aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Oh I thought we were separating USSR and the Russian Empire from each other.
Then yeah, Russia is way out of USSR's league, especially since Russia's power was confined to Europe.
When was the apex of [American] power?
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Oh I thought we were separating USSR and the Russian Empire from each other.
Then yeah, Russia is way out of USSR's league, especially since Russia's power was confined to Europe.
The USA: 1988-1993
This period sees the US at its height. Its only global competitor vanquished, the horrors of Vietnam replaced by the victories in the Gulf, and the belief that the US could lead a new world order with itself at the helm (this is why I stop in 1993 when the failure of Somalia chips at that belief).
UK: 1920-1925; while many will argue earlier this is the height of the British empire territorially speaking. The United States while potentially a naval and imperial threat had not yet appeared on the scene. The sun never shone so bright on the British Empire which appeared as if it could last forever.
France: 1807-1812: While France had been defeated at sea, the entire continent of Europe lay at its feet. There were troubles in Spain, sure, but the Germans and Italians were under foot and the Poles allies. Only the British and Russians remained potential threats, both incapable of marching onto Paris or ending Napoleon's empire until his Grand Armee was destroyed by General Winter.
Spain: Sometime in the 16th century when the Hapsburgs ruled over huge portions of Europe, had kept the Ottomans at bay, and had conquered large portions of the Americas.
Prussia/Germany: 1938-1943: Germany reached the height of its power during the first held of the second world war when the majority of Europe was under their control.
Russia/The USSR: 1957-1962. While many may argue directly after ww2, I argue later on after Stalin. During this period the USSR was in many aspects ahead of the US in areas of the cold war. Sputnik was launched in 1957 and its military technology matched or surpassed the Americans in most fields, while still maintaining the world's largest army and air force. The addition of Cuba, imo, signified the apex of the Soviet capacity to have influence not 90 miles from its main competitor's shores. Ultimately the Cuban Missile Crisis also signified the USSR's inability to launch a full scale conflict with the US - one in which neither side could win - which led to the slow collapse of the USSR and the US' ultimate victory.
This period sees the US at its height. Its only global competitor vanquished, the horrors of Vietnam replaced by the victories in the Gulf, and the belief that the US could lead a new world order with itself at the helm (this is why I stop in 1993 when the failure of Somalia chips at that belief).
UK: 1920-1925; while many will argue earlier this is the height of the British empire territorially speaking. The United States while potentially a naval and imperial threat had not yet appeared on the scene. The sun never shone so bright on the British Empire which appeared as if it could last forever.
France: 1807-1812: While France had been defeated at sea, the entire continent of Europe lay at its feet. There were troubles in Spain, sure, but the Germans and Italians were under foot and the Poles allies. Only the British and Russians remained potential threats, both incapable of marching onto Paris or ending Napoleon's empire until his Grand Armee was destroyed by General Winter.
Spain: Sometime in the 16th century when the Hapsburgs ruled over huge portions of Europe, had kept the Ottomans at bay, and had conquered large portions of the Americas.
Prussia/Germany: 1938-1943: Germany reached the height of its power during the first held of the second world war when the majority of Europe was under their control.
Russia/The USSR: 1957-1962. While many may argue directly after ww2, I argue later on after Stalin. During this period the USSR was in many aspects ahead of the US in areas of the cold war. Sputnik was launched in 1957 and its military technology matched or surpassed the Americans in most fields, while still maintaining the world's largest army and air force. The addition of Cuba, imo, signified the apex of the Soviet capacity to have influence not 90 miles from its main competitor's shores. Ultimately the Cuban Missile Crisis also signified the USSR's inability to launch a full scale conflict with the US - one in which neither side could win - which led to the slow collapse of the USSR and the US' ultimate victory.
Good point. My medieval French history is not as strong as Louis XIV and the Napoleonic times, so I think I naturally favor these two periods over the Capetians out of habit. Of these two periods, Louis XIV was able to add territory permanently to France, managed to not get exiled to Elba, etc. so even if Napoleon conquered more territory in a flash, he wasn't able to make the gains permanent. Thus, from the perspective of accomplishing reasonable war goals, Louis XIV had more power than Napoleon.
I'd suspect a lot of people posting have a similar bias to mine (posting either from recent memory or world wars). And while I still disagree with America's apex being after the fall of the Soviet Union, and I think Britain's relative power was greater right after the Napoleonic Wars as the only industrializing major power, I want to take this point to add a new challenge:
I don't think Germany's peak was in WW2. I'm going to argue for WW1 instead.
Here's why: the Bismarckian time is the lead-in to a long period of growth and consolidation. If we are focusing on the apex of power, we cannot stop here, as the Germany is rapidly industrializing, building a fleet, and gaining colonies abroad. While Germany had quite a terrible diplomatic scene in both the World Wars, I would say their diplomatic influence was greater in the first than in the second (i.e. the possibility of US intervention on the German side was far greater in WW1 than it was in WW2). The German Navy was #2 in the world in 1914, after the British, but by 1939 it had lost that position twice over to the US and the Japanese, and possibly even the French or Italians depending on how we value quantity vs. quality. Ultimately, the German chances of victory were better in WW1 than they were in WW2. So why not the period of 1909-1914?
I also have to question whether you are truly powerful when you are almost certain of collapse in the very near future. The idea that that power has a reasonable chance to last well into the future seems to be an important thing. Right up towards the end there was a better chance of Germany, if not winning, at least making a reasonable peace that would maintain its position as a major power on the continent. With hindsight, you can see that total defeat was almost inevitable for Nazi Germany from the invasion of the Soviet Union. There were small chances if enough had went their way but it was exceedingly unlikely.
Exactly. Given the better chances of the Central Powers in WW1 than the Axis in WW2 (at least from my perspective they appear better, I'd be interested in reading if anyone has a solid argument otherwise), Germany had better prospects.
The problem with identifying an apex is that there is nowhere to go but down. Thus, we have to evaluate several local maxima relative to to other powers at the time rather than a simple evaluation of trending up or down, which is a tricky endeavor.
dunno about "better" but Germany could absolutely have won the war up to the last several months of fighting
incidentally this would have been a great reason to say "this entire thread is a stupid idea" - not the best reason, of course, but a pretty good oneAntilogic said:
I'm in the camp of humoring the idea, at least for a little while longer. The History forum here isn't nearly as active as the OT, so I'm happy when we can get a debate going.
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
I'm not as well versed on the Kaiserreich as I am with the Third Reich but I'd love to hear a little more about this possible US amity with WWI Germany. I've not heard the notion that the US was at any point a possible ally of Germany in this period although the idea intrigues me. Can anyone expand on this idea?
It was a somewhat vaguer idea, born in the minds of Joseph Chamberlain and his ilk, who thought that an alliance of the 'Germanic races' - the English-speaking Americans and British with the Germans - was a swell idea for several months around 1900. The Americans themselves were notably uninterested in entangling agreements with European powers, unless it was part and parcel of divvying up China.
Germany and the United States had a few brushes with hostility in the prewar period, notably over the Samoan civil war in 1887-9 (which was settled by an unexpected cyclone and an eventual partition agreement) and Venezuelan debt in 1902-3 (which was resolved by international arbitration). Neither of those things made a German-American alliance on its own merits impossible, of course. The main reasons the Americans were unprepared to ally with Germany were that a) Alliances Were Bad and b) the Germans had nothing to offer the Americans in return.
The possibility of American intervention on the side of Germany was extremely slim in 1914-7; it rested on the illegal British blockade, about which many Americans were indeed angry but which did not, in most people's minds, constitute a casus belli. The deaths of American citizens and the widespread destruction of American property, regardless of how those deaths happened and why that property was destroyed, did. What's significantly more interesting is the effect of continued American nonbelligerence (very likely if the Germans never resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917), which - I've argued in a previous thread - would have led to the British economy literally running out of raw materials before the end of the year 1917, immobilization for the Entente powers on the Western Front, disastrous financial consequences for at least Britain and probably France too, and, ultimately, a peace agreement of some kind.
Germany and the United States had a few brushes with hostility in the prewar period, notably over the Samoan civil war in 1887-9 (which was settled by an unexpected cyclone and an eventual partition agreement) and Venezuelan debt in 1902-3 (which was resolved by international arbitration). Neither of those things made a German-American alliance on its own merits impossible, of course. The main reasons the Americans were unprepared to ally with Germany were that a) Alliances Were Bad and b) the Germans had nothing to offer the Americans in return.
The possibility of American intervention on the side of Germany was extremely slim in 1914-7; it rested on the illegal British blockade, about which many Americans were indeed angry but which did not, in most people's minds, constitute a casus belli. The deaths of American citizens and the widespread destruction of American property, regardless of how those deaths happened and why that property was destroyed, did. What's significantly more interesting is the effect of continued American nonbelligerence (very likely if the Germans never resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917), which - I've argued in a previous thread - would have led to the British economy literally running out of raw materials before the end of the year 1917, immobilization for the Entente powers on the Western Front, disastrous financial consequences for at least Britain and probably France too, and, ultimately, a peace agreement of some kind.
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
I always wondered why there was a 'Samoa' and an 'American Samoa' but never really made the connection.
Yeah, "Western" Samoa was German Samoa up to 1914. It didn't really play a part in the war. Apia's wireless station was taken offline by a raid done by HMAS Australia in August, and Australian and New Zealander troops seized the main settlements shortly thereafter. The famous Graf Spee - the dude, not the ship named after him - led his cruiser squadron over to Samoa to try to intercept the Australia and sink her, but missed by a few days and ended up going back to South America, where a date with Cradock's squadron and destiny awaited.
I think the following:
USA: 1991-1996, After defeat of the USSR and before the rise of China and the muslim jihad, USA was alone and totally unchallenged.
UK: 1820-1825, The only industrial nation in the world, total naval dominance, de-facto largest empire (de-facto controlled India although they controlled it de-jure after the Sepoy rebellion) and the only place in the world that had functional railways.
France: 1680-1685, Before the war of the grand alliance, all enemies weakened (Spain,Austria,England), largest standing army in europe and navy rivaling England. Achieved religious consolidation well before England or the German stated.
Spain: 1525-1530, Held the largest empire including the newly conquered Aztecs and the futurly conquered Incas, humiliated France in Italy,had the best army in europe, England still rebuilding after the Rose wars.
USSR: 1955-1960, Overtaken USA scientifically and diplomatically, had advantage in ICBMs (USA didn't have ICMBs), first man in space, all third world worshipping it.
Russia: 1780-1785, Catherine the great dominant in Europe, England lost america and france is moribund.
Ottomans: 1526-1531, After the conquest of Hungary and the Arab countries.
China: Probably 1415-1420, New vigorous rulers, all enemies crushed, total naval dominance and total weakness of every other power (Ottomans, Mamelukes, Mongols, Delhi sultan, European countries). I don't believe China will achieve anything comparable to that.
Rome: 117-122AD, During reign of Trajan, Largest extent of the empire, all potentional rivals (Parthia, Germanic tribes, internal rebels) weak or non-existant.
Germany:1875-1880, Crushed France, Economic powerhouse, Best army in the world and diplomatically dominant (good relations with everybody except France)
USA: 1991-1996, After defeat of the USSR and before the rise of China and the muslim jihad, USA was alone and totally unchallenged.
UK: 1820-1825, The only industrial nation in the world, total naval dominance, de-facto largest empire (de-facto controlled India although they controlled it de-jure after the Sepoy rebellion) and the only place in the world that had functional railways.
France: 1680-1685, Before the war of the grand alliance, all enemies weakened (Spain,Austria,England), largest standing army in europe and navy rivaling England. Achieved religious consolidation well before England or the German stated.
Spain: 1525-1530, Held the largest empire including the newly conquered Aztecs and the futurly conquered Incas, humiliated France in Italy,had the best army in europe, England still rebuilding after the Rose wars.
USSR: 1955-1960, Overtaken USA scientifically and diplomatically, had advantage in ICBMs (USA didn't have ICMBs), first man in space, all third world worshipping it.
Russia: 1780-1785, Catherine the great dominant in Europe, England lost america and france is moribund.
Ottomans: 1526-1531, After the conquest of Hungary and the Arab countries.
China: Probably 1415-1420, New vigorous rulers, all enemies crushed, total naval dominance and total weakness of every other power (Ottomans, Mamelukes, Mongols, Delhi sultan, European countries). I don't believe China will achieve anything comparable to that.
Rome: 117-122AD, During reign of Trajan, Largest extent of the empire, all potentional rivals (Parthia, Germanic tribes, internal rebels) weak or non-existant.
Germany:1875-1880, Crushed France, Economic powerhouse, Best army in the world and diplomatically dominant (good relations with everybody except France)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
@Dachs: Any reason you call the British blockade of Germany illegal? Admittedly, I'm not very good on my WWI International Law, but blockades are the time-tested British solution to problems on the continent. The WWI blockade was rather severe compared to the others, but I don't see how it was illegal.
I wasn't aware we were in a military conflict with the USSR, or that it can be said we defeated them when Gorby abolished the USSR.
Unless China deals with their massive internal issues soon, they won't be much of a threat to us.
Given that the Mujahideen took off during the Afghan-Soviet War, and other attacks against us by militants began to occur a few decades before the USSR broke up, I'm not exactly sure what you are refering to.
All shipping to Germany was intercepted. The Hague Convention of 1907 - to which the British were a signatory, as well as Germany - made any attempt to employ blockade legally as an instrument of offensive war a nonsense. There was a very short list of contraband, and notably, food was conditional contraband - it could only be seized if it were consigned for soldiers, not civilians. It also prevented the blockading power from seizing neutral shipping bound for neutral ports, regardless of what its supposed eventual destination was. The British tore these restrictions into little tiny bits during the war, obviously, as anybody familiar with the Turnip Winter or the near-genocide of 1918-9 ought to be aware: food for civilians was seized on purpose, even during the armistice, and shipping bound for ports in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark was taken just like that bound for Hamburg or Bremen.
If any government contemptuously treated a treaty as a "scrap of paper" in the summer of 1914, it was the British with their treatment of the Hague Convention, not the Germans with the Treaty of London (which, as I've noted elsewhere, didn't even apply to the case of August 1914, and even if it had, the British would have been intervening illegally if they'd used the treaty as a basis for 'safeguarding' Belgian neutrality).
In jihad I refer to Al-Qaeda which started acting with the african embassies bombings in 1998 and even the Khobar tower bombing in 1996. The Hizbullah attacked US personnel during the eighties but the jihadist anti-american sentiment in the mainstream sunni muslim world had yet to emerge. The majority of muslim governments supported the US during the first iraq war.
The USA indeed didn't defeat the USSR militarily but economically and diplomatically. The USSR's credo after WWII was challenging US power worldwide in indirect or direct means in the way of setting-up a "world revolution", i.e. dominating/conquering the world. They considered the US to be their main obstacle to this goal.
Economically the US was the most dominant in 1946 but in raw military power it was barely on par with Stalin with his hordes of troops. Only in the early nineties it was unchallenged by any significant state, power or social movement. Chinese power was still weak and their regime barely held internally.
The USA indeed didn't defeat the USSR militarily but economically and diplomatically. The USSR's credo after WWII was challenging US power worldwide in indirect or direct means in the way of setting-up a "world revolution", i.e. dominating/conquering the world. They considered the US to be their main obstacle to this goal.
Economically the US was the most dominant in 1946 but in raw military power it was barely on par with Stalin with his hordes of troops. Only in the early nineties it was unchallenged by any significant state, power or social movement. Chinese power was still weak and their regime barely held internally.
I suppose the "US power worldwide" just happen to be, without any intention from American side to dominate in the world
The idea about world revolution was abandoned in 1930-s.
A lot of Christian governments opposed the second Iraq war. It's a meaningless phrase.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The what now in the who now?
Yeah, if the USSR represented any sort of ideal- or perhaps more accurately, grandiose slogan- in the post-war era, it was anti-colonialism rather than revolution as such. They were pretty happy to support governments which did not claim to be revolutionary Marxists, such as Nicaragua, India and Cuba (which only "went socialist" in 1961), provided they aligned themselves at least broadly with the Eastern Bloc.I suppose the "US power worldwide" just happen to be, without any intention from American side to dominate in the world
The idea about world revolution was abandoned in 1930-s.
Similar threads
