Versailles treaty discussion

[Rogue 9]

Oops. Started posting before you put up your second post.

[Perinquus]

The Empire is not like some parasite, sucking the economic strength out of the mother country. Most of the cost of maintaining it was in the defense expenditures to keep the colonies garrisoned and the sea lanes patrolled. In 1873 that amounted to a mere 2% of the net national product. In 1903, it rose to 5.9%, but was back down to 3.2% by 1913. This is hardly an insupportable financial burden. The Empire did not pose an especially heavy burden on the British taxpayers or the economy, and it provided benefits in the form of additional resources, markets, overseas investments, and manpower reserves.

Administration was also expensive, as was any government expenditure to improve the infrastructure (for which demand is only going to increase).

And improvements to the infrastructure of colonies means their economies improve, which means more profit and more revenue, something you are conveniently overlooking in your determination to see the colonies as nothing but a drain.

Britain is not in a very weak position if she stays out of the war. She is still a superpower. She merely now has a strong rival in Europe, which she didn't before. For the life of me I can't imagine why you insist on viewing the world's largest empire as a creaky, defenseless house of cards.

Britain’s dominance relies upon control of the sea lanes, lose that and Britain is lost. A continental Germany Uber Power will be in prime position to build a fleet capable of that.

Sorry, I don't see it. Even with a powerful fleet at its disposal, taking on the Royal Navy is a very risky proposition, which is why Deegan is quite right in noting that the Kaiser was very leery of risking it. You're underestimating the capabilities of the Royal Navy. Wilhelm, for all his other faults, didn't.

Public sympathy in the U.S. was more pro-British than pro-German. That would not add up to much direct support in an age when isolationism was dominant in America, but economic policy would almost certainly have been more favorable to Britain.When war did break out and Britain joined the Entente the U.S. did provide a great deal of indirect support. A large quantity of the rifles and ammunition used by British Tommies was manufactured in America. Lot's of Mosin Nagant rifles used by the Russians were made in America as well. The U.S. was willing to provide a lot of help short of war. If Germany defeats France and dominates the continent, the U.S. is only going to be more wary of the German Empire, and is very likely to continue its favorable treatment of Britain.

And that favourable treatment amounts to very little and could easily change if American financial interests do.

Very little? Bullshit! Britain couldn't have won in the two world wars without American help. She got lots of economic assistance out of the U.S. in the first war, as well as a not inconsiderable quantity of armaments. In the second she got the same, and in far greater quantities, followed by direct help. American financial interests were linked very closely to those of Britain. They are no more likely to change in this counterfactual scenario than they did in real life.

And they are only in that position at the cost of dismantling the Empire and losing millions of lives.

The Empire has to go at this point, the British Taxpayer cannot afford to build a god school system in African hellhole #556 and they cannot afford a social health care program in India etc and yes those lives (although I wouldn't say millions) were a loss but those was no other way to guarantee British freedom.

Nonsense. The Kaiser's troops were not going to be marching through Grosvenor Square. The only German troops you would have seen in London were the ones guarding the German embassy.

And once again, even if Germany defeats France they are not going to be strong enough to bully Britain into anything. Bullies victimize opponents who are too weak to resist. The British Empire is too strong an opponent to be bullied.

No it isn't, British dominance begins and ends in the North Sea and Channel, Germany will be in a perfect position to overturn that dominance and it was the stated aim of their Navy to do so and had been for over a decade, I see no reason why a triumphant war will weaken these in fact it will probably see a unification of drive against the final threat.

How about a source to prove that was their stated aim?

I repeat: There's no evidence for it.

Germany had shown itself incapable of coming to an accommodation with Britain, France and Russia had, Japan had, Italy had and even the US came to understanding yet Germany remained steadfastly obstinate, I see no reason to assume this will not continue.

What is your evidence that they were incapable of coming to an accomodation? I see no evidence that tensions between Britain and Germany were so high prior to WWI that war was about to break out. The closest calls were the Tangier crisis of 1905, and the Agadir crisis of 1911 - and both those crises were mainly Franco-German, not Anglo-German; Britain was merely lining up in support of France. And I see nothing about those incidents that prove Britain and Germany were destined to be implacable enemies, inevitably headed for a showdown, any more than the Trent Affair during the American Civil War, or the actual War of 1812 meant Britain and the United States were incapable of coexisting peacefully.

And in fact, Bismarck, during his tenure as chancellor was able to reach a peaceful accomodation with Britain, as indeed he did with every nation in Europe except France, which he skillfully kept diplomatically isolated.

If Britain faced a serious enough provocation, damn right she would. Why do you seem to think that Britain will just say: "darn! It's too late to do anything now" and just meekly swallow anything the Germans try to do. They still have the Royal Navy, they still have the capability to blockade Germany's coasts and destroy her maritime fleet.

But Britain has no way to win such a war, Germany will be able to ship through any port in Europe by this point and unless Britain can blockade both the North Sea and the Med (in face of the HSF, the A-H navy, likely the Italian Navy and want is left of the French navy) then they have problems. Not to mention that with all of Europe under their thumb the Germans have access to enough food, all a British blockade will do is starve the French and Ukrainians (and anybody else the Germans use their dominance to steal from).

If Germany can plan for an invasion of Britain, as you assert it can, Britain can certainly plan for an invasion of the continent, perhaps with the aim of detaching France from German control. And since the French didn't like the Germans all that much, I suspect the British wouldn't find such a revolt too hard to stir up. The Germans aren't occupying France either, after all. Even the notorious "September Programme" does not call for an outright conquest and occupation of France, it merely calls for territorial acquisitions, rather like the acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.

They still have the capability to transport armies to their colonies and to attack and annex German colonies. Even if it never reaches a point where Britain can invade the continent, they can hurt the German Empire enough to make it come to terms.

No they can't once Germany controls the continent a blockade is of limited use and is only going to annoy... well just about everybody. Sure Britain can take the German colonies but that is a small price to pay for all of Europe.

See above.

And this by no means makes war inevitable. If the Cold War proved anything it proved that two superpowers can coexist. If each one realizes a war would cost more than they could gain, they'll find a way to coexist.

Nukes tend to up the ante and the USSR eventually lost the cold war because of their economic decline something that will happen to Britain as well.

Sorry, but you haven't shown that. The U.S.S.R. lost the Cold War because it had a basically unsound, unworkable economic system. Britain has no such handicap.

Britain is just as capable of strangling German communications, and Blockading Germany. Sure the Germans will build up the fleet. And the British will build theirs up as well.

You underrate the British ability to expand their fleet. The difficulties that they were having were mostly political, not economic. The Liberals were in power at the time, and they wanted more money for social spending. They reneged on election promises to cut arms spending in 1909, but got away with it due to press scaremongering. Churchill got into hot water in 1913 over his naval estimates. He demanded a figure in excess of £50 million. and the laying down of four capital ships for 1914-15. Churchill's announcement of the figures provoked a full blown revolt in the parliamentary party and the cabinet. Churchill believed it was necessary to oppose the German fleet building, but as Lloyd George pointed out, Churchill's demands were incompatible with those of "education and other services". Churchill wanted money for guns, Lloyd George and the majority of the politicians in power wanted it for butter. But the capability was there for Britain to build more ships. And if Germany suddenly becomes ascendant on the continent, and looks like a bigger threat, I strongly suspect it would lead to a reordering of priorities, and defense spending would increase. If not, I suspect Lloyd George and his party would be voted out at the next election, and defense spending will increase anyway.

Indeed defence spending will have to increase, and Germany with a much bigger and healthier economy will be able to out spend Britain in the long run, meanwhile Britain is forced to spend more and more on the Navy and thus see British social programs whither on the vine. If an accommodation could be reached with Germany then this arms race could be prevented but the Germans had made it very clear that there would be no accommodation, with the German position strengthened I don't see them coming to the table.

You still haven't proved no accomodation is possible. Nor have you refuted the evidence I cited to show that the British economy was not as shaky as you think. You are merely asserting again.

See above. Churchill didn't remove it because it was a strain on the British people, he removed it because it almost cost him his job. It was politically impossible, not financially impossible.

Sorry you misread me, the German ambassador removed it from the itinerary because Churchill wouldn't stop bugging him about it.

Alright, you lost me here. Why would Churchill bug the German ambassador about the British fleet? We are talking about the financial ability of the British to expand their fleet are we not? What does the German ambassador have to do with this?

Take away? Take away!?! Even if the Germans reach parity, even, God forbid, slightly outbuild, how does that "take away" the British navy?

All the Royal Navy captains are just going to scuttle their ships in despair I suppose?

Our Navy was the biggest - take that away. Not the navy but out numerical advantage.

Even if the Germans end up with a larger fleet - something you haven't yet proven they can do - there are still other factors. The Royal Navy still has a qualitative edge. And there are the fortunes of war. Even a slightly smaller navy can beat a larger one if it wins a few key engagements. To make domination of Britain certain, the Kaiser would have to build not only a bigger fleet, for a slight or marginal numerical superiority is not enough to guartantee this, but a significantly bigger fleet. Again, you just haven't proven that Germany is capable of building on such a scale.

And then too, such a program is not going to produce the required superiority overnight. It will take years, especially if Britain increases building to contest numerical superiority with the Germans. And the Kaiser is not immortal. He's probably dead by 1940 at the latest, just as he was in the real world, and German policy may take a new direction.

Anyway, all this adds up to a huge source of wealth that the British can tap. An all out war can strain it (as it did, in fact), but it easily allows a more modest rate of military expansion such as would take place in peacetime, and should allow the British fleet not to be eclipsed by the German one.

That is nice and all but the German GDP had already gone beyond Britain and was increasing faster the post-war situation will only improve the German economy.
GDP figure of 1913 (in billions of 1990 dollars)

Germany $240
Russian Empire $230
UK $220
India $170
France $130
Hapsburg Empire $100
Italy $90
Japan $70

So the Triple alliance has a GDP of $430 to Britain’s $220, not to mention much of the Russian Empire is going to end up in German hands and much of the rest of Europe will be under German economic domination.

Germany does not have all that $430 million under her direct control, even after beating France and Russia. This proto-EU is merely an economic union, not a consolidated empire. And I repeat, the "September Programme" called for limited territorial acquisitions from France and Russia, not conquests. The Kaiser was not Hitler. He was not looking for Lebensraum in the east.

I also repeat, you view of the economic situation does not take into account the extent of British financial power, or the vast wealth in overseas holdings available to Britain.

The figures make it rather clear that Britain cannot hope to match (the post war) Germany alone in the long run add in the other central powers (who will become little more that German satellites) and you have Britain that is grossly out matched and cannot hope to compete in a serious arms race.

They don't make that clear at all. They don't take into account all the economic factors. They focus narrowly on one, that is not the sole measure of a country's economic health.

With what? France has an even bigger debt of her own. Or did you miss that? And Russia's is a not inconsiderable 47.3% of her net national product in 1914. Of course, the Germans could still loot France and Russia and use the booty to pay off their debts, but only at the cost of ruining France and Russia and sending their economies straight into the crapper. And since the Germans are now tying their economy to that of France and Russia, and other European countries in the proto EU...

This is a recipe for becoming an economic powerhouse? Torpedoing a country's economy and then tying yourself to the sinking ship?

What school of economics did you study?

France will become a market for German goods, I doubt they will really care if he French have to cut spending in order to keep afloat (not having an army or navy should help in that regard).

And if he disrupts the French economy too much, France becomes a liability not an asset. He can milk France to improve the German economy in the short run. In the long run it will hurt, not help. The French economy will now be linked closely to the German one in this proto-EU. That means if Germany siphons all the wealth out of France, once that initial influx of capital is exhausted Germany is now fettered to a corpse. The fact is that France had a high degree of debt. That can't be ignored. This means that Germany cannot immediately kick its arms spending into high gear without hurting its economy in the long term - which will impair its ability to engage in this arms race. And by the time this problem has been solved, we're closer to 1940 and the Kaiser's replacement.

Slippery slope fallacy. Trade wars do not inevitably lead to shooting wars.

Nor did I say they do, this trade war would end when Germany brow beats Britain with the threat of the fleet.

Which is not the decisive threat you assume it will be, because Britain has quite a large fleet of its own.

See above. The Fleet program was only untenable because Lloyd George and the liberal party wanted the money for social spending. It was a political problem, not an economic one. And the British have all that overseas wealth they can tap in an emergency. The British can keep pace with German bulding program without wrecking their economy. It would be nice if you would provide some evidence to back up your claim. All you have done so far is assert it. The only evidence you provided was a brief mention of steel production, and I have already shown how that is less significant than you assert it is.

Social spending is necessary though, we aren't talking about the modern sort but basic investment in schooling, transport infrastructure and health care. Although the more modern sort is necessary as well, we all know where Marx expected the revolution to begin after all.

And Marx was wrong about almost everything.

Kind of forgetting how much of the rest of the world is controlled by Britain aren't you. The British market includes the entire commonwealth, and it would be a huge market to lose.

And how much did Germany use said market considering Britain was already trying to block it off to more upwardly mobile industries which British industry could no longer compete with.

Where is your evidence for this? In fact, according to Ferguson - and I quote (with emphasis added) from p.36 - "Britain's policy of free trade meant there was nothing preventing German exporters from from challenging British firms in Imperial markets (and, indeed, in the home market itself)." Free trade was one of the central platforms of the Liberal Party, which was the one in power at the time.

How about some proof?

See above, Germany already had a bigger GDP and they were growing faster. They are about to gain the rest of Poland and make puppet states out of the Baltic, Finland and the Ukraine. And Holland and Belgium will also become puppet states, A-H and Italy will become satellites and so on. Britain is going to be facing a nearly 3 to 1 disparity and we were in relative decline.

The decline came after the war when the British ecomomy had been overstrained by the cost of financing participation in it. And as I said, the GDP does not paint the entire picture.

I have already indicated that the anti-militarist faction was stronger in Germany than in any other country. Once again, I refer you to Ferguson's book. It's first chapter is "The Myth of Militarism". Again, he delves into a great deal of detail, and it simply isn't practical for me to reproduce all teh evidence from a thirty page chapter here. The gist of it is, that while Prussian militarism was certainly evident in German society and politics, it's influence has been largely overrated. And Ferguson also provides evidence in that chapter than anti-militarism was in the political ascendant in every country in Europe, not just Germany.

Yet it didn't prevent the war and I see no reason it would lead to better German political leadership.

So what? It didn't cause the war, nor did it make war inevitable, which is what you are contending. Militarism was on the decline throughout Europe as well as in Germany. The bottom line is that German militarism is not so decisive in German politics that it makes coexistence with Britain impossible.

And the Kaiser would still not be an absolute monarch, able to order his country to do whatever he liked according to his whims.

And again idiocy was coming out of Berlin, it doesn't matter from who.

Idiocy was coming out of Vienna and Moscow too. For that matter it was coming out of Paris and London. I don't know what you think you are proving by statements like this. I am trying to deal with specific factors that show war was not inevitable, and that an arms race does not mean a German victory was a foregone conclusion. And you are responding with uselessly vague and general statements like "idiocy was coming out of Berlin".

And does not make it inevitable that it will be used in a shooting war any more than the huge stockpiles of Soviet and American ICBMs made nuclear war inevitable during the Cold War.

Once the Germans have that threat Britain is in a very bad way.

Oh my God! The sky is falling!!!

And you have yet to show how the British could not reach a modus vivendi with him, so that it was necessary to gamble on war with Germany in 1914.

Britain had tried to come to an accommodation constantly, they managed it with every other great power except Germany. If that doesn't indicate that the Germans had a special problem I don't know what does.

Again, what is your evidence for this?

Which would make it easier to fend off any attempt at invasion, would it not?

A downsized German army will still be more than a match for the British army and again Germany doesn’t have to invade to defeat Britain.

The British can support a much larger army than they had at the time, remember? And they only way to defeat Britain without invading it is to strangle its commerce, which you have not shown Germany can do.

But admitting that those aims existed before war broke out would make it look like Germany started fighting to further those aims, as opposed to those aims being adopted after fighting commenced.

Which is probably why they kept them secret, nice to see you come around to my way of thinking.

Which, as I said, would mean nothing was ever written down before the war, or else all the relevant documents were conveniently lost or destroyed, and additionally, not a single German government official, in all the years after the war ever let slip the secret that these really were pre-war aims. even when the issue was long over and there was really no reason to keep such a secret anymore. Not bloody likely.

What would prevent the income from those overseas assets from being reinvested in industrial production at home?

It was more profitable to invest overseas, that was why it was being invested overseas and that is a large factor in why British industry was dying.

And if the industry was being invested in overseas, but these were nevertheless British dominions, how does that make this overseas industrial production unavailable to Britain in her arms race with Germany?

What's to prevent social spending from being cut back to allow for more arms production? All that wealth also gives the British the ability to buy armaments abroad (as in fact she did during the war), and supplement her own production. And there is no reason to believe the U.S. wouldn't be quite as willing to sell them to Britain either, since we did in actuality during WWI.

Increased arms buying is only going to further weaken Britain’s economy when that money should be invested in the country.

Which is why it is only a short term solution. Nevertheless, it can keep Britain from ending up with a smaller arms stockpile if the situation looked like it was becoming critical.

She did what a very, very narrow margin of those in power at the time thought she had to do. You haven't convinced me that it was.

Nor do I think I will but you have also failed to prove your case (as Ferguson has failed to do so with most Alt-historians).

And you've failed to prove this was necessary for Britain. All you've done is make assertions and depend on an artificially restricted view of the economic situtation.

It wouldn't likely be worse than Stalinist Russia and all the millions who died as a result of it. And Imperial German atrocities were no worse than British ones in the colonial period.

No they were worse, not as bad as the Belgians or Dutch mind but they were still worse.

No, they weren't. I remind you it was the British who set up some of the world's first concentration camps during the Boer War. Over 27,000 Boers died in them, including women and children (about 22,000 of the victims were children, who were more susceptible to the diseases rampant in the camps). Homesteads and farms were burned down during the Boer War as well, and around 40 towns were destroyed as Kitchener decided to effect a scorched earth policy, and sweep the ground clean of everything that might give sustenance to the Boers. I can't think of anythjing the Germans under the Kaiser did that was in any way worse than this. And this is only one example.

There are also the actions of British troops in Ireland immediately after WWI to consider, especially the so-called "Black and Tans". In them you see British troops doing the same kinds of things the British were accusing the Germans of doing in Belgium.

And since Britain has quite considerable military forces of her own, I can't see why you keep insisting that the Germans would now be "over" you.

Because in the end a bigger and better economy will allow Germany to overpower Britain, possibly without even firing a shot.

Which I am still waiting for you to provide convincing proof of.

And I think that avoiding the millions upon millions killed by the Nazi and Communist regimes of the 20th century is preferable. I also think you would have a very hard time convincing say, a Pole, or a Czech, to say nothing of a central or Eastern European Jew that an Imperial Germany in the saddle would actually be worse than what they really had for most of the last century.

I thought we were discussing what was best for Britain not best for the world, however if I were to ask a Belgian, Dutch, Dane, Finn or Italian if they liked being free I think they would say yes.

Staying out of the war would have been best for Britain, since Britain would have remained free, and remained a strong power, and would not have lost a generation of its young men, and a sizeable part of another. And German domination of an economic union, does not make the Danes, Finns, Italians, etc. unfree. You continue to insist upon viewing this proto-EU as an empire. It is not.

No, I see a German dominated proto EU as well. The difference is that I think that is preferable to what most of Europe actually got in the 20th century.

I disagree, Imperial Germany wasn't nice or democratic and it probably wasn't going to go anywhere, the Nazis at least died off and so did the USSR eventually.

I've got news for you. In 1914 the British parliament was far less democratic an institution than it is today. The modern parliamentary system, in which the executive is responsible to a legislature eleted by universal suffrage exited nowhere in Europe in 1914 - not even in Britain. As the historian J.M. Winter observed in The Experience of World War I: "...few realize that the "mother of all parliaments" - the center of the British political system - was in no sense a democratic institution in 1914."

The political climate throughout all of Europe was evolving toward more democratic forms of government. Metternich in Austria-Hungary and Bismarck in Germany had to contend with pro-democracy movements. Russia had a revolution in 1905 because of increasing popular discontent with autocratic government (it had another two in 1917 - and unfortunately the second one put the Communists in power, but the Russians who supported it at the time did not then know how autocratic it would become).

Imperial Germany would probably have evolved into a more democratic country over time just as France and Great Britain did. And even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be worse than the Nazi or Communist regimes were.

[TheDarkling]

Excuse me, but a couple of questions, Darkling: is it really your thesis that Imperial Germany was similar in character to Nazi Germany?

No, my thesis is that Imperial Germany was worse than the democracies that have existed in Western Europe since the end of WW2.

[Patrick Degan]

Excuse me, but a couple of questions, Darkling: is it really your thesis that Imperial Germany was similar in character to Nazi Germany?

No, my thesis is that Imperial Germany was worse than the democracies that have existed in Western Europe since the end of WW2.

Perhaps. But the real question is whether or not they were worse on balance than either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union and the historical evidence clearly says otherwise. Kaiser Wilhelm certainly did not possess the dictatorial powers Hitler did, and the German parliamentary body was far more than the rubber-stamp instrument than the Supreme Soviet were under Stalin. And even with the practitioners of Weltpolitik dominating the Wilhelmstrasser at the time, Imperial foreign policy reflected a clear desire to not add to Germany's enemies if possible, or engage in willy-nilly expansionism.

[TheDarkling]

And improvements to the infrastructure of colonies means their economies improve, which means more profit and more revenue, something you are conveniently overlooking in your determination to see the colonies as nothing but a drain.

No I am not overlooking that fact but building a solid education system in Rhodesia is a long term invest likely not to show returns for over a decade. When every colony wants money sunk into it now for returns later you end up with a short term deficit and cash flow problems (while technically the government can just print more money that sort of action is inadvisable).

Sorry, I don't see it. Even with a powerful fleet at its disposal, taking on the Royal Navy is a very risky proposition, which is why Deegan is quite right in noting that the Kaiser was very leery of risking it. You're underestimating the capabilities of the Royal Navy. Wilhelm, for all his other faults, didn't.

But as Deegan also points out the HSF was outmatched then, I would point out that Jellicoe dared not persue the HSF and Churchill termed him the only man who could have lost the war in a day.

Very little? Bullshit! Britain couldn't have won in the two world wars without American help. She got lots of economic assistance out of the U.S. in the first war, as well as a not inconsiderable quantity of armaments. In the second she got the same, and in far greater quantities, followed by direct help. American financial interests were linked very closely to those of Britain. They are no more likely to change in this counterfactual scenario than they did in real life.

The ever increasing trade barriers Britain raises as the home islands industry slides into decay will not likely endear the UK to the US.

As for US aid, a naval war is likely to be short in duration thus not giving the US enough time to wake up and face the war meaning their policy of limited benevolence is unlikely to benefit Britain.

Nonsense. The Kaiser's troops were not going to be marching through Grosvenor Square. The only German troops you would have seen in London were the ones guarding the German embassy.

There wouldn't be German troops stationing in Finland either but German would still control them, although I would dispute whether war is impossible like you seem to think.

How about a source to prove that was their stated aim?

The very idea of Risk theory makes it obvious that the Germany fleet was built to take on Britain. The ships that were built make it obvious it was designed to take on Britain. The Germans built a fleet that could go out into the North Sea and engage Capital ships there, there was only one Sea power in the North Sea and it wasn't the USN or IJN or even Greenpeace it was the RN.

What is your evidence that they were incapable of coming to an accomodation? I see no evidence that tensions between Britain and Germany were so high prior to WWI that war was about to break out. The closest calls were the Tangier crisis of 1905, and the Agadir crisis of 1911 - and both those crises were mainly Franco-German, not Anglo-German; Britain was merely lining up in support of France. And I see nothing about those incidents that prove Britain and Germany were destined to be implacable enemies, inevitably headed for a showdown, any more than the Trent Affair during the American Civil War, or the actual War of 1812 meant Britain and the United States were incapable of coexisting peacefully.

The problem is Britain tried and was constantly rebuffed; Prince Lichnowsky lays it out nicely in his memoirs. Britain sought an arrangement over the navy and was rebuffed, we sought a settling of out mutual spheres of interest as we had with the Russians and French and again we were rebuffed, We tried for over a decade and never made any headway, the German leadership seemed singly incapable of reaching an accommodation, this was aggressive and irrational something which would likely continue in the new Super Germany.

And in fact, Bismarck, during his tenure as chancellor was able to reach a peaceful accomodation with Britain, as indeed he did with every nation in Europe except France, which he skillfully kept diplomatically isolated.

Yes became Bismarck had a brain in his head, look at the diplomacy that resulted after Bismarck was gone and you that this was something lacking in the new leadership.

If Germany can plan for an invasion of Britain, as you assert it can, Britain can certainly plan for an invasion of the continent, perhaps with the aim of detaching France from German control. And since the French didn't like the Germans all that much, I suspect the British wouldn't find such a revolt too hard to stir up. The Germans aren't occupying France either, after all. Even the notorious "September Programme" does not call for an outright conquest and occupation of France, it merely calls for territorial acquisitions, rather like the acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.

And an indemnity that will keep the French from building an army, Britain cannot sea lift enough of an army on the continent and defeat the Germany army, that is folly and I suspect you realise it.

Sorry, but you haven't shown that. The U.S.S.R. lost the Cold War because it had a basically unsound, unworkable economic system. Britain has no such handicap.

No Britain had got into a position where our economy was going under, the war actually helped us to improve our industry a bit, without that we will slide even faster into decline.

You still haven't proved no accomodation is possible. Nor have you refuted the evidence I cited to show that the British economy was not as shaky as you think. You are merely asserting again.

Just look at German actions, they would not reach an accommodation in the decade prior to WW1, you must prove why it is likely they will change their mind now.

Alright, you lost me here. Why would Churchill bug the German ambassador about the British fleet? We are talking about the financial ability of the British to expand their fleet are we not? What does the German ambassador have to do with this?

Because the British were forced to build up their fleet (and recall their capital ships from all over the world) because the Germans were building theirs. It was an arms race and one Britain didn’t want, Imperial Germany proved as willing, nay, less willing to negotiate arms limitation than the USSR.

Even if the Germans end up with a larger fleet - something you haven't yet proven they can do - there are still other factors. The Royal Navy still has a qualitative edge.

Do we? Look at Jutland, Britain lost on points.

And there are the fortunes of war. Even a slightly smaller navy can beat a larger one if it wins a few key engagements.

You want Britain to entrust her safety to chance? And I thought we were discussing what was most likely to happen not what could happen.

To make domination of Britain certain, the Kaiser would have to build not only a bigger fleet, for a slight or marginal numerical superiority is not enough to guartantee this, but a significantly bigger fleet. Again, you just haven't proven that Germany is capable of building on such a scale.

In my opinion it is quite clear.

And then too, such a program is not going to produce the required superiority overnight. It will take years, especially if Britain increases building to contest numerical superiority with the Germans. And the Kaiser is not immortal. He's probably dead by 1940 at the latest, just as he was in the real world, and German policy may take a new direction.

They have 2.5 decades to build said fleet, they had already built a lot in a single decade, as for the Kaiser dying in 1941, 2 decades of inertia is a hard thing to combat and by this point anti British feeling would be running rampant in Germany.

Germany does not have all that $430 million under her direct control, even after beating France and Russia. This proto-EU is merely an economic union, not a consolidated empire. And I repeat, the "September Programme" called for limited territorial acquisitions from France and Russia, not conquests. The Kaiser was not Hitler. He was not looking for Lebensraum in the east.

I didn't add on Russia or France, I also don't have figures for the rest of Poland, the Ukraine or Finland which will be German vassal states. As for Italy and A-H, they could be coerced into building a navy in return for other bonuses (Italy can have Malta and a slice of China for example).

They don't make that clear at all. They don't take into account all the economic factors. They focus narrowly on one, that is not the sole measure of a country's economic health.

I would say it is more important than overseas investment but you are right it doesn't show the whole picture, and internal market of 200 + million industrialised people is likely to bring a lot of advantages.

And if he disrupts the French economy too much, France becomes a liability not an asset. He can milk France to improve the German economy in the short run. In the long run it will hurt, not help. The French economy will now be linked closely to the German one in this proto-EU. That means if Germany siphons all the wealth out of France, once that initial influx of capital is exhausted Germany is now fettered to a corpse. The fact is that France had a high degree of debt. That can't be ignored. This means that Germany cannot immediately kick its arms spending into high gear without hurting its economy in the long term - which will impair its ability to engage in this arms race. And by the time this problem has been solved, we're closer to 1940 and the Kaiser's replacement.

I thought the Kaiser wasn't that important in the overall level of idiocy coming from Berlin, have you changed your positon?

Which is not the decisive threat you assume it will be, because Britain has quite a large fleet of its own.

Yes, I am aware but we had already been forced into downsizing out naval power in the Empire because of the German threat and been forced into a costly building program.

And Marx was wrong about almost everything.

I would disagree. I think his analysis of the problem was fairly correct, his prescribed cure rather dodgy and his prognosis insane however that would be a discussion for another time.

Where is your evidence for this? In fact, according to Ferguson - and I quote (with emphasis added) from p.36 - "Britain's policy of free trade meant there was nothing preventing German exporters from from challenging British firms in Imperial markets (and, indeed, in the home market itself)." Free trade was one of the central platforms of the Liberal Party, which was the one in power at the time.

The Liberals being in power won't last (and if it does the Empire will be gone within a couple of decades anyway). The fact is the trade barriers did go up in OTL and I see no reason to believe they won't without the war which actually helped improve British industry.

The decline came after the war when the British ecomomy had been overstrained by the cost of financing participation in it. And as I said, the GDP does not paint the entire picture.

No British economic decline started in the 1890's business was no longer competitive because of growing union interest and the feathered bed the commonwealth provided.

So what? It didn't cause the war, nor did it make war inevitable, which is what you are contending. Militarism was on the decline throughout Europe as well as in Germany. The bottom line is that German militarism is not so decisive in German politics that it makes coexistence with Britain impossible.

No I don't think war is inevitable, I think German heavy handed tactics are more likely than not to be brought to bear on Britain who may have no other option other than to acquiesce. I think Ferguson's dream of an EU without Britain won't happen and he will get a Britain truly ruled from Berlin.

Idiocy was coming out of Vienna and Moscow too.For that matter it was coming out of Paris and London. I don't know what you think you are proving by statements like this. I am trying to deal with specific factors that show war was not inevitable, and that an arms race does not mean a German victory was a foregone conclusion. And you are responding with uselessly vague and general statements like "idiocy was coming out of Berlin".

I wouldn't want the Czar or the boys in Vienna running the show either.
Although the Czar was able to reach an accord with Britain (a long time rival) whilst German policy forced the Czar into France's arms and did the same to Britain.
Germany had shown a stunning policy of bully boy tactics (my way or the high way) and irrationality (lets build a fleet to annoy Britain who we should want to keep neutral). German policy was based upon bullying already except they didn't have enough to back it up, with all of Europe under their thumb they are likely to even more aggressive.

Oh my God! The sky is falling!!!

I'm sorry that I don't share you view of the kind and benevolent Kaiser Wilhelm and his ration advisors.

Again, what is your evidence for this?

History as I have already outlined above.

The British can support a much larger army than they had at the time, remember? And they only way to defeat Britain without invading it is to strangle its commerce, which you have not shown Germany can do.

So Britain is going to build a much larger army and Navy and watch her economy go down the toilet and eventually lose anyway..... no thank I will keep the real timeline.

Which, as I said, would mean nothing was ever written down before the war, or else all the relevant documents were conveniently lost or destroyed, and additionally, not a single German government official, in all the years after the war ever let slip the secret that these really were pre-war aims. even when the issue was long over and there was really no reason to keep such a secret anymore. Not bloody likely.

But we have no evidence of any war aims so we can't know whether they would be the aims or not, i think it likely they would be something along those lines.

And if the industry was being invested in overseas, but these were nevertheless British dominions, how does that make this overseas industrial production unavailable to Britain in her arms race with Germany?

Any money going to the dominions was mainly aimed at making them better farmers/miners/etc, all industry was to stay within Britain, that was the policy. This isn't to say some industry didn't get built just that it was discouraged.

Which is why it is only a short term solution. Nevertheless, it can keep Britain from ending up with a smaller arms stockpile if the situation looked like it was becoming critical.

Except they are going to be in said arms race (against a superior opponent) for 20 years at least.

And you've failed to prove this was necessary for Britain. All you've done is make assertions and depend on an artificially restricted view of the economic situtation.

No I just think he output of a nation and its growth is more important that assets they can liquidate.

No, they weren't. I remind you it was the British who set up some of the world's first concentration camps during the Boer War. Over 27,000 Boers died in them, including women and children (about 22,000 of the victims were children, who were more susceptible to the diseases rampant in the camps). Homesteads and farms were burned down during the Boer War as well, and around 40 towns were destroyed as Kitchener decided to effect a scorched earth policy, and sweep the ground clean of everything that might give sustenance to the Boers. I can't think of anythjing the Germans under the Kaiser did that was in any way worse than this. And this is only one example.

That was during a war as you point out, the Germans were ethnically cleansing particular tribes for no particular reason.

There are also the actions of British troops in Ireland immediately after WWI to consider, especially the so-called "Black and Tans". In them you see British troops doing the same kinds of things the British were accusing the Germans of doing in Belgium.

There is a difference between putting down rebellion and just getting rid of particular tribes you aren't in conflict with.

Which I am still waiting for you to provide convincing proof of.

While you provide no proof of you own to back up your assertion than a Britain with a 1/3rd of the production of Germany + Friends can easily out build them.

Staying out of the war would have been best for Britain, since Britain would have remained free, and remained a strong power, and would not have lost a generation of its young men, and a sizeable part of another. And German domination of an economic union, does not make the Danes, Finns, Italians, etc. unfree. You continue to insist upon viewing this proto-EU as an empire. It is not.

Yes it is, the Finns were going to become puppets of Germany, as would Belgium. Netherlands would remain nominally free and so would most of France, Italy and A-H but ultimately Germany would be in charge.

I think the confusion comes in here because you are buying into Ferguson's Europhobia and equating an EU built upon democracy and cooperation with an EU built upon Germany domination, autocracy and military threat.

I've got news for you. In 1914 the British parliament was far less democratic an institution than it is today. The modern parliamentary system, in which the executive is responsible to a legislature eleted by universal suffrage exited nowhere in Europe in 1914 - not even in Britain. As the historian J.M. Winter observed in The Experience of World War I: "...few realize that the "mother of all parliaments" - the center of the British political system - was in no sense a democratic institution in 1914."

Just because the franchise was restricted doesn't mean it wasn't a democracy.

The political climate throughout all of Europe was evolving toward more democratic forms of government. Metternich in Austria-Hungary and Bismarck in Germany had to contend with pro-democracy movements. Russia had a revolution in 1905 because of increasing popular discontent with autocratic government (it had another two in 1917 - and unfortunately the second one put the Communists in power, but the Russians who supported it at the time did not then know how autocratic it would become).

Yes and a big win for the militant Autocracy of Germany would stifle the progress we made, the Kaiser is ardently autocratic and the military resents the Reichstag, they will not give up power easily.

Imperial Germany would probably have evolved into a more democratic country over time just as France and Great Britain did. And even if it didn't, it still wouldn't be worse than the Nazi or Communist regimes were.

But it would encompass more land for longer. Imperial Germany may become more democratic but considering the moment they do the union would collapse as fast as the USSR did (and it is unlikely to be so gentle) there will be significant German power stopping the progress of democracy.


I don’t really see much point continuing this discussion, we have come to an impasse. You believe that Germany was run by rational men and would leave Britain alone. I don’t and I doubt either of us is going to move from their position.

[TheDarkling]

Perhaps. But the real question is whether or not they were worse on balance than either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union and the historical evidence clearly says otherwise.

From britains standpoitn I think it would. For others it depends where you sit in Europe.

Kaiser Wilhelm certainly did not possess the dictatorial powers Hitler did, and the German parliamentary body was far more than the rubber-stamp instrument than the Supreme Soviet were under Stalin.

True enough.

And even with the practitioners of Weltpolitik dominating the Wilhelmstrasser at the time, Imperial foreign policy reflected a clear desire to not add to Germany's enemies if possible, or engage in willy-nilly expansionism.

I would disagree; Imperial policy seemed almost designed to annoy every major power. That policy drove Russia into French arms. It drove friendly Britain into an alliance with their two many enemies. It managed to alienate the Italians who were supposed allies. German imperial policy was based upon threat and bullying, it had none of the characteristics that great power policy relied upon and that eventually lead to disaster.

[Guardsman Bass]

The problem with Versailles wasn’t that it was too harsh; it was that it wasn’t harsh enough and wasn’t enforced thus leaving Germany able to rebuild. If the western allies had occupied the whole country and stripped it down to an agrarian state (as was proposed during the later part of WW2) then everyone could have happily waited in peace for the red tide to wash upon the west.

Would Britain and France, already tied up in Imperial expeditions in their empires, have been willing to stay the course in Germany?

Not to mention the fact that when Germany asked for peace, they hadn't actually been invaded yet- it was just that a new government was being formed following the collapse of the Kaiser. If Britain and France had tried anything of the sort, it probably would have meant massive losses trying to fight their way to Berlin.