-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I wouldn't say that I agree with my own statement there. However, my aim for this year is to try to answer some of those questions which are contrary to my own thinking, but I am unable to answer. This is one of them, and the only answer I have is 'because'. So I would very much like to understand why Germany shouldn't have what she (wrongly imo) desired - a world wide empire to rival that if Britain/France.
Note that the goal of their navy was something different. It meant to be a navy capable of defending the German coastline (and therefore making close blockade and shore bombardment impossible). The failure on their side was that other development chiefly in the field of mine and torpedo technology made this anyway impossible, thus they did not need the 60% of the RN, but a somewhat smaller Navy would have been able to do the "Risikoflotte" job.
In that case, my question is why you think that it was wrong of Germany to desire a colonial empire, and more importantly, as bz249 points out, the ability to safely trade with that empire?
Britain and France have seniority, yes, but by the same token, Britain and France were wrong to desire to challenge Spain and the Netherlands.
Except that Germany is a semi land-locked clay while any Britain's goal was determinated by maritime issues.
You know this means that Germany has _more_ to fear from a blockade, as blockading a semi-landlocked country is a lot easier than blockading the UK, right?
No, it means that Britain in case of such blockade would be surely starved while Germany had always alternative land routes available.iYou know this means that Germany has _more_ to fear from a blockade, as blockading a semi-landlocked country is a lot easier than blockading the UK, right?
If not fighting with the rest of Europe at the same moment of course
No, it means that Britain in case of such blockade would be surely starved while Germany had always alternative land routes available.i
If not fighting with the rest of Europe at the same moment of course
Didnt the UK also blockade Dutch shipping that went to feed Germany?
So and what? That was just the best British asset to wage war. The French delivered a cannon fodder...
The naval armament race with the UK was unsustainable for the Germans, who had also to build a huge land army in the same time.
Last edited:
So that means that no, a land border does not guarantee the supply safety for Germany, as the UK is willing to blockade neutral countries if the need arises. To counteract such a move, Germany needs a strong navy, arguably a lot more than he UK needs one.
No, it means that Britain in case of such blockade would be surely starved while Germany had always alternative land routes available.i
If not fighting with the rest of Europe at the same moment of course
Germany had some IRL issues with the British blockade. Because they were heavily dependent on maritime trade. They were right in that particular vulnerability. They were wrong that their navy would solve the issue.
That's rather the matter of the long run strategy. To secure supplies by the system of alliances. Or domestic production as Germany was able to be self-sustainable, in opposition to the UK. Germany had much more options than Britain, which could rely only on their navy. In any case. So and it was obvious that they have reacted nervously when someone tried to match them in this matter. It was the best way to make Britain a foe. And Britain was still the most powerful empire on the globe...
Even for foodstuff that is a big maybe. For industrial production it is just plain untrue.
That game is a fascinating design study in misguided game design.
For those who aren't familiar, it's a game of nuclear brinksmanship where the American and Soviet player are doing various global actions (economic aid, military support) around the world to build prestige at each other's offense. This is zero sum, either the American's win or the Soviets do. However the game also has nuclear crisis, cuban missile crisis style, in which if you push things and then back down, you lose prestige to the other side. But if you push things too far, both players lose. This is all a high handed moral lesson about nuclear war and how brinksmanship is bad. The problem is that high handed moral lessons make for crap gameplay, as shown by monopoly.
I don't really understand this argument here. Obviously Germany had right to pursue most gigantic naval armament program they could desire. On other hand Britain had full right to respond with even larger naval armament program and make alliances with France and Russia.
Err... No?
If the UK blockades german sea trade it can choke of a portion of german trade. (there is still land routes availible) if it extends itself further it might be able to blockade some nearby neutrals.
If Germany blockades UK sea trade that means the UK loses all it's trade.
For Germany (as for France) being blockaded is nasty, but unless you're at the same time at war with the rest of the continent, survivable, for the UK being blockade is an existential threat.
I always hear about land routes.
I do not know if people are aware but land routes are not really an alternative for sea routes and also rely on the ressource desired being on the same continent as the country desiring them. They also required positive rapport with most if not all countries along the route.
For German fertilizer the mystical 'land route' was not an option. Guano came from 'Guano Islands' in the Pacific or from Chile. Neither destination lends itself to a 'landroute'.
The same goes for a lot of the Asian continent:
Even today there is no industrial strength railway to Asia from Europe or the other way around. German attempts to get such a railroad built, like the Bagdad-Bahn, were also seen as aggression.
I don't think the idea of the 'landroute' holds.
I do not know if people are aware but land routes are not really an alternative for sea routes and also rely on the ressource desired being on the same continent as the country desiring them. They also required positive rapport with most if not all countries along the route.
For German fertilizer the mystical 'land route' was not an option. Guano came from 'Guano Islands' in the Pacific or from Chile. Neither destination lends itself to a 'landroute'.
The same goes for a lot of the Asian continent:
Even today there is no industrial strength railway to Asia from Europe or the other way around. German attempts to get such a railroad built, like the Bagdad-Bahn, were also seen as aggression.
I don't think the idea of the 'landroute' holds.
The point is that if Germany were blockaded, they would be unable to get fertiliser; if the UK were blockaded, it would be unable to get food full stop.
Which means both of them are going to die like flies (hint: as of 2017 Germany is not self-sufficient in foodstuff)
Germany can be self-sufficient overland (see: WW2, where under blockade Germany was fed by plundering occupied Europe), which, again, is the point. Britain doesn't have that option: it has to depend on its merchant navy to keep the country from starvation.
- Status