Germany as a Rival Economic Power - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14847398
SolarCross wrote:@PotemkinNice job playing up to German paranoid conspiracy theories designed to absolve them of all responsibility for the wars they started.


Thats the popular anglo-saxon version. But it misses some important points in this topic Brits prefer to hide.

Rancid wrote:@Potemkin
It's well know the US had little impact on WWI. Are you saying this too is true for the UK? :?:


US kept Britain supplied and in the end started to supply soldiers too. Germany was at the end of its capabilities.

Potemkin wrote:No, not at all. Britain had a huge impact on WWI. We lost more people in WWI than in WWII, and Britain's involvement changed the course of the war decisively. This is why fokker is so enraged by it. Lol. :lol:


Look up how many tanks and aircraft Britain manufactured during WW1. Look at their casualties (whole British empire) and compare to French. It wasn't such a big difference. 1 million lost vs 1.3 French. Look at population of British empire. Then resume laughing :lol:

SolarCross wrote:I am just not being complacent, if we did not foresee the rise of the EU then perhaps it would not do to bury our heads in the sands for what looms over the horizon now.


British empire is gone, and Britains influence with it. EU can deal with Britain as it pleases. Get on with it.

Even little Junker from unimportant Luxemburg can boss Britain around now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... heresa-may
Last edited by fokker on 29 Sep 2017 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14847401
The US being decisive in WW1 is a myth that I suspect was created to make the American public less isolationist about European affairs. Though that's just an intuition, I don't know for sure, but it would fit the era.
#14847402
Thats the popular anglo-saxon version. But it misses some important points in this topic Brits prefer to hide.

I actually agree with you about that. The 'official' British version of the history of WWI is nonsense, of course. But you are peddling more nonsense yourself.

US kept Britain supplied and in the end started to supply soldiers too. Germany was at the end of its capabilities.

Gee, it's almost as though Germany had committed a series of strategic and diplomatic blunders which made its defeat a near inevitability. But that can't be right, can it? Lol.

Look up how many tanks and aircraft Britain manufactured during WW1. Look at their casualties (whole British empire) and compare to French. It wasn't such a big difference. 1 million lost vs 1.3 French. Look at population of British empire. Then keep resume laughing :lol:

I was referring to Britain itself (though we did have the manpower of the Empire to draw upon as cannon fodder, their loyalty was suspect at best). Britain actually got off lightly during WWII, but we did not get off lightly in WWI.

British empire is gone, and Britains influence with it. EU can deal with Britain as it pleases. Get on with it.

Even little Junker from unimportant Luxemburg can boss Britain around now:

Juncker's extraordinary reaction to Britain's exit from the EU has done more than anything else to convince me that Brexit was the right thing to do.
#14847403
Potemkin wrote:Gee, it's almost as though Germany had committed a series of strategic and diplomatic blunders which made its defeat a near inevitability. But that can't be right, can it? Lol.


Nobody expected Germany had so many enemies that wanted it castrated. In the end it was fighting like the whole world when one looks at the map of all countries it was in war with.
#14847407
fokker wrote:Nobody expected Germany had so many enemies that wanted it castrated. In the end it was fighting like the whole world when one looks at the map of all countries it was in war with.


Yeah because picking a fight with the Russian, French and British Empires all at the same time couldn't possibly go wrong! What?! why are all these people we made into our enemies fighting back? It makes no sense! It must be a conspiracy to prevent innocent Germany from dominating the world! Oh the villains!
#14847415
Yeah because picking a fight with the Russian, French and British Empires all at the same time couldn't possibly go wrong! What?! why are all these people we made into our enemies fighting back? It makes no sense! It must be a conspiracy to prevent innocent Germany from dominating the world! Oh the villains!

They even did it twice, as though they couldn't quite believe it the first time. :lol:
#14847418
Potemkin wrote:They even did it twice, as though they couldn't quite believe it the first time. :lol:


You have to acknowledge the 2nd attempt was very well executed, the main problem was a nazi mad man was at the helm, not reasonable people. Had Britain not broken up the Austrian empire it could have been a success. The Austrian ally was simply missing in the 2nd attempt. Its constituent parts were either occupied or nazi allies, but they contributed very little with military personnel, the only helped with arms manufacture as Germany could not order them to contribute more. In the 1st attempt there were lots of Polish troops fighting with Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Croatians, Slovaks and god knows who all. In the 2nd attempt this madman thought he could win it alone while ethnic cleansing neighbours.

From purely military perspective they corrected many mistakes from the 1st attempt. They defeated France first, then went after Soviet union after ensuring resource supply. Jews were a scapegoat to solve the problem with manufacturing and food shortages encountered during the first attempt.

And it was still not enough. But Germans aren't that dumb and 3rd time embraced the idea of peace, cooperation, promise of good living standard to achieve what they wanted. French decided to cooperate as they saw Britain was always nowhere near as destroyed as France during the last 2 attempts. Their alliance benefited Brits more than French so they switched allies.
#14847424
fokker wrote:French decided to cooperate as they saw Britain was always nowhere near as destroyed as France during the last 2 attempts. Their alliance benefited Brits more than French so they switched allies.


wiki wrote:Despite these rivalries and dual structures, at times, it has been suggested that France join the Commonwealth. In 1956, during the Suez Crisis, during which France and the United Kingdom's interests in the Middle East aligned, it was proposed by French Prime Minister Guy Mollet that France and the UK create a Franco-British Union, with common citizenship and Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. His British counterpart, Anthony Eden, instead proposed that France join the Commonwealth, with Commonwealth citizenship rights and recognising the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. However, this was rejected by Mollet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_an ... of_Nations

I'm rather sad this didn't happen and because it didn't happen we got the EU instead, ugh. It would have been better for Germany to have joined the UK this way too. We might have avoided WW2 if it had been done immediately after WW1.
#14847425
I'm rather sad this didn't happen and because it didn't happen we got the EU instead, ugh. It would have been better for Germany to have joined the UK this way too. We might have avoided WW2 if it had been done immediately after WW1.

Quite right. After all, everyone in the world secretly wishes they were British. What could be better than to declare the whole of Europe a 'Neo-British Empire'? Every Frenchman and German could then drink tea, have a strange obsession with cricket, and think that steak and kidney pie is haute cuisine. It's the perfect answer! :up:

Seriously though, the French wanted equality with Britain rather than becoming an appendage of the Commonwealth. They wanted Britain and France to form something like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For obvious reasons, that wasn't acceptable to the British, and the only option the British offered wasn't acceptable to the French, for equally obvious reasons. It was never a realistic possibility.
#14847427
At the root of every war there are economic interests. Other factors including ideology, religion, human rights, etc., primarily serve as pretext. It sounds nicer to say that we defend human rights or sovereignty than to say we want to rob you.

As such, the economic rivalry between the British empire and the rising industrial and technological power Germany played a big role. The Germans felt they were excluded from global markets and resources by the British empire. However, when they realized that they couldn't possibly compete with the British navy, they decided on continental expansion instead.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that both Germany and GB would have done better by avoiding the war. German industry would have managed to get a hold even without military backing and GB might have held onto the empire for a little longer, even though ultimately colonialism had to end anyways.
#14847538
Atlantis wrote:At the root of every war there are economic interests. Other factors including ideology, religion, human rights, etc., primarily serve as pretext. It sounds nicer to say that we defend human rights or sovereignty than to say we want to rob you.

As such, the economic rivalry between the British empire and the rising industrial and technological power Germany played a big role. The Germans felt they were excluded from global markets and resources by the British empire. However, when they realized that they couldn't possibly compete with the British navy, they decided on continental expansion instead.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that both Germany and GB would have done better by avoiding the war. German industry would have managed to get a hold even without military backing and GB might have held onto the empire for a little longer, even though ultimately colonialism had to end anyways.


But what I do not understand about this is that Germany was allowed to eventually compete anyhow. The German economy still became a major force over the course of the 20th century. Therefore if WWI was fought on this basis it was absolutely pointless. Did the British elite actually just expect Germany to not develop industry and to remain an agrarian country? That sounds ludicrous.
#14856579
Political Interest wrote:But what I do not understand about this is that Germany was allowed to eventually compete anyhow. The German economy still became a major force over the course of the 20th century. Therefore if WWI was fought on this basis it was absolutely pointless.


Germany was allowed to compete after the war because it integrated into the Western sphere and accepted the conditions of Anglo-dominated global trade. During the colonial period, the colonial powers were able to control trade (both markets and resources) to their own advantage. Even today, disobedience is punished by economic sanctions and/or political pressure in one way or another.
The Evolution Fraud

Read the account as recorded before making such […]

I don't know one way or the other, and neither […]

How did you become a socialist?

The irony of Deutschmania's complaint against you[…]

https://external-preview.redd.it/k3Nd[…]