Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post


    "Britain refused to accept her eclipse by Germany" etc etc is just plain untrue. It is true that Britain wished to maintain the status quo but that's a long way from saying that she would have actively sought war to preserve it.
    I never said GB actively sought war. I said the cause of the war was the struggle between GB and Germany for the position of top dog in Europe. I think the war was a miscalculation by both sides and no one set out to engineer a war.
    German was rising fast and was recognised as a threat to GBs interest. The German desire for a 'Place In The Sun' was troubling and it forced the UK and France into an Alliance after centuries of warfare. France knew her time was over and a Naval Ally was crucial to her survival just as much as the UK realised it needed French troops to fight its ground war. The threat of a rival to match the RN was the final step that made war more or less inevitable. If it had not happened in 1914 it would have in the following decade.
    Anyway the German rise in the 20th century has been remarkable. Twice reduced to ground zero and still she clawed back to the top of the pile You can make a case that but for WW1 and WW2 Europe would be a very different place today with Germany being the world superpower.

    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post

    As for "play poodle ", where did that come from ?
    Really? You never heard the term before?

    Comment


    • I think that's still selling the UK short. The UK entered because it saw the international system for maintaining Europe in equilibrium, i.e. peace, was about to fall, and Germany was actively doing the toppling. It's to the UK's credit.

      Arguably that system was inherently set up to favour the already established imperial powers, i.e. it disadvantaged Germany, which it found aggravating, and there wasn't a lot Germany could do about it anyway, at least not without quickly starting to bump into stuff.

      And it also underestimates the French. The dominant GERMAN perspective on France at the time was that it was a simply a has-been, and should demurely just accept this and get out of the way of German ascendancy. The French didn't see it like that, and assuming they did like this also at some level accepts the then current German thinking about France. BUT the French could also and do, and did, the numbers. It was why the great sea-change in the European alliance system was the French decision find Imperial Russia an acceptable ally. (It's also why the UK's position in the run-up to WWI was a far secondary consideration for France; as long as Russia was in so was France, the UK would depend and could be dispensed with, even if it was preferable if it joined).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by m kenny View Post

        I never said GB actively sought war. I said the cause of the war was the struggle between GB and Germany for the position of top dog in Europe. I think the war was a miscalculation by both sides and no one set out to engineer a war.
        Britain has never been 'top dog' in Continental Europe. It was however the global top dog.
        Be interesting (no, not really) to read the conspiraloon theories on how Britain miscalculated to start WWI.

        German was rising fast and was recognised as a threat to GBs interest. The German desire for a 'Place In The Sun' was troubling and it forced the UK and France into an Alliance after centuries of warfare. France knew her time was over and a Naval Ally was crucial to her survival just as much as the UK realised it needed French troops to fight its ground war. The threat of a rival to match the RN was the final step that made war more or less inevitable. If it had not happened in 1914 it would have in the following decade.
        Germany was only in the same place as France in the 18th Century. They could never build a navy large enough to challenge the Royal Navy whilst still having a huge continental style army. Germany could only ever be a Great Power, not a Superpower.

        Anyway the German rise in the 20th century has been remarkable. Twice reduced to ground zero and still she clawed back to the top of the pile You can make a case that but for WW1 and WW2 Europe would be a very different place today with Germany being the world superpower.
        How was Germany reduced to ground zero by the first world war? The fighting barely touched German soil. You are giving credit to Hitler and the Nazis for raising Germany up. Is that really what you think?!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

          Both.
          At most Germany had 5 to 10 years before Russia irrevocably became the greatest military power on the continent. The Germans were aware of this.
          That is not correct : Russia was only a number three, far away after Germany ( number one ) and France ( number two ) .
          And Britain declared war because of the German attack on France and Belgium . If this attack succeeded, Britain would be at the mercy of Germany .When Germany attacked Russia, Britain remained neutral .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
            I think that's still selling the UK short. The UK entered because it saw the international system for maintaining Europe in equilibrium, i.e. peace, was about to fall, and Germany was actively doing the toppling. It's to the UK's credit.

            Arguably that system was inherently set up to favour the already established imperial powers, i.e. it disadvantaged Germany, which it found aggravating, and there wasn't a lot Germany could do about it anyway, at least not without quickly starting to bump into stuff.

            And it also underestimates the French. The dominant GERMAN perspective on France at the time was that it was a simply a has-been, and should demurely just accept this and get out of the way of German ascendancy. The French didn't see it like that, and assuming they did like this also at some level accepts the then current German thinking about France. BUT the French could also and do, and did, the numbers. It was why the great sea-change in the European alliance system was the French decision find Imperial Russia an acceptable ally. (It's also why the UK's position in the run-up to WWI was a far secondary consideration for France; as long as Russia was in so was France, the UK would depend and could be dispensed with, even if it was preferable if it joined).
            The French-Russian alliance was only a hoax : at every crisis before 1914, both parties abandoned each other .Britain was more important for France than Russia,because it was not far away from France and would help France if it was attacked, while Russia was far away and always had abandoned France when France needed her .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

              That is not correct : Russia was only a number three, far away after Germany ( number one ) and France ( number two ) .
              Yes, in 1914. And in 5-10 years from 1914?

              Graph_1.png

              Comment


              • There is no proof that these projections were correct,and it is likely that they were wrong as Russia had not the resources to call up more men, to train them, to have more weapons,ammunition,NCOs,railways to transport these forces....It is also not so that a stronger Russia would be a greater threat for Germany, as Russia's foreign policy was to avoid war.The Czaristic regime could not afford war : if it lost, it was over for the Tsar, if it won, democratisation would be accelerated: what would happen to Prussian and Austrian Poland ? Defeat of Germany and Poland would mean the end of the Hohenzollern and the Hapsburg....and the Romanovs would follow .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                  Yes, in 1914. And in 5-10 years from 1914?

                  Graph_1.png
                  The Germans window of opportunity was rapidly closing in 1914. Their main ally, Austria, was only going to get weaker whereas France's ally was only going to get stronger. Add Britain into the mix with access to the world's resources one can see why the Germans would want war sooner rather than later. If Germany wanted to conquer Europe it pretty much had to be then.
                  Not that different to 1939 actually.
                  Last edited by Surrey; 28 Sep 18, 08:23.
                  "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                  Comment


                  • Anyway getting back on topic.

                    Which country within the EU is going to play the role Portugal did in the Napoleonic wars and help the UK break the Continental System? Hungary perhaps? Though it would be difficult for Britain to be able to send help to Hungary and I cant see them holding out against the Franco-Germans for long.
                    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                    Comment


                    • Germany was not interested in war and she had nothing to gain from it, instead of wasting her resources and manpower building an Empire consisting of mostly third world countries, like England and France did, she had achieved her position through hard work and by investing into her own nation instead.

                      Which was why she was the leading nation in Europe leading up to WWI.

                      This is often overlooked, because it doesn’t fit the anti-German narrative.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                        The Germans window of opportunity was rapidly closing in 1914..............
                        Silly me. Forgetting it is the size of your Army denotes your world ranking.
                        Step foward then the current North Korea........................

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                          The Germans window of opportunity was rapidly closing in 1914. Their main ally, Austria, was only going to get weaker whereas France's ally was only going to get stronger. Add Britain into the mix with access to the world's resources one can see why the Germans would want war sooner rather than later. If Germany wanted to conquer Europe it pretty much had to be then.
                          Not that different to 1939 actually.

                          Yes, and the Germans were not shy in saying so too:
                          "Saxon military attaché in Berlin, who had spoken with Moltke’s deputy on 3 July 1914: 'Everything, he thinks, depends on what attitude Russia takes in the Austro-Serbian business. ...I had the impression that [the General Staff] would be pleased if war were to come about now. Conditions and prospects would never be better for us.'"

                          Later in the month, the Saxon attaché again reported Moltke saying: “We would never again find a situation as favorable as now, when neither France nor Russia had completed the extension of their army organizations.”"

                          An aide to German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg (1856–1921) heard the chancellor express these same worries about “Russia’s increasing [armaments] demands and amazing potential—in a few years no longer possible to fend off.” After the war, Bethmann Hollweg admitted, “Yes, by God, in a way it was a preventative war,” for military leaders had “declared that [in 1914] it was still possible [to fight the war] without being defeated, in two years’ time no longer!”

                          https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-onlin...rmament_policy

                          And it worked for German too, sort of, by 1928 the Soviet Union was still poorer than 1913 Imperial Russia.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by walle View Post
                            Germany was not interested in war and she had nothing to gain from it, instead of wasting her resources and manpower building an Empire consisting of mostly third world countries, like England and France did, she had achieved her position through hard work and by investing into her own nation instead.

                            Which was why she was the leading nation in Europe leading up to WWI.

                            This is often overlooked, because it doesn’t fit the anti-German narrative.
                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Schleswig_War

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War

                            Hard work conquering their neighbours......
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by m kenny View Post

                              Silly me. Forgetting it is the size of your Army denotes your world ranking.
                              Step foward then the current North Korea........................
                              Silly you for forgetting the size of your economy, of your population, of your military forces and of your natural resources denote your world rankings. Imperial Russia either already outstripped or was on the verge of outstripping Imperial Germany in all these areas.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                                Imperial Russia either already outstripped or was on the verge of outstripping Imperial Germany in all these areas.

                                Coulda..............shoulda............didn't.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X