opportunity for a true showdown. While eventual Russian ambitions in the East remained alive - the Chinese Eastern Railway remained under Russian control, after all - the opportunity for cheap, easy, obvious victories was temporarily closed. The other thing is that the way in which the war went down discredited many of the "Easterners" and left them out of power.
    While a war between Greece and the Ottoman Empire over Chios, Samos, and the other Aegean islands was very possible in the summer of 1914, it was a) not certain and b) did not represent the constellation of powers that so easily gave rise to war over Serbia. None of the Great Powers had vital interests at stake in the eastern Aegean. The only one close would be Russia, ready to intervene if the Straits were placed at risk, but what Great Power would pick a fight with Russia over Greece?
     
    HSC likes this.
  5. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    ı would disagree . As long as we were involved and were on the losing side , there was nothing that would have stopped a global war . Britain plus France plus Russia and plus America was a winning combination and while ı have a lot more to read and digest on the subject , ı can see no way out of the war that came .
     
  6. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,610
    Location:
    Moscow
    Never change. <3
     
    Owen Glyndwr likes this.
  7. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    expanding was the norm back in the day with even a defeat decreasing the number of "competitors at home" . Reading Fromkin's Peace to end all Peace or whatever and while am pretty sure it was seriously written to justify a "return" of England to the Middle East after the "fall" of Russians , it says Russia expanded 50 squaremiles a day for 400 years straight and one can always says the true proof of how bad the situation Russia was : That the Commies managed to taker power only there , a "White" country and all that . Have latent USB issues at the laptop so can't save threads to read at home so apologies if it has already appeared but Russia pressed for war , England could have stopped it and didn't and Kaiser was a buffoon , not for thinking he could win but he was pals with London . Tons of stuff that needs 20 or 40 kilobytes long of walls of text , but involves if we were not taken out , Iraqi Oil , oil for Germany and while apparently America produced 80 times more oil at the time when compared to UK , they had doubts about their reserves , hence America joins in "protecting" the Ottoman Empire within a decade or two . Hence the Balkan Wars started as a means to disgrace the Young Turks , despite the examples in charge were and are a disgrace with provisions that the borders would not change and change they did , when the Ottomans were routed . 1914 or 1915 and the war is certain , before we manage to get up after the referee counts up to 8 . "America" of course joins the "pact" as a bankers thing , taking max advantage of a British victory with loans and stuff . Ready to join in case of trouble . The whole WW I then reads as a thing how the Turks must be denied oil . And we certainly do not learn it at school that America would go to war with Italy , so that the Greeks could occupy Izmir . Nor that Churchill offered to re-establish the Ottoman Empire , within its 1914 borders , but subject to full foreign control , because the momentum carried America forward , despite the bankers and America would have dominated the seas , a very British nightmare . So , as soon as the Washington treaties happened , Churchill was back to routine and whatnot and we also got to rout the Greeks , better then nothing at least . You know , one is seriously tempted to say the J word , now that we are never forgiven for 1492 and oh my , people are so ready , but Churchill would have the Stuntwoman shot , if he was alive these days , am not right or whatever ?
     
  8. Chukchi Husky

    Chukchi Husky Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    7,301
    Location:
    Carmarthenshire, Wales
    Did the British successfully defeat a Communist insurgency in Malaysia?
     
  9. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,610
    Location:
    Moscow
    The short answer is yes. You can qualify some parts of it, but it's not wrong to say that.
     
  10. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    so , what's the latest on the Greek fire ?


    ı would check wikipedia , but it limits my "creativity" . Now that , apparently "infernal" fires existed for maybe 2 centuries when this long siege of Umeyyads were awfully broken in ı think 678 . And it didn't stay Greek either , with like in two centuries' time it was also fielded by Arabs . My 20th Century history might find it useful to "explain" that Omar , the second Caliph , specifically targeted the Great Library , but failed to get it , this Indian recipe . And not defecting bigshots but translations made it possible for the Arabs to get it , explaining a cover for the masssive translation effort that like made the Western Civilization . And it is supplies that made it disappear , now that a lap top wide search in my computer provided a download of a Chinese Greek fire unit for Civ III . Would also explain the Greeks wanted some for 1974 but it was rather poor when compared to available flamethrowers . And yeah , once at the webcafe ı access wikipedia and oh my , some poor Armenian discovers it but Ottomans poison him in the 19th Century !
     
  11. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Hawks4life

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,231
    Gender:
    Male
    Did the western European countries with colonies actually benefit in any tangible way from the countries they colonized?

    Did it help them gain more power? Income? Resources? Or for all practical purposes, they spent more money on the colonies/lands they invaded than they took back from it?

    Did the average person in those countries (England, Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands) benefit from these colonies in any tangible way?

    also: how much difference did the colonies make in wars between powers? (such as WW1, WW2).
     
  12. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    definitely so for the British . Their control of so much land overseas helped them to dominate the seas and swamp the French for centuries , buying enemies to carry out the land fighting . Which then helped them to dominate international trade .

    which might have helped to cover the losses they had due to actual economic processes of colonies .

    average people rarely enter the picture , even this very day .

    canada , being practically an independent country had one third of the Allied warships in the Atlantic convoy battles and the hardest hit convoys would regularly have Canadians as escorts , but that's solely because Allied electronic industries had concentrated on the regular RN and USN , because they might have to fight a German battlefleet and things like that , a thingh that would have no place for the minimally armed Canadians .
     
  13. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    some times ago , there was a poster in CFC who had some certain misgivings about the Wonder Woman movie , can't locate that post , certainly not at home where am typing this for transfer to USB and posting here at the webcafe . So this will have to be a free-style type of thing . Reminding ı have a movie a year and Star Warses fill the slots easily , so ı just saw the movie on TV , surfing between late night news as well , so my understanding of the thing is not exactly complete either .

    Spoiler :


    the "jeune" would inevitably be near them Ottomans , because he is got to be lost to find his way to the Amazonland , me assuming that Themis something is an Aegean island . Fokker Eindecker the jeune steals is par the course , naturally am nerd enough to know they were not in use in 1918 , but the poorest loser of a moviegoer knows we Turks are worse losers and we live in the Stone Age - now that the German fighter in Belgium is a Fokker Dreidecker . And we are not good enough to fly - so the Eindeckers are all crosses , and the poorest moviegoer can immediately can go on the web now and sink me with the tale of the "Paşa Bölükleri" , all-German units serving on Ottoman fronts , except the German crosses were painted into a Black square , because many of the Ottoman fronts were places firing at anything with a cross on was the only right thing to do . Of course , the Amazon sailing ship is magical , making it to London in a single night and is not sunk or at least stopped by the RN , now that its like would not have been seen in like , what , 15 centuries ? Poorest moviegoer will also have to be content with the humourous content of how babies are made in the Amazonland and the real world ; now that if the Jeune was real in 1918 he would have grown into adulthood with the full knowledge of how the Amazon Queen rode 1000 kilometers or 1000 miles or whatever to get Alexander the Great's seed and they were starving in Amazonland for a real guy .


    ı distinctly remember the trench warfare segment was discussed , but am unable to remember the "issue" . Of course everybody knows trenchs were bad and Donkeys led the Lions , but nobody knows the 100 Days and the Allies were capturing quite a few trenches by the Armistice time . It's like an ode to the Greatness of the Mankind , where this superior being (a goddess and stuff like that) is stopped by the evil German fire and Man finds heart and overcomes it . Man superior to god is a thing , considering the jeune is from the Abrams' Trek , and Shattner in his day was defeating a god in every two weeks . Actually the Abrams' Trek is why we people actually with a little knowledge of the Great War should find solace about this movie . The guy played there , too , and this is obviously a parallel universe , not ours . Otherwise , we would have to explain a Winchester toting , long haired Native American making smoke signals behind German lines or whatever . That the target audience is American Youth which is a bunch of morons does not count , considering of my 4800 odd posts until now , 3000 might easily be about my own country with its attendant Greatness (and saving an heartattack or two on my part) . The Boss Fight is though accurate , with laying the Guilt of WW I squarely at the feet of British Ruling Class . And conforms to the required Love will Prevail crp or whatever you call that in English . Ask Jane Fonda how that works in our universe ...


    my incredulity was at the German airport , you know with miles of concrete in all directions , but soon overcame that . Sand or grass for Ottomans , concrete for the advanced Germans . The German bomber is obviously the most famous British airliner of the interwar period , with metal plates they ripped off some passanger ship or possibly a tank . But the people have done good research and the fuselage shows the barest corrugated structure or whatever - ı think . Which was invented by Junkers . Or maybe not as it might well be cloth . Then the good old Ludendorf . Every single poster in this subforum would use the coup attempt as a strong support for the thesis that Man is superior to god . Ludendorff supported by a god to conduct evil does not learn his lesson and tries to be the dictator , with Adolf in tow . Clad in black , sinister and looks in contempt at Ludendorff , wannabe evil contrasted to pure evil . A full shoot , or even as a picture on the laptop for later times . But then this is obvious and not doing obvious is "good cinema" . Let me assure you that it's called creativity in Hollywood .


    anything else ? Well , this is on weaker grounds .

    Muazzez-Ilmiye-Cig.jpg

    ottoman existed as a written language or something , with apparently a couple of specific written forms and whatnot . When ı heard it together with Sumerian , the lady here came to my mind . Maybe not at the exact moment , but within minutes . She is more than 100 years old and a Sumerologist with a penchant for defending Kemal's days and stuff and ı think ı might have read newspaper accounts that she takes her notes in Arabic letters -as it was common up to maybe 1950s . Age deformation clearly does not match the movie . So ? Like it would be glorious for the poorest loser of a moviegoer to "discover" she wrote Sumerian , too . And she was given all the facilities by a regime that used Chemical weapons and stuff in 1937-8 against Kurdish rebels and stuff . Despite the boys from Langley were here in 2014 to tell they would not follow Seymour Hersh to blame the Ghouta attack of 2013 that like came almost to a blow between US and Syria . On Ankara . Despite the movie clearly showing an Arab is the superior form of the Oriental .


    here most would expect me to blame the Stuntwoman . ı wouldn't , as it's profession . Then it dawned on me that if ı didn't it would look like humility and stuff and pandering to Hollywood . Half a day and well , it's obviously the fault of Stuntwoman and don't know how she will deflect that , as the half Ottoman half Sumerian is in tears as she waits for Wonder Woman to crush her with the bootypanzer , naturally in tears . We are still expected to beg , like in 20 or 30 years time now .
     
  14. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,167
    As countries, I think they all did. Some might have disappeared but for the usefulness of the colonies as bargaining chips. At least Portugal and the Netherlands were endangered by far larger and expansionist neighbors. Especially early on the colonial trade was very profitable, and those profits were critical to the state's capacity to finance defensive wars in Europe.

    In terms of resources and economic development, it can be argued about interminably. In Portugal the argument started back in the 15th century, concerning the questionable usefulness of attempting to conquer territory in North Africa (there was a civil war over the direction the country should go), and contained down to the 20th century. And how can you even value having half a continent speak your language, share some elements of your culture and therefore be somewhat "closer"?

    The less useful phase of european colonialist was the 19th century colonial occupation of Africa. That was probably more damaging that profitable. Africa was extremely harsh and the colonial occupation did not last long enough for benefits to be reaped. As with America the opening of the continent to the world led to local catastrophic changes (the cattle plague, for one example), which even now are still being repaired or adapted to.
     
  15. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Hawks4life

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,231
    Gender:
    Male
    I would like to be corrected if this is wrong:

    It is my understanding that Churchill was the single most decisive person for the allied cause during the war.

    Many people in Britain (including people at the very top of the government) didn't want a war with Hitler and all and Hitler actually wanted peace. Churchill was the one who insisted that they fight to the bitter end. Britain's involvement in the European theater not only itself was significant, but they brought the United States with them which was even more significant.

    If someone else had been the PM, and there were people with a realistic chance of getting elected, they would have been simply taken Hitler's peace deal. As such, the European conflict would not have involved the United Kingdom or the United States, thus making the outcome potentially extremely different.

    It's hard to know if Japan would have still attacked Pearl Harbor because knowing that you are going to face the United States that will be 100% focused on you instead of having to fight on two fronts would make it even less appealing.
     
  16. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,167
    Hitler never offered a remotely acceptable peace deal. The UK couldn't afford to leave him in control of France and the Low Countries, and he couldn't afford to withdraw from France. After war was declared in September 1, 1939 Germany was done for, it couldn't stop until it conquered Europe (impossible) or was utterly defeated. It was just a matter of how and at what cost. Churchill only became PM in 1940.

    France and the UK would not back off from the war unless they were both defeated. Leaving Germany in control of, and free to make use of, central Europe was unacceptable, it made the germans too powerful. Defeating France alone was not enough for Germany to get a favorable peace, it removed the direct military threat to Germany but not the blockade. And the USSR was arming itself...
    The only way Hitler could secure a peace would be a return to the status quo ante. And that was politically impossible for Hitler because he based his popularity inside Germany on imperial expansion. The german military itself would depose him if he attempted such a peace because it would be obvious that a free France would reestablish its cordon sanitaire and arm to the teeth for a rematch, facing a Germany bankrupt, demoralized and politically unstable.

    Perhaps the only chance Germany (not Hitler, he'd have to be deposed and killed) had for a peace without total defeat would be through losing the battle of France. If it devolved into a kind of stalemate and the german military offed Hitler and kicked the nazis from power, then they could have possibly been politically capable of proposing an acceptable peace deal (cut the damage short), withdraw inside Germany's (pre-1938) borders, and been left mostly alone. They'd have to made a show of hanging some Nazis, disarm again, and accept again some occupation.

    That is a good question. Japan's plans of expansion to the sough were based on the expected ease of grabbing the lightly defended european colonies there. The US just had to be knocked out of the way.

    Considering the scenario of german defeat in the Battle of France, and a peace being negotiated then. It might have led to Japan doubling down on China, investing more on the army and dropping much of its navy due to lack of fuel. Might not change much in history: they'd still not manage to conquer China (too big), and the soviets would eventually kick them out and place the CCP in power. It could lead to a Cold War with a China "satellite" of the USSR and no such "satellites" in Europe. Or no cold war at all, the US would not have cause to get involved and would never expand its military hugely.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  17. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,832
    Location:
    Scotland
    Churchill was brought to power because he was a hardliner, which suggests that the mood of parliament was in favour of continuing the war, and that in his absence, they would have chosen another candidate with similar views. It also suggests that, had they disapproved of Churchill's insistence on continuing the war, would have replaced him with somebody in favour of peace. That would seem to diminish his influence compared to Roosevelt or Stalin, who were already in power at the outset of war, and for whom no straightforward mechanism existed to replace them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  18. Wastl

    Wastl Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    264
    Not really sure what gave you that impression.

    Hitler's popularity wasn't based on imperial expansion, it was based on regaining lost lands, avenging the humiliation of WW1 and thus giving Germany its pride back. All of this had already been achieved. A peace that saw the return of Alsace & Lorraine to Germany while handing over everything else (in the west) again wouldn't be a problem. In fact, the German population as a whole was wildly in favour of not having another war. Hitler's popularity went through the roof when the Sudetenland got incorporated into Germany without a war, not having realized that this didn't happen because of him. The war against Poland wasn't popular among the population, it was seen with dread, until the successes against Poland and then in the west elevated his popularity to yet another level. A quick victory had been achieved, it seemed that this would be it and Britain would soon make peace as well. There isn't really any reason to assume that a Germany that would make such a peace would somehow be demoralized and politically unstable, on the contrary, the population would be on a high, and France would be in no position to be a threat to Germany anytime soon. Even if there wouldn't have been any further regulations for France in a peace treaty, which seems rather unlikely, it still wouldn't have been in a position to rise up again on the short term. It had a smaller population and wasn't gaining any ground either, and it would have lost part of its industrial heartland in Alsace & Lorraine. That territory being so vital for its industry was one of the main reasons for the Maginot line as well. France woul have a hard time replacing its output if it had been overrun quickly. Losing it in a peace-treaty makes France's outlook for the near future rather grim. Add the factor of France probably being under Petain's control and it wouldn't seem like the nation would try to take it up with Germany yet again, so long as it got to keep its colonial empire.

    The military wouldn't have had any reason to depose him if he had made peace with France. In fact, the times they thought about getting rid of him was when they thought he would try and start a war or do something that they thought would end up in German defeat (e.g. attacking Czechoslovakia or invading France in late 1939). There was no particular desire in the military to demand territorial expansion just for the sake of it. They did in fact reach out to the Allies during the Sudenten crisis and offered to get rid of Hitler if the Allies would only back Czechoslovakia, but the Allies refused, so why would you think that this would somehow be any different later on?

    Any problems in the way of making peace would come from the UK not trusting him enough to believe he would adhere to any deal, and not from any internal backlash in Germany. Even if some of the completely nutty elements of the regime had been against giving up so much territory, they wouldn't have been in a position to do anything about it. The military wouldn't have removed Hitler, Göring never would have made such a move, and Himmler was way too loyal to Hitler (and otherwise could have been persuaded by peace meaning that it would prevent "Germanic" blood from being wasted) to really attempt anything.
     
  19. innonimatu

    innonimatu Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,167
    I'm putting this under imperial expansion. It can be debated, of course, France's grab of those two provinces was also imperial expansion. Back in Louis' days.
    But what of the czech lands? What of Austria's annexation?

    This is exactly why such a peace would be completely unacceptable to the allies. Germany's very victory in the Battle of France left it without options for peace, that was what I argued. It's not that Germany wouldn't want a peace with the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, it was that such a peace could not be imposed without a total victory by Germany. Which wasn't coming. And the same german public that at the beginning might have feared the consequences of Hitler's plans was not going to allow a withdrawal from Austria or the land it grabbed in Czechoslovakia.
     
  20. r16

    r16 not deity

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,086
    not having time for a regular wall of text Hitler's power was based on Fear , of what his thugs might do . Hitler based his promises for a war in the 1940s , 1942-3 for the Army , 1945 for the Navy . The Democracies provided him with Austria and the Czechs , Generals feared they would never shake him off , Poland was a result . France was an accident . Russia was the war Hitler was enabled for .
     

Share This Page