How would British economy looks like without ww1?

BooNZ

Banned
I believe that was rather Catsmate's point, yes.

I'm intrigued. What evidence convinced you Imperial Russia was destined to collapse into revolution before 1918 without the distraction of war?

Who would have led this illustrious endeavor and how would it have been supported? - certainly not by Wilhelm.

Since 1905 Okhrana had so thoroughly penetrated the Polish resistance movement that many of the senior members were actually Okhrana operatives.

Ongoing economic growth and more recent agricultural reforms were having tangible, be it gradual improvement on quality of life of the average Russian peasant. Political reform and improved education were great aspirational goals, but those were low priorities for the average peasant.

Nicky was a first class fool, but that was not necessarily apparent to the (adoring) great unwashed during peacetime.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
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.

OTL Britain was the largest market for German manufactured goods, since the UK GDP (per capita and absolute) was far higher than continental economies. 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).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OTL Britain was the largest market for German manufactured goods
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'm intrigued. What evidence convinced you Imperial Russia was destined to collapse into revolution before 1918 without the distraction of war?
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.
 

BooNZ

Banned
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.

How unpopular could Imperial Preference be? Besides, you're nattering on about Germany seeking to incite various revolutions...
 

BooNZ

Banned
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 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.
 

Deleted member 94680

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.

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
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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
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.

How unpopular could Imperial Preference be
It caused the biggest landslide election victory in British history.

Besides, you're nattering on about Germany seeking to incite various revolutions...
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.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
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
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.
 

Deleted member 94680

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.

But the French? The Portuguese? The Dutch or Belgians? They're all going to go "Oh inciting violence in Empires, cool with me!" The Americans wouldn't cheer it at all (at least those in power wouldn't) I assume that to reference your "100+ Afghanistans" claim would involve this action being in the Western Hemisphere - violating the Monroe Doctrine. Also, how is blockade Britain's only course of action? What about returning the favour in Germany's colonies?

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.

Err, Germany was a colonial empire as well remember?

You really are off the reservation on this one.
 

BooNZ

Banned
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.

Sorry dude, 'agricultural societies' like Australia and NZ were not backward inefficient primary producers like Germany - their superior GDP illustrates that those societies were far better at primary production than the Germans were at making stuff in their sweat shops. Australia and NZ both bought a dreadnaught before the war, although HMS New Zealand was gifted and commissioned directly into the Royal navy. Imperial preference was already the default mindset for many within the British Empire.
 
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.
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,

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.

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.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But the French? The Portuguese? The Dutch or Belgians?
Germany have nothing to fear these countries.

Err, Germany was a colonial empire as well remember?

You really are off the reservation on this one.
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.

primary producers like Germany
Calling Germany, an industrialized country, a primary producer is a total claptrap.

the Germans were at making stuff in their sweat shops.
What I know is that Germany introduced the first welfare and social programme in the world, well before "liberal" Britain.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
Calling Germany, an industrialized country, a primary producer is a total claptrap.

Germany was a very significant primary producer - it was just not very good at it. This has been identified and discussed on at least three separate threads that you have started. Prior to the war the German primary industry would have been vastly larger than the German machine tools, electrical equipment, chemistry and optics industry combined. For example, up until 1910 Germany was the world's largest sugar producer.

What I know is that Germany introduced the first welfare and social programme in the world, well before "liberal" Britain.
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.
 

BooNZ

Banned
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'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.

A People's Tragedy is a brutal read that pulls no punches on the shortfalls of Imperial Russian society, but that author makes it very clear progress was being made and a revolution was in no way inevitable - let alone pending.

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,

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. Are you sure you have read a book?

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.

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.
 

hipper

Banned
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 in the context that Germany was backing/causing rebellions all over the British empire then a Clausius belli would not be too hard to seek,

however smartly applied blocade measures are available to the UK, seizure of German merchant vessels and German contraband carried in neutral vessels would offend no one indeed the Americans may welcome the sudden cessation of German competition in the world markets,

I'm sure imperial Russia and France with its own colonies would not be too upset given German actions.
 
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.
Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Romanovs. I actually have Figes' book on my list, but I haven't gotten around to it just yet.

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
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.

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.
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...?
 

Deleted member 94680

Germany have nothing to fear these countries.

Oh my god, that's fantastic.


Germany can easily discard their useless colonies if have to. Besides, their colonies were far less populated than Egypt, India, Malaya or Burma.

Simply, obviously, historically not going to happen.

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.

That would be an internal issue for the Indian Government. They'd got quite good at it to be fair. It wouldn't be that costly, if OTL is anything to go by.
 
Top