Versailles treaty discussion

[Glocksman]

Oh, and I regard Woodrow Wilson's decision to involve the US in the war as the single greatest policy mistake by any US President in the 20th century.

We had no dog in that fight and it was none of our damned business.

[Rogue 9]

The war could have dragged on for much longer had the U.S. not intervened, and I'm inclined to think that the Germans would have won. We had no immediate dog in that fight, but the economic consequences of an even more shattered Europe would have been devastating, even more so than 1929 most likely. Besides, we'd been lending money to Britain and France for a while in the war. Protecting the investment, protecting the investment.

[Glocksman]

The war could have dragged on for much longer had the U.S. not intervened, and I'm inclined to think that the Germans would have won. We had no immediate dog in that fight, but the economic consequences of an even more shattered Europe would have been devastating, even more so than 1929 most likely. Besides, we'd been lending money to Britain and France for a while in the war. Protecting the investment, protecting the investment.

Interesting that you should bring 1929 up.

I recently read a book where the author states that the costs of the war were the major cause of the Depression, and that the only thing that staved it off for 10 years were the American loans to Germany that enabled them to at least pay some of the reparations and the revamps of the payment schedules (the Dawes and Young plans).

When the loans ceased, the Germans couldn't pay and this resulted in making the French and British unwilling or unable to pay their debts.

Absent the Versailles treaty and the reparations, the Depression probably would have happened earlier than it did. As to the severity and length of it, who knows?

And we didn't protect much of the 'investment'. The Brits and French never paid back a lot of that money. IIRC, the only power to pay its war debt to the US was Finland.

[Rogue 9]

And we didn't protect much of the 'investment'. The Brits and French never paid back a lot of that money. IIRC, the only power to pay its war debt to the US was Finland.

Yes, but at the time we didn't know that France and Britain were going to stiff us, did we?

[Plekhanov]

And as far as reparations go, insisting that the Germans pay to restore battle damages is one thing, but the French insistance that the Germans pay the entire cost of the war merely set the stage for WW2.

The entire cost of the war? When drawing up the treaty the French did initially demand some extremely high figures but the Brits and the US who both wanted a reasonably strong Germany overruled them.

However you slice it, the Germans came out with the shitty end of the stick from the war.

I reckon the (neutral) Belgians on whose territory much of the war was fought maybe have a greater claim to suffering from the effects of the war.

Oh, and I regard Woodrow Wilson's decision to involve the US in the war as the single greatest policy mistake by any US President in the 20th century.

What you think a continental Europe dominated by Germany would have been in the US’s national interest?

[Perinquus]

The war could have dragged on for much longer had the U.S. not intervened, and I'm inclined to think that the Germans would have won. We had no immediate dog in that fight, but the economic consequences of an even more shattered Europe would have been devastating, even more so than 1929 most likely. Besides, we'd been lending money to Britain and France for a while in the war. Protecting the investment, protecting the investment.

You ought to read Niall Ferguson's book "The Pity of War". He makes a compelling case that Britain really cut its own throat by getting in the war. Even if Germany had beaten France quickly, as she did in 1870 and 1940, and might well have done in 1914 had France not had British help, gaining control of a large part of the continent would not have put Germany in a position to threaten Britain or her colonial possessions, as the British feared. And Britain's participation in WWI drained her so badly economically that she never really recovered.

And it's interesting to imagine a post-WWI Europe where Britain stayed out and Germany won. The German and Austro-Hungarian monarchies survive the war, and possibly so does the Russian one. Or even in the Czar is forced to abdicate in the wake of Russia's military defeat, maybe Kerensky and his subordinates retain power, since in this scenario the Germans would not have likely resorted to shipping V.I. Lenin back in that sealed train. Since Britain would never have undergone the immense economic strain of participating in two world wars, she is not too strained to hold on to her colonial possessions (this could be good or bad depending on your perspective), which potentially means the sun would still not be setting on the British Empire.

And best of all, Hitler spends his days painting postcards in obscurity, finding nothing to be an embittered rabble rouser about in a triumphant postwar German Empire.

[Tribun]

I know it has nothing to do with the Versaills treaty, but my brother has written a novel that plays in a world where WW I never happend. Sadly his site is German only.
Click on "Kaisertag"
Interesting, but like I said, has nothing to do with the treaty.

[TheDarkling]

Perinquus: Why does the author believe a Germany having Europe as its own internal market ( a proto EU, run for Germany by Germany) and possessing all the channel ports and the French colonial empire would be unable to exert enough naval pressure in the channel and north sea to cow Britain?

[Perinquus]

Perinquus: Why does the author believe a Germany having Europe as its own internal market ( a proto EU, run for Germany by Germany) and possessing all the channel ports and the French colonial empire would be unable to exert enough naval pressure in the channel and north sea to cow Britain?

Because that would still not put Germany in a position to directly threaten the British colonial possessions overseas. In 1914, Britain had a huge economic advantage over Germany, and moreover, was in a position where Germany could not directly threaten her effectively, or her economic interests and most of her markets. Even if the Germans had conquered and occupied France they would still have remained economically weaker, and many of the British Empire's economic strongholds would have been quite secure from any conceivable German attack in the event of war. Remember also that even if French defeat were total, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that French colonial possessions would fall to Germany. They might. But Britain might manage to find a pretext for annexing them, and the Germans, lacking means to effect an invasion of the British Isles, especially in the face of the Royal Navy, might find it expedient to swallow this and content itself with its European conquests. Even if the Germans do take French West Africa, Indochina, and the rest, this does not mean they would want to make war on the British.

This British economic advantage would have allowed Britain to win any arms race, just as the U.S. was ultimately far better able to support larger military expenditures than the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. With the economic advantage she had, Britain would simply always have been able to outproduce the Germans. The British don't, after all, need to be strong enough to squash Germany, merely strong enough to deter any aggression. But Britain chose to spend (or perhaps squander) her economic strength in a war from which she could have stood aside. The Germans were beaten, but only with allied help, and only at immense cost.

Incidentally, Ferguson provides evidence that one of the reasons Britain strained herself so hard during the war was inefficient management of manpower and resources during the war - far more so than the Germans - so that she was never able to bring her economic advantages to bear as fully as she should have. The result was that the war was economically costlier for Britain than it really should have been. But this is also likely a thing that no one would have foreseen accurately before 1914.

[TheDarkling]

The German economy was already gaining on the British one and they were further ahead in high tech industries (chemicals, electronics), given Europe as their own internal market they would have easily eclipsed the British economy and thus been able to out build Britain (Britain was constantly trying to limit the naval race because of its cost to us while the Germans could easily afford to expand, by 1900 Germany was already Europe’s leading Steel producer etc). If the Germans control Europe then in any possible war Britain cannot invade and must tie down our ships to the north sea/channel and a little left over for escort duty, there is no way we could defend our colonies and they would be easy game for the Germans and any blockade is likely to be successful.

[Perinquus]

The German economy was already gaining on the British one and they were further ahead in high tech industries (chemicals, electronics), given Europe as their own internal market they would have easily eclipsed the British economy and thus been able to out build Britain (Britain was constantly trying to limit the naval race because of its cost to us while the Germans could easily afford to expand, by 1900 Germany was already Europe’s leading Steel producer etc). If the Germans control Europe then in any possible war Britain cannot invade and must tie down our ships to the north sea/channel and a little left over for escort duty, there is no way we could defend our colonies and they would be easy game for the Germans and any blockade is likely to be successful.

Not really. If Britain cannot invade continental Europe, then Germany is equally unable to invade Britain. Moroever, Britain sits astride all the corridors from the North Sea and Baltic Sea out into the Atlantic. If Germany occupied France permanently, that gives them access to the French Atlantic ports, but it is not likely the Germans would have conquered France and turned it into a German province any more than they did in 1870. Their war plans did not call for that. The Germans wanted the British to stay neutral once war broke out, for obvious reasons. In return for British neutrality, the Germans were prepared to guarantee the territorial integrity of France and Belgium. Chancellor Bethmann Holweg made a statement to that effect to British Ambassador Sir William Goschen on 29 July, 1914. So the specter of a German dominated Belgian coast is simply not a factor.

I also do not see why you think the Germans could tie down the larger British fleet around Europe, and leave the Germans enough of a force left over to invade British colonies. Where would Germany get the capability to attack Canada? Australia? India? And most of Britain's economic markets were overseas, not in Europe. For the most part, a German dominated "proto-EU" in 1914 would largely not have been competing directly with Britain. The closest thing to a threat to Britain would have been the creation of a central, contiguous area of German colonies in central Africa. But there is nothing in this that indicates German plans to break up the British empire overseas.

I also dispute your assertion that a Germany dominant on continental Europe would be economically stronger and able to outbuild Britain. Ferguson provides a lot of economic data in chapter 5 of his book, and they do not indicate this. German society and politics prior to WWI was far less dominated by militarism than most people today seem to think. German defense spending was going down just before WWI, as the Germans devoted more of their budget to infrastructure, social and educational facilities, etc.

The fact is that Germany had limited war aims, and they did not imply a Napoleonic strategy. Many people in Britain felt that there was nothing in the German plans that Britain could not live with. And Britain did in fact come very close to sitting the dance out. The non-interventionists were numerically superior in the British cabinet. It was only at the eleventh hour that the arguments of Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey prevailed, and Britain decided not to remain neutral.

[TheDarkling]

Not really. If Britain cannot invade continental Europe, then Germany is equally unable to invade Britain.

That doesn't follow, Germany has a huge army and Britain doesn't. Germany was trying to bring about a naval equality, which would mean they couldn’t be invaded but possibly could invade.

However Germany need not invade, they simply build up their navy until they can blockade Britain into submission, they will have enough bases dotted about once they take various French colonies.

Moroever, Britain sits astride all the corridors from the North Sea and Baltic Sea out into the Atlantic. If Germany occupied France permanently, that gives them access to the French Atlantic ports, but it is not likely the Germans would have conquered France and turned it into a German province any more than they did in 1870. Their war plans did not call for that.

That was the plan by Sep 1914 and even without British help the war should easily last long enough for the Germans to come to that point here (I doubt France would surrender if the Germans reached Paris, their strategy was to wait for the Russians to save them in the east, although it didn't work out like that).

I also doubt that even if the Germans get a relatively quick victory that they won't crush France.

The Germans wanted the British to stay neutral once war broke out, for obvious reasons. In return for British neutrality, the Germans were prepared to guarantee the territorial integrity of France and Belgium.

So they said, but once they had defeated France what could Britain do to stop them? I cannot in good conscious trust in the good will of the Kaiser.

Chancellor Bethmann Holweg made a statement to that effect to British Ambassador Sir William Goschen on 29 July, 1914. So the specter of a German dominated Belgian coast is simply not a factor.

Indeed he did and as Grey said, it was a disgrace.

I also do not see why you think the Germans could tie down the larger British fleet around Europe, and leave the Germans enough of a force left over to invade British colonies.

The question is for how long Britain could maintain the bigger fleet, with a German dominated continent their economy is going to allow them to out do Britain in a naval race given enough time. At which point Britain is no better than a vassal of Germany.

Where would Germany get the capability to attack Canada? Australia? India? And most of Britain's economic markets were overseas, not in Europe.

If they can cut off the home islands they beat Britain anyway and they wouldn't want the bigger British possessions, just Africa, our Pacific holdings and med islands (and the rock).

Also, saying most of out markets were over seas isn't correct, our second biggest receiver of goods was Germany (the first being India) and the second biggest importer into Britain was also Germany (France comes 5 and 3rd respectively).

True the commonwealth was an important part of our trade but Germany and France weren't insignificant.

For the most part, a German dominated "proto-EU" in 1914 would largely not have been competing directly with Britain. The closest thing to a threat to Britain would have been the creation of a central, contiguous area of German colonies in central Africa. But there is nothing in this that indicates German plans to break up the British empire overseas.

The question is why they wouldn’t if they could? Germany was expansionistic and militaristic, they could get major concessions just by threatening war.

I also dispute your assertion that a Germany dominant on continental Europe would be economically stronger and able to outbuild Britain. Ferguson provides a lot of economic data in chapter 5 of his book, and they do not indicate this. German society and politics prior to WWI was far less dominated by militarism than most people today seem to think. German defense spending was going down just before WWI, as the Germans devoted more of their budget to infrastructure, social and educational facilities, etc.

I realise that (whereas French and Russian spending was increasing) however Germany is going to find itself with Europe completely under their thumb I cannot see them being outdone by Britain.

However I would be interested in seeing what figures the authors presents.

The fact is that Germany had limited war aims, and they did not imply a Napoleonic strategy.

Read Fritz Fischer's "Germany's Aims in the First World War", the definitive work on... well what the title says the subject is.

I have an online excerpt here

Don't kid yourself about just what the Germans were up to.

Many people in Britain felt that there was nothing in the German plans that Britain could not live with. And Britain did in fact come very close to sitting the dance out.

Which could have proved to be a very costly mistake.

The non-interventionists were numerically superior in the British cabinet. It was only at the eleventh hour that the arguments of Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey prevailed, and Britain decided not to remain neutral.

I imagine relying on the good graces of a borderline madman who had been building a fleet to take on the Royal Navy in the North Sea had something to do with it.


Don't get me wrong, Germany could have beaten up France, taken their Empire and turned Europe into Prussia Land Mk II and just decided to leave Britain alone because they were happy to get along with Britain. The problem is Britain is being forced to rely upon the Germans not attacking, if the Germans decide to expand further then Britain is out of options.

[Perinquus]

Not really. If Britain cannot invade continental Europe, then Germany is equally unable to invade Britain.

That doesn't follow, Germany has a huge army and Britain doesn't. Germany was trying to bring about a naval equality, which would mean they couldn’t be invaded but possibly could invade.

With what for landing craft? And the Royal Navy - the larger, better trained Royal Navy - is just going to sit on its hands I suppose?

However Germany need not invade, they simply build up their navy until they can blockade Britain into submission, they will have enough bases dotted about once they take various French colonies.

And of course, Britain will just sit idly by and allow itself to be outcompeted militarily. And of course, this also ignores the issue that the Germans never, in all the most saber-rattling moments seriously suggested they'd ever want to invade Britain. Why would Germany do so?

Moroever, Britain sits astride all the corridors from the North Sea and Baltic Sea out into the Atlantic. If Germany occupied France permanently, that gives them access to the French Atlantic ports, but it is not likely the Germans would have conquered France and turned it into a German province any more than they did in 1870. Their war plans did not call for that.

That was the plan by Sep 1914 and even without British help the war should easily last long enough for the Germans to come to that point here (I doubt France would surrender if the Germans reached Paris, their strategy was to wait for the Russians to save them in the east, although it didn't work out like that).

I also doubt that even if the Germans get a relatively quick victory that they won't crush France.

Crush, yes. Conquer and occupy, no. If they wanted to do that, they could have in 1870, and they didn't. There is nothing to indicate that this was a German war aim.

The Germans wanted the British to stay neutral once war broke out, for obvious reasons. In return for British neutrality, the Germans were prepared to guarantee the territorial integrity of France and Belgium.

So they said, but once they had defeated France what could Britain do to stop them? I cannot in good conscious trust in the good will of the Kaiser.

The Kaiser was not an absolute monarch. Even had Wilhelm been as unstable as that, he could not carry out such a war all on his own initiative. His influence on over policy was neither as consistent or as great as he himself believed (see The Scaremongers: The Advocacy of War and Rearmament, 1896-1914, by A.J.A. Morris).

Even Wilhelm had some understanding of the idea that nations must honor their agreements if they are to retain diplomatic credibility. And if he forgot it, there were plenty of people in the German governement, like Bethmann-Hollweg who did remember. The Germans would likely have honored that agreement because it was in their interest to do so. They had nothing to gain and much to lose by needlessly antagonizing Britain when they wanted a guarantee of British neutrality.

Chancellor Bethmann Holweg made a statement to that effect to British Ambassador Sir William Goschen on 29 July, 1914. So the specter of a German dominated Belgian coast is simply not a factor.

Indeed he did and as Grey said, it was a disgrace.

Which doesn't mean for an instant that the German overture was not sincere, or that they would not have honored it.

I also do not see why you think the Germans could tie down the larger British fleet around Europe, and leave the Germans enough of a force left over to invade British colonies.

The question is for how long Britain could maintain the bigger fleet, with a German dominated continent their economy is going to allow them to out do Britain in a naval race given enough time. At which point Britain is no better than a vassal of Germany.

Sorry, I would like to try and keep this discussion civil, but that is just ridiculous scaremongering. By that reasoning, Britain was a vassal of the Soviet Union because it was less powerful.

And again, your assessment of the supposed invincibility of the German economy is simply not supported by the evidence. Germany was economically rather hard up in the years before the war, as Lord Rothschild observed. The German need to sell bonds on foreign capital markets in 1907, and a large Prussian bond issue in 1908, among other things, are hallmarks of an overstretched economy. Becoming economically dominant after a war victory would have improved their fortunes somewhat, to be sure, but it would not have turned the German economy into the unstoppable juggernaut you seem to think.

The effect would have been to bring about, 80 years earlier, a position of German economic dominance, not unlike that today. The difference would be that unlike today, Britain would still have been strong enough to provide a check to it.

Where would Germany get the capability to attack Canada? Australia? India? And most of Britain's economic markets were overseas, not in Europe.

If they can cut off the home islands they beat Britain anyway and they wouldn't want the bigger British possessions, just Africa, our Pacific holdings and med islands (and the rock).

And you have yet to show how they could effectively cut the islands off in despite of the Royal Navy.

Also, saying most of out markets were over seas isn't correct, our second biggest receiver of goods was Germany (the first being India) and the second biggest importer into Britain was also Germany (France comes 5 and 3rd respectively).

If your first receiver was India, and your second was Germany, how is it inaccurate to say that most of your markets were overseas? And how does German victory over France make it automatic that that German market dries up in any case?

True the commonwealth was an important part of our trade but Germany and France weren't insignificant.

Nevertheless, the commonwealth was more important.

For the most part, a German dominated "proto-EU" in 1914 would largely not have been competing directly with Britain. The closest thing to a threat to Britain would have been the creation of a central, contiguous area of German colonies in central Africa. But there is nothing in this that indicates German plans to break up the British empire overseas.

The question is why they wouldn’t if they could? Germany was expansionistic and militaristic, they could get major concessions just by threatening war.

I say again, Germany was neither as expansionistic nor as militaristic as many people today seem to think. A gret deal of that impression is reinforced by the historical legacy of blaming Germany and German militarism for the war in the aftermath. The victors wrote the history, and wrote it to make the loser look like a bigger bad guy than he really was. The Kaiser was given to saber rattling, and making bellicose statements, but as I have said, his influence was not as great as he thought. There was a strong anti-militarist faction in Germany on the political left, and in no other country on the continent was the leftist, anti-militarist faction stronger. On the eve of WWI, the socialists had 34.8% of the vote in Germany, as compared to 25.4% for Austria, 22% for Belgium, 16.8% for France 17.6% for Italy, and 6.4% for Britain.

I also dispute your assertion that a Germany dominant on continental Europe would be economically stronger and able to outbuild Britain. Ferguson provides a lot of economic data in chapter 5 of his book, and they do not indicate this. German society and politics prior to WWI was far less dominated by militarism than most people today seem to think. German defense spending was going down just before WWI, as the Germans devoted more of their budget to infrastructure, social and educational facilities, etc.

I realise that (whereas French and Russian spending was increasing) however Germany is going to find itself with Europe completely under their thumb I cannot see them being outdone by Britain.

Maybe you can't see it, but Ferguson provides a great deal of economic data in chapter 5 of his book to back up his assertions.

However I would be interested in seeing what figures the authors presents.

See above. I recommend the book. It's not practical for me to reproduce all that information here.

The fact is that Germany had limited war aims, and they did not imply a Napoleonic strategy.

Read Fritz Fischer's "Germany's Aims in the First World War", the definitive work on... well what the title says the subject is.

I have an online excerpt here

Don't kid yourself about just what the Germans were up to.

I'm not. I'm quite familiar with Fischer's arguments. According to Fischer the German war aims were every bit as radical as the British Germanophobes like Grey and Churchill feared - German hegemony over Europe, annexations of French, Belgian, and possibly Russian territory, the founding of a Central European customs union and the creation of new Polish and Baltic states either directly or indirectly under German control, new territory in Africa, and a concerted attempt to break up the British and Russian Empires by fomenting revolutions.

They all rest on an assumption. And it's an assumption that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever - that Germany's aims before the war were the same as they were once war had broken out and it became clear Britain would join in on France's side. Thus Bethmann-Hollweg's "September Programme" - provisional notes for for the direction of German policy, drafted on the assumption of a swift victory in the west - is portrayed as though it was the first open admission of aims which had existed before the outbreak of the war.

The fact is that for all their exhaustive research, neither Fischer nor any of his pupils has ever found a shred of evidence to indicate that this was so. If this was so, then it would mean that this was never committed to paper before that, or that all relevant documents were destroyed or lost, and that all those in the German goverment involved subsequently lied rather than concede legitimacy to the "war guilt" clause of the Versailles Treaty. Frankly, this seems highly unlikely.

All Fischer can produce are the pre-war pipe dreams of a few pan Germans and businessmesn, none of whom had anyu official status in the German government, and the occasional bellicose utterance by the Kaiser, who at the risk of repeating myself, was not the whole German government, and whose influence on policy is overrated.

Conveniently forgotten as well is that for every belligerent utterance of Wilhelm's, you can find a conciliatory one. Before the war, the Kaiser was just as prone to remind British diplomats that "We fought side by side a hundred years ago. I want our two nations to stand together again in front of the Belgian monument at Waterloo." And on 30 July, 1914, the Kaiser expected war with Britain to "bleed Germany dry". As Ferguson points out, this is hardly Napoleonic talk.

Many people in Britain felt that there was nothing in the German plans that Britain could not live with. And Britain did in fact come very close to sitting the dance out.

Which could have proved to be a very costly mistake.

More costly than draining the Empire economically so that Britain could no longer hold onto it after a second round of war? Really? And that is to say nothing of setting the stage for the rise of Red Russia, and of Nazism and Fascism, and perhaps indirectly much of our current troubles with the Middle East, since the establishment of Israel was largely a result of a perceived need to give the Jews a homeland after the Nazi Holocaust.

The non-interventionists were numerically superior in the British cabinet. It was only at the eleventh hour that the arguments of Winston Churchill and Sir Edward Grey prevailed, and Britain decided not to remain neutral.

I imagine relying on the good graces of a borderline madman who had been building a fleet to take on the Royal Navy in the North Sea had something to do with it.

More scaremongering and uncritical repetition of postwar anti-Kaiser propaganda. Wilhelm was given to flights of fancy and unrealistic visions. Describing him as a "borderline madman" is simply not accurate.

Don't get me wrong, Germany could have beaten up France, taken their Empire and turned Europe into Prussia Land Mk II and just decided to leave Britain alone because they were happy to get along with Britain. The problem is Britain is being forced to rely upon the Germans not attacking, if the Germans decide to expand further then Britain is out of options.

And why would the Germans try to take on Britain in such a direct confrontation? Where is your evidence that this is a realistic fear? What are the indications that, even at their most bellicose, the Germans ever contemplated invading and conquering Britain, or even trying to detach British colonial possessions? Given that the Kaiser himself acknowledged that a war with Britain would bleed Germany dry, what did they have to gain that would have been worth the cost?

[TheDarkling]

With what for landing craft? And the Royal Navy - the larger, better trained Royal Navy - is just going to sit on its hands I suppose?

The Germans build landing craft and equalise the size of the HSF and RN, I'm not talking the Germans attack the minute they are done with France. They can wait a decade or two. They may never attack but the fact remains once Britain allows Germany to dominate Europe they cannot be guaranteed victory in a possible naval race and thus the safety of he home islands is gone.

And of course, Britain will just sit idly by and allow itself to be outcompeted militarily. And of course, this also ignores the issue that the Germans never, in all the most saber-rattling moments seriously suggested they'd ever want to invade Britain. Why would Germany do so?

Britain will be facing the combined output of everything East of France and west of the modern Russian border when they were already losing ground to just Germany. This Germany is going to be like modern EU (as Ferguson himself alleges I believe) except run from and for Berlin, the moment Germany doesn’t like a British policy decision they can build a sword of Damocles to force Britain to be compliant.

Crush, yes. Conquer and occupy, no. If they wanted to do that, they could have in 1870, and they didn't. There is nothing to indicate that this was a German war aim.

Except the Chancellors own documents which I have linked you too below. Just because Prussia was interested in unifying Germany during 1870 doesn't mean they aren't interesting unifying Europe in 1914, the documents indicate otherwise.

The Kaiser was not an absolute monarch. Even had Wilhelm been as unstable as that, he could not carry out such a war all on his own initiative. His influence on over policy was neither as consistent or as great as he himself believed (see The Scaremongers: The Advocacy of War and Rearmament, 1896-1914, by A.J.A. Morris).

Even Wilhelm had some understanding of the idea that nations must honor their agreements if they are to retain diplomatic credibility. And if he forgot it, there were plenty of people in the German governement, like Bethmann-Hollweg who did remember. The Germans would likely have honored that agreement because it was in their interest to do so. They had nothing to gain and much to lose by needlessly antagonizing Britain when they wanted a guarantee of British neutrality.

No they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Once they had defeated France and Russia British neutrality meant nothing and honouring that gentlemen’s agreement stood in the way of developing Mitteleuropa.

Which doesn't mean for an instant that the German overture was not sincere, or that they would not have honored it.

They may have but I don't think relying on the Kaisers good will or honesty is a good policy decision.

Sorry, I would like to try and keep this discussion civil, but that is just ridiculous scaremongering. By that reasoning, Britain was a vassal of the Soviet Union because it was less powerful.

No because the Soviet union couldn't attack Britain without any risk, we were under the protection of the USA for a start and even without that it would have been a costly battle for little gain.

And again, your assessment of the supposed invincibility of the German economy is simply not supported by the evidence. Germany was economically rather hard up in the years before the war, as Lord Rothschild observed. The German need to sell bonds on foreign capital markets in 1907, and a large Prussian bond issue in 1908, among other things, are hallmarks of an overstretched economy. Becoming economically dominant after a war victory would have improved their fortunes somewhat, to be sure, but it would not have turned the German economy into the unstoppable juggernaut you seem to think.

The German economy need not be an unstoppable juggernaut unless the British economy is one and by this point the British economy was in systemic decline (not irreversible mind but I see no reason to suppose a German victory will cause a change in policy), again Germany was already out producing Britain in steel. Add in a huge chunk of Europe and the disparity only increases.

The effect would have been to bring about, 80 years earlier, a position of German economic dominance, not unlike that today. The difference would be that unlike today, Britain would still have been strong enough to provide a check to it.

Because Britain is in an economic union, Germany could easily block British access to the continent if they wanted and Britain could do nothing about it.

And you have yet to show how they could effectively cut the islands off in despite of the Royal Navy.

So you think it inconceivable that Germany with a stronger economy than Britain could out build Britain in a naval arms race?

If your first receiver was India, and your second was Germany, how is it inaccurate to say that most of your markets were overseas? And how does German victory over France make it automatic that that German market dries up in any case?

I never said it was inaccurate, just that closing off Europe to Britain would cause economic hardship. As for the Germany market drying up, they would no doubt further reorient to the continent and their proto EU (which isn't to say it will greatly reduce).

Nevertheless, the commonwealth was more important.

Indeed it was, the very reason why the sea lanes must be kept in British hands.

I say again, Germany was neither as expansionistic nor as militaristic as many people today seem to think. A gret deal of that impression is reinforced by the historical legacy of blaming Germany and German militarism for the war in the aftermath.The victors wrote the history, and wrote it to make the loser look like a bigger bad guy than he really was. The Kaiser was given to saber rattling, and making bellicose statements, but as I have said, his influence was not as great as he thought.

I have found the opposite but never mind.

As for the Kaiser not having all that much power, he did have a not inconsiderable amount and the rest of his "staff" were hardly doves.

There was a strong anti-militarist faction in Germany on the political left, and in no other country on the continent was the leftist, anti-militarist faction stronger. On the eve of WWI, the socialists had 34.8% of the vote in Germany, as compared to 25.4% for Austria, 22% for Belgium, 16.8% for France 17.6% for Italy, and 6.4% for Britain.

One can be anti military and not socialist and Germany was far from being a democracy. Power rested primarily with the Kaiser and then the military itself (during the war a junta took over and the civilians only got power when the military looked for somebody to take the fall).

Even if we were to assume that the Kaiser was powerless (not your position I know but bare with me) German policy was still belligerent towards Britain and had been for over a decade, where ever that policy was coming from it was aggressive and was rightly viewed as such.

Maybe you can't see it, but Ferguson provides a great deal of economic data in chapter 5 of his book to back up his assertions.

I don't have the book and was just wondering whether you could write a few facts (GDP, steel production, % economy in sectors) that he uses to back up his position.

See above. I recommend the book. It's not practical for me to reproduce all that information here.

I was only looking for a couple of figures but ok, I still don't see how the up and coming German economy with all of Europe behind it couldn't out build Britain.

The fact is that for all their exhaustive research, neither Fischer nor any of his pupils has ever found a shred of evidence to indicate that this was so. If this was so, then it would mean that this was never committed to paper before that, or that all relevant documents were destroyed or lost, and that all those in the German goverment involved subsequently lied rather than concede legitimacy to the "war guilt" clause of the Versailles Treaty. Frankly, this seems highly unlikely.

And yet no documents pointed to exactly what they wanted before the war exist probably because the war sprung up from nowhere as for the war guilt cause, how does Germany taking an opportunity to grab a bunch of land mean they started the war (although I would argue they are guilty of starting the war it doesn't necessarily follow from extravagant war aims once the war is on).

Conveniently forgotten as well is that for every belligerent utterance of Wilhelm's, you can find a conciliatory one. Before the war, the Kaiser was just as prone to remind British diplomats that "We fought side by side a hundred years ago. I want our two nations to stand together again in front of the Belgian monument at Waterloo." And on 30 July, 1914, the Kaiser expected war with Britain to "bleed Germany dry". As Ferguson points out, this is hardly Napoleonic talk.

The Kaiser was a moron, The Daily telegraph affair proves that, his refusal to come to an accommodation over the fleet prove Britain would be unwise to be at his mercy.

More costly than draining the Empire economically so that Britain could no longer hold onto it after a second round of war? Really? And that is to say nothing of setting the stage for the rise of Red Russia, and of Nazism and Fascism, and perhaps indirectly much of our current troubles with the Middle East, since the establishment of Israel was largely a result of a perceived need to give the Jews a homeland after the Nazi Holocaust.

Compared to an autocratic Germany ruling Europe, Africa and the Middle East?

If you want to build a better world a federated British Empire is the way to go (and I usually smash the USA just for fun).

More scaremongering and uncritical repetition of postwar anti-Kaiser propaganda. Wilhelm was given to flights of fancy and unrealistic visions. Describing him as a "borderline madman" is simply not accurate.

His personal writings and the daily telegraph affair prove him to both out of touch and prone to anger and feelings of betrayal. His desire for a fleet and general demeanour have often be attributed to an inferiority complex about his withered arm and I have seen recent studies that point to him having brain damage as a result of his birth. The Kaiser was not a stable or rational individual and he was not somebody who you wanted to rely upon.

And why would the Germans try to take on Britain in such a direct confrontation? Where is your evidence that this is a realistic fear? What are the indications that, even at their most bellicose, the Germans ever contemplated invading and conquering Britain, or even trying to detach British colonial possessions? Given that the Kaiser himself acknowledged that a war with Britain would bleed Germany dry, what did they have to gain that would have been worth the cost?

The Germans could try to take South Africa (they had already supported the Boers) or other parts of British Africa, tack larger chunks of China and so forth. Forcing unfavourable trade agreements would also be possible and other such measures.

Allowing the Germans to rule Europe is too great a risk to Britain should they decide to become belligerent and it was why they had to be opposed.

If you were correct and the war would result in just a little roughing up of Russia and France then it may be ok to let Germany have its way but there is no way to know that for sure and the risk that they will just become more powerful and threaten Britain down the road makes the declaration of war the safe choice.

[Perinquus]

With what for landing craft? And the Royal Navy - the larger, better trained Royal Navy - is just going to sit on its hands I suppose?

The Germans build landing craft and equalise the size of the HSF and RN, I'm not talking the Germans attack the minute they are done with France. They can wait a decade or two. They may never attack but the fact remains once Britain allows Germany to dominate Europe they cannot be guaranteed victory in a possible naval race and thus the safety of he home islands is gone.

With the entire Empire, with her grip on it unweakened by the strain of pushing her economy to the brink in order to finance fighting in two enormous wars, and with cultivating ties with a generally Anglophile U.S. Britain maintains sufficient economic strength to be competitive.

And of course, Britain will just sit idly by and allow itself to be outcompeted militarily. And of course, this also ignores the issue that the Germans never, in all the most saber-rattling moments seriously suggested they'd ever want to invade Britain. Why would Germany do so?

Britain will be facing the combined output of everything East of France and west of the modern Russian border when they were already losing ground to just Germany. This Germany is going to be like modern EU (as Ferguson himself alleges I believe) except run from and for Berlin, the moment Germany doesn’t like a British policy decision they can build a sword of Damocles to force Britain to be compliant.

But unlike the modern world, Britain has all her colonial resources firmly in her grasp as a check on this continental economic power. That is the central point (of this tangent in the thread) you seem to be missing. We are analyzing the decision with the benefit of hindsight, from the British point of view, and trying to answer the question of whether entering the war was good or bad for Britain. And the fact is that the decision Britain did make led directly to her economic decline, loss of her empire, and decline as a world power. It's hard to imagine a worse outcome from the British point of view.

Even if Germany had become as dominant as you say, the situation would be a strong, Imperial Britain, economically unstrained, and still in possession of her empire, still potentially one of the world's superpowers, facing a strong economic and military rival on the continent, most probably with the help of an American ally. Compare that to the real situation today: a Britain deteriorated to a second rate power with its imperial possessions long gone... still faced with a strong economic power on the continent, and one of which it is today becoming a satellite rather than a counter. In light of this, I find your assertion that joining the war was better for Britain surprising.

Crush, yes. Conquer and occupy, no. If they wanted to do that, they could have in 1870, and they didn't. There is nothing to indicate that this was a German war aim.

Except the Chancellors own documents which I have linked you too below. Just because Prussia was interested in unifying Germany during 1870 doesn't mean they aren't interesting unifying Europe in 1914, the documents indicate otherwise.

Again, this is the "Sepetmber Programme", and there is not a shred of evidence that these were German aims before the war, as opposed to measures they decided they needed to take for their own security after the war began.

The Kaiser was not an absolute monarch. Even had Wilhelm been as unstable as that, he could not carry out such a war all on his own initiative. His influence on over policy was neither as consistent or as great as he himself believed (see The Scaremongers: The Advocacy of War and Rearmament, 1896-1914, by A.J.A. Morris).

Even Wilhelm had some understanding of the idea that nations must honor their agreements if they are to retain diplomatic credibility. And if he forgot it, there were plenty of people in the German governement, like Bethmann-Hollweg who did remember. The Germans would likely have honored that agreement because it was in their interest to do so. They had nothing to gain and much to lose by needlessly antagonizing Britain when they wanted a guarantee of British neutrality.

No they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Once they had defeated France and Russia British neutrality meant nothing and honouring that gentlemen’s agreement stood in the way of developing Mitteleuropa.

Hogwash. Reneging on that agreement could lead directly to a costly and uncertain war with Britain. Honoring it could prevent that outcome. Even after the war, reneging on the agreement could lead to heightened tensions with Britain that would push the two nations toward a war, when there is no evidence whatsoever that the Germans wanted war with Britain.

Which doesn't mean for an instant that the German overture was not sincere, or that they would not have honored it.

They may have but I don't think relying on the Kaisers good will or honesty is a good policy decision.

And I don't think getting into a war whose cost was so ruinous that it put the British Empire into an irreversible economic decline was a good policy decision.

Since there was absolutely no inevitability of war between Germany and Britain, and since there is abundant evidence that even inconsistent Wilhelm was quite willing to coexist with Britain, I have a hard time understanding how you can contend that Britain cutting its own throat economically by joining the war was better than staying out and remaining a superpower, even if that meant having a powerful rival where there was none before.

Sorry, I would like to try and keep this discussion civil, but that is just ridiculous scaremongering. By that reasoning, Britain was a vassal of the Soviet Union because it was less powerful.

No because the Soviet union couldn't attack Britain without any risk, we were under the protection of the USA for a start and even without that it would have been a costly battle for little gain.

And Germany could attack Britain without risk? Really? With the world's most powerful navy and the resources of a huge globe-spanning empire to draw upon Britain presented a risk-free target to Germany? Time for a reality check.

The situation, at worst, would likely result in a cold-war type standoff. Both sides are too powerful to be attacked safely by the other. The risks and the costs would outweigh any conceivable gain.

And again, your assessment of the supposed invincibility of the German economy is simply not supported by the evidence. Germany was economically rather hard up in the years before the war, as Lord Rothschild observed. The German need to sell bonds on foreign capital markets in 1907, and a large Prussian bond issue in 1908, among other things, are hallmarks of an overstretched economy. Becoming economically dominant after a war victory would have improved their fortunes somewhat, to be sure, but it would not have turned the German economy into the unstoppable juggernaut you seem to think.

The German economy need not be an unstoppable juggernaut unless the British economy is one and by this point the British economy was in systemic decline (not irreversible mind but I see no reason to suppose a German victory will cause a change in policy), again Germany was already out producing Britain in steel. Add in a huge chunk of Europe and the disparity only increases.

And this is worse than how the situation really turned out, with Britain losing her superpower status?

Steel production is hardly sole indicator of economic strength. The Germans may have been outproducing Britain in steel, but Britain's national debt was at a historic low - just 28%, which was far less than the other great powers of the day. Britain also had the biggest and most sophisticated money market in the world.

Germany's public debt on the eve of the war was about 60% of her gross national product. France's was 86%. This is not the picture of an economic powerhouse that was about to take off and drive British economy into the ground.

The effect would have been to bring about, 80 years earlier, a position of German economic dominance, not unlike that today. The difference would be that unlike today, Britain would still have been strong enough to provide a check to it.

Because Britain is in an economic union, Germany could easily block British access to the continent if they wanted and Britain could do nothing about it.

But the bulk of her economy was devoted to markets other than the continent. Losing that market would hurt. But it is not inevitable that that market will be closed. And even if it were, it would not be crippling. Meanwhile, Britain would not be at all helpless in a trade war.

And you have yet to show how they could effectively cut the islands off in despite of the Royal Navy.

So you think it inconceivable that Germany with a stronger economy than Britain could out build Britain in a naval arms race?

I don't think it is conceivable that Germany can build a big enough navy to make invading the British Isles anything other than a proposition too costly by far to be worth hazarding.

If your first receiver was India, and your second was Germany, how is it inaccurate to say that most of your markets were overseas? And how does German victory over France make it automatic that that German market dries up in any case?

I never said it was inaccurate, just that closing off Europe to Britain would cause economic hardship. As for the Germany market drying up, they would no doubt further reorient to the continent and their proto EU (which isn't to say it will greatly reduce).

It would cause hardship, but it will not cripple the British economy, and a trade war would hurt Germany badly as well.

Nevertheless, the commonwealth was more important.

Indeed it was, the very reason why the sea lanes must be kept in British hands.

And I do not see Germany as being able to build a big enough navy to wrest this away from Britain. They can build big enough to become a rival, but not enough eclipse.

I say again, Germany was neither as expansionistic nor as militaristic as many people today seem to think. A gret deal of that impression is reinforced by the historical legacy of blaming Germany and German militarism for the war in the aftermath.The victors wrote the history, and wrote it to make the loser look like a bigger bad guy than he really was. The Kaiser was given to saber rattling, and making bellicose statements, but as I have said, his influence was not as great as he thought.

I have found the opposite but never mind.

As for the Kaiser not having all that much power, he did have a not inconsiderable amount and the rest of his "staff" were hardly doves.

And yet anti-militarist forces were stronger in Germany than elsewhere, and as I said, German militarism has been exagerrated.

There was a strong anti-militarist faction in Germany on the political left, and in no other country on the continent was the leftist, anti-militarist faction stronger. On the eve of WWI, the socialists had 34.8% of the vote in Germany, as compared to 25.4% for Austria, 22% for Belgium, 16.8% for France 17.6% for Italy, and 6.4% for Britain.

One can be anti military and not socialist and Germany was far from being a democracy. Power rested primarily with the Kaiser and then the military itself (during the war a junta took over and the civilians only got power when the military looked for somebody to take the fall).

And if Britain had stayed out, and Germany had achieved a swift victory, that junta would not have taken over.

Even if the German government was not wholly democratic this simply does not mean that the Kaiser could order it off on reckless military adventures and the rest of the country would just march along obediently. And even as inconsistent as Wilhelm could be, he still had enough sense left to see weigh costs against benefits. A war with Britain would have been costly enough to outweigh any conceivable gain.

Even if we were to assume that the Kaiser was powerless (not your position I know but bare with me) German policy was still belligerent towards Britain and had been for over a decade, where ever that policy was coming from it was aggressive and was rightly viewed as such.

Hostile is not the word I would use. Competitive would fit better. Wilhelm wanted to rival Britain as a power, not war with it.

Maybe you can't see it, but Ferguson provides a great deal of economic data in chapter 5 of his book to back up his assertions.

I don't have the book and was just wondering whether you could write a few facts (GDP, steel production, % economy in sectors) that he uses to back up his position.

See above. I recommend the book. It's not practical for me to reproduce all that information here.

I was only looking for a couple of figures but ok, I still don't see how the up and coming German economy with all of Europe behind it couldn't out build Britain.

Because Britain was spending less of its GNP as part of its public expenses than Germany was. Britain could more easily afford to increase spending. Between 1890 and 1913, Germany increased military spending 158% compared to 117% for Britain. There was simply less room for Germany to ratchet up military spending than there was for Britain.

Britain also had more leeway to raise taxes. The historian J.M. Hobson estimated that the British could have supported a tax to raise a a conscript army of between 1 and 2 million men. Germany, had a federal system that gave the federal states an effective monopoly on direct taxation. There were a great many political obstacles to reforming the tax mechanism as well. This made it more difficult for the Germans to bring their economic resources to bear in war.

The fact is that for all their exhaustive research, neither Fischer nor any of his pupils has ever found a shred of evidence to indicate that this was so. If this was so, then it would mean that this was never committed to paper before that, or that all relevant documents were destroyed or lost, and that all those in the German goverment involved subsequently lied rather than concede legitimacy to the "war guilt" clause of the Versailles Treaty. Frankly, this seems highly unlikely.

And yet no documents pointed to exactly what they wanted before the war exist probably because the war sprung up from nowhere as for the war guilt cause, how does Germany taking an opportunity to grab a bunch of land mean they started the war (although I would argue they are guilty of starting the war it doesn't necessarily follow from extravagant war aims once the war is on).

The guilt clause is relevant because if the Germans conceded that those were pre-war aims, they would essentially be admitting the correctness of the guilt clause - admitting that Germany was guilty of starting the war in order to further her territorial ambitions.

Conveniently forgotten as well is that for every belligerent utterance of Wilhelm's, you can find a conciliatory one. Before the war, the Kaiser was just as prone to remind British diplomats that "We fought side by side a hundred years ago. I want our two nations to stand together again in front of the Belgian monument at Waterloo." And on 30 July, 1914, the Kaiser expected war with Britain to "bleed Germany dry". As Ferguson points out, this is hardly Napoleonic talk.

The Kaiser was a moron, The Daily telegraph affair proves that, his refusal to come to an accommodation over the fleet prove Britain would be unwise to be at his mercy.

Another distortion! Just because the Kaiser's armies could defeat France on the continent does not put Britain "at his mercy". This is just ridiculous! Britain would still be a mighty imperial power with vast resources to draw upon - a tremendously formidable opponent for Germany to take on. How this could translate to Britain being "at his mercy" I can't imagine.

More costly than draining the Empire economically so that Britain could no longer hold onto it after a second round of war? Really? And that is to say nothing of setting the stage for the rise of Red Russia, and of Nazism and Fascism, and perhaps indirectly much of our current troubles with the Middle East, since the establishment of Israel was largely a result of a perceived need to give the Jews a homeland after the Nazi Holocaust.

Compared to an autocratic Germany ruling Europe, Africa and the Middle East?

If you want to build a better world a federated British Empire is the way to go (and I usually smash the USA just for fun).

And this is a possibility? We're talking about the alternatives actually available in 1914, not ideal fantasies. Britain can either stay out of the war and remain a great power, now faced with a German rival; or join in and help defeat Germany at the cost of bleeding herself white economically and declining as a great power.

And try as I might, I can't imagine Imperial Germany as worse than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

More scaremongering and uncritical repetition of postwar anti-Kaiser propaganda. Wilhelm was given to flights of fancy and unrealistic visions. Describing him as a "borderline madman" is simply not accurate.

His personal writings and the daily telegraph affair prove him to both out of touch and prone to anger and feelings of betrayal. His desire for a fleet and general demeanour have often be attributed to an inferiority complex about his withered arm and I have seen recent studies that point to him having brain damage as a result of his birth. The Kaiser was not a stable or rational individual and he was not somebody who you wanted to rely upon.

And regardless of the Kaiser's personal inclinations, he was constrained from doing absolutely anything he liked. Even as unstable as he was, he ruled for decades without any conflagration. And when war did break out, it was more the fault of Austro-Hungarian intransigence than any policies or adventurism or Wilhelm's.

And why would the Germans try to take on Britain in such a direct confrontation? Where is your evidence that this is a realistic fear? What are the indications that, even at their most bellicose, the Germans ever contemplated invading and conquering Britain, or even trying to detach British colonial possessions? Given that the Kaiser himself acknowledged that a war with Britain would bleed Germany dry, what did they have to gain that would have been worth the cost?

The Germans could try to take South Africa (they had already supported the Boers) or other parts of British Africa, tack larger chunks of China and so forth. Forcing unfavourable trade agreements would also be possible and other such measures.

Allowing the Germans to rule Europe is too great a risk to Britain should they decide to become belligerent and it was why they had to be opposed.

If you were correct and the war would result in just a little roughing up of Russia and France then it may be ok to let Germany have its way but there is no way to know that for sure and the risk that they will just become more powerful and threaten Britain down the road makes the declaration of war the safe choice.

Given the fact that participation in two world wars led directly to Britain ceasing to be a superpower, and set the stage for the rise of Communism and Fascism, I disagree.

[TheDarkling]

With the entire Empire, with her grip on it unweakened by the strain of pushing her economy to the brink in order to finance fighting in two enormous wars, and with cultivating ties with a generally Anglophile U.S. Britain maintains sufficient economic strength to be competitive.

Britain can't hang onto the empire forever and large parts of it are a net drain on the economy anyway and I like relying upon the US to save us about as much as I like relying upon the Germans to be nice to us.

But unlike the modern world, Britain has all her colonial resources firmly in her grasp as a check on this continental economic power. That is the central point (of this tangent in the thread) you seem to be missing. We are analyzing the decision with the benefit of hindsight, from the British point of view, and trying to answer the question of whether entering the war was good or bad for Britain. And the fact is that the decision Britain did make led directly to her economic decline, loss of her empire, and decline as a world power. It's hard to imagine a worse outcome from the British point of view.

No it isn't, a continent dominated by Germany but Britain in a very weak position which the Germans could well have used against us. Sure things didn't turn out that good but at least Britain and Europe are now allies and democracies let Germany win and they become at best rivals and autocracies.

Even if Germany had become as dominant as you say, the situation would be a strong, Imperial Britain, economically unstrained, and still in possession of her empire, still potentially one of the world's superpowers, facing a strong economic and military rival on the continent, most probably with the help of an American ally.

Why with the help of an American ally?

Compare that to the real situation today: a Britain deteriorated to a second rate power with its imperial possessions long gone... still faced with a strong economic power on the continent, and one of which it is today becoming a satellite rather than a counter. In light of this, I find your assertion that joining the war was better for Britain surprising.

The difference is Germany cannot bully us into anything, they have no military capable of it and they need the EU just as much as everybody else.

Again, this is the "Sepetmber Programme", and there is not a shred of evidence that these were German aims before the war, as opposed to measures they decided they needed to take for their own security after the war began.

And we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't take such actions if they could.

Hogwash. Reneging on that agreement could lead directly to a costly and uncertain war with Britain.

You seriously think Britain will go to war now that Germany has defeated every ally on the continent? We have lost our window by that point.

Honoring it could prevent that outcome. Even after the war, reneging on the agreement could lead to heightened tensions with Britain that would push the two nations toward a war, when there is no evidence whatsoever that the Germans wanted war with Britain.

Germany will do what is in (the Kaisers and chums view of) their best interests, sooner or later that means Germany has to control the sea lanes and they had already been building the HSF to club Britain with - now they have the economic strength to do that.

And I don't think getting into a war whose cost was so ruinous that it put the British Empire into an irreversible economic decline was a good policy decision.

Since there was absolutely no inevitability of war between Germany and Britain, and since there is abundant evidence that even inconsistent Wilhelm was quite willing to coexist with Britain, I have a hard time understanding how you can contend that Britain cutting its own throat economically by joining the war was better than staying out and remaining a superpower, even if that meant having a powerful rival where there was none before.

You aren't a super power if another nation can easily force unfavourable terms because they can strangle your lines of communication. Germany was already building a fleet with but one purpose, now with the only rival to German domination being Britain you think they won't build up that fleet? And you then think that the next clash over something the Germans won't use the fleet as a way to browbeat Britain into an agreement?

And Germany could attack Britain without risk? Really? With the world's most powerful navy and the resources of a huge globe-spanning empire to draw upon Britain presented a risk-free target to Germany? Time for a reality check.

The Germans can and will out build Britain, Churchill was already bugging the German ambassador so much about the fleet (and the unfair strain it placed on the British people) that he had it removed from any future itinerary.

With continental Europe behind the Germans, Britain cannot maintain dominance, in the north sea, channel, med and also maintain enough troops in Africa and the middle east to prevent German adventures there. Britain's one asset is the fact that our navy was the biggest, take that away and we become very vulnerable.

The situation, at worst, would likely result in a cold-war type standoff. Both sides are too powerful to be attacked safely by the other. The risks and the costs would outweigh any conceivable gain.

You don't seem to understand that the Kaisers EU would easily out build Britain, once that is done Britain can do nothing other than what Germany says.

And this is worse than how the situation really turned out, with Britain losing her superpower status?

Steel production is hardly sole indicator of economic strength. The Germans may have been outproducing Britain in steel, but Britain's national debt was at a historic low - just 28%, which was far less than the other great powers of the day. Britain also had the biggest and most sophisticated money market in the world.

Germany's public debt on the eve of the war was about 60% of her gross national product. France's was 86%. This is not the picture of an economic powerhouse that was about to take off and drive British economy into the ground.

Watch how fast the German national debt disappears once Russia and France are forced to pay it off.

But the bulk of her economy was devoted to markets other than the continent. Losing that market would hurt. But it is not inevitable that that market will be closed. And even if it were, it would not be crippling. Meanwhile, Britain would not be at all helpless in a trade war.

It would only be a trade war until the Germans bring the new super fleet to bear.

I don't think it is conceivable that Germany can build a big enough navy to make invading the British Isles anything other than a proposition too costly by far to be worth hazarding.

And I would disagree, Germany's naval building program was already putting strain on the British economy, a Germany able to devote more to its navy that its army, a Germany with all of Europe at its disposal, a Germany that was already out doing Britain and the gap was only going to grow, such a Germany would be able to force the British into a subservient position without firing a shot just by hurting the British economy trying to keep up with the ship building. Let us also not forget that Italy and A-H will have their fleets to challenge Britain in the Med (no doubt with some German help), Britain can and would be out built and wrecked economically trying to prevent it.

It would cause hardship, but it will not cripple the British economy, and a trade war would hurt Germany badly as well.

I'm sure all of Europe will more than make up the loss in the British market.

And I do not see Germany as being able to build a big enough navy to wrest this away from Britain. They can build big enough to become a rival, but not enough eclipse.

If Germany becomes a rival to Britain, Britain is already exhausted from trying to keep up.

And yet anti-militarist forces were stronger in Germany than elsewhere, and as I said, German militarism has been exagerrated.

You haven't proved the former and while the alter may be true its doesn't change teh fact that they were militaristic.

And if Britain had stayed out, and Germany had achieved a swift victory, that junta would not have taken over.

No they wouldn't and the Kaiser would still be in charge with them just beneath him.

Even if the German government was not wholly democratic this simply does not mean that the Kaiser could order it off on reckless military adventures and the rest of the country would just march along obediently. And even as inconsistent as Wilhelm could be, he still had enough sense left to see weigh costs against benefits. A war with Britain would have been costly enough to outweigh any conceivable gain.

Until confrontation with Britain gives him a good reason to build that mighty fleet he always wanted.

Hostile is not the word I would use. Competitive would fit better. Wilhelm wanted to rival Britain as a power, not war with it.

Again he need not war with it to put Britain under his thumb, only contest British control of the Sea Lanes.

Because Britain was spending less of its GNP as part of its public expenses than Germany was. Britain could more easily afford to increase spending. Between 1890 and 1913, Germany increased military spending 158% compared to 117% for Britain. There was simply less room for Germany to ratchet up military spending than there was for Britain.

But the Germany economy was going to naturally overtake the British one anyway, British industry was already beginning to become competitive (thus the ideas for Imperial Preference and so on) with all of Europe added to that Britain is heavily out classed.

Britain also had more leeway to raise taxes. The historian J.M. Hobson estimated that the British could have supported a tax to raise a a conscript army of between 1 and 2 million men. Germany, had a federal system that gave the federal states an effective monopoly on direct taxation. There were a great many political obstacles to reforming the tax mechanism as well. This made it more difficult for the Germans to bring their economic resources to bear in war.

I agree with that however it is not an insurmountable task, you also have to remember that the German army will get down sized in favour of the Navy.

The guilt clause is relevant because if the Germans conceded that those were pre-war aims, they would essentially be admitting the correctness of the guilt clause - admitting that Germany was guilty of starting the war in order to further her territorial ambitions.

No they wouldn't, just because Germany had decided to take X,Y,Z in the event of a war with France does not mean they started said war with France. Under your reasoning France has obvious war guilt because they gained territory.

Another distortion! Just because the Kaiser's armies could defeat France on the continent does not put Britain "at his mercy". This is just ridiculous! Britain would still be a mighty imperial power with vast resources to draw upon - a tremendously formidable opponent for Germany to take on. How this could translate to Britain being "at his mercy" I can't imagine.

Because once Germany has the bigger navy Britain is stuffed, these vast resources don't really mean all that much when the centre of British power (the home islands) was in decline.

And this is a possibility? We're talking about the alternatives actually available in 1914, not ideal fantasies. Britain can either stay out of the war and remain a great power, now faced with a German rival; or join in and help defeat Germany at the cost of bleeding herself white economically and declining as a great power.

Britain did what she had to do.

And try as I might, I can't imagine Imperial Germany as worse than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Oh imperial Germany wasn't the Nazis (although working Africans to death in labour camps and Goerings father ordering the extermination of one particular tribe were nice precursors) but the Nazis were defeated, what will happen to this Imperial Germany? As for the Soviets, there is no need to assume that something nasty isn't going to happen in Russia once they are beaten (probably not the USSR though).

And regardless of the Kaiser's personal inclinations, he was constrained from doing absolutely anything he liked. Even as unstable as he was, he ruled for decades without any conflagration. And when war did break out, it was more the fault of Austro-Hungarian intransigence than any policies or adventurism or Wilhelm's.

It was Wilhelm giving them the thumbs up that did it and his Chancellor didn’t have the power o stop events (so he wasn't all that constrained, except possibly by the military who I also wouldn't like to put in a position of power over me).

Given the fact that participation in two world wars led directly to Britain ceasing to be a superpower, and set the stage for the rise of Communism and Fascism, I disagree.

Given the fact that Britain is a free nation now and has been for the 100 years, given the fact that France and Western Europe has been for 60 years I think an autocratic regime running the show is not preferable.

The main point of disagreement we have here is that you think Germany will just make it a quick war with very little in the way of gains, I disagree, I see a proto EU run from Berlin and one run by people who had already show belligerency towards Britain.

[Colonel Olrik]

If the situation in the british colonies was as stable as Peringuus implies (something I doubt, the calls for independence were strong and hard to fight in an increasingly civilized empire, but anyway..) wouldn't it be perfectly possible to just transfer the Empire's power centers and other major assets to Canada, or India, or some other absolutely secure location?

With some decades of heavy industrialization in the rest of the Empire, wouldn't it be able to easily outproduce Europe?

[TheDarkling]

If the situation in the british colonies was as stable as Peringuus implies (something I doubt, the calls for independence were strong and hard to fight in an increasingly civilized empire, but anyway..) wouldn't it be perfectly possible to just transfer the Empire's power centers and other major assets to Canada, or India, or some other absolutely secure location?

With some decades of heavy industrialization in the rest of the Empire, wouldn't it be able to easily outproduce Europe?

The British public will vote out any government threatening to transfer their jobs aboard and the entrenched industries will scream bloody murder if you set up competition within the imperial trade sphere (by this point British industry was falling behind due to investment money flowing over seas instead of being used within the UK and industries felt no need to modernise when unions objected and Canada, Australia and India etc had no choice but to buy our goods anyway).

To get a more industrialised commonwealth (and one which works for mutual good and thus stays strong) you need an earlier POD.

[Sea Skimmer]

If the situation in the british colonies was as stable as Peringuus implies (something I doubt, the calls for independence were strong and hard to fight in an increasingly civilized empire, but anyway..) wouldn't it be perfectly possible to just transfer the Empire's power centers and other major assets to Canada, or India, or some other absolutely secure location?

With some decades of heavy industrialization in the rest of the Empire, wouldn't it be able to easily outproduce Europe?

Umm, no. There's no way for the British to pay for any massive industrialization effort overseas. The empire was already a huge drain on British finances, there's no way they can afford to send even more money into them. Simply policing the whole thing was becoming very difficult, and defending it against external attack was getting even worse. I hate to think how many cruisers the Royal navy would need if it had to guard even more shipping and overseas centers of trade.

[Glocksman]

If nothing else, the US would have benefited from sitting out the war.
Wilhelm II may have had his mental problems, but he also wasn't an absolute despot with the powers of the Russian Tsar either.

Imperial Germany was no threat to the US.

As far as the UK goes, Germany was most certainly an economic threat as German industry developed and competed with British industries. But then again, the US was an economic threat to British industry.

As for being a military threat, what were Germany's war aims?
To merely defeat France? To occupy France? Back up the Austro-Hungarians?

IMHO, the French were spoiling for a rematch after the 1870 war and suckered the British into helping them after the Germans made the mistake of violating Belgian neutrality.

[Perinquus]

With the entire Empire, with her grip on it unweakened by the strain of pushing her economy to the brink in order to finance fighting in two enormous wars, and with cultivating ties with a generally Anglophile U.S. Britain maintains sufficient economic strength to be competitive.

Britain can't hang onto the empire forever and large parts of it are a net drain on the economy anyway and I like relying upon the US to save us about as much as I like relying upon the Germans to be nice to us.

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.

But unlike the modern world, Britain has all her colonial resources firmly in her grasp as a check on this continental economic power. That is the central point (of this tangent in the thread) you seem to be missing. We are analyzing the decision with the benefit of hindsight, from the British point of view, and trying to answer the question of whether entering the war was good or bad for Britain. And the fact is that the decision Britain did make led directly to her economic decline, loss of her empire, and decline as a world power. It's hard to imagine a worse outcome from the British point of view.

No it isn't, a continent dominated by Germany but Britain in a very weak position which the Germans could well have used against us. Sure things didn't turn out that good but at least Britain and Europe are now allies and democracies let Germany win and they become at best rivals and autocracies.

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.

Even if Germany had become as dominant as you say, the situation would be a strong, Imperial Britain, economically unstrained, and still in possession of her empire, still potentially one of the world's superpowers, facing a strong economic and military rival on the continent, most probably with the help of an American ally.

Why with the help of an American ally?

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.

Compare that to the real situation today: a Britain deteriorated to a second rate power with its imperial possessions long gone... still faced with a strong economic power on the continent, and one of which it is today becoming a satellite rather than a counter. In light of this, I find your assertion that joining the war was better for Britain surprising.

The difference is Germany cannot bully us into anything, they have no military capable of it and they need the EU just as much as everybody else.

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

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.

Again, this is the "Sepetmber Programme", and there is not a shred of evidence that these were German aims before the war, as opposed to measures they decided they needed to take for their own security after the war began.

And we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't take such actions if they could.

I repeat: There's no evidence for it.

Hogwash. Reneging on that agreement could lead directly to a costly and uncertain war with Britain.

You seriously think Britain will go to war now that Germany has defeated every ally on the continent? We have lost our window by that point.

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. 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.

Honoring it could prevent that outcome. Even after the war, reneging on the agreement could lead to heightened tensions with Britain that would push the two nations toward a war, when there is no evidence whatsoever that the Germans wanted war with Britain.

Germany will do what is in (the Kaisers and chums view of) their best interests, sooner or later that means Germany has to control the sea lanes and they had already been building the HSF to club Britain with - now they have the economic strength to do that.

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.

And I don't think getting into a war whose cost was so ruinous that it put the British Empire into an irreversible economic decline was a good policy decision.

Since there was absolutely no inevitability of war between Germany and Britain, and since there is abundant evidence that even inconsistent Wilhelm was quite willing to coexist with Britain, I have a hard time understanding how you can contend that Britain cutting its own throat economically by joining the war was better than staying out and remaining a superpower, even if that meant having a powerful rival where there was none before.

You aren't a super power if another nation can easily force unfavourable terms because they can strangle your lines of communication. Germany was already building a fleet with but one purpose, now with the only rival to German domination being Britain you think they won't build up that fleet? And you then think that the next clash over something the Germans won't use the fleet as a way to browbeat Britain into an agreement?

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.

And Germany could attack Britain without risk? Really? With the world's most powerful navy and the resources of a huge globe-spanning empire to draw upon Britain presented a risk-free target to Germany? Time for a reality check.

The Germans can and will out build Britain, Churchill was already bugging the German ambassador so much about the fleet (and the unfair strain it placed on the British people) that he had it removed from any future itinerary.

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.

With continental Europe behind the Germans, Britain cannot maintain dominance, in the north sea, channel, med and also maintain enough troops in Africa and the middle east to prevent German adventures there. Britain's one asset is the fact that our navy was the biggest, take that away and we become very vulnerable.

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?

The situation, at worst, would likely result in a cold-war type standoff. Both sides are too powerful to be attacked safely by the other. The risks and the costs would outweigh any conceivable gain.

You don't seem to understand that the Kaisers EU would easily out build Britain, once that is done Britain can do nothing other than what Germany says.

Rubbish. You have yet to provide good evidence that the Kaiser's EU could outbuild Britain. You've mentioned steel production so far, but that's it. This model of the relationship between econmics and power is not complete. It is quite true that between 1890 and 1913 German exports were growing faster than her European rivals, and that its gross domestic capital formation was the highest in Europe. And if one calculates the growth rate for Germany's population (1.34% per annum), GNP (2.78%), and steel production (6.54%), there is no question that Germany was outstripping both Britain and France between 1890 and 1914.

However, the most important economic factor in early 20th century world politics was not the growth of German economic power, but the vast extent of British financial power. Already by the 1850s, British overseas investments totalled in the region of £200 million. In the second half of the 19th century, there were three huge waves of capital export. In absolute terms this led to a huge accumulation of foreign assets, rising more than tenfold from £370 million in 1860 to £3.9 billion by 1913 - around a third of the total stock of British wealth. No other country came close to this level of forign investment. France had foreign assets worth less than half the British total, and Germany just over a quarter. Britain accounted for about 44% of the world's total foreign investment.

Some contend that high levels of capital export undermined the British economy. In reality, capital exports could only be starving British industry if it can be shown that there was a capital shortage preventing firms from modernizing their plant, and there is little evidence to support this view. Capital export was not really a drain of capital from the British economy, since the income earned on these investments more than matched the export of new capital.

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.

Steel production is hardly sole indicator of economic strength. The Germans may have been outproducing Britain in steel, but Britain's national debt was at a historic low - just 28%, which was far less than the other great powers of the day. Britain also had the biggest and most sophisticated money market in the world.

Germany's public debt on the eve of the war was about 60% of her gross national product. France's was 86%. This is not the picture of an economic powerhouse that was about to take off and drive British economy into the ground.

Watch how fast the German national debt disappears once Russia and France are forced to pay it off.

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?

But the bulk of her economy was devoted to markets other than the continent. Losing that market would hurt. But it is not inevitable that that market will be closed. And even if it were, it would not be crippling. Meanwhile, Britain would not be at all helpless in a trade war.

It would only be a trade war until the Germans bring the new super fleet to bear.

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

And you still haven't convinced me that the Germans can outbuild Britain.

I don't think it is conceivable that Germany can build a big enough navy to make invading the British Isles anything other than a proposition too costly by far to be worth hazarding.

And I would disagree, Germany's naval building program was already putting strain on the British economy, a Germany able to devote more to its navy that its army, a Germany with all of Europe at its disposal, a Germany that was already out doing Britain and the gap was only going to grow, such a Germany would be able to force the British into a subservient position without firing a shot just by hurting the British economy trying to keep up with the ship building. Let us also not forget that Italy and A-H will have their fleets to challenge Britain in the Med (no doubt with some German help), Britain can and would be out built and wrecked economically trying to prevent it.

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.

It would cause hardship, but it will not cripple the British economy, and a trade war would hurt Germany badly as well.

I'm sure all of Europe will more than make up the loss in the British market.

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 I do not see Germany as being able to build a big enough navy to wrest this away from Britain. They can build big enough to become a rival, but not enough eclipse.

If Germany becomes a rival to Britain, Britain is already exhausted from trying to keep up.

How about some proof?

And yet anti-militarist forces were stronger in Germany than elsewhere, and as I said, German militarism has been exagerrated.

You haven't proved the former and while the alter may be true its doesn't change teh fact that they were militaristic.

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.

And if Britain had stayed out, and Germany had achieved a swift victory, that junta would not have taken over.

No they wouldn't and the Kaiser would still be in charge with them just beneath him.

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

Even if the German government was not wholly democratic this simply does not mean that the Kaiser could order it off on reckless military adventures and the rest of the country would just march along obediently. And even as inconsistent as Wilhelm could be, he still had enough sense left to see weigh costs against benefits. A war with Britain would have been costly enough to outweigh any conceivable gain.

Until confrontation with Britain gives him a good reason to build that mighty fleet he always wanted.

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.

Hostile is not the word I would use. Competitive would fit better. Wilhelm wanted to rival Britain as a power, not war with it.

Again he need not war with it to put Britain under his thumb, only contest British control of the Sea Lanes.

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.

Because Britain was spending less of its GNP as part of its public expenses than Germany was. Britain could more easily afford to increase spending. Between 1890 and 1913, Germany increased military spending 158% compared to 117% for Britain. There was simply less room for Germany to ratchet up military spending than there was for Britain.

But the Germany economy was going to naturally overtake the British one anyway, British industry was already beginning to become competitive (thus the ideas for Imperial Preference and so on) with all of Europe added to that Britain is heavily out classed.

Not so. See above.

Britain also had more leeway to raise taxes. The historian J.M. Hobson estimated that the British could have supported a tax to raise a a conscript army of between 1 and 2 million men. Germany, had a federal system that gave the federal states an effective monopoly on direct taxation. There were a great many political obstacles to reforming the tax mechanism as well. This made it more difficult for the Germans to bring their economic resources to bear in war.

I agree with that however it is not an insurmountable task, you also have to remember that the German army will get down sized in favour of the Navy.

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

The guilt clause is relevant because if the Germans conceded that those were pre-war aims, they would essentially be admitting the correctness of the guilt clause - admitting that Germany was guilty of starting the war in order to further her territorial ambitions.

No they wouldn't, just because Germany had decided to take X,Y,Z in the event of a war with France does not mean they started said war with France. Under your reasoning France has obvious war guilt because they gained territory.

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.

Another distortion! Just because the Kaiser's armies could defeat France on the continent does not put Britain "at his mercy". This is just ridiculous! Britain would still be a mighty imperial power with vast resources to draw upon - a tremendously formidable opponent for Germany to take on. How this could translate to Britain being "at his mercy" I can't imagine.

Because once Germany has the bigger navy Britain is stuffed, these vast resources don't really mean all that much when the centre of British power (the home islands) was in decline.

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

And this is a possibility? We're talking about the alternatives actually available in 1914, not ideal fantasies. Britain can either stay out of the war and remain a great power, now faced with a German rival; or join in and help defeat Germany at the cost of bleeding herself white economically and declining as a great power.

Britain did what she had to do.

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.

And try as I might, I can't imagine Imperial Germany as worse than Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

Oh imperial Germany wasn't the Nazis (although working Africans to death in labour camps and Goerings father ordering the extermination of one particular tribe were nice precursors) but the Nazis were defeated, what will happen to this Imperial Germany? As for the Soviets, there is no need to assume that something nasty isn't going to happen in Russia once they are beaten (probably not the USSR though).

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.

And regardless of the Kaiser's personal inclinations, he was constrained from doing absolutely anything he liked. Even as unstable as he was, he ruled for decades without any conflagration. And when war did break out, it was more the fault of Austro-Hungarian intransigence than any policies or adventurism or Wilhelm's.

It was Wilhelm giving them the thumbs up that did it and his Chancellor didn’t have the power o stop events (so he wasn't all that constrained, except possibly by the military who I also wouldn't like to put in a position of power over me).

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.

Given the fact that participation in two world wars led directly to Britain ceasing to be a superpower, and set the stage for the rise of Communism and Fascism, I disagree.

Given the fact that Britain is a free nation now and has been for the 100 years, given the fact that France and Western Europe has been for 60 years I think an autocratic regime running the show is not preferable.

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.

The main point of disagreement we have here is that you think Germany will just make it a quick war with very little in the way of gains, I disagree, I see a proto EU run from Berlin and one run by people who had already show belligerency towards Britain.

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.

[TheDarkling]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[quote
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?[/quote]

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not so. See above.

It is so, see above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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? And how do you square any of your projections with the reality that even after the Imperial Fleet achieved parity in capital ship strength with the Royal Navy, Kaiser Wilhelm was still leery of risking his navy against the British and in fact ordered his battleships back into port permanently after Jutland?

[Patrick Degan]

OK, strike the second question. I was mistaken as to the relative strengths of the two navies in capital-ships.

[Rogue 9]

And how do you square any of your projections with the reality that even after the Imperial Fleet achieved parity in capital ship strength with the Royal Navy, Kaiser Wilhelm was still leery of risking his navy against the British and in fact ordered his battleships back into port permanently after Jutland?

The Imperial Fleet wasn't as strong in ship strengths as the Royal Navy, but not using the ships at all was something of a waste. Why have 'em if you won't use 'em? It wasn't like Admiral Scheer was facing down the entire Royal Navy at Jutland. It was a lot of dreadnoughts, but he also had a shitload of dreadnoughts and battlecruisers (the latter of which he threw away on a death ride to cover the dreadnoughts' escape).