Countries that had the most and least to gain from WWI

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Surrounding. I think that's a little further East. Those would be some bizzare borders. The bizzare borders with Russia were awkward enough.
A land connection could be achieved through the Memelland, though. Also, Yes, these borders would be bizarre--but probably no more so than the Byzantine Empire's borders in the early 12th century. The logic of these borders would be to secure a much larger part of the Baltic coast for Germany--in the spirit of the Teutonic Knights from several centuries earlier.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Also, these borders could be straightened out a bit by giving parts of northwestern Lithuania to Germany as well. It would be nice for the Memelland to have a bit of depth to it.
 
Jun 2017
2,996
Connecticut
A land connection could be achieved through the Memelland, though. Also, Yes, these borders would be bizarre--but probably no more so than the Byzantine Empire's borders in the early 12th century. The logic of these borders would be to secure a much larger part of the Baltic coast for Germany--in the spirit of the Teutonic Knights from several centuries earlier.
As good a historic justification as any I suppose. Prussia is right there after all. Don't think the Russians would like St Petersburg being so close to the border(I don't know but think this is why it went back to Moscow after centuries because it was further east while St Petersburg had the Washington or Richmond issue?).

Also Memelland kind of comes out like memeland.

Anyhow to all the third parties I'm exchanging 10k character monstrosity's of posts with, I've reached my limit I'm going to sleep. I am not ignoring y'all. To the Belgian guy defending Belgian's role in Congo I don't have the stamina rn to argue the whole post in detail right now. Your country has an awesome soccer team and even more awesome waffles. See you tommorow.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,079
Navan, Ireland
1-Tbh I view spilling a considerably amount of blood to keep treaties to be dumb and even treason depending on the quantity. Losing a million soldiers so Germany can't use Belgium as a road is so so stupid and I don't get why other people don't see it this way..
Well what's the point of having treaties if you don't keep them?

And sorry you seem incapable of understanding context or not using hindsight. The British had no way of knowing that them going to war in 1914 would cost a million lives -- well more actually.

Why is it Britain fault for fighting over Belgium-- why not Germanys for invading in the first place? they have a land border with France why start a world war because of an old plan, find another way.

They gambled that either the British would not honour a treaty (despite saying they would) or that the tiny British army would have no effect on the war which would be 'over by Christmas' and either the High Sea fleet would deal with the RN or the war would be done before its effect was felt.

Why are the British responsible for a German gamble?

2-"If enough people believe a myth then it is a fact. Whether Germany was building a fleet or not to threaten the British doesn't really matter because many in Britain did , it doesn't matter if the 'race' was over by 1912 or not because the perception that Germany was building a High Seas fleet and there seemed little other reason than to threaten Britain."

This is the most objectively wrong thing ever posted on this forum tbh. You can't make a myth real by believing in it hard enough that's something from a christmas movie or something. Does this same logic apply to other wars fought over lies? I know 1991 examples are banned but is Gulf of Tonkin real now because everyone bought it for decades? What's the point of even studying history if we can change it by just believing myths?.
Well objectively speaking you either haven't read much on the forum or you don't understand the point.

It doesn't really matter if we say with 20:20 hindsight a century later that there was no naval race or it was done by 1912 or that the German naval build up was not aimed at Britain or that the German fleet proved to be 'weak' in WWI so no threat -- its just a 'myth' etc If enough people believed it in the period then its real and peoples actions and reactions have to be seen in trhat context.


3-Keep in mind ratios don't dictate size 1 to 1 could literally be 1 to 1. Fleet sizes got much smaller and fleets therefore cheaper even with these larger shares of the worlds ships. The US until the end of WWII downsized the least and were closest to building capital ships uninterrupted. If the UK thought the US would downsize(and they were the power that did so least) and wouldn't make the British the 50% they wouldn't have signed the treaty. There was a fiscally conservative President who probably was beaming at the savings but UK needed that more than the US. US was going to finish all that insane number of battleships and if upkeep was too expensive scrap the older dreadnoughts. A few US ships were scrapped really late in construction I think one of the most finished battleship ever broken up without being finished..
Sorry your talking Washington? they are post WWI the world had changed.


4-Real world experience proved that wasn't actually true. The UK did not need that to dominate. Not even close. And again naval planners thought that based on false intelligence before the naval arms race didn't exist. After it did in the minds of one but before not even that. .
But the planners didn't have 20:20 hindsight.

5-And the reason many navies around the world didn't have them or any battleships is because they didn't need them. They were built to serve a purpose. We were discussing this with Bismarck and Tirpitz on another thread. Battleships are good at relatively menial tasks and all but it's so inefficent. Those things are expensive and again pre dreadnoughts were the size of the era's dreadnoughts, takes the same staff and fuel and it's a waste. Let's say recon why use that ship for that when you could use a destroyer or something? The pre dreadnought can do the job, but the question is why? Battleships don't exist today because ships are built for certain purposes and when those go away they are useless. So we don't have battleships because no one else does, carriers, and missles would obliterate them if we used them in any other role like artilerry and that sort of defeats the purpose of making them, fueling them and staffing. ..
Yes the Battleship died eventually but that doesn't mean pre-Dreadnought 'battleships' were not useful-- until replaced with more effective ships-- or change the fasct that the British had to build HMS Dreadnought-- why would it have been better for them to let the Japanese or Americans to do it first?

6- I also explained why it didn't matter. That was not the same thing he was explaining things ships could do, justifying the expense, the UK thought another country was trying to invade them by sneakily building more ships than they were..
You mean they had imperfect intelligence and or worked on worse case scenarios ? that's not foolish that human and natural.

7-No that is accurate, France didn't think they could win but they didn't think they'd be attacked again cause there was nothing in it for Germany. For France Germany had something they wanted..
Sorry why did the French think that they not be attacked again? and in fact they were.

8-In response to the alliance that France concocted. When Russia mobilized the plan started to avoid the two front war cause it was assumed France would jump in. France created the situation where Germany had a plan to invade France because the French and Russian alliance required one.
An alliance concocted through fear-- on both sides.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
I can't tell if that's a real place or if you're messing with me.


Can see it now....the King of Memelland.
It's definitely real:

Klaipėda Region - Wikipedia

As good a historic justification as any I suppose. Prussia is right there after all. Don't think the Russians would like St Petersburg being so close to the border(I don't know but think this is why it went back to Moscow after centuries because it was further east while St Petersburg had the Washington or Richmond issue?).
They wouldn't like this, but what exactly could they actually do about this if Germany will win WWI (or win an alternate WWI in this scenario)?

Also Memelland kind of comes out like memeland.
It's not my fault that this is the German name for this region, though.

Anyhow to all the third parties I'm exchanging 10k character monstrosity's of posts with, I've reached my limit I'm going to sleep. I am not ignoring y'all. To the Belgian guy defending Belgian's role in Congo I don't have the stamina rn to argue the whole post in detail right now. Your country has an awesome soccer team and even more awesome waffles. See you tommorow.
OK.
 
Jun 2017
2,996
Connecticut
Well what's the point of having treaties if you don't keep them?

And sorry you seem incapable of understanding context or not using hindsight. The British had no way of knowing that them going to war in 1914 would cost a million lives -- well more actually.

Why is it Britain fault for fighting over Belgium-- why not Germanys for invading in the first place? they have a land border with France why start a world war because of an old plan, find another way.

They gambled that either the British would not honour a treaty (despite saying they would) or that the tiny British army would have no effect on the war which would be 'over by Christmas' and either the High Sea fleet would deal with the RN or the war would be done before its effect was felt.

Why are the British responsible for a German gamble?



Well objectively speaking you either haven't read much on the forum or you don't understand the point.

It doesn't really matter if we say with 20:20 hindsight a century later that there was no naval race or it was done by 1912 or that the German naval build up was not aimed at Britain or that the German fleet proved to be 'weak' in WWI so no threat -- its just a 'myth' etc If enough people believed it in the period then its real and peoples actions and reactions have to be seen in trhat context.




Sorry your talking Washington? they are post WWI the world had changed.




But the planners didn't have 20:20 hindsight.



Yes the Battleship died eventually but that doesn't mean pre-Dreadnought 'battleships' were not useful-- until replaced with more effective ships-- or change the fasct that the British had to build HMS Dreadnought-- why would it have been better for them to let the Japanese or Americans to do it first?



You mean they had imperfect intelligence and or worked on worse case scenarios ? that's not foolish that human and natural.



Sorry why did the French think that they not be attacked again? and in fact they were.



An alliance concocted through fear-- on both sides.
I couldn't resist!

Because the Germans needed to invade Belgium more than the UK needed ot protect them. And you asked come up with another plan instead well what would your suggestion be? Again there's limited real estate to use the other part is where the French are going to go to take back the land they want.

The High Sea fleet had no chance in hell of dealing with the RN. None. But yes and the treaty was from 1839. And at the point the UK said they'd recognize it yeah it was pretty much over then and yes Germany was gambling but says a lot. Unlike Hitler in WWII, the Germans actually believed the British would not only declare war but come right away and they still did it. Tells you how many other options there were.

Because the British are a reason gamble failed, the gamble failing got a lot of people killed and their reason for doing so(Belgian neutrality or 20th century of "WMD" regardless) is one they should be heavily critiqued for.

By the logic you're using not only is god real but EVERY single god that's been widely believed in is as well.

I thought you brought up Washington(though I bring it up often in all sorts of contexts possible you were responding to me).

But WE do and we're discussing it. Since when has the "they didn't have 20 20 hindsight" been a valid excuse for any other reckless decisions we've discussed here. I mean might have used it once it once or twice but don't expect it to change the reality that a mistake was a mistake.

Do you want to have the "were pre dreadnoughts useful after Dreadnought" conversation. This could be another thread. But do you really believe that? Come on man. Things had four guns and were slow.

Going to war over that is terrible. In similar situations today people recognize as such. The UK faulty intel got considerably more of their own soldiers killed(nm overall who knows with the buttefly effect), many many times over than the mistakes I'm referencing.

The French were attacked against because the ally they the more enthusiastic partner with with had set the war in motion. France was going to attack, Germany beat them to it narrowly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist