I believe that was rather Catsmate's point, yes.Not especially, no. Any surge of patriotism would have been firmly behind the monarchy. More Russians considered Nicky a god than wanted rid of him - Russia did have serious educational issues...
I believe that was rather Catsmate's point, yes.Not especially, no. Any surge of patriotism would have been firmly behind the monarchy. More Russians considered Nicky a god than wanted rid of him - Russia did have serious educational issues...
I believe that was rather Catsmate's point, yes.
Britain cannot blockade Germany without a real war, or they would anger the Americans. International opinions would go against Britain for their blatant violation of international laws (blockading a country during peacetime).What sort of retaliation could the UK Inflict on Germany it it was being so stupid. Economic Blockade and siesure of overseas colonies would economically cripple Germany and humiliate her and there is not much she could do in return apart from submarine warfare which had unfortunate effects historically and was also ineffective.
Britain cannot blockade Germany without a real war, or they would anger the Americans. International opinions would go against Britain for their blatant violation of international laws (blockading a country during peacetime).
Also, German colonies are economically useless, so Germany could simply abandon them.
Yes, but Europe was a larger market for Germany than British Empire as a whole.OTL Britain was the largest market for German manufactured goods
I'm not sure why you're asking me, because it's not my argument. My point was that pointing out that any rally-round-the-flag effect would redound to the benefit of the throne supports Catsmate's argument that the war in the short run reinforced the throne, not yours that it undermined it.I'm intrigued. What evidence convinced you Imperial Russia was destined to collapse into revolution before 1918 without the distraction of war?
Yes, but Europe was a larger market for Germany than British Empire as a whole.
Without the experiences from the war, any attempt to introduce Tariffs in Britain would be politically suicidal.
I was simply curious about how you derived your opinion. Catsmate's (alleged) argument was the war extended the Imperial rule of Russia (i.e. it was facing collapse before 1918), not that there were some trivial positives experienced during wartime.I'm not sure why you're asking me, because it's not my argument. My point was that pointing out that any rally-round-the-flag effect would redound to the benefit of the throne supports Catsmate's argument that the war in the short run reinforced the throne, not yours that it undermined it.
Britain cannot blockade Germany without a real war, or they would anger the Americans. International opinions would go against Britain for their blatant violation of international laws (blockading a country during peacetime).
Also, German colonies are economically useless, so Germany could simply abandon them.
Well, because blockading (the only viable card for Britain) a country during peacetime is violation of international laws. But no one would care about Germany's actions to destabilize British colonies. Many anti-Imperialist Americans would even cheer the German.German destabilisation of British Imperial possessions = completely fine, no one will care.
British retaliation against German sponsorship of rebellion = world will go nuts, align against Britain.
More laughably one sided bollocks
It caused the biggest landslide election victory in British history.How unpopular could Imperial Preference be
Well, Germany's agents could take the role of liberators of weak people who were oppressed by British rulers. Britain, a colonial empire, could not do the same with Germany.Besides, you're nattering on about Germany seeking to incite various revolutions...
Oh, I forget to tell you that British colonies and dominions, which were mainly agricultural societies, would not buy much of German exports, which mainly consisted of high-tech products like optics, electrical machinery, machine tools, sulphuric acids...Sorry man, these high-tech goods mainly served manufacturing factories in industrialized countries.Further, parts of the British empire were wealthier than most parts of Europe - for example Australia and NZ had a higher GDP per capita than either the UK (or the US). If Britain had erected trade barriers between Germany and the British empire, it would have been a wrecking ball through the middle of German industry (and their underpaid sweatshop workers
Well, because blockading (the only viable card for Britain) a country during peacetime is violation of international laws. But no one would care about Germany's actions to destabilize British colonies. Many anti-Imperialist Americans would even cheer the German.
Well, Germany's agents could take the role of liberators of weak people who were oppressed by British rulers. Britain, a colonial empire, could not do the same with Germany.
Oh, I forget to tell you that British colonies and dominions, which were mainly agricultural societies, would not buy much of German exports, which mainly consisted of high-tech products like optics, electrical machinery, machine tools, sulphuric acids...Sorry man, these high-tech goods mainly served manufacturing factories in industrialized countries.
Well, for one thing I was recently reading about just this period in the history of Russia, and the author made this exact argument (that, at least in the short term, going to war was vital for the survival of the regime. If nothing else, the author argued, backing down in the face of German-Austro pressures over Serbia would have severely undermined it). Needless to say, I trust a published author with cited sources more than a random commentator on an internet board.I was simply curious about how you derived your opinion. Catsmate's (alleged) argument was the war extended the Imperial rule of Russia (i.e. it was facing collapse before 1918), not that there were some trivial positives experienced during wartime.
Before the war started in 1914 industrial unrest was on a massive scale, and increasing. I don't see it quietening much without the war, it's possible to argue that the outbreak of WW1 actually saved the Tsarist regime for a period.
Germany have nothing to fear these countries.But the French? The Portuguese? The Dutch or Belgians?
Germany can easily discard their useless colonies if have to. Besides, their colonies were far less populated than Egypt, India, Malaya or Burma. Well, mass revolutions, oh, or even unrests between different religious groups, in India would be a total disaster, which would be extremely costly to suppress.Err, Germany was a colonial empire as well remember?
You really are off the reservation on this one.
Calling Germany, an industrialized country, a primary producer is a total claptrap.primary producers like Germany
What I know is that Germany introduced the first welfare and social programme in the world, well before "liberal" Britain.the Germans were at making stuff in their sweat shops.
Calling Germany, an industrialized country, a primary producer is a total claptrap.
That was a modest social dividend for putting up with comparatively low (competitive) wages and high food costs (due to protectionist policies and inefficient Junker estates), while German taxpayers funded corporate welfare like the German naval buildup.What I know is that Germany introduced the first welfare and social programme in the world, well before "liberal" Britain.
Well, for one thing I was recently reading about just this period in the history of Russia, and the author made this exact argument (that, at least in the short term, going to war was vital for the survival of the regime. If nothing else, the author argued, backing down in the face of German-Austro pressures over Serbia would have severely undermined it). Needless to say, I trust a published author with cited sources more than a random commentator on an internet board.
But that's not actually important. My "opinion" and comment was merely that the argument you were proffering did not in fact support your argument that the regime was going to cruise along just fine without the war, because your comment provided a plausible explanation for why a war would avert a revolution, at least in the short run, without providing any reason for expecting the monarchy to not face revolution shortly. In fact, Catsmate's argument was, if you recall,
What you'll note is that the argument is exactly that the "trivial positives" you refer to involving the rally-round-the-tsar effect helped alleviate difficulties the regime was facing with regards to its population in the short run. Therefore, your point that there was a rally-round-the-tsar effect supports Catsmate, since it shows that those "trivial positives" did exist and did boost public opinion of the regime, again at least in the short run. Of course the effects of the war made things worse in the longer run, but that is irrelevant to Catsmate's argument. Hence my comment that "Any surge of patriotism would have been firmly behind the monarchy" was rather Catsmate's point.
Britain cannot blockade Germany without a real war, or they would anger the Americans. International opinions would go against Britain for their blatant violation of international laws (blockading a country during peacetime).
Also, German colonies are economically useless, so Germany could simply abandon them.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Romanovs. I actually have Figes' book on my list, but I haven't gotten around to it just yet.I'm not questioning your literacy - yet, but it would be nice if you could remember the name and author of 'the book'. A loss of 'face' from backing down is not the same as the Russian empire facing imminent collapse, as implied by you and Catsmate. Nor is the loss of face from backing down remotely comparable to Nicky taking personal responsibility for the military, which proceeds to lose millions of men, in addition to the suffering and collapse of the home front.
Except, you know, you kind of didn't. Not in the post I was quoting. You only did that after I pointed out the poverty of your post. Which was the point I was making--the post I was quoting was not supporting your line of argument. The later post did, but it hadn't been posted yet, so it's unclear why you think I should have taken it into account.I did not say the regime was 'cruising', but it was clearly not under any immediate threat. I stated very clearly (1) the life of the average Russian had been gradually improving, (2) the Russian secret police had been active (and effective) since the last (wartime) insurgency in 1905 and (3) that there was no credible leader or sponsor for a regime change/ revolution - those are three reasons
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one making the argument, remember! What is it with people lately and acting like I'm the originator of a line of argument when I step in to point out deficiencies in one side or the other...?Where is you evidence that Nicky needed a boost in support to prevent the almost immediate collapse of his regime? - that was Catsmate's argument, which again, is simply not credible.
Germany have nothing to fear these countries.
Germany can easily discard their useless colonies if have to. Besides, their colonies were far less populated than Egypt, India, Malaya or Burma.
Well, mass revolutions, oh, or even unrests between different religious groups, in India would be a total disaster, which would be extremely costly to suppress.