Without using the internets, what aircraft won the Battle of Britain?

[Gnomvid]

As stated without cheating which of the following aircraft made the biggest contribution and effectively won the Battle of Britain?

A. Mosquito
B. P51 Mustang
C. Spitfire
D. P47 Thunderbolt
E. Hurricane
F. Typhoon

[Astrella]

The Hawker Hurricane.

[Kaeso]

The spitfire, I presume? It's the iconic fighter of the RAF as far as I know.

[Astrella]

The spitfire, I presume? It's the iconic fighter of the RAF as far as I know.

It's iconic, yeah, but the Hurricane was a lot more common during the battle of Britain and was a very reliable plane.

[JustSomeGuy]

Define 'biggest contribution'; otherwise, you'd expect the spitfire, being the famous ww2 british plane, pride of Britain etc. So i'll assume q trick question and the spitfire wasn't manufactured until after or something, or there weren't as many as whatever other planes could be scraped together so didn't do that much 'contributing'.

Being stubborn though, i'll say spitfire anyway.

[comicshorse]

I'd say Spitfire won it but the Hurricane held the line long enough to prevent it from being lost

[Gnomvid]

Define 'biggest contribution'; otherwise, you'd expect the spitfire, being the famous ww2 british plane, pride of Britain etc. So i'll assume q trick question and the spitfire wasn't manufactured until after or something, or there weren't as many as whatever other planes could be scraped together so didn't do that much 'contributing'.

Being stubborn though, i'll say spitfire anyway.

Yes a bit of a trick question, Astrella is correct although the Spitfire is much more famous the Hurri was the de facto workhorse during the Battle of Britain as there were far more of them available then there were Spitfires.

The Spitfires that were available did a good job but there were not enough of them to really make a difference.
Also a lesser known fact winning the Battle of Britain was to a large part due to the Polish 303 fighter squadron they shot down more enemy's then any other Fighter command unit during the battle.

[nedz]

Arguably the gyrocopters which were used to calibrate the radar systems.

Hurricane's outnumbered Spitfires by about 2-3 to 1; the precise ratio varied.

Interestingly the RAF had four fighters in service at that time, no one remembers the other two. Can anyone name these ?

[Astrella]

The one with the back-facing turret? Can't remember the name right now though.

My second guess would be the Typhoon, but I can't seem to remember if it was ever fielded as it's intended purpose of interceptor, I remember it mostly from being a ground attack craft.

[Aedilred]

As others have mentioned, the Hurricane was the most numerous fighter the RAF had, which I assume was the intent of the question, although it would be a stretch to say it "won" the BoB; it wouldn't be any more accurate than saying the RAF won the BoB despite most of their planes being Hurricanes. Really the biggest single technological contribution was probably RADAR.


Interestingly the RAF had four fighters in service at that time, no one remembers the other two. Can anyone name these ?
Presumably one of them was the Gloster Gladiator. I'm not sure when the other fighters came into service.

[Palanan]

There's one story about a German pilot who was shot down by a Hurricane and didn't want to admit it.

He was forced down into a field, the Hurricane pilot followed him down, and the captured German began arguing with the Hurricane pilot, insisting that he'd actually been shot down by a Spitfire. The Hawker Hurricane was sitting there right on the field, plain as day, but the German pilot refused to accept it. He wanted to have been shot down by a Spitfire.

It's been a long time since I've watched the movie Battle of Britain, but I assume that did a lot to imprint the Spitfire on the general consciousness as the aircraft that held the line. It's certainly a sleek, lovely machine. There's a lot of similar discussion about the role of the P-51 over Europe, since the P-47 Thunderbolt actually did a lot more of the heavy lifting--but the Mustang is the classic fan favorite.

Also, the Polish 303rd rings a bell--is that the one that Gabby Gabreski joined?

[nedz]

The one with the back-facing turret? Can't remember the name right now though.
Bolton-Paul Defiant - the turret fighter.
Typhoon was much later.

Presumably one of them was the Gloster Gladiator. I'm not sure when the other fighters came into service.
Yep, obsolete but still around. The ones which defended Malta became quite famous.

[Gnomvid]

As others have mentioned, the Hurricane was the most numerous fighter the RAF had, which I assume was the intent of the question, although it would be a stretch to say it "won" the BoB; it wouldn't be any more accurate than saying the RAF won the BoB despite most of their planes being Hurricanes. Really the biggest single technological contribution was probably RADAR.

Presumably one of them was the Gloster Gladiator. I'm not sure when the other fighters came into service.

Well yes what aircraft brought about victory was the question, technology wise it was undoubtedly radar, but the Germans themselves was the biggest contributing factor after they had accidentally bombed a city and later completely switched to bombing population centers instead of the airfields which they were doing in the beginning a few more days or a week and the RAF would have succumbed to the attrition but fortunately the master race made a huge strategic error and gave the RAF the reprieve it needed to continue fighting effectively.


Arguably the gyrocopters which were used to calibrate the radar systems.

Hurricane's outnumbered Spitfires by about 2-3 to 1; the precise ratio varied.

Interestingly the RAF had four fighters in service at that time, no one remembers the other two. Can anyone name these ?

If we are talking monoplanes then the Bristol 133 or 233 or what it was called may have been the other the Typhoon came much later and was not manuverable enough as a front line fighter so it was relegated to the Fighter bomber role

[Gnomvid]

It's been a long time since I've watched the movie Battle of Britain, but I assume that did a lot to imprint the Spitfire on the general consciousness as the aircraft that held the line. It's certainly a sleek, lovely machine. There's a lot of similar discussion about the role of the P-51 over Europe, since the P-47 Thunderbolt actually did a lot more of the heavy lifting--but the Mustang is the classic fan favorite.

Also, the Polish 303rd rings a bell--is that the one that Gabby Gabreski joined?

Yes and the P-51 was rather rubbish until it was equipped with the Merlin engine.

Close he tried to join them but they were off resting so he was posted to 315 Squadron instead.

[factotum]

Yeah, I'd say Hurricane as well simply because of the numbers--more than twice as many as there were Spitfires. Wonder if there are numbers anywhere showing exactly how many aircraft were shot down by each type?

[Aedilred]

There's one story about a German pilot who was shot down by a Hurricane and didn't want to admit it.

He was forced down into a field, the Hurricane pilot followed him down, and the captured German began arguing with the Hurricane pilot, insisting that he'd actually been shot down by a Spitfire. The Hawker Hurricane was sitting there right on the field, plain as day, but the German pilot refused to accept it. He wanted to have been shot down by a Spitfire.

It's been a long time since I've watched the movie Battle of Britain, but I assume that did a lot to imprint the Spitfire on the general consciousness as the aircraft that held the line. It's certainly a sleek, lovely machine. There's a lot of similar discussion about the role of the P-51 over Europe, since the P-47 Thunderbolt actually did a lot more of the heavy lifting--but the Mustang is the classic fan favorite.

Also, the Polish 303rd rings a bell--is that the one that Gabby Gabreski joined?

The Battle of Britain is probably part of it, but I think the Spitfire was pretty cemented in the public mind during the war itself. It's sexier, and was a superior fighter to the Hurricane, which made it a good poster-boy. The Hurricane was a respectable plane - albeit probably not as good as most of the German ones - but it was effectively the workhorse to the Spitfire's thoroughbred; the Spitfire was the plane of a fighter ace.

And while it's certainly true there were more Hurricanes in the air, there were still a very significant number of Spitfires, of course. It's not like they were special snowflakes of which there were only ever a handful.

Of course, my perspective is skewed anyway, since my grandfather flew Spitfires - not in Britain, though.

[Ravens_cry]

A superior aircraft, especially in speed and manoeuvrability, would punch far, far above its weight.
What won the battle of Britain just as much, if not more, was Radar.
The advanced warning it gave allowed the UK to send their limited numbers where needed with precision.
At the time, the UK radar net was quite top secret, with good reason.

[Hbgplayer]

Of the given options, the P51 had the most impact as it was the first Allied fighter with enough range to escort the B-17s (and British equivalent, I can't remember off the top of my head) into Germany and still be able to fight the Luftwaffe, dramatically increasing the effectiveness of the bombing runs.
As for the plane with the biggest influence in ending the war, it depends on what theatre. In Europe, the aforementioned B-17 Flying Fortress had the biggest impact on killing the German war machine. The U.S. could produce scores of them in a short period of time, the could carry tons of bombs, and they could take a beating and still get the crews home.
In the Pacific, the B-29 Super Fortress had an even more impressive range, had a massive payload, and two of these birds dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, knocking the fight out of them. In Pacific, the P-47 Thunderbolt had more more of an impact on the tactical level, being able to provide close ground support for the men storming the island with dive bombings and staffing runs.

[Ravens_cry]

I'd say the closest equivalent would be the Lancaster.

[Hbgplayer]

Oops, how in the world did I miss the fact that it said Battle of Britain. :smallredface:
In that case, the Spitfire, if I recall correctly.

[golentan]

I was going to post a lengthy treatise about the relative merits of the Hurricane vs. the Spitfire and why no one aircraft could be said to have won the battle of britain, but then I saw that you said without using the internets.

And I don't have your mailing address to snail mail my treatise to you.

[sktarq]

Basically the Hawker Hurricane. The Supermarine Spitfire however I would say was more instrumental in the propaganda and psychological sides of the battle.

on the gladiator:

Yep, obsolete but still around. The ones which defended Malta became quite famous.
Faith, Hope, and Glory have appeared in just about every one of my present and future game settings as Easter Eggs for my players.

[Crow]

As stated without cheating which of the following aircraft made the biggest contribution and effectively won the Battle of Britain?

A. Mosquito
B. P51 Mustang
C. Spitfire
D. P47 Thunderbolt
E. Hurricane
F. Typhoon

I would have to guess the hurricane.

[tomandtish]

It's actually a debate that's never been really settled. Even looking at kill counts isn't reliable. I get to cheat a little, because my grandfather (retired and now deceased Navy Admiral) wrote a paper about it that I got to read.

General consensus of his group was that it was actually a joint effort. Hurricanes were best at going after enemy bombers. Spitfires were much better suited for attacking the fighter escorts. By tying up the fighters, they allowed the Hurricanes to take on the bombers with a lot less opposition. So they really often had different roles, and if neither performs their role, bad things happen.

[Coidzor]

And here I was under the impression that it was the decision by the German leadership to stop attacking airfields and production facilities and instead go after civilian targets that lead to the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Britain.

[Bulldog Psion]

As stated without cheating which of the following aircraft made the biggest contribution and effectively won the Battle of Britain?

A. Mosquito
B. P51 Mustang
C. Spitfire
D. P47 Thunderbolt
E. Hurricane
F. Typhoon

Without looking at the thread or the Internet -- the Spitfire.

[Philistine]

It's actually a debate that's never been really settled. Even looking at kill counts isn't reliable. I get to cheat a little, because my grandfather (retired and now deceased Navy Admiral) wrote a paper about it that I got to read.

General consensus of his group was that it was actually a joint effort. Hurricanes were best at going after enemy bombers. Spitfires were much better suited for attacking the fighter escorts. By tying up the fighters, they allowed the Hurricanes to take on the bombers with a lot less opposition. So they really often had different roles, and if neither performs their role, bad things happen.
The division of roles idea is nice, but my understanding is that it was rarely possible to achieve that in practice: even if enough/the right squadrons were available to give the controllers the ideal mix of both types, coordinating their attacks to achieve that was simply beyond what was possible in the time available to respond to an attack and with the technology available in the period. So generally, both Spits and Hurris would go for the bombers as priority targets, engaging the escort only if they couldn't get around.

And despite the mythologizing, a Hurricane vs an early Bf109E was hardly an insurmountable mismatch - especially when the Emil driver had to fly with one eye on his fuel gauge lest he find himself swimming home.


And here I was under the impression that it was the decision by the German leadership to stop attacking airfields and production facilities and instead go after civilian targets that lead to the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Britain.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom. There were a lot of factors in play, though - history is hardly ever as simple as "And then these guys just totally derped, which made them lose." In this case, for example, switching targets helped the RAF more than it helped the Luftwaffe, yes. OTOH, the Luftwaffe was losing anyway - based on squadron readiness figures, new pilots and aircraft were coming online with Fighter Command faster than they were being lost, even during the most difficult period of the Battle. The Luftwaffe, OTOH, was falling behind the rate of loss from Day 1.

[Stardrake]

Strictly speaking, it was a joint effort, but if one had to pick one, it was the Hurricane.

The division of roles was certainly something that was aimed for, and not just because the Spitfire was more valuable for anti-fighter use (as someone said earlier in this thread, the Hurricane wasn't helpless against the Emil, but the Emil was between the two in general performance - which is part of why it was embarrassing for a 109 pilot to be shot down by a Hurricane rather than a Spitfire). The Hurricane did actually have its own advantages for anti-bomber use - its airframe, while of the more primitive WW1-esc fabric rather than the more modern all-metal construction, actually proved more durable than the Spitfire when it came to withstanding defensive fire from a bomber, and while both were armed with .303s, the Hurricane's had more concentrated convergence of fire and thus was more effective at knocking bombers out of the sky. Of course, wartime conditions mean that you can't strictly follow a division of roles - a Hurricane without Spitfire accompaniment or directly engaged by a 109 would of course defend itself, and a Spitfire would happily prey on a bomber given the opportunity - but between this and there simply being more Hurries, the Hurricane overall made the strongest contribution in purely military terms.

Interestingly, the Germans would use a similar distribution in the daylight bombing campaigns, except they did it the other way around - they used the by then basically obsolete 109G to oppose enemy fighters, while the 190s took on the bombers, even though the Butcher Bird had a better performance, basically because the Focke-Wulf also had a lot more durability and firepower. The 109 really only lasted as long as it did because, like the British 2-pounder antitank gun earlier in the war, the Germans couldn't afford to lose production of new fighters long enough to switch to more up-to-date designs, so they made do with making constant upgrades to the 109 in a frantic attempt to keep up. If jets were available, all of the piston-engined fighters were expected to dogfight while the jets attacked the bombers, although again, opportunistically knocking down a bomber was not frowned on.

None of the others in the list were involved in the Battle of Britain, if I recall correctly. The Mosquito would become both the most important fast bomber and the most important night fighter (these two roles overlapped a lot in WW2, although obviously not with the same marks) in the British, and possibly the entire Allied inventory. The Typhoon was a disappointment as a fighter, but got a reprieve as a ground attack aircraft.

On the American aircraft: the P-47 was an effective single-engined heavy fighter, but lacked the legs for the escort role - when the P-51 arrived, the P-47's greater armour, firepower (eight .50s versus the US standard, including on the Mustang, of six) and carrying capacity made it an important aircraft for ground attack and air cover of Allied ground forces. The P-51, of course, provoked the famous quote from Goering ("when I saw Mustangs over Europe, I knew the war was lost") - until the Mustang was introduced, the US daylight bombing campaign was actually on the verge of having to give up due to the casualties they were taking, and the Mustang turned that around. Until then, it was still in principle possible for Germany to stall the Eastern Front until some new technical or tactical development allowed them to regain the initiative - with their industry being smashed by constant bombing, though, it was all over.

Incidentally, regarding who was winning the Battle of Britain before the Blitz started - from what I've read, a lot of historians consider that Fighter Command was within a couple of days of collapse as an effective force when they got their reprieve. The Germans at that point, though, still had a lot of reserves, even though they were losing at a greater rate (it wasn't actually until the very last stages that the Luftwaffe collapsed as an effective force). The attackers in an air campaign, assuming roughly equivalent capabilities (so not talking about most modern conflicts here...) is naturally going to have higher losses due to having bombers around, being further from bases, pilots bailing out onto enemy rather than friendly territory, and so on. The question is whether the attackers can sustain these losses - the Luftwaffe could.

What really saved Britain, though, was the weather. With the technology at the time, there was a fairly narrow window in which a cross-channel invasion could succeed, and the RAF held out long enough for Germany to miss that window. Switching to the Blitz instead, while still not a good strategic decision (mind you, it's from experience in WW2 that we now know that civilian bombing isn't worth it as a military tactic, even putting the moral questions aside) was in part an acknowledgement that Operation Sea Lion wasn't going to happen that year.

(And yes, this did all come off the top of my head. Played a lot of WW2-era flight sims as a kid, my father and both grandfathers have served in air forces including one who flew Lancasters (albeit only in training, the war ended before he completed training), and did enough reading in military history that my year 10 teacher commented on my final report that she hoped I'd learned as much from her as vice versa. (For the record, yes - we had different focuses. I had concentrated more on the military and technology side of things, while the curriculum focused more on the political and social aspects.))

[Aedilred]

That's certainly the conventional wisdom. There were a lot of factors in play, though - history is hardly ever as simple as "And then these guys just totally derped, which made them lose." In this case, for example, switching targets helped the RAF more than it helped the Luftwaffe, yes. OTOH, the Luftwaffe was losing anyway - based on squadron readiness figures, new pilots and aircraft were coming online with Fighter Command faster than they were being lost, even during the most difficult period of the Battle. The Luftwaffe, OTOH, was falling behind the rate of loss from Day 1.

Two other factors that are often overlooked in the grand scheme of things are experience of pilots and the location of the fighting. It was mentioned earlier that there was a very successful Polish squadron in the RAF, which is true; the RAF "inherited" experienced pilots from Poland and Czechoslovakia, and was augmented by pilots from the rest of the Empire. This helped to offset the disadvantage in material and technology, and the relatively raw RAF pilots compared to the experienced German veterans.

And because the fighting mostly took place over Britain, if a pilot was downed but not killed, he could be put back into circulation, which allowed more experienced pilots to fly more missions, whereas Luftwaffe pilots were captured and unable to fly again. After a while, that level of attrition is going to take its toll.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's certainly the conventional wisdom. There were a lot of factors in play, though - history is hardly ever as simple as "And then these guys just totally derped, which made them lose."

Although Hitler's decision to invade Russia during any other month than July and not being done conquering it by end of August helped a lot. :smallbiggrin: (It's not only the Russian winters. At least then, being an immense country with bad roads, made the mud in spring and fall almost as bad as the winter).

[Stardrake]

Although Hitler's decision to invade Russia during any other month than July and not being done conquering it by end of August helped a lot. :smallbiggrin: (It's not only the Russian winters. At least then, being an immense country with bad roads, made the mud in spring and fall almost as bad as the winter).It helped, yes, but I think the level of blunder that represented has been exaggerated. Germany came close to taking Moscow (not necessarily a knockout blow, but in a nation which at the time was basically held together by fear of Stalin, losing the capital would have been a major blow to his credibility as a dictator and may have lead to his overthrow) and was initially welcomed as liberators in much of the western Soviet Union (and threw that away by being Those Wacky Nazis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThoseWackyNazis)).

If they'd prepared better for the winter, managed to not lose the hearts and minds campaign to Stalin of all people, and generally not underestimated Russia quite so badly, Barbarossa could have had a quite different outcome. Weather aside, it's also questionable whether there'd have ever been a better time to invade Russia - Stalin had just gutted the Red Army, and waiting would have given the Soviet military a chance to build back up again, possibly towards Stalin deciding to attack Germany as soon as he decided the odds were good.

So, between how close they actually came and the possibility that Germany didn't attack Russia at a time of its choosing than Russia might attack Germany at a time of it's own choosing, I don't think the choice to invade Russia when they did was really the colossal [censored]-up that many historians present it as.

Now, realistically speaking, of course, Germany would probably have been much better off manipulating Stalin into attacking Finland or Poland first, presenting itself as the protector of Eastern Europe, and avoiding war with Britain, France and, ultimately, the US altogether. But that would have required a level of subtlety, patience and political acumen that the Nazis lacked.

[factotum]

And here I was under the impression that it was the decision by the German leadership to stop attacking airfields and production facilities and instead go after civilian targets that lead to the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Britain.

But that mainly happened due to the decision to send bombers to attack Berlin after some lost German planes accidentally bombed some British homes on one of their air raids, so by that criterion, it's whatever bombers took part in that Berlin raid that won the Battle of Britain. :smallwink:

[Kaeso]

Although Hitler's decision to invade Russia during any other month than July and not being done conquering it by end of August helped a lot. :smallbiggrin: (It's not only the Russian winters. At least then, being an immense country with bad roads, made the mud in spring and fall almost as bad as the winter).

If I'm not mistaken, Hitler could've won against Russia if only he had used some sense. If I'm not mistaken, the Russians didn't really practice scorched earth tactics in WW2, and even then airdrops would've trivialized it. The biggest problem is that Hitler couldn't pick his priorities. His army could either go to Stalingrad, the Soviet Union's industrial center as well as a very sentimental city (it's named after Stalin, after all) or the Caucasus oil fields and their wealth in resources.

Hitler decided to go for both by splitting up his army. The result? The army at Stalingrad got encircled and the Caucasus oil fields were never exploited. 70% of the Nazi war machine was sent out on a wild goose chase that contributed nothing to the war effort except greatly weaken Germany in a time where the odds were already turning against them (The Brits and Free French had won smashing victories at Bir-Hakeim and El-Alamein, while Pearl Harbor meant America had joined the war).

When Hitler split his armies, the war was already lost. The following three years were just very, very stubborn Nazis preferring to send millions of young men to their deaths to surrendering.

[Coidzor]

But that mainly happened due to the decision to send bombers to attack Berlin after some lost German planes accidentally bombed some British homes on one of their air raids, so by that criterion, it's whatever bombers took part in that Berlin raid that won the Battle of Britain. :smallwink:

Somehow I missed that part of the Battle of Britain. I guess it really was a lot more interesting than I had given it credit for.

[Asta Kask]

I don't think any airplane back then was equipped with Internet access.

[Stardrake]

When Hitler split his armies, the war was already lost. The following three years were just very, very stubborn Nazis preferring to send millions of young men to their deaths to surrendering.It's a little more complicated than that - the Nazis knew they had impressive stuff down the pipeline (including their own bomb project, even if in the end the scientists involved supposedly decided that defeat was a lesser evil than Hitler with nuclear weapons) and a campaign that had had one reversal could have another. For much of that time, it was plausible - from their perspective - that the war was winnable, even if from the perspective of history we can look at it and say 'Yes, THIS is when Germany's defeat became inevitable!'

There's also the question of who to surrender to. Stalin was never going to accept anything short of total surrender once he smelled victory, and even the most dovish Germans feared Russian reprisals in the event of a German surrender... rightly, as it turned out. In fact, after Hitler died and saner heads took over, German strategy basically turned into 'make the point where the Russians and Anglo-Americans meet as far east as possible' - not knowing that the division of Germany after their surrender had already been decided on. (From the German perspective, trying to engineer a war between the Russians and Americans right there - from some anecdotes it came close, including some shooting incidents - might have been even better, but if there were any deliberate attempts to pull this off, I don't know of them).

Even if they could have surrendered to Britain and the US and kept the Russians out, the fear would have been that the surrender terms there would have been even harsher than Versailles... and history shows that they were. The onset of the Cold War and recognition that West Germany was too valuable strategically to destroy helped to save it (along with cooler heads prevailing and pointing out just how much of a humanitarian disaster they were about to create) but the Morgenthau Plan that preceded the Marshal Plan would have created a country that literally couldn't feed most of its population.

Probably the best-case scenario for Germany after the war had turned against them would have been if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded, and the new government had appealed to the West on behalf of Eastern Europe.

[Killer Angel]

I'd say that the BoB was lost by Germany, because in the end there wasn't the Operation Sea Lion.
Even with a more effective air supremacy by Luftwaffe, you cannot conquer an Island without a landing.

I don't recall an example even in fiction... (unless you consider "winning" a wh40k exterminatus)

[Kaeso]

It's a little more complicated than that - the Nazis knew they had impressive stuff down the pipeline (including their own bomb project, even if in the end the scientists involved supposedly decided that defeat was a lesser evil than Hitler with nuclear weapons) and a campaign that had had one reversal could have another. For much of that time, it was plausible - from their perspective - that the war was winnable, even if from the perspective of history we can look at it and say 'Yes, THIS is when Germany's defeat became inevitable!'

There's also the question of who to surrender to. Stalin was never going to accept anything short of total surrender once he smelled victory, and even the most dovish Germans feared Russian reprisals in the event of a German surrender... rightly, as it turned out. In fact, after Hitler died and saner heads took over, German strategy basically turned into 'make the point where the Russians and Anglo-Americans meet as far east as possible' - not knowing that the division of Germany after their surrender had already been decided on. (From the German perspective, trying to engineer a war between the Russians and Americans right there - from some anecdotes it came close, including some shooting incidents - might have been even better, but if there were any deliberate attempts to pull this off, I don't know of them).

Even if they could have surrendered to Britain and the US and kept the Russians out, the fear would have been that the surrender terms there would have been even harsher than Versailles... and history shows that they were. The onset of the Cold War and recognition that West Germany was too valuable strategically to destroy helped to save it (along with cooler heads prevailing and pointing out just how much of a humanitarian disaster they were about to create) but the Morgenthau Plan that preceded the Marshal Plan would have created a country that literally couldn't feed most of its population.

Probably the best-case scenario for Germany after the war had turned against them would have been if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded, and the new government had appealed to the West on behalf of Eastern Europe.

Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836) writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).

But back to WW2, I guess that even if German command agreed that the war was winnable, surrendering to the Soviet Union was not exactly a pleasant prospect. That, and perhaps seeing the Slavic peoples as untermenschen had something to do with it as well.

EDIT: This does make me wonder something in relation to the websites rules. Where does history end and politics begin?

[Brother Oni]

EDIT: This does make me wonder something in relation to the websites rules. Where does history end and politics begin?

When Roland starts eyeing the ban stick. :smalltongue:

[Aedilred]

I'd say that the BoB was lost by Germany, because in the end there wasn't the Operation Sea Lion.
Even with a more effective air supremacy by Luftwaffe, you cannot conquer an Island without a landing.

I don't recall an example even in fiction... (unless you consider "winning" a wh40k exterminatus)

The Anglo-Zanzibar war might count, if you'd call that a conquest. There were land troops involved in securing buildings, but they were native defectors rather than part of the "invasion" force. Of course, that's kind of a special case, and not really comparable to the Battle of Britain...

[Mrc.]

I've read the first page but I just thought I'd add a few things; my grandpa was the gunner in a Bristol Bomber and boy did he have a few tales to tell!

The Spitfire was much faster than the Hurricane, enabling it to more reliably go for the enemy fighters. The Hurricane was able to withstand more punishment due to its size and the materials it was made of. The German planes, having flown from Germany, were often low on fuel and were thus unable to engage in protracted dogfights without risk of having to ditch on the return journey, and if the pilots were shot down they were captured and unable to return to duty. Britain was also turning out a great deal more planes than Germany, so even if the Germans were able to replace the downed pilots, the missing planes were of great concern. Anti-aircraft fire was unreliable at best though, so is easy to discount.

[factotum]

The Anglo-Zanzibar war might count, if you'd call that a conquest.

Wasn't that the war that lasted somewhat less than an hour? (Spoilers: the British won :smallsmile:).

[Stardrake]

I'd say that the BoB was lost by Germany, because in the end there wasn't the Operation Sea Lion.
Even with a more effective air supremacy by Luftwaffe, you cannot conquer an Island without a landing.That's kinda my point in one of my earlier posts: the aim of the Battle of Britain was to achieve air superiority. Why did they want air superiority? So the Royal Air Force wouldn't be able to interfere with Operation Sea Lion.


Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836) writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).Financially and territorially, it was pretty lenient. Symbolically and politically, though, it was nasty - the treaty effectively banned Germany from having a military that could stand up to any of its neighbours, leaving it in the embarrassing position of being reliant on the goodwill of said neighbours for security until Hitler tore it up - a particularly glaring issue at a time when everyone was looking to the Soviet Union with increasingly wary eyes. It didn't help that while the reparations were technically limited to its ability to pay, they did leave Germany particularly vulnerable to the Great Depression. That's not the fault of the Treaty per se, but it does mean that in the historical and financial circumstances, Germany was in a worse shape economically ten years after WW1 than France was ten years after the Franco-Prussian War or West Germany after WW2.

It also didn't help that, historically, Germany thought it was accepting a much more lenient offer made by the US, and France rammed through something significantly harsher, backed by the threat of resuming the war after Germany had already voluntarily withdrawn to its pre-war borders. While it's likely that Germany would have been forced to accept the terms after a few more months of fighting regardless, there was a certain feeling that they'd been made the victims of a bait-and-switch.

So... it was lenient in some respects, incredibly harsh in others (there are few treaties that leave a theoretically sovereign nation effectively defenceless), and its effects compared to other treaties got exacerbated by other events.


EDIT: This does make me wonder something in relation to the websites rules. Where does history end and politics begin?
Good question. I'd presume anything that references current events.

[Aedilred]

Wasn't that the war that lasted somewhat less than an hour? (Spoilers: the British won :smallsmile:).

That's the one! There is debate over precisely how long it lasted, largely to do with technicalities, but somewhere between 38 and 45 minutes.

[Avilan the Grey]

It helped, yes, but I think the level of blunder that represented has been exaggerated. Germany came close to taking Moscow (not necessarily a knockout blow, but in a nation which at the time was basically held together by fear of Stalin, losing the capital would have been a major blow to his credibility as a dictator and may have lead to his overthrow)

I highly doubt even a conquering of Moscow would have actually conquered the nation. Russia is just too big, and Germany's army was just too small.

[Eldariel]

That's kinda my point in one of my earlier posts: the aim of the Battle of Britain was to achieve air superiority. Why did they want air superiority? So the Royal Air Force wouldn't be able to interfere with Operation Sea Lion.

More precisely, they needed something to offset the fact that the Royal Navy controlled the channel. They couldn't just expect to smash through the navy with their own with the strength being what they were so the only way Operation Sea Lion could ever happen was if Germany had some way to protect their landing ships from the Brits just sinking them and they figured air superiority would be what they needed. It's not a bad call either, looking at the war in pacific and how big a part the air forces and Carriers played compared to the more traditional fighting ships (I wanna say "battle ships", but that would no doubt be confused with battleships).


I highly doubt even a conquering of Moscow would have actually conquered the nation. Russia is just too big, and Germany's army was just too small.

Honestly, with Caucasus Oil Fields they could've had a chance. Having to use synthetic fuels (and the shortage there-of) was a huge hurdle for Germany, in addition to the whole "winter"-thingy of course. But an army that can't move isn't much good.

[Killer Angel]

That's kinda my point in one of my earlier posts: the aim of the Battle of Britain was to achieve air superiority. Why did they want air superiority? So the Royal Air Force wouldn't be able to interfere with Operation Sea Lion.


More precisely, they needed something to offset the fact that the Royal Navy controlled the channel. They couldn't just expect to smash through the navy with their own

At a certain point, it was clear the Luftwaffe couldn't afford the losses ratio with air raids. I would have taken my chances with U-boots and air escorts to convoys.

In an Axis and Allies game, I won the war taking England "almost" by surprise, while i was losing in the russian meatgrinder. But I don't know if we can compare the two things... :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

At a certain point, it was clear the Luftwaffe couldn't afford the losses ratio with air raids. I would have taken my chances with U-boots and air escorts to convoys.

I mean, even if you manage successfully landing a large swathe of troops, then what? You need to not only get troops to land but also some means to supply them and if the channel is controlled by Britain, those troops are gonna starve, run out of ammunition, fuel, etc. I greatly doubt Brits will just hand their resources to the invaders and trying to feed 10k or 100k troops over an enemy-controlled channel is gonna be a thing. Hell, even in Normandy the Allied forces were forced to stop expanding the beachhead simply because of the lack of a sufficient supply of materiel (they lacked ports). And this is with complete naval and aerial superiority. Large-scale landings with no supporting ground offensive that can complete the surround and relieve the landing forces are pretty darn hard to pull off at the best of times, and Britain is a bit big to just occupy just like that.

[Gnoman]

I highly doubt even a conquering of Moscow would have actually conquered the nation. Russia is just too big, and Germany's army was just too small.
It doesn't matter how large a country is if you kill it's will to fight, and the USSR was far from one big happy family. Fear of Stalin's vengance played a far more significant role in keeping that empire together than any slogan or national identity could have. Take Moscow, and even if Stalin gets away, he goes from an unstoppable avatar of revenge to a deposed tinpot struggling to hold on to any scrap of power.

It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.

[Avilan the Grey]

It doesn't matter how large a country is if you kill it's will to fight, and the USSR was far from one big happy family. Fear of Stalin's vengance played a far more significant role in keeping that empire together than any slogan or national identity could have. Take Moscow, and even if Stalin gets away, he goes from an unstoppable avatar of revenge to a deposed tinpot struggling to hold on to any scrap of power.

It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.

I still maintain that it would have been highly unlikely, and the cost of the operation would at any rate been too high for Hitler anyway; even if he eventually defeated Russia, he would not be able to control all of it, or even control the physical areas his army had conquered, because of lack or resources. The oil fields would have helped, but it still would not have been enough.
Besides, this was pre-Soviet Union, so the term "empire" is not really as relevant. Even the Russian core lands would still have been too large to hold for long.
Anyway, my point is that even if Hitler had never declared war on western Europe, he would have struggled VERY hard to keep control over conqured Russian territory for any length of time. With a two-front war going? No way. Ever. Not a chance.

Edit: On topic: Some people would also argue Messerschmitt Bf 109, because it was already at the BoB too old for it's role, really. I have no real knowledge in the matter, but I have seen this argument.

[Stardrake]

It doesn't matter how large a country is if you kill it's will to fight, and the USSR was far from one big happy family. Fear of Stalin's vengance played a far more significant role in keeping that empire together than any slogan or national identity could have. Take Moscow, and even if Stalin gets away, he goes from an unstoppable avatar of revenge to a deposed tinpot struggling to hold on to any scrap of power.Pretty much - even with the SS and the Gestapo being insane, there were auxiliaries recruited from western USSR that continued fighting with Germany as late as mid-1944 when it was clear that Germany was losing. A symbolic blow like taking Moscow would have been very hard for Stalin to maintain his credibility afterwards.

Other things to consider is that while the Soviet Union is a big country geographically-speaking, most of the important parts of it, particularly back then, were in the west, including most of the population, arable land, and, until relocated behind the Urals, manufacturing industries. To a certain extent, Russia got as big as it did because no one else really cared about Siberia. If Germany had been able to take Moscow in the 1941-1942 winter and kept going at a similar rate as before, odds are pretty good that while Russia wouldn't have been conquered per se, it would have been reduced to a state where it was no longer capable of effectively fighting back.

Moscow also has military as well as symbolic significance, as a major rail and communications hub in a country that, back then, didn't have a lot of infrastructure further east and where, as noted above, travel by road is notoriously difficult at many times of the year. While Germany probably would not have been able to immediately make use of the Moscow rail hub, losing it would have made it quite a bit hard for Stalin to keep Russia organised even if it did stay loyal.


It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.
Now, that part I didn't know, although it doesn't surprise me.


I still maintain that it would have been highly unlikely, and the cost of the operation would at any rate been too high for Hitler anyway; even if he eventually defeated Russia, he would not be able to control all of it, or even control the physical areas his army had conquered, because of lack or resources. The oil fields would have helped, but it still would not have been enough.
Besides, this was pre-Soviet Union, so the term "empire" is not really as relevant. Even the Russian core lands would still have been too large to hold for long.
Anyway, my point is that even if Hitler had never declared war on western Europe, he would have struggled VERY hard to keep control over conqured Russian territory for any length of time. With a two-front war going? No way. Ever. Not a chance.

Edit: On topic: Some people would also argue Messerschmitt Bf 109, because it was already at the BoB too old for it's role, really. I have no real knowledge in the matter, but I have seen this argument.
Errr... the Soviet Union most definitely was the Soviet Union during WW2. It formed in the 20s.

As for the rest - as I indicated in my above post, Germany found plenty of allies within the western Soviet Union from people who hated Stalin and greeted the invaders as liberators. They squandered a lot of this by believing too much in their own propaganda, treating those people as untermensch, and ending up being regarded as worse than Stalin... and even then, there were partisan groups that fought both sides because they still couldn't accept allying with Stalin. For a lot of the Soviet Union, all Germany needed to do was to be better than Stalin - not exactly a tall order, but one that in many parts they failed nonetheless - and they wouldn't have needed an occupying army.

Add that to my previous point that Germany didn't need to push all the way to Vladivostok to knock Russia out of the war - it's questionable whether Hitler cared about Siberia at all, and even if he did, once he'd captured the critical regions Germany probably could have gobbled up the rest of Siberia at its leisure, much like the way the Tsars absorbed it in the first place.

On the 109E - I don't think it was too old (although its replacements were already in development), but it was unsuited for the role it was asked to fill as a strategic escort. This was, in fact, the purpose the 110 was supposed to fulfill - but in practice, it turned out that the 110 simply wasn't a match for a single-engined fighter in a dogfight. It is a valid point, though, that what probably saved Britain was that the Luftwaffe never had a true strategic arm - both its fighters and bombers were intended for tactical use and just weren't suitable for long-range strategic bombing campaigns.

[Philistine]

Interestingly, the Germans would use a similar distribution in the daylight bombing campaigns, except they did it the other way around - they used the by then basically obsolete 109G to oppose enemy fighters, while the 190s took on the bombers, even though the Butcher Bird had a better performance, basically because the Focke-Wulf also had a lot more durability and firepower. The 109 really only lasted as long as it did because, like the British 2-pounder antitank gun earlier in the war, the Germans couldn't afford to lose production of new fighters long enough to switch to more up-to-date designs, so they made do with making constant upgrades to the 109 in a frantic attempt to keep up. If jets were available, all of the piston-engined fighters were expected to dogfight while the jets attacked the bombers, although again, opportunistically knocking down a bomber was not frowned on.
It's perhaps worth noting that the Bf109G (and K) had a significantly higher critical altitude than the Fw190A, which gave them a significant advantage over the 190s against the escorting fighters (as those tended to be some thousands of feet above the bombers). Meanwhile the 190s greater firepower gave them a similar edge in knocking down bombers. A number of Luftwaffe aces continued to prefer late-model Bf109s to the contemporary Fw190 marks right up to the end of the war, opining that the Fw was easier for a novice to fly but that the right pilot could get more out of the Messerschmidt.

Once jets were available, no few of the piston-engined types found themselves flying CAP over the jet bases and not intercepting bombers (or escort fighters) at all: the jets were at their most vulnerable when taking off and landing, and the Allies were quick to capitalize on that.


On the American aircraft: the P-47 was an effective single-engined heavy fighter, but lacked the legs for the escort role - when the P-51 arrived, the P-47's greater armour, firepower (eight .50s versus the US standard, including on the Mustang, of six) and carrying capacity made it an important aircraft for ground attack and air cover of Allied ground forces. The P-51, of course, provoked the famous quote from Goering ("when I saw Mustangs over Europe, I knew the war was lost") - until the Mustang was introduced, the US daylight bombing campaign was actually on the verge of having to give up due to the casualties they were taking, and the Mustang turned that around. Until then, it was still in principle possible for Germany to stall the Eastern Front until some new technical or tactical development allowed them to regain the initiative - with their industry being smashed by constant bombing, though, it was all over.
Well... The P-47 (to some extent) and the P-38 (to a much greater extent) flew missions to rather longer ranges in the PTO than their compatriots did with identical machines in the ETO: the difference was flying technique, taught at the level of the operational squadrons. So it seems likely that more could have been done with the existing fighter types, even if the Mustang had never been mated with the Merlin. And then the late-war P-47N added a wet wing which allowed it to accompany B-29s all the way from the Saipan and Tinian to the Japanese Home Islands (P-51 squadrons tasked with the same mission were based on Iwo Jima, halfway between the Marianas and the Japanese mainland), though of course a type which only served in the PTO isn't relevant to the question of "Which USAAF pursuit type did the most to wreck the Jagdwaffe?" (I believe the suggestion that this was the P-47 was probably based on kill counts, rather than on the mission profiles flown by each type. There's also possibly an argument that the P-47s, which arrived in theater well before P-51s did, skimmed off much of the "cream" of the Jagdwaffe, so that the P-51s faced less-experienced opposition - much the same argument is sometimes made for the F4F and P-40 in the Pacific, where IMO it's easier to justify.)


Incidentally, regarding who was winning the Battle of Britain before the Blitz started - from what I've read, a lot of historians consider that Fighter Command was within a couple of days of collapse as an effective force when they got their reprieve. The Germans at that point, though, still had a lot of reserves, even though they were losing at a greater rate (it wasn't actually until the very last stages that the Luftwaffe collapsed as an effective force). The attackers in an air campaign, assuming roughly equivalent capabilities (so not talking about most modern conflicts here...) is naturally going to have higher losses due to having bombers around, being further from bases, pilots bailing out onto enemy rather than friendly territory, and so on. The question is whether the attackers can sustain these losses - the Luftwaffe could.
A lot of ink has been spilled to that effect over the years, mostly based on anecdotal accounts from the participants; but more recent scholarship - looking at squadron readiness reports in particular, and other documentary evidence which was kept classified until relatively recently - has revised that estimate. As I stated above, the RAF was replacing planes and pilots faster than the rate of loss even before the Germans switched to bombing civilian populations; conversely, the Germans were losing planes and pilots faster than their rate of replacement throughout the campaign. So it wasn't really a case of the Luftwaffe being able to absorb the losses; it was more a case of Luftflotte 2 being continuously ground down while Fighter Command just kept getting stronger. That's the exact opposite of what the Germans needed to happen.

And it gets worse. Even if Fighter Command had been driven out of the 11 Group airfields in the southeast, there was a contingency plan in place to move them north into 12 Group bases - from which they could still reach the Channel to cover attacks on a potential invasion fleet, even if they didn't have sufficient loiter time to patrol over the Channel protecting friendly shipping. With the Bf109s already at the limits of their endurance simply reaching London, there was really no chance that the Luftwaffe would have been able to do anything about bases which were even farther past the Channel. So even if everything went perfectly for them, the Luftwaffe was never going to get air supremacy over the Channel and southern England - or even true air superiority on more than a temporary, local basis.


What really saved Britain, though, was the weather. With the technology at the time, there was a fairly narrow window in which a cross-channel invasion could succeed, and the RAF held out long enough for Germany to miss that window. Switching to the Blitz instead, while still not a good strategic decision (mind you, it's from experience in WW2 that we now know that civilian bombing isn't worth it as a military tactic, even putting the moral questions aside) was in part an acknowledgement that Operation Sea Lion wasn't going to happen that year.
Eh, what really saved Britain was the RN. The Luftwaffe and the KM together weren't going to be able to stop the Home Fleet from smashing an attempted cross-Channel landing at will: the KM basically had no heavy units available after Norway, and U-Boats had lousy odds against fast-moving, maneuvering warships; the Luftwaffe for its part fielded mostly twin-engined horizontal bombers which were just not suitable for attacking warships at sea, plus relatively small numbers of Ju87s and Ju88s which could attack more accurately by diving on their targets... but which were desperately vulnerable to flak or fighters either one while doing so. Oh! And no torpedo bombers, so good luck dealing with the RN's heavy units. So even with total air supremacy, which the Luftwaffe could never have achieved, Sea Lion was a pipe dream.


If I'm not mistaken, Hitler could've won against Russia if only he had used some sense. If I'm not mistaken, the Russians didn't really practice scorched earth tactics in WW2, and even then airdrops would've trivialized it. The biggest problem is that Hitler couldn't pick his priorities. His army could either go to Stalingrad, the Soviet Union's industrial center as well as a very sentimental city (it's named after Stalin, after all) or the Caucasus oil fields and their wealth in resources.

Hitler decided to go for both by splitting up his army. The result? The army at Stalingrad got encircled and the Caucasus oil fields were never exploited. 70% of the Nazi war machine was sent out on a wild goose chase that contributed nothing to the war effort except greatly weaken Germany in a time where the odds were already turning against them (The Brits and Free French had won smashing victories at Bir-Hakeim and El-Alamein, while Pearl Harbor meant America had joined the war).

When Hitler split his armies, the war was already lost. The following three years were just very, very stubborn Nazis preferring to send millions of young men to their deaths to surrendering.
There really just aren't a lot of credible scenarios that have Germany flat-out defeating the USSR in WW2. The place is too big, the logistics net is too primitive, the front keeps widening the farther east you go (which adds more strain to the logistics net) - there are a lot of problems, beyond "us some sense," to the point that it's fair to ask whether [I]using sense would result in an invasion of the USSR at all under any circumstances.

Oherwise... The Soviets absolutely practiced scorched earth tactics in WW2. And no, airdrops couldn't trivialize that. (Though they did try at Stalingrad. It failed spectacularly. The Luftwaffe didn't have anywhere near the lift required to support multiple Field Armies, plus all their associated vehicles, heavy guns, combat aircraft... Even today, nobody has that much airlift.) Finally - by 1942, when the question of Stalingrad vs the Caucasus came up, it was already too late for Germany to win as winter (and German logistical exhaustion) had given the Soviets time to regroup and recover.


I highly doubt even a conquering of Moscow would have actually conquered the nation. Russia is just too big, and Germany's army was just too small.
Supposedly the real command target was some significant distance east of Moscow, leaving Moscow's value as primarily symbolic (and because all the rail lines converged there).


More precisely, they needed something to offset the fact that the Royal Navy controlled the channel. They couldn't just expect to smash through the navy with their own with the strength being what they were so the only way Operation Sea Lion could ever happen was if Germany had some way to protect their landing ships from the Brits just sinking them and they figured air superiority would be what they needed. It's not a bad call either, looking at the war in pacific and how big a part the air forces and Carriers played compared to the more traditional fighting ships (I wanna say "battle ships", but that would no doubt be confused with battleships).
The Pacific War featured aircraft and units specifically armed and trained to attack ships, as well. The Luftwaffe of 1940? Not so much.


At a certain point, it was clear the Luftwaffe couldn't afford the losses ratio with air raids. I would have taken my chances with U-boots and air escorts to convoys.
That's not workable. The U-Boats aren't fast enough submerged to engage warships moving at speed (unless some skipper happens to get very lucky and find something coming right down his throat), and aren't strong enough to fight it out on the surface. The Luftwaffe doesn't have a way to deal with heavy warships at all, and even against light warships has only a very limited number of aircraft capable of dive bombing (which is still no guarantee against a maneuvering target, especially for pilots not trained in naval attack).


It doesn't matter how large a country is if you kill it's will to fight, and the USSR was far from one big happy family. Fear of Stalin's vengance played a far more significant role in keeping that empire together than any slogan or national identity could have. Take Moscow, and even if Stalin gets away, he goes from an unstoppable avatar of revenge to a deposed tinpot struggling to hold on to any scrap of power.

It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.
It doesn't matter how large your army is if you can't keep it in supply, and the Germans were at the end of their logistical tether even before General Winter put his hand in; trying to send a larger force east, or moving the existing forces farther east, would have placed an even greater strain on the inadequate and unsuitable road and rail network in the western USSR. Perversely, attacking with greater force, or the existing force meeting with greater success, would almost certainly have led to the attack bogging down sooner than it did.

[Avilan the Grey]

Errr... the Soviet Union most definitely was the Soviet Union during WW2. It formed in the 20s.

As for the rest - as I indicated in my above post, Germany found plenty of allies within the western Soviet Union from people who hated Stalin and greeted the invaders as liberators. They squandered a lot of this by believing too much in their own propaganda, treating those people as untermensch, and ending up being regarded as worse than Stalin... and even then, there were partisan groups that fought both sides because they still couldn't accept allying with Stalin. For a lot of the Soviet Union, all Germany needed to do was to be better than Stalin - not exactly a tall order, but one that in many parts they failed nonetheless - and they wouldn't have needed an occupying army.

Add that to my previous point that Germany didn't need to push all the way to Vladivostok to knock Russia out of the war - it's questionable whether Hitler cared about Siberia at all, and even if he did, once he'd captured the critical regions Germany probably could have gobbled up the rest of Siberia at its leisure, much like the way the Tsars absorbed it in the first place.

On the 109E - I don't think it was too old (although its replacements were already in development), but it was unsuited for the role it was asked to fill as a strategic escort. This was, in fact, the purpose the 110 was supposed to fulfill - but in practice, it turned out that the 110 simply wasn't a match for a single-engined fighter in a dogfight. It is a valid point, though, that what probably saved Britain was that the Luftwaffe never had a true strategic arm - both its fighters and bombers were intended for tactical use and just weren't suitable for long-range strategic bombing campaigns.

Let me rephrase that: The Soviet Union as we know it was not yet formed. None of the main European "Eastern" (a term originating with the cold war) countries were yet occupied by Russia. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania etc etc were still not members of the Soviet Union.

As Philistine points out, the command center had already evacuated Moscow. It was just a figure head. An important one, especially since Stalin at the last minute elected to stay instead of going east, but still not the "Head" of the "snake" anymore.

Andyes, you are right. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was old, but not fully obsolete, and the platform was still upgraded, but Hitler had a bit of a fetish for mixed, unoptimized solutions, at least when it came to the airforce.

[Stardrake]

Well... The P-47 (to some extent) and the P-38 (to a much greater extent) flew missions to rather longer ranges in the PTO than their compatriots did with identical machines in the ETO: the difference was flying technique, taught at the level of the operational squadrons. So it seems likely that more could have been done with the existing fighter types, even if the Mustang had never been mated with the Merlin. And then the late-war P-47N added a wet wing which allowed it to accompany B-29s all the way from the Saipan and Tinian to the Japanese Home Islands (P-51 squadrons tasked with the same mission were based on Iwo Jima, halfway between the Marianas and the Japanese mainland), though of course a type which only served in the PTO isn't relevant to the question of "Which USAAF pursuit type did the most to wreck the Jagdwaffe?" (I believe the suggestion that this was the P-47 was probably based on kill counts, rather than on the mission profiles flown by each type. There's also possibly an argument that the P-47s, which arrived in theater well before P-51s did, skimmed off much of the "cream" of the Jagdwaffe, so that the P-51s faced less-experienced opposition - much the same argument is sometimes made for the F4F and P-40 in the Pacific, where IMO it's easier to justify.)From my reading, a large part of this was the different environmental conditions in the Pacific - the P-38 in particular just performed better in the Pacific, even before considering the different opposition*. The American-designed engines just didn't perform as well in the colder air over Europe as they did in the Pacific. Different flying techniques might also have helped, but engines do often work better at certain outside temperatures - I don't have my books on hand to double-check, but from memory German and British engines, including the Merlin, were (unsurprisingly) better optimised for European conditions and didn't fare as well in hotter climates unless appropriately modified.

I'm not sure about the P-47 having done more to wreck the Jagdwaffe - from what I've read, the Jagdwaffe was winning the daylight air war until the Mustang arrived. It's possible that the P-47 did get higher actual kill counts, and the tactical missions it flew when taken off strategic escort duties would have allowed it to do so, but it was the Mustang that saved the daylight bombing campaign. Now, the P-47N was certainly a beast at long-range work, and was probably developed in part in response to Europe (again, don't have my books on hand) but didn't hit squadrons in time to take part in the European campaign.

*Explanation (I'm sure Philistine knows this, but for those who don't): There were basically two design philosophies for fighters in WW2. The British, Americans, and Germans took an approach of relatively heavy, well-armed and -armoured fighters with powerful engines. The Japanese and the Italians went for agility over power, looking to outmaneuver and outdogfight their opposition. Generally, the latter philosophy lost out due to not having enough firepower (a pair of rifle-caliber machine-guns was common, which worked in 1918 but not so much in 1940...), but the Zero was an exception because it added a couple of 20mm cannon that could knock down its opposition. The reason the Zero reigned supreme early on was because opposing pilots tried to dogfight it, which was taking on its strengths - when the Allies learned to use their own strengths (basically, using the superior speed, firepower, and armour to make passes and refusing to allow the Japanese to dogfight) the Zero fared less well. The P-38 in the Pacific was particularly effective with this tactic, making it one of the most feared opponents for Japanese fighters.

When fighters of the same philosophy clashed, though, a dogfight was the default because neither side had a sufficient speed advantage to make passes (until jets appeared on the scene, of course). So the P-38 in Europe lacked the agility to dogfight with a 109 or 190, or the speed to make effective passes, and so was largely ineffective as an air-to-air fighter in that theater.

For anyone wondering why I didn't mention the USSR - they had a third philosophy that mixed the two. Basically, light airframes and armaments, but with more of a focus on engine power - the theory being that it didn't matter how much firepower you had if you couldn't hit your target, or how much armour you had if your opponent couldn't hit you. This combination worked very well for aces - but, of course, the majority of the Russian pilots weren't aces, and the lack of firepower and armour hurt them. However, it made the Russian aircraft a popular choice for the experienced pilots of international squadrons who could make the best use of the aircraft.


Let me rephrase that: The Soviet Union as we know it was not yet formed. None of the main European "Eastern" (a term originating with the cold war) countries were yet occupied by Russia. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania etc etc were still not members of the Soviet Union. You're thinking of the Warsaw Pact - the Soviet Union never formally encompassed those countries, although it did make them into puppet states. The Soviet Union became the Soviet Union as soon as Russia became communist in 1922, and did consist of an empire that went beyond Russia itself, including Ukraine from the beginning and having absorbed the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in 1940.

[Avilan the Grey]

You're thinking of the Warsaw Pact - the Soviet Union never formally encompassed those countries, although it did make them into puppet states. The Soviet Union became the Soviet Union as soon as Russia became communist in 1922, and did consist of an empire that went beyond Russia itself, including Ukraine from the beginning and having absorbed the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in 1940.

Ah. Hey it's still only Wednesday. Too early in the week to be fully awake. My bad. Yes, I was thinking of the Warzaw pact.

[factotum]

On the 109E - I don't think it was too old (although its replacements were already in development)

I know we're not supposed to use the Internets here, but I was curious so I went and looked it up. The 109's first flight was in May 1935. The Hurricane arrived in November of that year, and the Spitfire in March 1936--so there was only a matter of months between the flights of these aircraft. That doesn't seem like a significant difference to me, so I'd have to agree that it seems more likely the 109 was being used in a role it wasn't suited for rather than it being too old to be useful.

[Avilan the Grey]

I know we're not supposed to use the Internets here, but I was curious so I went and looked it up. The 109's first flight was in May 1935. The Hurricane arrived in November of that year, and the Spitfire in March 1936--so there was only a matter of months between the flights of these aircraft. That doesn't seem like a significant difference to me, so I'd have to agree that it seems more likely the 109 was being used in a role it wasn't suited for rather than it being too old to be useful.

The history of early aviation is really incredibly rapid. Even more so than for cars. the time between Kitty Hawk and the Spitfire is... not that long. It's amazing what war can do :smallwink:

[Killer Angel]

I mean, even if you manage successfully landing a large swathe of troops, then what? You need to not only get troops to land but also some means to supply them and if the channel is controlled by Britain, those troops are gonna starve, run out of ammunition, fuel, etc. I greatly doubt Brits will just hand their resources to the invaders and trying to feed 10k or 100k troops over an enemy-controlled channel is gonna be a thing. Hell, even in Normandy the Allied forces were forced to stop expanding the beachhead simply because of the lack of a sufficient supply of materiel (they lacked ports). And this is with complete naval and aerial superiority. Large-scale landings with no supporting ground offensive that can complete the surround and relieve the landing forces are pretty darn hard to pull off at the best of times, and Britain is a bit big to just occupy just like that.

At least, I would have failed while trying to accomplish something EPIC, rather than throwing my resources into a black hole... :smallwink:


Anyway, mandatory soundtrack (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEcpwSenouQ)!

Ten ME-109's out of the sun
Ascending and turning out spitfires to face them

[factotum]

The history of early aviation is really incredibly rapid. Even more so than for cars. the time between Kitty Hawk and the Spitfire is... not that long. It's amazing what war can do :smallwink:

Ah, but by that criteria the 109 should have been *better* than the Spitfire and Hurricane, considering it was being developed while Germany was actually at war while the other two were peacetime developments. :smallsmile:

[Avilan the Grey]

Ah, but by that criteria the 109 should have been *better* than the Spitfire and Hurricane, considering it was being developed while Germany was actually at war while the other two were peacetime developments. :smallsmile:

Again, Hitler had his priorities wrong.
Thank god. :smallbiggrin:

[Closet_Skeleton]

(including their own bomb project, even if in the end the scientists involved supposedly decided that defeat was a lesser evil than Hitler with nuclear weapons)

The Nazis lost all their decent physicists in purges of the academia before the war. Its hard to develop a nuke at the same time as dismissing all modern physics as Jewish nonsense.


not knowing that the division of Germany after their surrender had already been decided on

I'm not sure about that. Everything I was taught at school says that the division of Germany wasn't planned at all and was almost a surprise when it happened in 1949. Zones of occupation and a collection of satellite states for the USSR was agreed upon but they didn't plan to have two Germanies (unless you want to count Austria). I'm not even sure when Silesia and Prussia going to Poland was decided.

Due to the democratic election cycle and FDR's death, the politicians in charge of the occupation weren't the guys who had fought the war and made those plans.


I'd say that the BoB was lost by Germany, because in the end there wasn't the Operation Sea Lion.
Even with a more effective air supremacy by Luftwaffe, you cannot conquer an Island without a landing.

I don't recall an example even in fiction... (unless you consider "winning" a wh40k exterminatus)

Germany didn't plan on conquering Britain, just like it didn't conquer France whole either. The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.


Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836) writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).

It wasn't just Hitler, everyone including the British exaggerated how nasty the treaty was. It was also considered unfair because Germany didn't technically lose. The most contentious point was the War Guilt clause, not the Reparations.

But that's besides the point. People don't consider the Treaty of Versailes a disaster because it was punishing, its only a disaster in light of the later economic depression. The reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian was is often brought up in comparison (including in that BBC article) because they were a lot harsher, but France recovered and paid that back very quickly but Germany failed to.

[nedz]

It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.

Actually, last time I checked, Historians were still debating this. Now from an Operational and Logistics point of view this argument makes sense but all of the documents from the period stick to the official position at the time: that the ground was still too wet for mobile operations. YMMV.

[Killer Angel]

The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.


I doubt even Hitler knew his own goals, given all contradictions during the war, regarding priorities of targets...

Now, back on topic: who is the winner (aka the one with more votes)? the hurricane or the spitfire?

[Closet_Skeleton]

I doubt even Hitler knew his own goals, given all contradictions during the war, regarding priorities of targets...

I'm pretty sure his goal was to sit on in his deck chair on his balcony while the reports of famous cities falling to his forces came in.

[Miriel]

Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836) writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).
Whatever was in the Versailles treaty is irrelevant. The point is everyone was unhappy with it.

Not just everyone in Germany, even though that was true. Everyone. France was unhappy because it didn't crush Germany enough. The US were so unhappy much that they didn't sign the thing. And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism. The new Eastern European nations were unhappy as well, and all had various claims on each other. (Although technically that isn't about the Versailles treaty, but anyway.)

Of course, the German governement was the most important to have persistent, vocal opinions on many specific points of the treaty (and had most of them revised before Hitler came near to power, in fact). And most importantly, the Germans felt they had been treated unfairly. To a point, it doesn't matter what the ideal content of the treaty is, but what its effects are in practice. And the Versailles treaty was a failure on all accounts, almost since the beginning. Everybody in Europe was intent on revising it in some way, even those who wrote it.

[Aedilred]

Whatever was in the Versailles treaty is irrelevant. The point is everyone was unhappy with it.

Not just everyone in Germany, even though that was true. Everyone. France was unhappy because it didn't crush Germany enough. The US were so unhappy much that they didn't sign the thing. And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism. The new Eastern European nations were unhappy as well, and all had various claims on each other. (Although technically that isn't about the Versailles treaty, but anyway.)


That the US didn't sign (or join the League of Nations) was partly down to bad luck and internal political shenanigans, though, rather than serious, universal dissatisfaction. It could have passed Congress on a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority - which is hard to achieve in any political system - was needed to pass it, and even then they might have been won round had Wilson not had a stroke and deprived the country of meaningful leadership from the White House for a year or so.

[Miriel]

That the US didn't sign (or join the League of Nations) was partly down to bad luck and internal political shenanigans, though, rather than serious, universal dissatisfaction. It could have passed Congress on a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority - which is hard to achieve in any political system - was needed to pass it, and even then they might have been won round had Wilson not had a stroke and deprived the country of meaningful leadership from the White House for a year or so.
Actually, what would have been likely to pass would have been an amended version of the treaty. Except Wilson and his closest supporters, very few people liked the Versailles treaty as previously agreed in Europe. IIRC (no internets, after all -- but then my source is a book, so I guess I'm just lazy) the final Senate vote, which had majority but not 2/3, was about accepting the treaty with reservations (and Wilson voted it down, in fact, because he wanted the whole thing), whereas the initial one, with the full treaty, US military commitment, etc., didn't even get half the Senate.

[Stardrake]

The Nazis lost all their decent physicists in purges of the academia before the war. Its hard to develop a nuke at the same time as dismissing all modern physics as Jewish nonsense.All? I hate to be catty about it, but I think there is some uncertainty in your equation.

Granted, they lost quite a few, including the most famous German Jew of all time, but a few of their big names did remain for various reasons, and they certainly still had a lot of decent ones. Despite the various other conditions, Germany was where a lot of the scientific discoveries of the 20s and even the 30s were made - the academic purges and emigrations as the Nazis tightened their control didn't help, but Germany was probably still the scientific powerhouse of the world. One of the late-war objectives of both the Western Allies and the USSR, in fact, was grabbing as many of the German scientists as possible before the other side did to give them an advantage in the cold war they all knew was likely to come (even if the term hadn't been coined yet).


I'm not sure about that. Everything I was taught at school says that the division of Germany wasn't planned at all and was almost a surprise when it happened in 1949. Zones of occupation and a collection of satellite states for the USSR was agreed upon but they didn't plan to have two Germanies (unless you want to count Austria). I'm not even sure when Silesia and Prussia going to Poland was decided.I was referring to the zones of occupation rather than the division of Germany into East and West. Specifically, that the region that would end up under Soviet occupation had already been decided, despite German efforts to stall the Soviet advance as much as possible while all but inviting the Western Allies in with the hope that that would keep as many Germans as possible out of Stalin's hands.


Germany didn't plan on conquering Britain, just like it didn't conquer France whole either. The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.Yeah, they basically just wanted them out of the war, particularly since many Germans still had a high regard and some fraternal feelings for the British even after World War 1. Nazi Germany made a number of overtures to Britain in 1940 and 1941 to the effect of 'no, really, this can end any time you want'. If anything, this just encouraged Churchill.


It wasn't just Hitler, everyone including the British exaggerated how nasty the treaty was. It was also considered unfair because Germany didn't technically lose. The most contentious point was the War Guilt clause, not the Reparations.

But that's besides the point. People don't consider the Treaty of Versailes a disaster because it was punishing, its only a disaster in light of the later economic depression. The reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian was is often brought up in comparison (including in that BBC article) because they were a lot harsher, but France recovered and paid that back very quickly but Germany failed to.Pretty much. Germany was going to lose without a miracle, but they offered an armistice and voluntarily withdrew from France earlier than they really had to on the assumption that they'd get the better deal offered by Wilson's Fourteen Points as opposed to what they actually got - and France used Germany's good-faith withdrawal from Eastern France in order to push it through by threatening to invade Germany proper there and then if Germany didn't accept on all points. (And even then, the German government at the time seriously considered whether a resumption of hostilities was actually a less bad option than accepting the treaty.)

And yeah, the war guilt clause was essentially a case of the winners rewriting history, since the start of World War 1 was the kind of clusterfrell where the blame is shared pretty much everywhere (except, arguably, the English-speakers - America is well-known, and Britain supposedly sent a message to Germany to the effect that if Germany respected the neutrality of the Low Countries, Britain would sit out. According to one dramatisation I've seen, the Kaiser sent a directive to cancel the Schlieffen plan in response, only for his generals to respond by telling him that they'd already initiated hostilities by the time the order arrived. Like I said, clusterfrell.)

EDIT: Just noticed I forgot to add:


Ah, but by that criteria the 109 should have been *better* than the Spitfire and Hurricane, considering it was being developed while Germany was actually at war while the other two were peacetime developments. :smallsmile:
One of the ironic things, actually, is that the British and German aircraft in the Battle of Britain were actually better at each other's jobs - the Spitfire would have made a better escort than the 109, and the 109 was a better interceptor than either Spitfire or Hurricane at the time.

[Aedilred]

And yeah, the war guilt clause was essentially a case of the winners rewriting history, since the start of World War 1 was the kind of clusterfrell where the blame is shared pretty much everywhere (except, arguably, the English-speakers - America is well-known, and Britain supposedly sent a message to Germany to the effect that if Germany respected the neutrality of the Low Countries, Britain would sit out. According to one dramatisation I've seen, the Kaiser sent a directive to cancel the Schlieffen plan in response, only for his generals to respond by telling him that they'd already initiated hostilities by the time the order arrived. Like I said, clusterfrell.)

There seemed to be a widespread sentiment in Germany (and, indeed, everywhere) that Britain was a reluctant partner in the Entente and unlikely to fight, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter: the army was too small to make a difference, and the navy was both irrelevant in a land war and matched by the German navy. While the Treaty of London was known, the general perception was that Britain wouldn't go to war over a "piece of paper" without compelling strategic reasons.

None of which was entirely ridiculous in itself. The BEF was tiny and for all the stories of heroics at Mons and Ypres made relatively little difference in the opening phase of the war. The German navy proved a match for the Royal Navy when they met on equal terms, and in the brief war the German high command was planning the navy would indeed have been largely irrelevant.* And nobody really took the Treaty of London seriously. But it was a gross misjudgment all the same and one that Britain did nothing much to correct: really I think the intention always was to fight if necessary, but to try to head off war if at all possible. Whether Germany would have acted as she did had Britain made her intentions clear is one of the great what-ifs, I think.

Pinning the blame on Germany entirely was completely unfair, but there is a case to be made that Germany was more to blame than most; the issuing of the blank cheque to A-H was one of the critical factors in kicking things off, and Germany had always been the most pro-war of the great powers. There are various stories of messages being deliberately obfuscated or delayed in the German high command to try to sabotage diplomatic initiatives, although I don't know how much of that is true. The Kaiser did seem to have second thoughts, but by that stage it was a bit late.

*Of course, the superior numbers of the RN meant they could afford to take heavier losses, and in a longer war the resultant blockade proved a decisive factor...

[Stardrake]

There seemed to be a widespread sentiment in Germany (and, indeed, everywhere) that Britain was a reluctant partner in the Entente and unlikely to fight, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter: the army was too small to make a difference, and the navy was both irrelevant in a land war and matched by the German navy. While the Treaty of London was known, the general perception was that Britain wouldn't go to war over a "piece of paper" without compelling strategic reasons.The impression I had was actually kinda the reverse - that Germany had made their plans assuming that Britain would enter the war regardless as part of the Entente, and thus the Treaty of London was effectively a paper tiger (no point holding back from invading Belgium to avoid Britain entering the war if Britain was going to enter the war anyway - in fact, the assumption that Britain would enter the war would give added impetus to the Schlieffen plan in order to end the war before Britain's forces could really make a difference). From my sources, the suggestion was made that Britain recognised that it was a clusterfrell they didn't really want any part of, and sent a message to Germany to the effect that they'd stay out as long as Belgium's neutrality was recognised (which wouldn't have been the only pre-war agreement that was dishonoured - Italy switched sides altogether). However, that message arrived too late for anything to be done about it - and if messages were in fact obfuscated or delayed as you say, that wouldn't have helped either.

[Avilan the Grey]

It seems Hitler did the same mistake prince Wilhelm did. He never understood the British (Wilhelm's mistakes were grander since it was his actual RELATIVES he failed to understand, despite meeting them every summer in Denmark or England) yet held them in very very high regard.

(I was going to recommend a documentary here, but damn if I can remember the name of it... It's the years leading up to WWI from the Royal perspective. How Wilhelm, unlike his mother, was violent, impulsive and jealous, how his cousin in Britain couldn't stand him, how his cousin in Russia liked him just as little, and how his cousins in Denmark (the twin sister princesses) desperately tried to both secure the peace while at the same time tried to set up a firm English-Russian alliance to shut out their weird cousin in Germany, especially since they also wanted revenge for the German conquests of Danish territory in the 19th century. It was named something like "Victoria's children" or something like that (Queen Vicky I of course)).

[Kaeso]

It seems Hitler did the same mistake prince Wilhelm did. He never understood the British (Wilhelm's mistakes were grander since it was his actual RELATIVES he failed to understand, despite meeting them every summer in Denmark or England) yet held them in very very high regard.

(I was going to recommend a documentary here, but damn if I can remember the name of it... It's the years leading up to WWI from the Royal perspective. How Wilhelm, unlike his mother, was violent, impulsive and jealous, how his cousin in Britain couldn't stand him, how his cousin in Russia liked him just as little, and how his cousins in Denmark (the twin sister princesses) desperately tried to both secure the peace while at the same time tried to set up a firm English-Russian alliance to shut out their weird cousin in Germany, especially since they also wanted revenge for the German conquests of Danish territory in the 19th century. It was named something like "Victoria's children" or something like that (Queen Vicky I of course)).

All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

Bismarck opposed the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine because it would make France a permanent enemy to Germany. However, this happened against the will of Bismarck so he had to fabricate complex diplomatic webs to make sure not a single country in Europe would be likely to ally with France (France was still a militarily very powerful nation, in spite of their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war (which was mostly due to bad organization, the French actually had better equipment than the Germans) and in spite of having only half the population of Germany at the time. France with any other ally would be a severe threat to Germany.)

As soon as Bismarck was dismissed, German-Russian relations deteriorated (driving Russia into France's arms) and the Brits felt under threat by German militarism (driving them into Frances arms as well). Italy was a wildcard because they had claims on both French and Austrian territory, and likely to side with the countries that offered them the most of their claims.

*Another interesting prediction: Ferdinand Foch, supreme commander of the Allied Forces in WWI, looked at the Versailles Treaty and said "this is no peace, it's a 20 year armistice". His prediction was off... by about 70 days.

As for Wilhelms relationship with his family, wasn't he actually really close to Nicholas II? I think they even referred to eachother as Nicky and Willy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Willy%E2%80%93Nicky_Correspondence).

[Avilan the Grey]

All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

That was part of his slowly growing paranoia, though, wasn't it? (Wilhelm's). He started disliking Bismarck as his own ambitions failed. He became more and more desperate to impress his British cousins, at the same time as he hated them because they were trying to "encircle" germany through a military alliance between Russia, Italy, France and Britain. This led to him trying to show off, instead shutting him out even more (like when he shows up in Britain with a huge orchestra and a firework ship when everyone else just wanted a quiet week by the sea. As I said, he never "got" his relatives, on any level). Anyway, personal trivia aside, Hitler seems to have had the same conflicted feeling for the British (They are Arians! Yay! And they are equal to us! Yay! But they are acting so WEIRDLY...!)

[Closet_Skeleton]

And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism.

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.



Germany had always been the most pro-war of the great powers.

Hah.

France had been gunning for war with Germany for 40 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism)

The Blank Cheque was to force Austria-Hungary to declare war as soon as possible in the hope that Tsar Nicolas would be too busy mourning his distant cousin Franz Ferdinand and full of anti-regicide anger to want to support Serbia who he had no formal alliance with. It was supposed to limit the war not expand it.

Russia had just announced that it was going to complete a massive re-armament plan in 1916 and France was heavily investing in its railways which would allow it to mobilise. Germany was practically baited into wanting war before 1916.


There are various stories of messages being deliberately obfuscated or delayed in the German high command to try to sabotage diplomatic initiatives, although I don't know how much of that is true. The Kaiser did seem to have second thoughts, but by that stage it was a bit late.

Basically the Kaiser had no actual interest in the War. It was his Prime Minister who started comitted to it because he knew that Wilhelm was just a sabre rattler who would chicken out of a real fight.


All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

Bismark was old and had vastly declined in capability. Dismissing Bismark was not a mistake, the problem was having no one to replace him.


the Brits felt under threat by German militarism (driving them into Frances arms as well).

Britain was just having a temper tantrum because they hated the idea of anyone else having a navy. If they hated militarism they would have been in an alliance against France who was militarism central, but France was willing to accept British naval superiority so Britain didn't fear them. Germany also spoke out against Britain when they invaded some random dutch farmers to steal the gold under their feet.

Britain didn't join the war because of treaties, they joined it because everyone else had and being the only Great Power not in the war would have meant they weren't really a Great Power at all. Great Power politics are all about prestige, if you can't sit at the negotiating table you don't matter, neutrality is a sign of weakness that might make others lose respect for you. The British people loved hearing about winning wars and with almost the whole planet already colonised that wasn't happening any more. If the government had staid neutral then they would have lost the next election to a pro-war party once the populace decided they were missing out on all the glory.

[Kaeso]

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.

Not entirely true. They were revanchist but far rom militarist. Germany, on the other hand, had in recent years waged wars against Austria, Denmark and France with the intent of expanding, and even after their unification was very agressive in asserting their newfound dominance (see: Wilhelms behavior during the Boxer Rebellion (there's a reason why the Entente called them Huns), the Herero genocide, the Morocco Crisis, the Daily Telegraph scandal and the July crisis). The Germans had pretty much made a point out of pissing off everyone around them, from the French to the Brits to the Russians to even the Japanese.


The Blank Cheque was to force Austria-Hungary to declare war as soon as possible in the hope that Tsar Nicolas would be too busy mourning his distant cousin Franz Ferdinand and full of anti-regicide anger to want to support Serbia who he had no formal alliance with. It was supposed to limit the war not expand it.

Russia had just announced that it was going to complete a massive re-armament plan in 1916 and France was heavily investing in its railways which would allow it to mobilise. Germany was practically baited into wanting war before 1916.

Correct, but I'm not sure how much you could call it "baited" when the Germans pretty much made their own bed. They invoked revanchism through annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismarck opposed), and were only worsening and worsening their relations with Russia. They had already created a climate in which nearly every Great Power had at least some hostility.



Bismark was old and had vastly declined in capability. Dismissing Bismark was not a mistake, the problem was having no one to replace him.
That is true. Bismarck was not immortal, but there was nobody who could take his reins after his death.



Britain was just having a temper tantrum because they hated the idea of anyone else having a navy.
I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.


If they hated militarism they would have been in an alliance against France who was militarism central, but France was willing to accept British naval superiority so Britain didn't fear them. Germany also spoke out against Britain when they invaded some random dutch farmers to steal the gold under their feet.
Boers, not Dutch. They don't even really speak Dutch but Afrikaans. And this again was related to the Daily Telegraph scandal: Wilhelm accused the Russians and French of supporting the Boers (which they didn't), understandably pissing htem off.


Britain didn't join the war because of treaties, they joined it because everyone else had and being the only Great Power not in the war would have meant they weren't really a Great Power at all. Great Power politics are all about prestige, if you can't sit at the negotiating table you don't matter, neutrality is a sign of weakness that might make others lose respect for you. The British people loved hearing about winning wars and with almost the whole planet already colonised that wasn't happening any more. If the government had staid neutral then they would have lost the next election to a pro-war party once the populace decided they were missing out on all the glory.
It was not about glory alone. It was also about containing Germany. Their industry was rapidly expanding, they were militarily capable and willing and Belgium already had the 4th largest economy of the world at the time (believe it or not). Keeping it out of German hands was a major priority for them, not to speak of the Belgian ports which would mean the German navy would be right on Britains doorstep. They had far more interests in the war than just gloryhounding.

[Miriel]

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.
Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

[Stardrake]

I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.Indeed, this is one of the major misunderstandings leading up to war. Kaiser, essentially, wanted battleships for a mix of wanting to have toys and the idea that a nation's strength was measured in how many battleships they had. Britain, on the other hand, legitimately wondered what else Germany could intend such a powerful fleet for if not to fight the Royal Navy.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Not entirely true. They were revanchist but far rom militarist. Germany, on the other hand, had in recent years waged wars against Austria, Denmark and France with the intent of expanding, and even after their unification was very agressive in asserting their newfound dominance (see: Wilhelms behavior during the Boxer Rebellion (there's a reason why the Entente called them Huns), the Herero genocide, the Morocco Crisis, the Daily Telegraph scandal and the July crisis). The Germans had pretty much made a point out of pissing off everyone around them, from the French to the Brits to the Russians to even the Japanese.

They invoked revanchism through annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismarck opposed), and were only worsening and worsening their relations with Russia.

What definition of militarism are you using? Militarism isn't just about being a warmonger, its about how you arrange your society. Socially, France was more militarist than Germany which was limited mostly to Prussia (and only parts of Prussia, thanks to all that expansionism) who had a lot less control over their Empire than is usually claimed. Switzerland is a quite militaristic society despite being neutral. Prussian militarism was always essentially a copy of French ideas, they were pretty bad at inventing things on their own but often better at implementing those ideas than their originators were. Frederick the Great was a massive francophile and his army was created by his father as a copy of the French army and then destroyed decades later by the Napoleonic French army leading to the creation of a modernised Prussian army based off the Napoleonic French one.

France interfered in the Belgian war of independence to either annex it or turn it into a puppet state, threatened to annex large amounts of Prussian territory in the 1840 Rhine crisis, forced Sardinia into a war with Austria so it could annex Nice and Savoy, tried to turn Mexico into a puppet state under a figurehead Emperor, readily jumped into declaring the Franco-Prussian war after being baited with a very minor insult, annexed Algiers after a debt default and Tunisia just to stop Italy from getting it, grabbed by far the largest chunk during the Scramble for Africa, walked into Indo-China just to have a joke of a counterpart to British India and openly promoted the idea that their culture would drive all others to extinction.

The Revanchists didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine because they had any respect for nations keeping their borders, they cared because it was an affront to France, they had no interest in the injustice of Austrian (sundgau, also in Alsace), Spanish (Rousilon), Italian (nice) claims on their territory.


I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.

Oh no, the Germans showed a potential for aggression while most of Europe joined in carving up Africa.

Pre-WW1 Germany was bascially the annoying little brother of Europe saying 'let me join in' and 'I want one too' at everything France and Britain did. Germany combined diplomatic ineptitude (without Bismark) with being desperate to be in a club whose members didn't want it there. That was its main sin (above those horrible things that everyone else was doing).

It might be unfair to characterise the states of the past as small children but since they act like it and it works why not?


Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

I was really just quoting the last historian I saw on TV. It is pretty much a matter of opinion. France is so often let off despite doing even more extreme things than Germany that people make sweeping statements to address the balance.

[Aedilred]

France interfered in the Belgian war of independence to either annex it or turn it into a puppet state, threatened to annex large amounts of Prussian territory in the 1840 Rhine crisis, forced Sardinia into a war with Austria so it could annex Nice and Savoy, tried to turn Mexico into a puppet state under a figurehead Emperor, readily jumped into declaring the Franco-Prussian war after being baited with a very minor insult, annexed Algiers after a debt default and Tunisia just to stop Italy from getting it, grabbed by far the largest chunk during the Scramble for Africa, walked into Indo-China just to have a joke of a counterpart to British India and openly promoted the idea that their culture would drive all others to extinction.

The Revanchists didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine because they had any respect for nations keeping their borders, they cared because it was an affront to France, they had no interest in the injustice of Austrian (sundgau, also in Alsace), Spanish (Rousilon), Italian (nice) claims on their territory.

Well, nobody ever has any interest in the claims of other states over their territory. It's a great double standard; if someone's taken land off you in war then it's an injustice, if you've taken it off them then it's only fair. There are current examples of exactly this in Europe, though I won't go into it since real-world politics and all that. France is/was hardly unique in that. (Nice wasn't a conquest, though, it was traded away in exchange for French support for Piedmont in the war of unification).

There's also context to take into account. The Franco-Prussian War was still within living memory for many French people; Roussillon and Sundgau had been severed 250 years before, virtually in the pre-Westphalian era when the idea of recognisable statehood was still in its genesis. The original draft of the Treaty of Paris had much (all?) of Belgium to remain with France, and that was only amended after Napoleon's return to create a new unified kingdom in the area, so it's not surprising that France felt she had an interest fifteen years later when the failed attempt at a united kingdom broke up.

[Asta Kask]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

[lio45]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

For the record, that would turn Rich Burlew into a Swedish citizen. He lives in Philly.

:)

[Avilan the Grey]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

Karelia, Livonia, Estonia, Ingria. On the top of my mind.

[Asta Kask]

Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

*nods*

Look at the national anthems of the day. I believe la Marseillaise has something about the blood of the enemies watering the fields, but most national anthems are like that. Great Britain has "rule the waves", which is the imperative form - get out and conquer. Germany famously proclaims that it is above everything else in the world. And so on.


Karelia, Livonia, Estonia, Ingria. On the top of my mind.

That's them Baltic states.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Great Britain has "rule the waves", which is the imperative form - get out and conquer.

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem.


1.
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save The Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save The Queen.
2.
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save The Queen!
3.
God bless our native land,
May heaven's protective hand
Still guard our shore;
May peace her power extend,
Foe be transformed to friend,
And Britain's power depend
On war no more.
4.
May just and righteous laws
Uphold the public cause,
And bless our isle.
Home of the brave and free,
Fair land and liberty,
We pray that still on thee
Kind heaven may smile.
5.
And not this land alone-
But be thy mercies known
From shore to shore.
Lord, make the nations see
That men should brothers be,
And from one family
The wide world o'er.

On the other hand, you may have been looking for this song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdY1Y5XNJBY).


Germany famously proclaims that it is above everything else in the world. And so on.

Deutchland Uber Alles doesn't mean that. It means Germany over Lippe-Detmold, Saxe-Weimar, Hesse-Darmstadt etc.

[Asta Kask]

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem

I was looking for this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHNfvJc99YY

It seems that the German phrase in question means "above all other things in importance". As for the implications of that, I think I'll bow out here.

[Iruka]

It seems that the German phrase in question means "above all other things in importance". As for the implications of that, I think I'll bow out here.

The Deutschlandlied only became the german anthem in 1922 during the Weimar Republic.
From 1871 to 1918 the imperial anthem (and unofficial national anthem) was "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", adopted from a hymn to a danish king and sung to the melody of "God save the Queen".

[Aedilred]

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem. *snip*

I'll take the liberty of adding the original last verse, one you don't hear often these days...


n.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God Save the King!

:smallwink:

Worth noting that while the German national anthem was indeed titled Deutschland uber Alles when written in 1848 the first verse hasn't been sung since WW2, for reasons that are fairly obvious if you look at the lyrics (which describe the bounds of Germany fairly generously by modern standards).

[Asta Kask]

The Deutschlandlied only became the german anthem in 1922 during the Weimar Republic.
From 1871 to 1918 the imperial anthem (and unofficial national anthem) was "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", adopted from a hymn to a danish king and sung to the melody of "God save the Queen".

*looks at "Heil dir..."*

Dear lord, that's even worse.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey, we haven't changed our national anthem since Norway broke away. It still sort of assumes they are part of us. :smallbiggrin:

[Asta Kask]

That's iffy. Norway was never formally a part of Sweden - the two countries were united under one crown. And they had their own national anthem in 1869 - 35 years before the Union was dissolved. No, I prefer to think that the Swedish national anthem is just confused. There are certainly other signs of it. :smalltongue:

[lio45]

You got nitpicked for the German and British anthems, but I can confirm that the French one is certainly mostly about killing invaders/enemies. Our tilled fields shall be drinking their blood, etc.

[Aedilred]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

[Asta Kask]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

I've read that the original meaning was imperative (and the British certainly obeyed!), but discussing that's a little out of my comfort zone.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I was looking for this:


I know.


(which describe the bounds of Germany fairly generously by modern standards).

Well, they didn't have a country with defined borders to write about and isn't about a political entity to start with.



To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

Technically Rule, Britannia was written (by a Scot) for a masque about Alfred the Great. It was actually the Jacobites who first really used it.

[hamishspence]

I'll take the liberty of adding the original last verse, one you don't hear often these days...


n.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God Save the King!

:smallwink:

I wonder how many really famous songs have lines that are cut these days?

I know at least one verse of All Things Bright and Beautiful is, at least:

The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
He made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate

any other notable "songs with cut content"?

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Myrrh verse is usually cut out of 'We three kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Three_Kings)' in English primary schools. Resulting in much confusion.


Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
Breathes a life of gathering gloom;
Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone cold tomb.

[Asta Kask]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

[hamishspence]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

Which Terry Pratchett inevitably spoofs:

"national anthems only ever have one verse or, rather, all have the same second verse, which goes 'nur'hnur'mur'nur nur, hnur'nur'nur, hnur' at some length until everyone remembers the last line of the first verse and sings it as loudly as they can."
— Carpe Jugulum

later giving Ankh Morpork one which actually has that in its second verse.

[Avilan the Grey]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

We usually do the first two. But not all four, no.

[Asta Kask]

Thinking about it, your right. Two first verses. I don't think I've sung it for 20 years.

[Aedilred]

Well, they didn't have a country with defined borders to write about and isn't about a political entity to start with.
Yes (albeit it emerged from the nationalist movement seeking to unite Germany, and there was a defined German political area at the time), but even so it takes the most generous possible view of what constitutes the German nation, and given that it would include, among other foreign territories, the whole of modern Poland, it's not hard to see how it was deemed politically unacceptable after WW2. Even given that there was a reasonable German population in what is now Poland at the time.


Technically Rule, Britannia was written (by a Scot) for a masque about Alfred the Great. It was actually the Jacobites who first really used it.

Yes, I know about the masque, although the contemporary political context is relevant. (Alfred too had to fight off invaders from overseas; his supposed creation of the navy was again a defensive measure). Scots =/= Jacobites, of course. Scotland was the heartland of Jacobitism in mainland Britain (along with Ireland, to an extent) but many, possibly even most, Scots, were pro-Hanoverian, particularly in light of religious issues which I won't go into. Thomson himself was pro-Union and his sponsors generally had Whig tendencies.

The Jacobites did use Rule, Britannia! but they changed the words - albeit, with an unsurprising lack of self-awareness, keeping in the stuff about freedom from tyrants, given they were thrown out in the first place for perceived tyranny and were sponsored by the arch-tyrant of Europe.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Scotland was the heartland of Jacobitism in mainland Britain (along with Ireland, to an extent) but many, possibly even most, Scots, were pro-Hanoverian, particularly in light of religious issues which I won't go into.

The Jacobites did use Rule, Britannia! but they changed the words - albeit, with an unsurprising lack of self-awareness, keeping in the stuff about freedom from tyrants, given they were thrown out in the first place for perceived tyranny and were sponsored by the arch-tyrant of Europe.

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.

Freedom from tyranny means different things to different people. Human rights only apply to people who legally have rights and there was a lot more serfdom and slavery in Scotland at the time than in England. No one sees themselves as a tyrant and plenty of nobles see little difference between freedom from tyranny and freedom to be a tyrant themselves. Moving the capital to Edinburgh and the adoption of Norman French and then Germanic Scots as the court language had cut the ties between the monarchy and the clans so that the Highlanders were even more used to a weak monarchy than the English were. The Stuarts only really cared about England anyway the wealth disparity between the two Kingdoms meant Scotland wasn't worth oppressing so most Jacobites didn't see the Stuarts as tyrants.

You see the same thing again with the Greeks during the Persian Wars and certain other slave owning societies.

[Aedilred]

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.
Thomson wasn't a highlander, though, and lived most of his life in England anyway.


Freedom from tyranny means different things to different people. Human rights only apply to people who legally have rights and there was a lot more serfdom and slavery in Scotland at the time than in England. No one sees themselves as a tyrant and plenty of nobles see little difference between freedom from tyranny and freedom to be a tyrant themselves. Moving the capital to Edinburgh and the adoption of Norman French and then Germanic Scots as the court language had cut the ties between the monarchy and the clans so that the Highlanders were even more used to a weak monarchy than the English were. The Stuarts only really cared about England anyway the wealth disparity between the two Kingdoms meant Scotland wasn't worth oppressing so most Jacobites didn't see the Stuarts as tyrants.

Oh yeah, it's just... well. The Stuarts had been wrestling with the issue of tyranny and absolute power almost from the moment James I/VI died; for over fifty years even before the Glorious Revolution. Charles I was overthrown and executed because he was seen to have abused his power; Charles II spent his whole reign trying to deal with it, and James II was overthrown fairly quickly in turn.

When you're ousted from government for alleged abuse of the royal prerogative, your former subjects invite republican-headed government over to restore order, establish a constitutional monarchy, abolish half the prerogative, and start composing songs about how great it is to be free from tyranny, especially after a fifty-year history of your family facing persistent opposition for perceived tyrannical behaviour... even if you don't think you're a tyrant, it shows an amazing lack of self-awareness to try to adopt a Whig song about overthrowing tyrants as your own anthem. Which was really my point.

[Yora]

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.

Now we've been really drifting off topic. :smallbiggrin:

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.
Same with the German. That the first part is now ommited from the official version is not so much because of "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles", since it refers to the wish of countless bickering principlaities to unite into a single nation, but mostly because three of the four borders mentioned in the song now lie outside of German territory, and the German state has renounced any claims to those areas.

[Asta Kask]

When you're ousted from government for alleged abuse of the royal prerogative, your former subjects invite republican-headed government over to restore order, establish a constitutional monarchy, abolish half the prerogative, and start composing songs about how great it is to be free from tyranny, especially after a fifty-year history of your family facing persistent opposition for perceived tyrannical behaviour... even if you don't think you're a tyrant, it shows an amazing lack of self-awareness to try to adopt a Whig song about overthrowing tyrants as your own anthem. Which was really my point.

Not at all.


There's a certain king today—I'd better not call him by name—who never stops preaching peace and trust and is actually sworn enemy to both; and if he had ever practised either he would have lost his authority or his kingdom many times over.

This is propaganda, pure and simple. The more tyrannical you are, the more you have to speak about liberty.

[Aedilred]

Not at all.

Well, there are alternative explanations. It could be a "oh, right, we totally get this now, d00ds", but if you're going for that you probably don't want to change the words. You also might want to reduce the visibility of your connection to the king of France, regarded in Britain during the period as the global arch-tyrant.

It could be ironic (but, again, changing the words...)

Or it could be an expression of how the Hanoverians are the real tyrants, although I'd argue that falls back into "completely missing the point/lack of self-awareness" bracket.

It seems a bit like the Confederacy adopting John Brown's Body, French royalists singing La Marseillaise*, or the White Russians with the Internationale.

*Admittedly, by 1870, it would probably have helped the royalist cause to do so: the refusal of the legitimist candidate to consider retaining some republican trappings like the Tricolour was a significant factor in the retention of republican rule. But that's 1870, not 1793.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, by the original Greek definition George I, William of Orange and Oliver Cromwell were tyrants but the Stuarts were not.

[Aedilred]

Well, by the original Greek definition George I, William of Orange and Oliver Cromwell were tyrants but the Stuarts were not.
Cromwell, yes; William too (although he did have a hereditary claim, just not a strong one). George I though was the legal hereditary heir to Anne under the Act of Succession passed when he wasn't even the intended recipient. The Act did skip over a lot of people, but the only way you could argue he didn't have a legal right to the throne (which was essentially the core of Greek tyranny) was if all government since 1689 was itself illegitimate and had no legal authority, which was a point of view pretty much reserved to Jacobites.

[Miriel]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.
The same thing can mean different things in different eras. I'm pretty sure that by 1900, the waves being ruled by Britannia included India and the road thither (with Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt), the FMS, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, half of Africa, and other assorted colonies.

[Aedilred]

The same thing can mean different things in different eras. I'm pretty sure that by 1900, the waves being ruled by Britannia included India and the road thither (with Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt), the FMS, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, half of Africa, and other assorted colonies.

Oh, sure, Britain went and took over half the world in the 19th century but that's not necessarily connected to the song. The song lyrics are all still about freedom and stopping Johnny Tyrant coming over here and taking over, and stopping him from doing so.

In any case, it's not the national anthem, just a patriotic song that gets wheeled out once a year at the Proms.

[Miriel]

Oh, sure, Britain went and took over half the world in the 19th century but that's not necessarily connected to the song. The song lyrics are all still about freedom and stopping Johnny Tyrant coming over here and taking over, and stopping him from doing so.

In any case, it's not the national anthem, just a patriotic song that gets wheeled out once a year at the Proms.
Sure. But what I'm saying is that this song had a different meaning when sung at the time it was written and when sung in 1900.

And patriotic songs are often more important than just the national anthem. The national anthem is a state decision. It's fairly static too, unless something major happens to the state. Patriotic songs (including the national anthem) tell us something about the people who sing it. When British colonists in British Columbia, holding "Stand for a White Canada" banners, sang Britannia Rule the Wave in an anti-immigration demonstration that ended up being a racist riot against Chinese and Japanese immigrants (Vancouver Daily News Observer, September 8, 1907, p. 1), I'm fairly certain they weren't thinking about how the British people, forever free, established a constitutional monarchy, and that it wasn't "just" what you described, whatever it was.

[Asta Kask]

People rally around certain symbols, whether they are official or not. In Sweden, certain unsavory groups rally around Charles XII and the day he died, but there's absolutely nothing official about this. Similarly, people rally around Kristallnacht day (9 Nov?) for a very different purpose. The official National Day, on the other hand, is celebrated only because it's a day off. Very few people have any personal relationship to it.

[lio45]

Their industry was rapidly expanding, they were militarily capable and willing and Belgium already had the 4th largest economy of the world at the time (believe it or not). Keeping it out of German hands was a major priority for them, not to speak of the Belgian ports which would mean the German navy would be right on Britains doorstep.

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...

[Miriel]

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...
Whatever it is, it will end up in a debate about what makes an economy larger than another.

[lio45]

Whatever it is, it will end up in a debate about what makes an economy larger than another.

... aren't there 'official' figures that we can all rely on?



Oh, and... after doing the exercise for myself, I now have the answer :) Not even putting it in a spoiler box yet.

[Miriel]

... aren't there 'official' figures that we can all rely on?



Oh, and... after doing the exercise for myself, I now have the answer :) Not even putting it in a spoiler box yet.
Are you using GNP or GDP? National wealth? Or maybe just industrial production? Some other measure? Per capita? Adjusted for PPP? Do colonies count? And so on.

In any case, historical figures are often historian's guesswork based on past guesswork.

[Aedilred]

Are you using GNP or GDP? National wealth? Or maybe just industrial production? Some other measure? Per capita? Adjusted for PPP? Do colonies count? And so on.
Usually when "size of economy" is referred to it's GDP not adjusted for population, so that's what I'd assume, although clarification wouldn't be unhelpful. I would also assume that colonies count, given that Belgium's wealth was largely colony-driven.


My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...
I would guess the USA as smaller than Belgium at the time, though not by much, and it grew staggeringly quickly during and immediately following the War. I have a sneaking suspicion about France, though. I'd hazard a guess that all four were bigger than Russia. iirc Argentina would have been well up there at the time too, although maybe it was a little past its peak.

[Stardrake]

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...
Hard to imagine now, but probably the USA. Great Depression notwithstanding, the US grew a LOT during the early 20th century, while Europe got hit harder by the Depression as well as being knocked around by two devastating wars. Germany starting to eclipse France and Britain industry-wise was one of the contributing factors to those wars, so they were probably the big three. However, while they were being knocked around by war, nobody made any significant direct attacks on the US proper, so apart from a few years right after the stock market crash US just kept on growing while the European economies were devastated by war.

Americans like to exaggerate their role in World War 1, but really the US basically just acted as a stalemate-breaker.

[Avilan the Grey]

The combination of the dust bowls and the depression hit the US hard, but certain aspects of the economy never vaned. Like oil.
That said, before WWII the US had one of the smalles militaries in the industrialized world (because prior to WWII the US always demilitarized itself after every war), and compared to it's size it was the smallest, period.

[Stardrake]

It hit the US hard, yes, but my impression is that it hit Europe harder.

Going back a few pages, the aftereffects of World War 1, including Versailles, was a large part of this. Germany in the 20s was borrowing money of the US to pay reparations, and then a lot of that money went back to the US for goods and resources to rebuild, so financially speaking the US was getting to have its cake and eat it too and that was largely what drove the boom in the 20s.

When the US had troubles, it still had plenty of reserves that it could use to kick itself back into gear, but not enough to continue being the engine of financial flows through Europe. This caused Germany to go into stagflation, and Germany's collapse dragged the rest of Europe down with it*.

Lessons learned from this experience, in fact, was probably largely what lead to the miracle recovery of Europe after World War 2 - after the initial few years of revenge-driven deindustrialisation of Germany, saner heads prevailed with the argument that the European economy needed Germany as a strong center or risk going down with it. The Franco-German economic alliance that resulted kickstarted the recovery and also gave birth to the EU.

*Germany had probably been the industrial heartland of Europe even pre-unification, but while Germany was the political basketcase of Europe it presented no threat to anybody - while when unified, it was pretty much going to become the top dog in Europe anyway. Much of 20th century history can basically be summed up as 'the existing superpowers trying to keep Germany down' and it's still ended up as probably the dominant nation in Europe, albeit through softer forms of power than a century ago.

[Closet_Skeleton]

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

I know Germany was no 2 and Britain was no 1, so its France or USA.

I'm going to guess France. USA wasn't that amazing at the time but below Britain but above France still gives it plenty of room to grow to its ww2 era dominance.

edited this in despite someone having posted after me.


Germany had probably been the industrial heartland of Europe even pre-unification, but while Germany was the political basketcase of Europe it presented no threat to anybody - while when unified, it was pretty much going to become the top dog in Europe anyway.

Gonna have to disagree a bit here.

Germany was the economic powerhouse of Europe for a few years before Unification, but for most of the period it wasn't that great (hence Belguim being able to be in the running for major industrial powerhouse). Despite building the foundations in the fist half of the century Prussia's industrial growth didn't start really take off until the 1860s (Krupp didn't even make its first cannon sale until 1859). Alsace Lorraine also had a lot of iron and coal so taking it had some effect on Germany's industry and the war reparations taken from France provoked a major boom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunderzeit) It wasn't until the 1890s that industry became the dominant factor in Germany's GDP and factories employed more workers than agriculture and urban population outclassed rural population.

Even if it might have taken 300 years to get there, Russia was the country destined to be the most powerful. While the natural resources helped, it was the education system and particularly the technical colleges that put Germany ahead and that could have in theory been done anywhere.

[Killer Angel]

I'm going to guess France. USA wasn't that amazing at the time but below Britain but above France still gives it plenty of room to grow to its ww2 era dominance.

That would be funny, given that Belgium is considered the neglected cousin...

[Miriel]

I know Germany was no 2 and Britain was no 1, so its France or USA.

I'm going to guess France. USA wasn't that amazing at the time but below Britain but above France still gives it plenty of room to grow to its ww2 era dominance.
If the figure includes colonies, which is likely, as Aedilred said, remember that France had the second largest colonial empire at the time. It wasn't exploited as blatantly as the Congo, but still.

[lio45]

I'm going to guess France.

Seems almost impossible, considering that Belgium became an economic powerhouse thanks to the booming Sambre-Meuse 'sillon industriel', and that the same kind of coal/steel boom was also happening at the time next door in France, along the Sambre river in the French Flanders (Lille area) and the Meuse in the French Ardennes... PLUS France had a lot more population, way more area/way more natural resources, more colonies, etc.

In other words, what Belgium had, France also nearly had, but France had a lot more things over Belgium.

I would have tended to say Germany because of the lack of colonies contributing to the GDP...

[Miriel]

I would have tended to say Germany because of the lack of colonies contributing to the GDP...
Germany had decent colonies at that point. The US only had the Philippines and some islands.

Anyway, in the case of these two countries, colonies were much less meaningful than metropolitan territory.

[Aedilred]

Seems almost impossible, considering that Belgium became an economic powerhouse thanks to the booming Sambre-Meuse 'sillon industriel', and that the same kind of coal/steel boom was also happening at the time next door in France, along the Sambre river in the French Flanders (Lille area) and the Meuse in the French Ardennes... PLUS France had a lot more population, way more area/way more natural resources, more colonies, etc.

In other words, what Belgium had, France also nearly had, but France had a lot more things over Belgium.

I would have tended to say Germany because of the lack of colonies contributing to the GDP...

Germany had colonies, most notably Tanzania, Namibia and Cameroon, as well as outposts in China and the far East. They just didn't have as many as Britain or France (and possibly Portugal), they hadn't had many of those colonies very long, and the world was running out of "unclaimed" land for them to grab, so Germany isn't often considered an A-list colonial power.

[Closet_Skeleton]

In other words, what Belgium had, France also nearly had, but France had a lot more things over Belgium.


Wasn't that important in practice. France caught up eventually but Belgium had a head start. Just going by natural resources Iran and Chile should have been far ahead of Belgium. Belgium had the advantage of Flanders having been the most urbanised part of Europe for at least 800 years while France had a agriculture obsessed government that had traditionally seen those who merely process goods as economic parasites (see the Physiocrat school of ecomics and their concept of the 'sterile classes').

France's culture put it behind in industrialisation, but by 1914 they'd mostly surpassed that so you may be right. I know Belgium surpassed France in industry at one point in the 19th century (even before the Berlin conference and the aquistion of the Kongo) but don't know when the balance changed.

[lio45]

Germany had decent colonies at that point. The US only had the Philippines and some islands.

Re: the absence of U.S. colonies, it was clear in my head when I posted that the lack of colonies wasn't a relevant factor for countries that are both huge and populated (U.S., Russia, China).

In other words, though I did not explicitly state it, the U.S. and Russia were both exempted from being targeted by my comment about Germany's relative lack of GDP-boosting colonies compared to its European neighbors.





Germany had colonies, most notably Tanzania, Namibia and Cameroon, as well as outposts in China and the far East.

I didn't say they didn't have colonies, I said their colonies' contribution to the GDP was likely lacking compared to the other forerunners (France, Belgium, Britain). :)

[lio45]

Belgium had the advantage of Flanders having been the most urbanised part of Europe for at least 800 years...

But Belgium's industrial boom was not due to Flanders, it was really mostly Wallony (or Wallonia...? We're not allowed to use the internets, so I can't look up how to properly translate it to English) to thank for lifting Belgium to such a high position in the global economies ranking. It was the cradle of industrialization on the Continent.

But I'm fairly sure the Lille-Roubaix-Tourcoing-(Tournai) area was booming basically as much at the same time and for the same reasons as the Belgian Sambre-Meuse corridor. Maybe with a slight delay caused by France-specific policies, but by 1914, I'm pretty sure the industrial areas of NE France were not far behind Belgium in size, productivity, etc.

And, unlike Belgium, that was only a small corner of France. There was the rest of the country, plus more colonies, contributing to the GDP.

[Aedilred]

But Belgium's industrial boom was not due to Flanders, it was really mostly Wallony (or Wallonia...? We're not allowed to use the internets, so I can't look up how to properly translate it to English) to thank for lifting Belgium to such a high position in the global economies ranking. It was the cradle of industrialization on the Continent.

It's usually referred to as Wallonia, with the people being Walloons.

[lio45]

For the record, I actually find I really like discussing stuff like that (both the OP about aircraft, and this little 2.0 version about the ranking of economies in 1914) without using the internets.

BTW, my final answer was that I believed all four of Britain, the U.S., France, and Germany were larger economies than Belgium at the time, and that this one random guy on the internets who stated once and in passing, without any source, that Belgium ranked 4th, was in fact mistaken.

Re: whoever said the US could've been below Belgium in GDP at the time (1914. Skyscrapers growing like crazy in New York and Chicago. Assembly lines in Detroit churning out Fords and Chevrolets. etc.), I guarantee is wrong. Same with UK as well. My bet would be UK and US as top two, and France and Germany the only two possible candidates out of the four that I could believe to have been behind Belgium in economy at the time.

[Aedilred]

For the record, I actually find I really like discussing stuff like that (both the OP about aircraft, and this little 2.0 version about the ranking of economies in 1914) without using the internets.

BTW, my final answer was that I believed all four of Britain, the U.S., France, and Germany were larger economies than Belgium at the time, and that this one random guy on the internets who stated once and in passing, without any source, that Belgium ranked 4th, was in fact mistaken.

Re: whoever said the US could've been below Belgium in GDP at the time (1914. Skyscrapers growing like crazy in New York and Chicago. Assembly lines in Detroit churning out Fords and Chevrolets. etc.), I guarantee is wrong. Same with UK as well. My bet would be UK and US as top two, and France and Germany the only two possible candidates out of the four that I could believe to have been behind Belgium in economy at the time.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that the person who made the statement was mistaken. It would probably depend quite heavily on the precise assertion made, though: it makes a big difference whether it was "in 1914" or "before the war". I can certainly believe that there was a period before 1900 when Belgium outstripped the US, when the US was still in reconstruction and all the wealth of Africa was being shipped back to Belgium. By 1914 itself, though, it does seem a little unlikely.

Something else to bear in mind, though, is that the US benefited greatly in relative economic terms from two years of neutrality at the start of the war and federal investment in anticipation of the potential need to fight. Industrial production almost doubled between the start of the war in Europe and US entry into it. The stock market rose by 20 points between 1914 and 1916. The state that the US emerged in in 1918 relative to the three great powers of western Europe was an almost entirely different one to that which had existed in 1914. The US was growing quickly before 1914, but so was almost everyone else - Britain had arguably just about passed its peak, but it was the first and most extensively industrialised nation, while most others were still to an extent playing catch-up. While the US was probably always going to overtake the Europeans eventually, the fact that they all knocked seven bells out of each other for two-three years gave the US a great opportunity to catch up and overtake soon than it otherwise might have.

[Stardrake]

That's pretty much my thinking. For most of the 1800s, a lot of the US was still relatively underdeveloped. lio45 cites skyscrapers going up and assembly lines being established at and before 1914 in the US, but pretty much everyone was putting their industry into high gear at the time (it's somewhat amazing how much the world changed in the late 19th century). As Aedilred said, though, while the US was probably going to pull ahead of any individual European nation (except possibly Russia) eventually regardless of events in Europe, the Great War knocking Europe around while the US was not just untouched by the war but profited from it accelerated that process remarkably.

Even then, it took World War 2 for US to have truly pulled ahead of Britain (although the spot where I remember that from probably WAS taking into account the British colonies, most of which it started shedding after the war).



Gonna have to disagree a bit here.

Germany was the economic powerhouse of Europe for a few years before Unification, but for most of the period it wasn't that great (hence Belguim being able to be in the running for major industrial powerhouse). Despite building the foundations in the fist half of the century Prussia's industrial growth didn't start really take off until the 1860s (Krupp didn't even make its first cannon sale until 1859). Alsace Lorraine also had a lot of iron and coal so taking it had some effect on Germany's industry and the war reparations taken from France provoked a major boom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grunderzeit) It wasn't until the 1890s that industry became the dominant factor in Germany's GDP and factories employed more workers than agriculture and urban population outclassed rural population.

Even if it might have taken 300 years to get there, Russia was the country destined to be the most powerful. While the natural resources helped, it was the education system and particularly the technical colleges that put Germany ahead and that could have in theory been done anywhere.

That depends on how much you consider Russia to be European, and how much you consider it to be the European west with a colony in Asia and Siberia that happens to be contiguous. Of course, strictly speaking the USSR was the superpower of the region for a while, but it's lost that now. Whether Russia will get back up there or continue slowly breaking apart is something for future historians.

Regarding economic statuses, I was thinking of the region of Germany rather than the nation of Prussia that became Germany. There was a lot going on industry-wise in that region before unification. You may be right in that calling it the 'powerhouse' is exaggeration, but unified Germany certainly did build a lot on what had been done by the separate parts beforehand.

[Asta Kask]

Without using the internets, what aircraft won the Battle of Britain?

Well, when I play Panzerkorps Wehrmacht it's usually the Focke-Wulf.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Even then, it took World War 2 for US to have truly pulled ahead of Britain (although the spot where I remember that from probably WAS taking into account the British colonies, most of which it started shedding after the war).

Britain was behind the USA by the time WW2 started. British colonies had almost no industry, they were for raw materials only. (Canada and Australia weren't really colonies any-more after the 30s).


That depends on how much you consider Russia to be European, and how much you consider it to be the European west with a colony in Asia and Siberia that happens to be contiguous.

Before the treaty of Brest-Litvosk and the revolution most of the Russian Empire's industry was in Russian Poland. Asian Russia was irrelevant to industry except for raw materials until Stalin moved all those people beyond the Urals for defensive purposes.



Regarding economic statuses, I was thinking of the region of Germany rather than the nation of Prussia that became Germany. There was a lot going on industry-wise in that region before unification. You may be right in that calling it the 'powerhouse' is exaggeration, but unified Germany certainly did build a lot on what had been done by the separate parts beforehand.

Germany's post 1860s boom built on educational reforms going back to the 18th century and a railway boom in the 1830s-50s but it still came into effect very late. Most of Germany's wealth naturally came from forestry as it lacks in good farmland and all the fishing regions are shared with Denmark and the Netherlands who undercut the Hansiatic league which had dominated German trade in the middle ages and its population was very low making it a very poor area until the industrial revolution.

Germany just didn't have the population to support industry in the first half of the 19th century, but underwent a massive boom while France's growth fell dramatically. The hungry 40s are most famous in the Anglosphere for their effect on Ireland but were pretty extreme across Europe. After Ireland, Prussia and Belgium were most affected by Potato blight in the 1840s (France was next most affected). This was probably a major cause behind the 1848 revolutions. The effect of the famine was greater on the economy than on the population growth rate and the German population almost tripled between 1800 and 1900 (the French population on the other hand increased only by 1/3 and wouldn't double from its 1800 value until the 2000s). German population surpassed the French population around 1860.

In 1848-51, Prussia fought a war with Denmark and lost. In 1863 Prussia and Austria won the rematch in 8 months. That should give a general perspective on the improvement of Prussia's strategic position over those 12 years.

[Miriel]

Britain was behind the USA by the time WW2 started. British colonies had almost no industry, they were for raw materials only. (Canada and Australia weren't really colonies any-more after the 30s).
Yes and no. I don't know about Australia, but Canada, though independent for all intents and purpose, saw itself as part of an Empire still. Even though it could have an independent foreign policy, in reality, it didn't, because it didn't want one at all. And everyone else saw the dominions as little more than British pets.

[lio45]

Belgium, one of the smallest countries in Europe, had in 1914 the sixth largest economy in the world, the result of early industrialisation but also of intense activity by its banks, trading houses and industrial entrepreneurs.

Russian railways, South African gold and diamond mines, Indian textile factories, African and Malayan rubber plantations, South American cattle ranches, Australian sheep stations, Canadian wheatfields and almost every sector of the enormous economy of the United States, already by 1913 the largest in the world, producing one-third of its industrial output, devoured European capital as fast as it could be lent.

https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/keegan-first.html

[lio45]

Before the war Belgium was the sixth largest economy in the world, but the Germans destroyed the Belgian economy so thoroughly, by dismantling industries and transporting the equipment and machinery to Germany, that it never regained its pre-war level.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Belgium

[Stardrake]

Yes and no. I don't know about Australia, but Canada, though independent for all intents and purpose, saw itself as part of an Empire still. Even though it could have an independent foreign policy, in reality, it didn't, because it didn't want one at all. And everyone else saw the dominions as little more than British pets.Australia was much the same. The break came in post-Pearl Harbour World War 2, when Britain asked for Australia to send more soldiers to Europe and Australia's response could be summed up as 'we've got the Japanese knocking on our doors, you have got to be joking!'

Certainly, Britain, or the British Empire at least, remained a credible rival to the US both economically and militarily (pre-WW2 America didn't really care all that much about the latter as long as it was secure itself) - it's likely, though, that this did include the empire and the influence Britain still had over the dominions. It wasn't until after WW2 that the US was clearly dominant - in fact, I've read some historians that suggested that the US strategy around WW2 was ensuring that Germany was defeated, but only after Britain had been exhausted as a competing world power.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I've read some historians that suggested that the US strategy around WW2 was ensuring that Germany was defeated, but only after Britain had been exhausted as a competing world power.

More than that.

FDR basically pursued an anti-British strategy constantly. Part of the reason why Stalin was so confident that he could create a sphere of influence that became the Warsaw pact was because FDR deliberately steered him in that direction in order to create a counter-weight to the British Commonwealth.

However FDR made the mistake of taking on his ideological opposite in the Democratic Party as Vice President when he was very low on health. Truman's succession reversed pretty much all of FDR's plans and led to the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Empire FDR envisioned.

[Miriel]

More than that.

FDR basically pursued an anti-British strategy constantly. Part of the reason why Stalin was so confident that he could create a sphere of influence that became the Warsaw pact was because FDR deliberately steered him in that direction in order to create a counter-weight to the British Commonwealth.

However FDR made the mistake of taking on his ideological opposite in the Democratic Party as Vice President when he was very low on health. Truman's succession reversed pretty much all of FDR's plans and led to the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Empire FDR envisioned.
That would require explaining why both Roosevelt and Churchill were strongly opposed to Stalin's desires for Poland at Yalta.

Just because FDR wasn't a great fan of colonialism, British or otherwise, doesn't mean he was actively planning to build up the Soviet Union. Not going over the top to sustain the British (or French) Empire is not the same as actively building up Soviet power in Eastern Europe. FDR was against any sort of sphere of influence, unlike the British and Soviet. He had his own agenda, which was the agenda of the United States, and it never entirely agreed with anyone else's.

[Stardrake]

Well, the Monroe Doctrine was essentially a de facto US sphere of influence (albeit one that, ironically, was mostly policed by the British until the US became a world power in their own right), albeit one based more on 'we won't let anyone ELSE interfere in this area'.

Regarding the balance of power between Britain and Soviet Russia - personally, I don't think FDR really wanted to see Eastern Europe in Soviet hands either, but it came as a result of not stepping in to help Britain earlier and by that time, there wasn't really anything that could be realistically done to prevent it short of turning the war in Europe into a three-way.

Now, if one of the coups against Hitler had succeeded and a replacement German government asked for British and American assistance in keeping Russia back... then things could have become interesting. Particularly since it might have given Britain a chance to actually win the war rather than simply not losing (keep in mind that Britain's casus belli was the invasion of Poland, which Russia was as guilty of as Germany, and Russia still ended up effectively in charge of Poland including annexing much of eastern Poland).