Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Germany ~ The Grand Victor
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Germany ~ The Grand Victor
    Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:14
 
Originally posted by Scheich

In 1914 Germany was able to defeat every single country, but there were UK, France, Italy, Russia, USA+(many weak countries) vs. Germany, Austria-H., Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria
I think after 1917 there was no chance for Germany to win , because the USA put more and more supplies and soldiers to France.
The Germans should first overrun West-Russia and put Lenin on power and then the Germans should fight with Austria-H. against France and UK.
 
But they can't even touch the UK with any significant force. They are reliant only on submarine warfare, and if they don't restrict that to British shipping the US has to get involved. If they do restrict it to British shipping then the US continues to supply Britain because (a) they can't get through to Germany and (b) the British can pay for it.
 
With air strength as minimally important as it was in 1914-18 Germany is just as stuck as Napoleon was, even when Russia was his ally. Even, in fact when the US joined in on his side.
 
(Also you are leaving out Japan and Italy on the Allied side, neither of which was insignificant. Japan in particular was now a major naval power.)
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 15:27
Italy and Japan never had a chance against Germany or UK, because their military and economy was much weaker !
If there was only a war between UK and Germany, Germany would win!
The British steel output was 40% of the German and the German industry was larger. Therefore Germany could produce more warships and many moths later the HSF would be bigger than the Royal Navy!
And Uk had no chance to make a succesful invasion in Germany without the landforces of France and Russia!


Edited by Scheich - 30-May-2007 at 15:28
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 15:31

The USA put a lot of supplies and soldiers to France(1917-1918), Germany had a good chance to win without USA in war.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 16:20
 
Originally posted by Scheich

Italy and Japan never had a chance against Germany or UK, because their military and economy was much weaker !
If there was only a war between UK and Germany, Germany would win!
The British steel output was 40% of the German and the German industry was larger. Therefore Germany could produce more warships and many moths later the HSF would be bigger than the Royal Navy!
But they didn't have the financial resources. Worldwide they had nothing like the manpower or the raw material resources, especially oil. If they could have produced more warships than the Royal Navy, then how come they didn't?
 
And you underrate Japan, which already by around 1920 had the third largest navy in the world. In 1914-18 it had 6 dreadnoughts (oneof which was lost in an accident, 5 battle-cruisers, some 30 cruisers and 70-odd destroyers. All the capital ships were modern enough to fight in WW2. 
 
Not of course that Britain needed much help at sea, especially after they got the convoy system working properly.
 
And Uk had no chance to make a succesful invasion in Germany without the landforces of France and Russia!
 
At least the UK could have invaded Germany, even if they wouldn't have got very far. Germany couldn't even land troops in the UK. Even a subterfuge like that invented by Childers in The Riddle of the Sands would never really have worked in practice.
 
The whole scenario is pointless anyway since - given the Alsace-Lorraine situation - France was never going to stay out.
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 30-May-2007 at 16:27
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 17:45
In WWI the IJN was weaker than the Royal Navy or HSF!
In a war it is not important how much financial resources a country have, it is quite more important how much a country can produce!
Germany had a higher GDP than USSR in 1942, but USSR could produce quite more!
In WWI was oil not as important as in WWII, because there were no big tank divisions. The HSF had coal engines. Oil engine-ships only have a larger range. But in WWII the Germans had oil engines(but he WWII Kriegsmariene was very weak!)
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 17:50

They didn't produce more warships, because they need their industry to supply the army, because there were Russia and France.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335 		  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 17:50
How active were Kriegsmariene in WWII? I never heard much about it, other than the submarines sinking bunch of merchant ships.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 17:54
First the Kriegsmariene tried to destroy the merchant ships, but the Royal navy was to strong for the German warships.
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 18:48
Originally posted by gcle2003

(b) the British can pay for it.


Actually the British was in very deep loan by 1916 and the Americans was even about to cut its loan to the British but with USA in the war, the Americans decided to fully support the Allies with money which sustain them for the remainder of the war. If the USA didnt join the war then Britain might have collaspe under the weight of loans. If only Germany had commited its submarines to full production and lay waste to British/American merchants in 1915 (if there was no sinking of the Lusitania plus no telegram) would have lead to a quicker British defeat and German victory.

Originally posted by Scheich

The British steel output was 40% of the German and the German industry was larger.


True, in World War 1 German industries produce more products and equipments of war then the French or the British. They had huge mining industry that could turn out metal and coal much faster than the British or French and definitely over the Russians.

Originally posted by gcle2003

And you underrate Japan, which already by around 1920 had the third largest navy in the world.


They also had the largest torpedo in the world, so their navy is pretty powerful at the time... Clap
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 06:56
 
Originally posted by Scheich

In WWI the IJN was weaker than the Royal Navy or HSF!
True, and after the war it was weaker than the US.  That hardly means it was negligeable.
 
Japan, under the terms of its long-standing alliance with the UK, declared war on Germany on August 23, after issuing an ultimatum on August 15. Within three months it had taken Tsingtao and replaced Germany in Shantung. Within nine months, Germany had lost all its holdings in the Far east to Japan.
 
Granted Japan had some small help from the British, but that record hardly warrants writing them off as negligeable.
In a war it is not important how much financial resources a country have, it is quite more important how much a country can produce!
Nonsense. With money you can buy arms and other stuff from anyone. Germany could neither buy stuff abroad nor ship it by sea if they did. Including, not negligeably, food.
 
By 1915 the US was making  a million dollars a day (a lot in 1915) from supplying arms and war supplies to Britain and France. Stripped of its colonies, Germany was reliant on its own resources: not a happy position to be in.
 
Germany had a higher GDP than USSR in 1942, but USSR could produce quite more!
If it had a higher GDP then it was producing more, because that is what GDP measures. Anyway, that has nothing to do with my point. We're talking about spendable cash and leasable assets. You can't buy or rent stuff with GDP.
(As a side point, where do you get the figures from? As far as I know, no-one was measuring GDP in 1942.)
In WWI was oil not as important as in WWII, because there were no big tank divisions. The HSF had coal engines. Oil engine-ships only have a larger range. But in WWII the Germans had oil engines(but he WWII Kriegsmariene was very weak!)
The Royal Navy had switched to oil before WWI certainly for all its new ships. Fisher had foreseen the switch as early as 1902, and the arrival of Churchill at the Admiralty gave him the opportunity to implement it.
 
Ironically, Fisher at this point thought the Germans were ahead in oil firing, thanks to misleading intelligence, though in fact, as you say, the German navy (for surface ships) was stuck with coal through WWI. And it had no great chain of coaling stations around the world like the Royal Navy did.
 
Oil was not, of course, as important as in WWII, more with regard to aircraft and troop transport than tanks alone. It was critical however to keeping submarines at sea, and vastly increased not just the range, but the speed of surface ships.
 
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 09:47
Germany had food problems, because there were too much manpower recruited istead of use enough for producing food.
If the USA had been absolut neutral(even without selling ships or weapons), Britain would have had no chance to defeat Germany without France and Russia!
But Britain was after 1919 the most powerful country, because they could rush Germany(no military), USA(not enough military) and USSR(civil war and only 5-6% of worlds manufacturing output). Britain had around 10%!
Why the Indians did not make a rebellion against UK in both world wars( espacally in WWII with japanese help)???
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 10:12
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Though the navy in 1915 was particularly scared to go into the North Sea because of the threat of the German submarines that are doing a considerable damage to the merchants. The government fears that it could cause the same damage to the fleet if they venture out. Its notable that the defense against submarines by the British in 1915 is laughable in todays standard LOL[QUOTE=Kamikaze 738]
 
Thanks in no small part to the actions of a future PM in refusing a fortified base. Jellicoe wanted Scarpa Flow whilst Churchill wanted the Firth of Forth, when it was pointed out a single German destoryer could blockade the Firth by shelling the bridge crossing it Churchill went into one of his sulks and funding was refused.
 
[QUOTE=Kamikaze 738]
The Indians and ANZAC would probably be busy in the Middle East against the Ottomans. The Canadians were already fighting in the western front such as during the battle at Vimy Ridge. That doesnt leave much... South Africa? Ermm
 
Restructing the Indian army would free up a lot of men, a move to conscription, abandoning attempts to keep the same racial mix amongst regiments.
 
Post war (with all of the associated cost cutting) they were quite easily able restructure to 20 infatnry regiments of between 4-7 battalions compared to almost the entire strength of 23 battalions sent to Europein 1914.
 
 
Back to Top
Scheich View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 07-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 183 		  Quote Scheich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 10:23
HSF was able to drive around the world, but the HSF would need supply ships with coal!
In 1913 China had a larger GDP than France, but I think that France was able to produce more than China!
What do you think?
 
Germany had a larger GDP in 1942, but Russia produced more!
Germany was able to buy more, but which big country wanted to sell weapons to Germany?!
GDP is not how much a country can produce.


Edited by Scheich - 31-May-2007 at 10:58
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 21:28
Originally posted by gcle2003

The Royal Navy had switched to oil before WWI certainly for all its new ships. Fisher had foreseen the switch as early as 1902, and the arrival of Churchill at the Admiralty gave him the opportunity to implement it.


Are you sure? The first Dreadnought was first completed in 1906 and it was steam powered. Following the case with the Dreadnought, nearly all the battleships were created using steam powered engines, while some used coal. I do believe that oil wasnt as used as it seem back then because I havent read much battleships back then using oil as their main fuel consumption. It could be later models that use oil as their fuel but Im sure that the Royal Navy at the time did not use it...

Though submarines did use diesel engines to power their submarines...

Originally posted by Henry_Ireton

Post war (with all of the associated cost cutting) they were quite easily able restructure to 20 infatnry regiments of between 4-7 battalions compared to almost the entire strength of 23 battalions sent to Europein 1914.


Though it was probably thought at the time the Russians, given enough time to mobilize their entire force could have easily defeat the Germans. They didnt think that they would need extra troops from the Empire to fight against the Germans. Only when the Allied commanders know that there was a stalemate in the Western Front, then the European powers (specifically Britain) look towards their colonial nations for recruitment and support to aid to the war in favor of overwhelming the enemy.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 05:39
 
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Originally posted by gcle2003

(b) the British can pay for it.


Actually the British was in very deep loan by 1916
Short term. Britain had the assets to back the loan. Germany didn't. Only a few years before this, Britain was lending the US gold to help it over its financial crises of 1912 and 1914.
and the Americans was even about to cut its loan to the British
We're not talking about government loans but private enterprise, especially the arms manufacturers and so on. They were making a killing and not about to stop selling on credit while they were doing so.
 
Arms manufacturers sell arms. That's what they do. Who do you sell them to, the country that's impregnably blockaded and has no resources other than its own industry, or the one that controls India and much of China, plus oil in the Middle East, gold and diamonds in Africa and raw materials all over the world from Australia to Canada?
 
You sell to the rich guy with all the assets, that's who.
 
 but with USA in the war, the Americans decided to fully support the Allies with money which sustain them for the remainder of the war. If the USA didnt join the war then Britain might have collaspe under the weight of loans. If only Germany had commited its submarines to full production and lay waste to British/American merchants in 1915 (if there was no sinking of the Lusitania plus no telegram) would have lead to a quicker British defeat and German victory.
How can you have the submarines 'laying waste' to British-American shipping and at the same time Lusitania not being sunk and America staying out of the war?

Originally posted by Scheich

The British steel output was 40% of the German and the German industry was larger.


True, in World War 1 German industries produce more products and equipments of war then the French or the British. They had huge mining industry that could turn out metal and coal much faster than the British or French and definitely over the Russians.
How much of that coal and steel was produced in Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg? Is France going to stand by and lose its chance of getting Alsace-Lorraine back?

Originally posted by gcle2003

And you underrate Japan, which already by around 1920 had the third largest navy in the world.


They also had the largest torpedo in the world, so their navy is pretty powerful at the time... Clap
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 05:48
 
Originally posted by Scheich

Germany had food problems, because there were too much manpower recruited istead of use enough for producing food.
And, unlike Britain, it couldn't import any.

If the USA had been absolut neutral(even without selling ships or weapons), Britain would have had no chance to defeat Germany without France and Russia!
The US would follow its own interests, which, if neutral, would mean making money. It could make money out of Britain. It couldn't out of Germany.
 
Nobody so far has suggested how Germany even attacks Britain. Britain doesn't have to attack Germany (apart from mopping up its colonies), it just has to wait for it to collapse.

But Britain was after 1919 the most powerful country, because they could rush Germany(no military), USA(not enough military) and USSR(civil war and only 5-6% of worlds manufacturing output). Britain had around 10%!
Why the Indians did not make a rebellion against UK in both world wars( espacally in WWII with japanese help)???
Because they were usually on good terms with Britain, at least after the establishment of the Indian Empire. That was in particular true of the rulers, and while the independence movement was already under way at the time of the Great War, it was essentially still restricted to the intelligentsia. By WW2 the transition towards Dominion status was well under way - the main thing holding it back was not so much British reluctance as the difficulty of dealing with the religious differences, and the position of the native rulers - and British rule was certainly better than the prospect of Japanese conquest.
(Though a small number of Indians did join the Japanese side.)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 06:03
 
Originally posted by Scheich

HSF was able to drive around the world, but the HSF would need supply ships with coal!
Yes. The Battle of the Falklands, which avenged the Battle of Coromandel, demonstrates that.
In 1913 China had a larger GDP than France, but I think that France was able to produce more than China!
What do you think?
I thnk your statistics are phoney. Nobody started measuring GDP until the '40s. GDP is a measure of production - Gross Domestic Product. So if Frence was able to produce more than China (I have no evidence one way or the other) then it had a higher GDP.
 
Unless you want to bring GNP into it (Gross National Product). It is possible to have a greater GDP than another country but a lower GNP.
On looking at it, you are talking, at best - even if the figures were reliable - about the GDP of the UK, which is pointless. You would have to talk about the GDP of the Empire at that time.
 
Moreover, GDP only measures annual production, and you are ignoring the build up of assets over the past. If I desperately need money I can sell, or mortgage, my house, even if I earn nothing at all in the year. Germany did not have that kind of inherited/accumulated WEALTH.
 
Incidentally your link is about WW2 not WW1.
Germany had a larger GDP in 1942, but Russia produced more!
Germany was able to buy more, but which big country wanted to sell weapons to Germany?!
GDP is not how much a country can produce.
 
Yes it is.
Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP

A region's gross domestic product, or GDP, is one of the ways for measuring the size of its economy. The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.
 
What do you think the 'P' stands for'
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 06:18
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Originally posted by gcle2003

The Royal Navy had switched to oil before WWI certainly for all its new ships. Fisher had foreseen the switch as early as 1902, and the arrival of Churchill at the Admiralty gave him the opportunity to implement it.


Are you sure? The first Dreadnought was first completed in 1906 and it was steam powered. Following the case with the Dreadnought, nearly all the battleships were created using steam powered engines, while some used coal. I do believe that oil wasnt as used as it seem back then because I havent read much battleships back then using oil as their main fuel consumption. It could be later models that use oil as their fuel but Im sure that the Royal Navy at the time did not use it...
Admiral Fisher wrote in 1902 "It is a gospel fact ... that a fleet with oil fuel will have an overwhelming strategic advantage over a coal fleet" and he was proud of the fact he was known as an 'oil maniac' as early as 1886.
 
However, he had trouble gettng his way until Churchill came to the Admiralty in 1907. (At that time RN submarines and destroyers were oil-fuelled, but bigger ships only used the hybrid compromise of oil-sprayed coal.) All the battleships and battlecruisers laid down from the Queen Elizabeth class on were oil-powered. I don't actually know if all the large surface ships in service in WW1 were converted to oil - probably not i suppose.
 
But we have to be careful with terminology here: you can be steam-powered and oil fired. 'Oil fuelled' does not mean IC, Diesel or turbine powered.
 

Though submarines did use diesel engines to power their submarines...
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 04:18
Originally posted by gcle2003

I don't actually know if all the large surface ships in service in WW1 were converted to oil - probably not i suppose.
 
But we have to be careful with terminology here: you can be steam-powered and oil fired. 'Oil fuelled' does not mean IC, Diesel or turbine powered.
 
 
I don't believe that many were converted, it seems to be mainly the ones that formed the Home Fleet. One thing I'm not certain about is whether the four superdreadnoughts being built for other countries such as the Agincourt and Erin were coal or oil. One of them the Eagle was converted to an early carrier and had problems with smoke from the coal blowing across the flight deck but apart from that the sources seem contradictory.
Back to Top
Kamikaze 738 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2007
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 463 		  Quote Kamikaze 738 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 18:42
Originally posted by gcle2003

All the battleships and battlecruisers laid down from the Queen Elizabeth class on were oil-powered. I don't actually know if all the large surface ships in service in WW1 were converted to oil - probably not i suppose.


So all the new battleships that had oil-consumption were commissioned after World War 1?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.