Most of the industrial capacity of Britain is used the same way but when war comes, immediate needs are sacrificed
Actually and this the thing the British have to sacrifice less,at least initially as they have far more industrial surplus than anyone else. Even more to the point they have more of their industry already located in the support of naval armaments. Now in the long run that was not such a good thing as naval armaments do not by themselves promote growth but at the point in question it is a big advanatge.
No, I wouldn't suggest that anyone come to the aid of Germany to help them out of a humiliation- they might join for their own reasons such as Italy deciding she needed Germany more than Britain or France and Russia deciding that Britain was her bigger enemy.
Yes that is precisely why you and other Anglo-phobes blatantly threadjacked this whole debate to make it one about the Chimerical Alliance Against Britain for Notional and Unexplained Reasons. There was not a lot of reason for anyone to fight the British and the rest of us have tried to explain why and why even for those nations tempted it was seen as a bad idea but you simply expect your arguments to outweigh a look at the circumstances that actually applied in the era because reasons.
No one does anyone favors in politics
Again that is exactly what you are assuming people will do for Germany here because of the unpalatable truth that Germany did not have sufficient heft to go toe to toe with Britain over Samoa at this time. She could dick the British about but when push came to shove Germany would get shoved over and knew it and it rankled then as much as it does to you now.
Completely off base- no one is aiding Germany because they "love" her. That's just silly. But taking the British down a notch and grabbing some spoils? That's a different story
No it is not, the cost benefit analysis simply ruled it out as an option, then as now, there was too much risk for not enough surety of gain.
well on the off chance that the British do manage to blockade the continent, they just trade with each other and manage quite well. It might even induce them to reduce their trade barriers with each other and then their economies would boom
No just about it, the dislocations involved in changing their patterns of trade would hurt and sea transport is more economical than land transport of any form which is why so much use is made of it. Even with cross border trade flourishing the loss of cheaper good from overseas would hurt.
Funny how the British never really thought they had this kind of power- when like the cabinet told Salisbury that even with Italian support, they would never agree to attack the Sultan without a French declaration of neutrality
No the point is the British made cost benefit analyses on a case by case basis, something you require the rest of the world to forget how to do because hatred of Britain. We are asked to assess what Britain will do in the face of outright attack...well we know the Boers tried and the British went to war and they kept spending on that war until they won. What the British did not do was go around blindly attacking everyone else because yup, that is the way you do find yourself facing pan-global alliances of hostile powers. Yet here with Germany pushing to outright war over a minor tussle the other side of the world you ask us to believe that everyone will attack Britain because you ask us to believe only the British are capable of cost benefit analysis.
Not "more" powers but yes the French-German-Russian combination is lord of Europe and all the continental powers would ally themselves with it
Only in badly programmed computer strategy game, to maintain their independence the lesser powers would flock to British protection against these as Britain was balanced by these would be hegemons and so their own best interest is best served by that alliance. Only given the natural rivalries of the afore-named nations you really need to provide better motivation for such as alliance as 'hates England' was not enough, France and Germany competed for English friendship in fact.
See Arube and Jeune ecole. Torpedo boats were high on the list of weapons for commerce raiding. The biggest threat to the British from them is that the French have massive numbers and the short channel to deal with
Cruisers were to undertake the offence against commerce while torpedo boats were to defend French shores to make up for the disparity in the two sides battle lines. The British did study the effectiveness of torpedo boats on the attack but the conclusion was it was not enough and other navies agreed hence why spending on cruisers and even battleships for the smaller powers still exceeded that on torpedo boats even though the same number of francs buys more torpedo boats.
Quite interesting- a bigger ocean makes raiding commerce harder? How exactly? A bigger ocean means that the British have to spend more protecting their commerce. You only have to attack a ship once but you have to protect it for the whole journey
To raid it you have to find it.
Forcing the British into convoys around the entire world would be tantamount to sinking more than 75% of them it would reduce capacity that much
We both know you cannot substantiate that claim as it is just silly now don't we?
And when did I ever say that anyone loved the Germans?
Well unless they do they are not going to make the sacrifices required to make your alliance work so if even you cannot bring yourself to say it you had better hope they felt it in their hearts
