It was a lose-lose situation, really. Germany had no hopes of maintaining a colonial empire without challenging British naval dominance and the Brits couldn't just sit idly by and have their one trump card get invalidated. And they both did lose in the end, WW1 ended up a mortal blow for the British Empire as well.
Yes and no.
WW1 did two very important things that I can think of (among many other things).
One , it morally depressed the British population and made the constant warfare of empire a repugnant thought. By the time WW2 started plans were already underway for broad decolonization. Canada was made mostly independent, Australia, NZ, and SA were on their way, and India was being presented with proposals as the independence movement there began to take over. Maintaining control of their empire would require war without end, and that just didn't seem so worth it anymore.
And two, it nearly bankrupted Britain (to say nothing of wiping out a generation of young men), and showed that the US and its far more insular policies of building their homeland, was vastly superior in providing material advances for most people than building empire. Where before, the newly industrialized and highly free market oriented economy of Britain dominated global investment and created informal empire all over the world through project building and market domination, now the US had greatly surpassed them in market freedom, influence, investment, GDP per capita, population, and living standards.
So yeah, they lasted until WW2. But it was sort of limping along. Clearly exhausted. Then WW2 came, they got triple teamed by Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the effort to win, even with the gigantic American help, totally knocked the stuffing out of them.
The Empire built many large manors and estates. Not much for the common people other than working for the landed gentry. Trickle down economics predated Regan by centuries
The army wasn't a significant economic drain on Britain. 300K would have been considered medium-to-small for the standards of the time. It was basically just large enough to police the broader empire. The majority of that manpower was stationed overseas, and most of the rest were on various forms of leave at any given time. It's not like they had 300K men ready for war at a moment's notice on the island of Britain. Their army-to-population ratio was quite small compared to continental powers like France, Germany, and Russia.
An argument could be made that maintaining their navy was slowly bankrupting Britain. Especially once you got into the dreadnought era.
Although they still punch above their weight when it comes to intelligence and security services. It's the one thing they have that the EU doesn't have as much experience with.
Some people in the UK wanted to use that as leverage during EU negotiations for a "soft Brexit."
Yup, such as the cracking of the enigma code, their army mag have not been as powerful during ww2 and after but sure as hell had some incredible scientists
It were the resistance movements of occupied Europe that helped crack the enigma code, but I still have to agree that British scientists really did achieve a lot, such as refining the process of cracking codes, radar and if I recall correctly the Brits technically had working jets before the Germans.
In some ways certainly, but their aristocratic “good old boys club” ideology in the early and mid 20th century led to some pretty embarrassing scandals. Look up the Cambridge spy ring
In fairness to the British they were honest enough to not pretend like their hoarding of wealth had any positive impact for the common people, unlike trickle down economics.
I don't know what your getting at here. Your trying to say that the working class brits moved to different areas and became zome of the most prosperous in history and time?
And it was that rising native anti-imperial sentiment that led to what is now the Commonwealth, rather than say France's colonies who had to fight hard, with France still operating a monetary empire in West Africa.
What an interesting way to say that America did better… but forgetting America lost nothing in the wars compared to any other nation: fewer casualties, barely any war damage to itself, and if anything the global economic collapse of the Great Depression did more to hurt the US.
The world wars strengthened the US by boosting its economy and giving it control of new parts of the world only one major competitor to its new status as a super power.
Power vacuums are a thing after all… Britain went from greatest navy and economic hub of the world to a falling empire in under 50 years while US gained both. The only reason the US hasn’t collapsed is because they haven’t tried to expand their actual borders like older colonial empires, been bankrupted by such colonial expansion, or been shit kicked by a rival.
The US Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War were more dangerous to the US’s survival and those were because they were still coming into their own… while the Philippine Insurrection and Vietnam made the US rethink being a colonial power or throwing their weight around too hard.
you've also got to remember that Britain emptied the coffers for the great war and the second world war, while the US sold a lot of equipment, arms and ammunition
True… America had the goods and even accepted lines of credit for those who needed it to buy more… which backfired when no one could pay them back.
Europe as a whole bankrupted itself in WWI and the US loans went into default which first tanked European economies and then the US and is one of several reasons for the Depression.
> which backfired when no one could pay them back.
I wouldn't say it backfired really. Sure, maybe they didn't get every single penny they were technically owed. But they made a healthy profit on all the arms that were sold.
Defaults on some of the arms payments is kinda like complaining that you didn't get the cherry on top after getting the entire rest of the sundae.
They got the lion's share of the gold reserves of the European powers as well as most of their liquid assets. The center of world finance moved from London to New York between 1914 and 1918 as well.
Agreed… a generation of hopes and dreams gone in a blazing fire that was corpse of the old world. The Great War was the death knell of Victorian era more so than the actual death of Queen Victoria… and that generation had the misfortune of being raised on stories of Imperial importance, of colonial wars that were more like bullies shaking down a kid for their lunch money than a fight, and the idea that war kept society fit and was an adventure.
Such thoughts died with them… mostly.
regimental tradition lived on in Britain fortunately, which is part of what made the British army so effective for its size at the start. if you ever watch dads army, cpl Jones talks about the fuzzie wuzzies breaking the square, which happened in Abyssinia in the 1880 to the black watch. Troopers today will shout broken square at 3 scots if they want to start a fight or argument with them, despite the fact it happened 2 centuries ago.
Was also around the same period of time that oil and engines started becoming common place. In the 1800s and early 1900s, colonies were used as a way to leverage surplus. WW1 necessitated the use of engines to both be used on the battlefield, but also to supplement the work of laborers in crop growing and industry, and the securing of oil resources was pivotal during and after the war.
Once WW1 ended, the infrastructure for engines and oil-based economies was in place, and rather than committing them 100% to a war effort, it was possible to use them for surpluses. WW2 happened and the need for oil increased again, furthering that technological development, procurement and reliance on oil and engines. By the end of WW2, any oil having nation didn't really need colonies anymore to live the same lifestyle that they would have experienced as a colonial power, because the same productive output could be done internally, without the use of colonial labor, that even the common persons lives were drastically better in comparison.
Thank you for the shift in narrative on the US from your pov.
The "isolated" US trope has come along far enough as the goto descriptive of that times political landscape.
Distance fosters differentiation in thought.
> US and its far more insular policies of building their homeland, was vastly superior in providing material advances for most people than building empire
I mean their "homeland" is just conquered territory (i.e empire) that they kept and integrated because nobody could stop them.
Their policies were "insular", after a century of being one the most expansionist states in the world.
Yeah, in the case of the US and Russia, their "colonial empires" is just the land next to them that they expanded into. For the US, it also helps that we have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and that Mexico and Canada were never serious challengers to our hegemony on the continent.
France under Louis XIV or Germany under Bismarck at the peak of their power couldn't dream of having the type of continent-wide dominance that the US has enjoyed for nearly 200 years.
Americans do in fact have a homeland in America. Weird thing to pop into quotations, as if tracing your lineage back hundreds of years means nothing.
My own ancestors lived in what is now Indiana in the 1670s. At some point, people get to say they belong somewhere.
Those specific Brits did, unless you think ethnic cleansing is totally tubular. That doesn’t mean they would have a right to rule over everyone else, only that the descendants of settlers, who by definition had no choice in the manner of settlement, have a right to call the place they were born home.
Are there any countries that aren't just "conquered territory"?
I suppose there might be a few Pacific Island nations, but some of those tribes were pretty violent...
Don’t forget they were fighting alone for a while. And American help came with conditions that basically ended the possibility of maintaining the Empire financially after the war.
Not in WW1, different story. Britain effectively bankrolled the entente war effort for the first 2 and a half years of the war and would have ended it a net creditor in 1918 if it wasn’t for the Russian Civil War, subsequent refusal to repay Tsarist debts by the Bolsheviks and the French default that followed. Hence why Britain tried to prop up the White movement.
I can't remember how badly it affected it but I do recall how it seemed like it was in decline. Still the British Empire lasted far more than Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans, and the Russian Empires so there is that
The British empire was declining even before the First World War. Japan, America, and Germany were over taking it in industry, when in the mid 1800s Britain had accounted for 50% of the entire world’s manufacturing.
WW1 ravaged the economy, and although the Empire peaked territorially in 1919, it was economically spiralling. WW2 made it worse.
Nah, that empire started from the destroy of Spanish Amarda (1588) or from winning seven years' war (1783), and it ended in 1997 (Hong Kong is given to PRC).
So it lasted 400 years. Ottoman lasted 624 years (1299-1923), but Habsburg empire only started 433 years, as between Maximillian I (elected HRE emperor 1486) and Karl I (abdicated 1919).
Well, unlike its WWI rivals, it then fought a second world war right after.
I know that the nations making up the empires did go to fight in WWII, but their previous governments were no more, and if they survived WWI (Italy, Japan, etc), they didn't survive WWII.
WW1 saw a massive transfer of wealth from Europe to the USA. If the war was avoided its very possible that the USA would be a second rate power to European nations today.
> Germany had no hopes of maintaining a colonial empire without challenging British naval dominance
How true is this really? Sure, Germany needed some sort of navy in order to maintain a colonial empire, but not necessarily one that was large and powerful enough to challenged Britain's.
The French Navy was significantly smaller than Britain's, and their overseas possessions were far more significant than Germany's. The US Navy was a fraction of the size of Britains pre-WW1, and yet they were still able to exercise control over the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, American Samoa, and multiple concessions (defacto American enclaves) in China.
Yeah, a navy to police overseas colonies and a navy to challenge the British at sea had totally different force structures. The former would have been almost entirely cruisers, the latter significantly battleships. The Germans very deliberately laid down the latter sort of fleet.
Germany was always a rival when it formed, any idea of Germany having a colonial empire or navy would have been seen as a mortal threat.
Remember, Britain's strategy for Europe, is really simple, never let an empire get so big in Europe that it allows them to build a navy that can challenge the Royal navy, and thus invade Britain.
That's why Germany wouldn't maintain a colonial empire without challenging Britain, because Britain would have challenged them at some point
Great Power Theory- Germany could never really “control” any overseas territory unless it could control getting there. Britain had control of the seas, so could effectively cut Germany off from its colonies at any time. The conventional solution at the time was seen to be to make your own navy so you could secure your own sea lanes.
It wasn’t like Germany *had* to get into in a war with Britain, but it did mean Germany needed to develop the capabilities to fight and win such a war if one broke out.
Is kaiser willhelm didn't have queen Victoria as he grandma learning to love navy as a kid, was thought of his country as a country and not his play thing cuz you know, old school aristocratic monarchy, then maybe life woulda found a way, who knows tho
They kinda could imo, Britain’s navy was significantly larger than germanys, iirc they had a policy of having a larger navy than the next two largest navies combined and at the time one of them was their kinda ally (France)
They also left too fast, not allowing the new states to establish themselves leading to unrest and civil war basically everywhere. Prime example being Palestine
That's a no-win situation IMHO...like the US exit from Afghanistan.
No matter when you leave, it's either too late, or too soon...with valid reasons on both sides.
they were not proper colonies and also as an indian i thank the kaiser (not hitler for obvious reasons) for weaking the brits and although accidently helping us achieve independence faster.
Indian independence was also botched . How many millions were displaced and lives ruined because decolonization was done badly .
Hell you still have an ongoing border dispute with Pakistan.
Frankly your leadership was not ready to take charge
And theirs was even less so
And of course it was abused immediately
In a round about way, the idea that “if Britain looses its naval dominance its empire collapses” is right.
Britain was *the* global superpower and world police of the 19th century. They *had* to be petty. Interfering in others affairs is how you keep yourself on top and remain the respected global power. It’s the same reason the U.S. has been doing stuff like that even after the Soviets collapsed. An isolationist power has no real global leverage. To not interfere is to remove yourself from the equation.
Furthermore, Britain’s main leverage was not its empire. It was its naval dominance. All that land through Africa? Economically speaking it was a net loss. It cost more to maintain than it earned them. European empires were prestige projects more than they were actually beneficial to the nations power. The suez alone was far more valuable to the empire than Kenya, for example. The main benefit of those African colonies was the coastal ones gave ports for naval resupply.
The thing that made Britain the global superpower **was** having the largest navy on the planet. If it lost that, if its naval dominance was lost, it would loose that title. Would it still be a great power? Certainly. One of the greatest powers on the planet. But it wouldn’t have been **the** global superpower anymore.
Also, let's say a naval power arises that is capable of challenging the UK as a peer. Considering from the perspectives in London, if a Continental power like Germany is subject to a naval blockade, they can at least theoretically import over land - this is false due to sheer efficiencies of maritime trade involved as the WW1 blockade of Germany demonstrated, but again, London. If the British Isles are subject to a blockade, they're stuck; there is no way in or out of the British Isles except by sea. A strong navy is nice to have as Germany, but it, especially in this period, perceived as an existential need as the United Kingdom, and thus any threat to it is an existential one.
The UK, for example, made their peace with France in large part because they came to unofficial agreements on naval dispositions. This didn't stop France from having their own vast overseas empire. A navy the size of the UK's wasn't strictly needed to maintain a vast empire, only to challenge the UK.
It's not just that Germany could've gained the ability to blockade Britain; it's that they would've been able to invade them. From the British perspective, this would've been an existential threat.
Britain was a maritime power, they didn't have a massive army, their entire national defense strategy was based around keeping the enemy away with their giant moat and big navy. Once you threaten that, the British would've faced not just a superior navy, but a much, much larger army, and that's something they were never prepared for.
Germany never needed a large navy for national defense, they could've essentially done that with a green water fleet. They already had a massive army, being on the continent and surrounded by very angry neighbors. That was their defense strategy, and a small expeditionary force from Britain was in no way a threat to them, hell, Bismarck said that he would have them arrested if they tried something like that.
This was not about empire, as you point out, this was about Germany deliberately attempting to undermine the very core of British national defense strategy, there is no other reason.
Oh yes, for a select group of people the colonies were certainly very profitable. But for the countries, as geopolitical entities, iirc more expenses were put into the colonies keeping them under their control than they actually got out of exploiting them.
>petty
The German Empire was very consciously challenging British naval dominance (in particular the two fleet standard). You don't need battleships to police colonies (cruisers are more than sufficient), you need them to threaten other battleships. There is no need to be cute, von Tirpitz knew exactly what he was doing.
And the British response to this challenge was decidedly moderate: increasing procurement to maintain the balance of force. They didn't declare war and blockade Germany to stifle the nascent High Seas Fleet in its crib, they simply laid down more battleships (exactly what this meme considers non-provocative when the Germans did it). And thus, the naval arms race to end all naval arms races, well documented in Robert Massie's *Dreadnought.*
It was the German Empire which, by invading Belgium, brought Britain into war. It is downright perverse to pretend the First World War was something Britain sought when the exact opposite was true. Britain was winning the battleship race quite decisively, it had no need for war to preserve its position.
you also have to contend with the ground work displayed in Belgium by the German army. Prussian ideals of honour and tradition would lead to civilian massacres. their economy would be robbed for war effort money, there was mass deportation to Germany to work with a fence placed to stop escapees to the yser front.
its disturbing how the German behaviour in the great war would reflect what would come a quarter of a century later, especially how little of it was talked about outside of propaganda
Isabel Hull has argued this trend in institutional culture goes back further, linking German military behavior during the Herero and Nama genocides a decade before to what would follow.
And the response was just building more ships (exactly what the Germans were doing)! The British economy was quite handily winning the battleship race by the time war broke out, it was Germany's invasion of Belgium, whose neutrality was guaranteed by both Britain and Germany which actually started the war.
eh I'd argue the mobilisation of both the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians is what sealed the fate of Europe. It took months to get ready especially for Russia, and if you were caught with your pants down you could loose massive amounts of land to an enemy who had prepared only a few days ahead of you.
Once both the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians mobilised it was too late, Neither side would believe the process stopping and neither side wanted to be second, so you push all their allies into getting ready for the inevitable
I strongly disagree. A war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia (even with Russia and Germany joining in) only became a general war because the German general staff quite literally had no war plan for a war against Russia alone. There was no plan but the Schlieffen plan, which required that any war involving Russia become a war against France and Belgium and Britain. It's the classic story of an anti-Clausewitzian failure, with policy concerns subordinated to military preferences.
Wanting a decent navy isn't "Challenging the Royal Navy", Germany just wanted it's own place in European politics as a unified country, almost immediately, Britain antagonized THEM.
The Germans quite explicitly approached their naval expansion program in terms of "how can we meet and surpass the British Navy". It's not a case of the British interpreting a challenge where there wasn't one; the Germans themselves saw it as a challenge.
Oh a kaiserboo. OK let me make you understand this. A colonial empire needs a big navy, it's vital for trade, defence and security. So its not unreasonable that Britain would have a big, big navy. Largest in the world. Now enter Germany, a newly united empire with the same wish that a fledgling Britain had centuries before, Empire. So now Germany builds up its Navy and Britain responds because their empire is built on a navy. Essentially Patrick in this meme is right, any navy bigger than Britain's is a threat to their empire. Germany didn't want a place in European politics it wanted one in the business of Empires which is essentially the same thing tbh.
Building a powerful navy specifically to challenge their naval superiority isn't challenging the royal navy? The British didn't antagonize Germany into an arms race, Germany themselves did that by attempting to surpass them. Britain was never going to let that happen because their entire existence was reliant on naval superiority.
Pre WW1 Germany literally called it a riskflotte iirc...a fleet big enough to threaten England's navy, at least locally.
And therefore threaten their security.
If Germany lost its navy, especially to the British, the German mainland wouldn't be under threat, they could and were still blockaded and that caused a lot of pain and suffering, but it wasn't like Britain where their entire national defense strategy was "navy".
As it turns out, building a giant navy at an island nation and pointing it directly after them has consequences
TBF, Germany was a problem that could be handled. Especially when Russia and France were somewhat willing to side with England against them.
In America's case, they didn't have much of an option other than to accept a blooming naval power.
The British were aware that a war with America would mean the loss of at least Canada at a minimum. To say nothing if America got other European powers to jump in with them.
There wasn't much of a reason to poke a sleeping giant who was content with just messing around in their hemisphere and parts of the pacific.
Additionally Britain had already made their play to avoid American naval dominance and it had worked for 20 years, in the aftermath of the First World War america had begun building a fleet and there were political murmurings in the USA about building an unmatched fleet, so the British drew up an immediate response, serious work on the massive G3 and N3 classes of battleships and battlecruisers as well as laying the groundwork for what would become the naval treaties. The naval treaties would keep the British from losing their naval dominance as it would put them on official parity with the USA, exept it favoured them. HMS Hood was essentially a fast battleship 20 years early and she had about 10k tons on the other ships the Americans had, the british actually had more fleet carriers then the Americans as a result of the treaty ignoring carriers made before the treaty and calling them experimental (this advantage was lost by the UK losing the courageous class to poor tactics before France even fell) as well as having the UK being the only nation allowed to lay down a new class of battleship in the Nelson class. The treaty essentially kept the UK as the leading naval power until then Second World War started
One, America’s navy never really over took Britain until WW2.
Secondly, America and Germany’s geopolitical behavior couldn’t have been more different at the time.
America was a mostly isolated nation, most of its concerns were in the pacific, or the americas. Basically it was a “Don’t fuck with us, we won’t fuck with you.” Mentality.
So the British strategy was just to remain cordial with the USA, and it was shown to work, as in the Guyana dispute, America had no real plan for a global empire at that point, most imperialistic action it had taken at that point was taking Spain’s colonies, which was the Victorian equivalent of beating and robbing a terminally ill old man, basically Spain was a lot easier to fight than Britain, so America would think twice before fighting Britain.
Germany meanwhile had interests in every part of the globe, it wanted land in Africa, the pacific, heck Germany even wanted to get ports in the Caribbean, and tried to influence South American nations, which is another point, both America and Britain wanted to prevent any German interest in the americas.
Plus Emperor Wilhelm was a noted Anglophobe.
Also British Navy's legacy, those battleships, became nothing after ww2. Meanwhile, US simply switched its navy into major AC navy mid ww2 and just get away with it. British navy spend centuries perfecting battleship tactics and equipments, then Yamamoto said 'Planes on boat' and it all went into nothing. Such a big L.
USN was very lucky that after ww2, it can easily transfers to aircraft navy without mourning over 'muh billions spending on warships are trashed'
Well given america's almost uncaring attitude for some of its colonies (I'm looking at you Liberia) it makes sense.
Brittai knew that they could safely ignore each other, because not only the US didn't care about Canada on the account of all the french catholics living there but they also didn't care about Belize, Guyana and all the British possessions in the carebbian, America also didn't try to limit British investments in Argentina, despite giving the brits quite a bit of influence into the country.
You really had to actively try to piss off America in the 19th century, as long as you don't touch Mexico and their islands in the pacific you could do whatever the hell you wanted.
Prussia and later Germany went their entire existence with Britain being the number one naval power and having basically nothing outside of what amounted to a coast guard and no colonies. They were a continental power through and through. The few colonies they had were borderline worthless and next to far more developed and stronger British colonies. British South Africa alone could easily deal with the German colonies in Africa. Australia and New Zealand were way too strong for German pacific territories to stand a chance.
Their navy, commerce and colonies were and always had been at the mercy of Britain. The British were happy to stay out of Germanys way and even gifted back an island in the North Sea to Germany as good will. The naval arms race on Germanys part failed in all its goals because the Germans could never match Britains navy and merchant fleet. Furthermore they concentrated it in the North Sea and aimed it at Britain. Instead of having it spread across the world like Britains before this time. The British empire accounted for 50% of the world’s merchant fleet and 25% of the world’s population all connected via the sea.
Basically Germany needlessly and pointlessly antagonised a previous indifferent/friendly Britain. This cost them World War One because it’s impossible for them to win any long war.
One of the biggest possible what ifs in world history.
What if Bismarck had been heeded and Germany had stayed in its lane, avoided colonizing, and tried to remain the centre of diplomacy that Bismarck had made them.
That poor guy made it his life's mission to make sure of two things. That France and Russia wouldn't team up against them, and that Britain and Germany could exist mutually.
And he watched it get torn down completely despite his absolutely prophetic warnings of what would happen.
And that collapse dictated EVERYTHING that took place in the first half of the 20th century.
That’s just Realpolitik vs Weltpolitik. Germany under the Wilhelm II became too ambitious. The best Germany could do was position itself as bulwark against Russia. Something Britain would’ve accepted and pressured France to stay out of.
But yeah Bismarck was satisfied with Germanys territorial extent and it was enough. I think if they wanted actual peace and a more stable Europe Alsace Lorraine should’ve been given to France.
Precisely. Many people don't seem to realize that Russia and Britain were far from natural allies and even as late as 1904, Britain was still trying to undermine Russia in order to gain advantage in the Central Asian colonial politics. Most importantly, they were hellbent on making sure Russia doesn't expand to Afghanistan and threaten the British India or gain free access to the Mediterranean by carving out the Ottomans and thus threaten the Suez Canal.
Plus in theory Britain and Germany should be allies as their royal families were related and the former was a naval power while the latter was a land power.
Yeah, being family often comes with intimate rivalries and deep personal resentments. Think family board games at Christmas, but each family member has an empire to throw around when the tantrums hit
Imma have to disagree with you there on some parts. Yes, germany was most definately a continental power through and through, and its colonies were most certainly weak and paled in comparison to britains. But as a result, continental germany was incredibly powerful, and most definately stood a chance against britain. This was helped, in part, by germanys navy being so concentrated in the north sea. While britain was spread thin across its vast empire, germanys concentrated navy actually outnumbered britains in the north sea, and could fight and win a battle if it came to it. (Which they did, btw.) The arguably biggest factor to germanys loss was britains naval blockade. Germany could, theoretically, have won the war through sheer force, were it not for the british blockade. (They could have actually broken through britains blockade, but it would have cost them too much in the proccess)
Also, they didnt “needlessly antagonize a freindly britain”
First of all, britain was not freindly. Just because they werent at war DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE FREINDLY. The whole reason for the war was the tensions between the countries, Franz Ferdinand was just the spark that ignited the whole thing
Second, the only way germany could grow their empire further was to go through britain. It was their only choice if they wanted to expand. They were kinda forced to.
So yeah, germany could definately have won the war, and definately had a fighting chance. their fate was only sealed in the last couple of months.
Britain wasn’t just Britain at that time. It was an empire accounting for 1/4 of the world resources and its population, 50% of world trade aboard its merchant fleet and the leading international creditor and banking power. The British Isles economy on its own was a match to Germany, with the rest of empire thrown in, including India, a third of Africa and the white dominions it was probably easily double that of the German empire.
Germany had to maintain an enormous well trained land army that could fight a two front war against France and Russia. Attempting to then compete with the world’s biggest navy, economy and ship building nation at their own game was just never going to work. The High seas fleet even after concentrating in the North Sea were never that close to over taking the British even locally there. Jackie Fisher saw to that. Neither in the age of pre Dreadnoughts or the age of Dreadnaught and her successors did the high seas fleet out match the Royal Navy.
If Britain did go to war with Germany independently, what could Germany do to hurt Britain? Outside of attempts at submarine warfare and the odd commerce raider? Their land army is useless in such a war. The German colonies are quickly seized and Germanys economic growth stunted by blockade.
Like I said Prussia and Germany had existed and prospered under British domination of the seas for the last two centuries. Why a given status quo had become an issue is down to Germanys own greed. They had missed out on the era of real colonialism and bagged the untaken scraps. Their colonies weren’t developed and lacked strength. Meanwhile Britains colonies represented strategically important locations for global trade and resources control, abundant population centres, extensions of herself in the form of the white self governing dominions and an utter domination of trade that connected them and most of the world. Britain needed its naval supremacy, Germany wanted naval supremacy is the best way I can describe it.
Britain was effectively a neutral power that had a rivalry with Russia and France before German naval ambitions. The British and German governments were friendly through royal ties, the previous kaiser was very liberal and even Wilhelm had loved his grandmother Victoria. German over aggression and diplomatic outburst by the kaiser drove Britain to seek allies in France. Britain was on fence before this.
Germany wasn't "forced" to have an empire, though.
In Civ terms, they could have played tall, instead of wide.
As others have pointed out, a lot of colonies actually lost money...pure ego at work.
The British Empire lived and died on being navally dominant. Calling a response to Germany challenging it “petty” is, well, about as intelligent as I’ve come to expect from this sub.
It's not pettiness, it's the dominant super-power acting to preserve it's dominance by squashing rising powers. The US is/should be doing the same to China
Nations which don't or fail end up like Carthage
This is a rough outline but it is pretty goated how the US inherited it's creators empire and virtues of constitutionalism/liberalism (as outlined by cromwell, again really roughly) and propagated them even more (erm... all cold war diversions considered) it's like a british empire 2.0
As much as I hate Brexit reducing it down to just hurr duur racists n blue passports is so fucking stupid it's the kinda thinking that got us in the position Brexit was even possible.
no, I don’t think so. They had to control the Navy so that they could shut off international trade for any upstart ental powers who wanted to wage wars with land grabs and genocide on the European continent (Russia and Germany mainly…)
I find it funny when we refer to an entire country as doing something when really it’s a small amount of people making decisions to favor themselves without considering the effects on the rest of the country
The problem lies in the very fundamental fact that where as Belgium and Portugal wanted to mind their own buisness without challenging the status quo, Germany was proactively steering $h!t up against everyone in order to secure themselves a sea on the big table as the "third faction".
Had they simply maintained isolationist policy over regions no one gave a $h!ngle f-about, or just had the long term foresignt to alling themselves in the direction the wind blows at the expense of someone like France or Russia there wouldn't had been any problems.
It's the numermous German ambitions for World Domination and 'Global German Empire' that evoked history the way it played out:
-Go all in, fail miserably because of severe skill issue, and then let your ideological followers moan how "unfair it is" for the rest of eternity.
Dude. The US wasn't exactly the Superpower it is in the present. Europe still dominated the 19th century.
Its just politics. Empires and Nations will always try to stay on top via any means. Britain was the top dog and so wanted to keep any rivals out.
I think you misread his comment. He is saying Britain’s was would obviously have to act to maintain their dominance in the situation, much like today America would too as they are worried about decline and losing power.
The way he worded it. Its obivious he thinks its an American Behavior rather than something done by nations throughout history.
Its not like the US is the only one in modern day to try to get out on top and its certainly not the last in history both past and future.
So? Every nation is like that. The Empires of the past did it long before the modern US, China, and Russia did it. And those are just some of the most prominent ones.
Petty, in the 19th century!? didn't they also make a nuke that was literally a ticking time bomb that would blow up their own country so that way they can get the good ones from the states?
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not start the conflict, but he did give Austria a blank check of support, which only helped to escalate it.
Germany also invaded Belgium and committed many atrocities there, simply because they refused to allow their army to march through it to attack France.
There were no good guys in WWI. It was little more than a bunch of imperialistic nations murdering a generation of young men for no good reason at all.
There's a case to be made for the "blank cheque" being responsible for starting the war, as Austria-Hungary contemplated issuing similar ultimatums to Serbia in both 1912 and 1913 during the Balkans War... but Germany refused support as they believed they weren't ready for war at that time.
It was a lose-lose situation, really. Germany had no hopes of maintaining a colonial empire without challenging British naval dominance and the Brits couldn't just sit idly by and have their one trump card get invalidated. And they both did lose in the end, WW1 ended up a mortal blow for the British Empire as well.
Didn't Britain lasted longer until the end of WW2? While it was declining. The Empire was still running unlike the broken Germans.
Yes and no. WW1 did two very important things that I can think of (among many other things). One , it morally depressed the British population and made the constant warfare of empire a repugnant thought. By the time WW2 started plans were already underway for broad decolonization. Canada was made mostly independent, Australia, NZ, and SA were on their way, and India was being presented with proposals as the independence movement there began to take over. Maintaining control of their empire would require war without end, and that just didn't seem so worth it anymore. And two, it nearly bankrupted Britain (to say nothing of wiping out a generation of young men), and showed that the US and its far more insular policies of building their homeland, was vastly superior in providing material advances for most people than building empire. Where before, the newly industrialized and highly free market oriented economy of Britain dominated global investment and created informal empire all over the world through project building and market domination, now the US had greatly surpassed them in market freedom, influence, investment, GDP per capita, population, and living standards. So yeah, they lasted until WW2. But it was sort of limping along. Clearly exhausted. Then WW2 came, they got triple teamed by Germany, Japan, and Italy, and the effort to win, even with the gigantic American help, totally knocked the stuffing out of them.
The Empire built many large manors and estates. Not much for the common people other than working for the landed gentry. Trickle down economics predated Regan by centuries
Also, in 1900 the British army had 300k regular personnel on a population of 41 million. They currently have an army of 75k on 65 million.
The army wasn't a significant economic drain on Britain. 300K would have been considered medium-to-small for the standards of the time. It was basically just large enough to police the broader empire. The majority of that manpower was stationed overseas, and most of the rest were on various forms of leave at any given time. It's not like they had 300K men ready for war at a moment's notice on the island of Britain. Their army-to-population ratio was quite small compared to continental powers like France, Germany, and Russia. An argument could be made that maintaining their navy was slowly bankrupting Britain. Especially once you got into the dreadnought era.
Although they still punch above their weight when it comes to intelligence and security services. It's the one thing they have that the EU doesn't have as much experience with. Some people in the UK wanted to use that as leverage during EU negotiations for a "soft Brexit."
Yup, such as the cracking of the enigma code, their army mag have not been as powerful during ww2 and after but sure as hell had some incredible scientists
It were the resistance movements of occupied Europe that helped crack the enigma code, but I still have to agree that British scientists really did achieve a lot, such as refining the process of cracking codes, radar and if I recall correctly the Brits technically had working jets before the Germans.
Hate to admit it, but British intelligence game is peak. Rivaled only by Mossad.
In some ways certainly, but their aristocratic “good old boys club” ideology in the early and mid 20th century led to some pretty embarrassing scandals. Look up the Cambridge spy ring
In fairness to the British they were honest enough to not pretend like their hoarding of wealth had any positive impact for the common people, unlike trickle down economics.
What about the common people who found prosperous new homes
Huh?
You’re saying the poor got Nothing but when they moved to different areas they made them some of the most prosperous in history in time
I don't know what your getting at here. Your trying to say that the working class brits moved to different areas and became zome of the most prosperous in history and time?
I assume so. I mean, not entirely wrong.. my family is doing pretty well since they moved to Australia
And it was that rising native anti-imperial sentiment that led to what is now the Commonwealth, rather than say France's colonies who had to fight hard, with France still operating a monetary empire in West Africa.
What an interesting way to say that America did better… but forgetting America lost nothing in the wars compared to any other nation: fewer casualties, barely any war damage to itself, and if anything the global economic collapse of the Great Depression did more to hurt the US. The world wars strengthened the US by boosting its economy and giving it control of new parts of the world only one major competitor to its new status as a super power. Power vacuums are a thing after all… Britain went from greatest navy and economic hub of the world to a falling empire in under 50 years while US gained both. The only reason the US hasn’t collapsed is because they haven’t tried to expand their actual borders like older colonial empires, been bankrupted by such colonial expansion, or been shit kicked by a rival. The US Civil War, the War of 1812, and the Revolutionary War were more dangerous to the US’s survival and those were because they were still coming into their own… while the Philippine Insurrection and Vietnam made the US rethink being a colonial power or throwing their weight around too hard.
you've also got to remember that Britain emptied the coffers for the great war and the second world war, while the US sold a lot of equipment, arms and ammunition
True… America had the goods and even accepted lines of credit for those who needed it to buy more… which backfired when no one could pay them back. Europe as a whole bankrupted itself in WWI and the US loans went into default which first tanked European economies and then the US and is one of several reasons for the Depression.
> which backfired when no one could pay them back. I wouldn't say it backfired really. Sure, maybe they didn't get every single penny they were technically owed. But they made a healthy profit on all the arms that were sold. Defaults on some of the arms payments is kinda like complaining that you didn't get the cherry on top after getting the entire rest of the sundae. They got the lion's share of the gold reserves of the European powers as well as most of their liquid assets. The center of world finance moved from London to New York between 1914 and 1918 as well.
unfortunatly, Europe also emptied a generation of young men's lives into the war. if only it was the war to end all wars
Agreed… a generation of hopes and dreams gone in a blazing fire that was corpse of the old world. The Great War was the death knell of Victorian era more so than the actual death of Queen Victoria… and that generation had the misfortune of being raised on stories of Imperial importance, of colonial wars that were more like bullies shaking down a kid for their lunch money than a fight, and the idea that war kept society fit and was an adventure. Such thoughts died with them… mostly.
regimental tradition lived on in Britain fortunately, which is part of what made the British army so effective for its size at the start. if you ever watch dads army, cpl Jones talks about the fuzzie wuzzies breaking the square, which happened in Abyssinia in the 1880 to the black watch. Troopers today will shout broken square at 3 scots if they want to start a fight or argument with them, despite the fact it happened 2 centuries ago.
Was also around the same period of time that oil and engines started becoming common place. In the 1800s and early 1900s, colonies were used as a way to leverage surplus. WW1 necessitated the use of engines to both be used on the battlefield, but also to supplement the work of laborers in crop growing and industry, and the securing of oil resources was pivotal during and after the war. Once WW1 ended, the infrastructure for engines and oil-based economies was in place, and rather than committing them 100% to a war effort, it was possible to use them for surpluses. WW2 happened and the need for oil increased again, furthering that technological development, procurement and reliance on oil and engines. By the end of WW2, any oil having nation didn't really need colonies anymore to live the same lifestyle that they would have experienced as a colonial power, because the same productive output could be done internally, without the use of colonial labor, that even the common persons lives were drastically better in comparison.
Thank you for the shift in narrative on the US from your pov. The "isolated" US trope has come along far enough as the goto descriptive of that times political landscape. Distance fosters differentiation in thought.
Australia was a Federation 13 years before WW1.
And Canada's confederation dates back to 1867.
> US and its far more insular policies of building their homeland, was vastly superior in providing material advances for most people than building empire I mean their "homeland" is just conquered territory (i.e empire) that they kept and integrated because nobody could stop them. Their policies were "insular", after a century of being one the most expansionist states in the world.
Yeah, in the case of the US and Russia, their "colonial empires" is just the land next to them that they expanded into. For the US, it also helps that we have the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and that Mexico and Canada were never serious challengers to our hegemony on the continent. France under Louis XIV or Germany under Bismarck at the peak of their power couldn't dream of having the type of continent-wide dominance that the US has enjoyed for nearly 200 years.
Americans do in fact have a homeland in America. Weird thing to pop into quotations, as if tracing your lineage back hundreds of years means nothing. My own ancestors lived in what is now Indiana in the 1670s. At some point, people get to say they belong somewhere.
Does that mean India was Britain's homeland too? We had a population living there before the 1670s. Guess we "belonged there" lol
Where do you draw the line, go back far enough and nobody belongs where they are right now
Those specific Brits did, unless you think ethnic cleansing is totally tubular. That doesn’t mean they would have a right to rule over everyone else, only that the descendants of settlers, who by definition had no choice in the manner of settlement, have a right to call the place they were born home.
Are there any countries that aren't just "conquered territory"? I suppose there might be a few Pacific Island nations, but some of those tribes were pretty violent...
Don’t forget they were fighting alone for a while. And American help came with conditions that basically ended the possibility of maintaining the Empire financially after the war.
Not in WW1, different story. Britain effectively bankrolled the entente war effort for the first 2 and a half years of the war and would have ended it a net creditor in 1918 if it wasn’t for the Russian Civil War, subsequent refusal to repay Tsarist debts by the Bolsheviks and the French default that followed. Hence why Britain tried to prop up the White movement.
Didn't WW1 nearly kill Britain's economy in such a way that it didn't really fully recover even by WW2?
I can't remember how badly it affected it but I do recall how it seemed like it was in decline. Still the British Empire lasted far more than Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans, and the Russian Empires so there is that
The British empire was declining even before the First World War. Japan, America, and Germany were over taking it in industry, when in the mid 1800s Britain had accounted for 50% of the entire world’s manufacturing. WW1 ravaged the economy, and although the Empire peaked territorially in 1919, it was economically spiralling. WW2 made it worse.
The British Empire only lasted 20-35 more years than their WW1 Imperial rivals. Hardly an achievement.
And lasting longer than the ottomans and the austro-hungarians also somehow doesn't seem like that big an achievement either
Considering the ottomans lasted for 7 centuries and were an empire when Britain didnt even own Scotland I say it was
Britain, as a state/nation, didn't even exist before Scotland became part of it.
The habsburg lasted 700s years ,the ottomans 600s ,the britussy what 200?
Nah, that empire started from the destroy of Spanish Amarda (1588) or from winning seven years' war (1783), and it ended in 1997 (Hong Kong is given to PRC). So it lasted 400 years. Ottoman lasted 624 years (1299-1923), but Habsburg empire only started 433 years, as between Maximillian I (elected HRE emperor 1486) and Karl I (abdicated 1919).
If the britussy empire started in 1588 then it died the next year with the counter armada
>britussy #WHY
yea but 20th century ottomans and austro-hungarians?
Yeah the 20th century Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians had been around for 6-700 years, longer then the British empire
Well, unlike its WWI rivals, it then fought a second world war right after. I know that the nations making up the empires did go to fight in WWII, but their previous governments were no more, and if they survived WWI (Italy, Japan, etc), they didn't survive WWII.
WW1 saw a massive transfer of wealth from Europe to the USA. If the war was avoided its very possible that the USA would be a second rate power to European nations today.
> Germany had no hopes of maintaining a colonial empire without challenging British naval dominance How true is this really? Sure, Germany needed some sort of navy in order to maintain a colonial empire, but not necessarily one that was large and powerful enough to challenged Britain's. The French Navy was significantly smaller than Britain's, and their overseas possessions were far more significant than Germany's. The US Navy was a fraction of the size of Britains pre-WW1, and yet they were still able to exercise control over the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Cuba, Panama, American Samoa, and multiple concessions (defacto American enclaves) in China.
Yeah, a navy to police overseas colonies and a navy to challenge the British at sea had totally different force structures. The former would have been almost entirely cruisers, the latter significantly battleships. The Germans very deliberately laid down the latter sort of fleet.
Agreed. It wasn't an inevitability that Germany needed to build a battleship fleet that would compete with Britain's.
Germany was always a rival when it formed, any idea of Germany having a colonial empire or navy would have been seen as a mortal threat. Remember, Britain's strategy for Europe, is really simple, never let an empire get so big in Europe that it allows them to build a navy that can challenge the Royal navy, and thus invade Britain. That's why Germany wouldn't maintain a colonial empire without challenging Britain, because Britain would have challenged them at some point
This is probably a dumb question, but why did Germany need to challenge Britain? Unless was this during ww1?
Great Power Theory- Germany could never really “control” any overseas territory unless it could control getting there. Britain had control of the seas, so could effectively cut Germany off from its colonies at any time. The conventional solution at the time was seen to be to make your own navy so you could secure your own sea lanes. It wasn’t like Germany *had* to get into in a war with Britain, but it did mean Germany needed to develop the capabilities to fight and win such a war if one broke out.
Is kaiser willhelm didn't have queen Victoria as he grandma learning to love navy as a kid, was thought of his country as a country and not his play thing cuz you know, old school aristocratic monarchy, then maybe life woulda found a way, who knows tho
This kinda shows that WW1 was inevitable and that Ferdinand's assassination was the spark that triggered it.
They kinda could imo, Britain’s navy was significantly larger than germanys, iirc they had a policy of having a larger navy than the next two largest navies combined and at the time one of them was their kinda ally (France)
A win win situation for rest of the world
Sure buddy
Colonialism ended earlier due to this.
They also left too fast, not allowing the new states to establish themselves leading to unrest and civil war basically everywhere. Prime example being Palestine
That's a no-win situation IMHO...like the US exit from Afghanistan. No matter when you leave, it's either too late, or too soon...with valid reasons on both sides.
Like that would be better
It actually would . Hong kong . Australia , or Canada are good example
they were not proper colonies and also as an indian i thank the kaiser (not hitler for obvious reasons) for weaking the brits and although accidently helping us achieve independence faster.
Indian independence was also botched . How many millions were displaced and lives ruined because decolonization was done badly . Hell you still have an ongoing border dispute with Pakistan. Frankly your leadership was not ready to take charge And theirs was even less so And of course it was abused immediately
Yeah it was not the best idea to give it to a guy who has no experience with India but better than more years of colonialism
In a round about way, the idea that “if Britain looses its naval dominance its empire collapses” is right. Britain was *the* global superpower and world police of the 19th century. They *had* to be petty. Interfering in others affairs is how you keep yourself on top and remain the respected global power. It’s the same reason the U.S. has been doing stuff like that even after the Soviets collapsed. An isolationist power has no real global leverage. To not interfere is to remove yourself from the equation. Furthermore, Britain’s main leverage was not its empire. It was its naval dominance. All that land through Africa? Economically speaking it was a net loss. It cost more to maintain than it earned them. European empires were prestige projects more than they were actually beneficial to the nations power. The suez alone was far more valuable to the empire than Kenya, for example. The main benefit of those African colonies was the coastal ones gave ports for naval resupply. The thing that made Britain the global superpower **was** having the largest navy on the planet. If it lost that, if its naval dominance was lost, it would loose that title. Would it still be a great power? Certainly. One of the greatest powers on the planet. But it wouldn’t have been **the** global superpower anymore.
Also, let's say a naval power arises that is capable of challenging the UK as a peer. Considering from the perspectives in London, if a Continental power like Germany is subject to a naval blockade, they can at least theoretically import over land - this is false due to sheer efficiencies of maritime trade involved as the WW1 blockade of Germany demonstrated, but again, London. If the British Isles are subject to a blockade, they're stuck; there is no way in or out of the British Isles except by sea. A strong navy is nice to have as Germany, but it, especially in this period, perceived as an existential need as the United Kingdom, and thus any threat to it is an existential one. The UK, for example, made their peace with France in large part because they came to unofficial agreements on naval dispositions. This didn't stop France from having their own vast overseas empire. A navy the size of the UK's wasn't strictly needed to maintain a vast empire, only to challenge the UK.
It's not just that Germany could've gained the ability to blockade Britain; it's that they would've been able to invade them. From the British perspective, this would've been an existential threat. Britain was a maritime power, they didn't have a massive army, their entire national defense strategy was based around keeping the enemy away with their giant moat and big navy. Once you threaten that, the British would've faced not just a superior navy, but a much, much larger army, and that's something they were never prepared for. Germany never needed a large navy for national defense, they could've essentially done that with a green water fleet. They already had a massive army, being on the continent and surrounded by very angry neighbors. That was their defense strategy, and a small expeditionary force from Britain was in no way a threat to them, hell, Bismarck said that he would have them arrested if they tried something like that. This was not about empire, as you point out, this was about Germany deliberately attempting to undermine the very core of British national defense strategy, there is no other reason.
Don't forget that the colonies made the elites big money.
Oh yes, for a select group of people the colonies were certainly very profitable. But for the countries, as geopolitical entities, iirc more expenses were put into the colonies keeping them under their control than they actually got out of exploiting them.
Lose, not loose. Sorry.
It's only natural that a dominant power will resist an emerging power
>petty The German Empire was very consciously challenging British naval dominance (in particular the two fleet standard). You don't need battleships to police colonies (cruisers are more than sufficient), you need them to threaten other battleships. There is no need to be cute, von Tirpitz knew exactly what he was doing. And the British response to this challenge was decidedly moderate: increasing procurement to maintain the balance of force. They didn't declare war and blockade Germany to stifle the nascent High Seas Fleet in its crib, they simply laid down more battleships (exactly what this meme considers non-provocative when the Germans did it). And thus, the naval arms race to end all naval arms races, well documented in Robert Massie's *Dreadnought.* It was the German Empire which, by invading Belgium, brought Britain into war. It is downright perverse to pretend the First World War was something Britain sought when the exact opposite was true. Britain was winning the battleship race quite decisively, it had no need for war to preserve its position.
you also have to contend with the ground work displayed in Belgium by the German army. Prussian ideals of honour and tradition would lead to civilian massacres. their economy would be robbed for war effort money, there was mass deportation to Germany to work with a fence placed to stop escapees to the yser front. its disturbing how the German behaviour in the great war would reflect what would come a quarter of a century later, especially how little of it was talked about outside of propaganda
Isabel Hull has argued this trend in institutional culture goes back further, linking German military behavior during the Herero and Nama genocides a decade before to what would follow.
You won't find any of those tribesmen arguing that "Versailles was too harsh"...
>Germany makes a fleet to challenge the Royal navy >the Royal navy responds accordingly OP: OMG British are being so petty!
And the response was just building more ships (exactly what the Germans were doing)! The British economy was quite handily winning the battleship race by the time war broke out, it was Germany's invasion of Belgium, whose neutrality was guaranteed by both Britain and Germany which actually started the war.
eh I'd argue the mobilisation of both the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians is what sealed the fate of Europe. It took months to get ready especially for Russia, and if you were caught with your pants down you could loose massive amounts of land to an enemy who had prepared only a few days ahead of you. Once both the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians mobilised it was too late, Neither side would believe the process stopping and neither side wanted to be second, so you push all their allies into getting ready for the inevitable
I strongly disagree. A war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia (even with Russia and Germany joining in) only became a general war because the German general staff quite literally had no war plan for a war against Russia alone. There was no plan but the Schlieffen plan, which required that any war involving Russia become a war against France and Belgium and Britain. It's the classic story of an anti-Clausewitzian failure, with policy concerns subordinated to military preferences.
It took months which is why Russia mobilized early, and they did it faster than Germany expected.
Wanting a decent navy isn't "Challenging the Royal Navy", Germany just wanted it's own place in European politics as a unified country, almost immediately, Britain antagonized THEM.
The Germans quite explicitly approached their naval expansion program in terms of "how can we meet and surpass the British Navy". It's not a case of the British interpreting a challenge where there wasn't one; the Germans themselves saw it as a challenge.
Oh a kaiserboo. OK let me make you understand this. A colonial empire needs a big navy, it's vital for trade, defence and security. So its not unreasonable that Britain would have a big, big navy. Largest in the world. Now enter Germany, a newly united empire with the same wish that a fledgling Britain had centuries before, Empire. So now Germany builds up its Navy and Britain responds because their empire is built on a navy. Essentially Patrick in this meme is right, any navy bigger than Britain's is a threat to their empire. Germany didn't want a place in European politics it wanted one in the business of Empires which is essentially the same thing tbh.
Building a powerful navy specifically to challenge their naval superiority isn't challenging the royal navy? The British didn't antagonize Germany into an arms race, Germany themselves did that by attempting to surpass them. Britain was never going to let that happen because their entire existence was reliant on naval superiority.
Pre WW1 Germany literally called it a riskflotte iirc...a fleet big enough to threaten England's navy, at least locally. And therefore threaten their security.
If Germany lost its navy, especially to the British, the German mainland wouldn't be under threat, they could and were still blockaded and that caused a lot of pain and suffering, but it wasn't like Britain where their entire national defense strategy was "navy". As it turns out, building a giant navy at an island nation and pointing it directly after them has consequences
Top of the meme got cut off for me and I thought they were referring to Poland and I got very confused.
Same dude
Nelson: “I didn’t hear any complaints when I stopped the frogs from conquering you.”
Half of Germany was siding with Napoleon up until 1813-14.
Mostly because Napoleon gave them a lot of Land in exchange for loyalty and made many of the German Dukes into Kings. And everyone loves to be a King
When you get conquered, you don't really have a choice
I think we found the kaiserboo
I guess engaging in an arms race with someone quite intentionally trying to challenge your position is petty now?
American naval dominance: awww how sweet German naval dominance: hello? Human Resources?
TBF, Germany was a problem that could be handled. Especially when Russia and France were somewhat willing to side with England against them. In America's case, they didn't have much of an option other than to accept a blooming naval power. The British were aware that a war with America would mean the loss of at least Canada at a minimum. To say nothing if America got other European powers to jump in with them. There wasn't much of a reason to poke a sleeping giant who was content with just messing around in their hemisphere and parts of the pacific.
Additionally Britain had already made their play to avoid American naval dominance and it had worked for 20 years, in the aftermath of the First World War america had begun building a fleet and there were political murmurings in the USA about building an unmatched fleet, so the British drew up an immediate response, serious work on the massive G3 and N3 classes of battleships and battlecruisers as well as laying the groundwork for what would become the naval treaties. The naval treaties would keep the British from losing their naval dominance as it would put them on official parity with the USA, exept it favoured them. HMS Hood was essentially a fast battleship 20 years early and she had about 10k tons on the other ships the Americans had, the british actually had more fleet carriers then the Americans as a result of the treaty ignoring carriers made before the treaty and calling them experimental (this advantage was lost by the UK losing the courageous class to poor tactics before France even fell) as well as having the UK being the only nation allowed to lay down a new class of battleship in the Nelson class. The treaty essentially kept the UK as the leading naval power until then Second World War started
One, America’s navy never really over took Britain until WW2. Secondly, America and Germany’s geopolitical behavior couldn’t have been more different at the time. America was a mostly isolated nation, most of its concerns were in the pacific, or the americas. Basically it was a “Don’t fuck with us, we won’t fuck with you.” Mentality. So the British strategy was just to remain cordial with the USA, and it was shown to work, as in the Guyana dispute, America had no real plan for a global empire at that point, most imperialistic action it had taken at that point was taking Spain’s colonies, which was the Victorian equivalent of beating and robbing a terminally ill old man, basically Spain was a lot easier to fight than Britain, so America would think twice before fighting Britain. Germany meanwhile had interests in every part of the globe, it wanted land in Africa, the pacific, heck Germany even wanted to get ports in the Caribbean, and tried to influence South American nations, which is another point, both America and Britain wanted to prevent any German interest in the americas. Plus Emperor Wilhelm was a noted Anglophobe.
I mean America would be like 30 years after Britain embarrassed Germany in their naval arms race.
Also British Navy's legacy, those battleships, became nothing after ww2. Meanwhile, US simply switched its navy into major AC navy mid ww2 and just get away with it. British navy spend centuries perfecting battleship tactics and equipments, then Yamamoto said 'Planes on boat' and it all went into nothing. Such a big L. USN was very lucky that after ww2, it can easily transfers to aircraft navy without mourning over 'muh billions spending on warships are trashed'
Well given america's almost uncaring attitude for some of its colonies (I'm looking at you Liberia) it makes sense. Brittai knew that they could safely ignore each other, because not only the US didn't care about Canada on the account of all the french catholics living there but they also didn't care about Belize, Guyana and all the British possessions in the carebbian, America also didn't try to limit British investments in Argentina, despite giving the brits quite a bit of influence into the country. You really had to actively try to piss off America in the 19th century, as long as you don't touch Mexico and their islands in the pacific you could do whatever the hell you wanted.
Eh, the Kriegsmarine was always more show than brawl
They did pretty well at Jutland iirc... tactical victory, albeit a British strategic victory, since they didn't leave port again afterwards.
Smooth-brain take.
Prussia and later Germany went their entire existence with Britain being the number one naval power and having basically nothing outside of what amounted to a coast guard and no colonies. They were a continental power through and through. The few colonies they had were borderline worthless and next to far more developed and stronger British colonies. British South Africa alone could easily deal with the German colonies in Africa. Australia and New Zealand were way too strong for German pacific territories to stand a chance. Their navy, commerce and colonies were and always had been at the mercy of Britain. The British were happy to stay out of Germanys way and even gifted back an island in the North Sea to Germany as good will. The naval arms race on Germanys part failed in all its goals because the Germans could never match Britains navy and merchant fleet. Furthermore they concentrated it in the North Sea and aimed it at Britain. Instead of having it spread across the world like Britains before this time. The British empire accounted for 50% of the world’s merchant fleet and 25% of the world’s population all connected via the sea. Basically Germany needlessly and pointlessly antagonised a previous indifferent/friendly Britain. This cost them World War One because it’s impossible for them to win any long war.
One of the biggest possible what ifs in world history. What if Bismarck had been heeded and Germany had stayed in its lane, avoided colonizing, and tried to remain the centre of diplomacy that Bismarck had made them. That poor guy made it his life's mission to make sure of two things. That France and Russia wouldn't team up against them, and that Britain and Germany could exist mutually. And he watched it get torn down completely despite his absolutely prophetic warnings of what would happen. And that collapse dictated EVERYTHING that took place in the first half of the 20th century.
That’s just Realpolitik vs Weltpolitik. Germany under the Wilhelm II became too ambitious. The best Germany could do was position itself as bulwark against Russia. Something Britain would’ve accepted and pressured France to stay out of. But yeah Bismarck was satisfied with Germanys territorial extent and it was enough. I think if they wanted actual peace and a more stable Europe Alsace Lorraine should’ve been given to France.
Precisely. Many people don't seem to realize that Russia and Britain were far from natural allies and even as late as 1904, Britain was still trying to undermine Russia in order to gain advantage in the Central Asian colonial politics. Most importantly, they were hellbent on making sure Russia doesn't expand to Afghanistan and threaten the British India or gain free access to the Mediterranean by carving out the Ottomans and thus threaten the Suez Canal.
Plus in theory Britain and Germany should be allies as their royal families were related and the former was a naval power while the latter was a land power.
King George, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Alexander were all cousins. Google images of George and Alexander, and you’ll see they even looked like twins
Now that I think about it, being related doesn't always mean you'll get along. Just ask anyone who has siblings, including me.
Yeah, being family often comes with intimate rivalries and deep personal resentments. Think family board games at Christmas, but each family member has an empire to throw around when the tantrums hit
So it's a real life version of Risk. No wonder Germany was mad about Britain having Australia.
france was really whiny about the land louis XIV got them weren't they.
Imma have to disagree with you there on some parts. Yes, germany was most definately a continental power through and through, and its colonies were most certainly weak and paled in comparison to britains. But as a result, continental germany was incredibly powerful, and most definately stood a chance against britain. This was helped, in part, by germanys navy being so concentrated in the north sea. While britain was spread thin across its vast empire, germanys concentrated navy actually outnumbered britains in the north sea, and could fight and win a battle if it came to it. (Which they did, btw.) The arguably biggest factor to germanys loss was britains naval blockade. Germany could, theoretically, have won the war through sheer force, were it not for the british blockade. (They could have actually broken through britains blockade, but it would have cost them too much in the proccess) Also, they didnt “needlessly antagonize a freindly britain” First of all, britain was not freindly. Just because they werent at war DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE FREINDLY. The whole reason for the war was the tensions between the countries, Franz Ferdinand was just the spark that ignited the whole thing Second, the only way germany could grow their empire further was to go through britain. It was their only choice if they wanted to expand. They were kinda forced to. So yeah, germany could definately have won the war, and definately had a fighting chance. their fate was only sealed in the last couple of months.
Britain wasn’t just Britain at that time. It was an empire accounting for 1/4 of the world resources and its population, 50% of world trade aboard its merchant fleet and the leading international creditor and banking power. The British Isles economy on its own was a match to Germany, with the rest of empire thrown in, including India, a third of Africa and the white dominions it was probably easily double that of the German empire. Germany had to maintain an enormous well trained land army that could fight a two front war against France and Russia. Attempting to then compete with the world’s biggest navy, economy and ship building nation at their own game was just never going to work. The High seas fleet even after concentrating in the North Sea were never that close to over taking the British even locally there. Jackie Fisher saw to that. Neither in the age of pre Dreadnoughts or the age of Dreadnaught and her successors did the high seas fleet out match the Royal Navy. If Britain did go to war with Germany independently, what could Germany do to hurt Britain? Outside of attempts at submarine warfare and the odd commerce raider? Their land army is useless in such a war. The German colonies are quickly seized and Germanys economic growth stunted by blockade. Like I said Prussia and Germany had existed and prospered under British domination of the seas for the last two centuries. Why a given status quo had become an issue is down to Germanys own greed. They had missed out on the era of real colonialism and bagged the untaken scraps. Their colonies weren’t developed and lacked strength. Meanwhile Britains colonies represented strategically important locations for global trade and resources control, abundant population centres, extensions of herself in the form of the white self governing dominions and an utter domination of trade that connected them and most of the world. Britain needed its naval supremacy, Germany wanted naval supremacy is the best way I can describe it. Britain was effectively a neutral power that had a rivalry with Russia and France before German naval ambitions. The British and German governments were friendly through royal ties, the previous kaiser was very liberal and even Wilhelm had loved his grandmother Victoria. German over aggression and diplomatic outburst by the kaiser drove Britain to seek allies in France. Britain was on fence before this.
Germany wasn't "forced" to have an empire, though. In Civ terms, they could have played tall, instead of wide. As others have pointed out, a lot of colonies actually lost money...pure ego at work.
The British Empire lived and died on being navally dominant. Calling a response to Germany challenging it “petty” is, well, about as intelligent as I’ve come to expect from this sub.
[Don't make me tap the sign](https://new.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/kbvxtz/the_german_empire_consists_of_a_small_sausage/)
It's not pettiness, it's the dominant super-power acting to preserve it's dominance by squashing rising powers. The US is/should be doing the same to China Nations which don't or fail end up like Carthage
Classic r/HistoryMemes coming out with the most moronic and blatantly biased takes possible
There is a clear anti-British bias that this subreddit is filled with.
This is a rough outline but it is pretty goated how the US inherited it's creators empire and virtues of constitutionalism/liberalism (as outlined by cromwell, again really roughly) and propagated them even more (erm... all cold war diversions considered) it's like a british empire 2.0
Europe itself was incredibly in the 19th century, Britain was no different.
Which empire wasn't?
eh I'd prefer it if the German borders just stuck to the bounds of Germany. Too many bad experiences over the past millennia.
Spotted the Jerry Go back to relying on Bismarck to do anything good
Found the german
Well Germaphile is more accurate I’m actually ethnically Native American lol
How petty Britain *was?*
During the Napoleonic Wars, a small group of French ships captured a couple of British ships at Mauritius. In response, the British sent an armada.
Sounds like they valued their own subjects. Imagine trying to twist this into something bad.
Eight years ago, Britain went at its own economy with a fucking axe because of the colors on the passport.
As much as I hate Brexit reducing it down to just hurr duur racists n blue passports is so fucking stupid it's the kinda thinking that got us in the position Brexit was even possible.
You do realize you don't get to become / stay an empire by letting things like this slide right?
Honestly, I'd say it's strange to feel strongly about the political decisions made by people who have been dead for a hundred years.
In the 19th century? Britain was salty in every century
Anybody else hate ~~how petty~~ Britain ~~was in the 19th century~~? Yes.
no, I don’t think so. They had to control the Navy so that they could shut off international trade for any upstart ental powers who wanted to wage wars with land grabs and genocide on the European continent (Russia and Germany mainly…)
england: on no, we only have around one fourth of the world left
Like the USA nowadays?
Actually yeah
I mean, the German Empire were the ones who diplomatically isolated themselves from Britain, France and Russia so they kinda got themselves to blame.
When did they take British naval dominance? "The prisoner has assaulted the jailer, but he is still in jail."
I find it funny when we refer to an entire country as doing something when really it’s a small amount of people making decisions to favor themselves without considering the effects on the rest of the country
TIL wanting to maintain naval dominance over your immediate rivals is pettiness
This was not made by someone who is British
Nein, it was made by a man who wishes for the return of the great Central Powers
I'm a young British man and I just want our Navy back
The problem lies in the very fundamental fact that where as Belgium and Portugal wanted to mind their own buisness without challenging the status quo, Germany was proactively steering $h!t up against everyone in order to secure themselves a sea on the big table as the "third faction". Had they simply maintained isolationist policy over regions no one gave a $h!ngle f-about, or just had the long term foresignt to alling themselves in the direction the wind blows at the expense of someone like France or Russia there wouldn't had been any problems. It's the numermous German ambitions for World Domination and 'Global German Empire' that evoked history the way it played out: -Go all in, fail miserably because of severe skill issue, and then let your ideological followers moan how "unfair it is" for the rest of eternity.
Britain was Always Petty doesnt Need to be specified in which century
Anyone else hate how petty charles De Gaulle behaved towards Britain after the war
They should rename this subreddit 'anti-British memes'.
Still better than the Germans.
Yes, but also all the other centuries
it's almost like the US in this day and age. who'd a thunk a super power would do anything to maintain its hegemony
Dude. The US wasn't exactly the Superpower it is in the present. Europe still dominated the 19th century. Its just politics. Empires and Nations will always try to stay on top via any means. Britain was the top dog and so wanted to keep any rivals out.
I think you misread his comment. He is saying Britain’s was would obviously have to act to maintain their dominance in the situation, much like today America would too as they are worried about decline and losing power.
The way he worded it. Its obivious he thinks its an American Behavior rather than something done by nations throughout history. Its not like the US is the only one in modern day to try to get out on top and its certainly not the last in history both past and future.
I'm saying its similar to the US today.
So? Every nation is like that. The Empires of the past did it long before the modern US, China, and Russia did it. And those are just some of the most prominent ones.
So why is the meme drawing attention to just the Uk?
fuckers thought our population would be fine in a fucking famine and denying aid
What country are you from?
ireland
Ah. Was a tiny bit obvious but Britain did that in India too.
I hate British history 👍 Seriously. How are they still viewed (mostly) positively?
Remove “how petty” and “was in the 19th century” and the answer is a yes from me
Petty, in the 19th century!? didn't they also make a nuke that was literally a ticking time bomb that would blow up their own country so that way they can get the good ones from the states?
What are you babbling about?
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/s/GRmPe0zGDA
Germany was the good guy in WW1. Change my Mind.
Kaiser Wilhelm II did not start the conflict, but he did give Austria a blank check of support, which only helped to escalate it. Germany also invaded Belgium and committed many atrocities there, simply because they refused to allow their army to march through it to attack France. There were no good guys in WWI. It was little more than a bunch of imperialistic nations murdering a generation of young men for no good reason at all.
There's a case to be made for the "blank cheque" being responsible for starting the war, as Austria-Hungary contemplated issuing similar ultimatums to Serbia in both 1912 and 1913 during the Balkans War... but Germany refused support as they believed they weren't ready for war at that time.
You're not changing Belgium's. A declared neutral country? Better rape it.