Was there any real economic or strategic benefit to Germany’s overseas empire?
Overall it seems like it was a money sink and indefensible from powers like France and Britain if they ever got into conflict, especially since it meant they’d need to fund a massive navy to even attempt to keep it supplied with troops and defended
Would focusing entirely on developing in Europe and making minor land grabs against Russia/Austria-Hungary have been better?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Yeah, I'd say so, Bismarck was pretty smart.
Bismarck was against an overseas colonial empire though, so what are you talking about?
Here, I clarified what I meant in this.
To clarify this, I was answering the last question that yes focusing entirely on European dominance or rather in the case of Bismarckian Diplomacy, ensuring the French never get allies on mainland Europe forevereverevereverevereverever.
On the topic of land grabs, no it wouldn't probably cause both of them to try and ally with the French and/or cause Britain to get involved in Europe. This is also why Bismarck denied the annexation of Austria and Bohemia in the Brother Wars cause GROSSGERMANIVM was not worth it to get coalitioned by the rest of Europe and because an Austrian Ally to lord over the Carpathian and the Balkans would've been better.
What was the wisest course for Germany to take to try and become the dominant European power in your opinion?
Based on the pre WW1 talks Britain seriously wanted to be allies with Germany rather than France. Likely because that means they would also be able to seize French colonies in a war and Germany could just become a huge market for British trade goods in Europe.
On the other hand, Britain wouldn’t want uber gross Germany because then they’d be too powerful and a potential threat.
It was actually the German politicians who rejected the British proposals because they didn’t trust them. A mistake IMO. The British at the time 100% did not care if Germany expanded more as long as they did not appear to try to interfere with British ambitions. Mainly the Kaisers moronic naval arms race with Britain
Shame because it would’ve been a pretty solid symbiotic relationship
>germany produces high quality industrial goods
>so does britain but less so due to smaller population
>britain is main trade partner for Germany, supplying anything they’d need from their massive colonial empire for a reasonable price
>britain buys industrial goods from Germany and can deindustrialise somewhat as it transitions into finance, service industry and corporations focused on colonial endeavours
>could even have immigration treaties allowing Germans to more easily migrate to British colonies so places like Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand etc all grow much faster
The British-French alliance was by no means something born out of fondness but necessity. After the First World War they kind of had to stick together. They already bled together
Germany didnt want Britain as allies because the British army was extremely small in comparison to continental nations, and as Kaiser Wilhelm put it "Dreadnoughts cannot walk on land".
Britain in turn began regarding Germany as the dominant power because Germany was already far more powerful than France and the Japanese-Russian war made Britain worried that Russia was in reality a second-rate power that would be crushed. Britain concluded that France needed a third ally to resist Germany from taking complete control.
There were other series of events too. The French backed down during the Fashoda incident, they were far more compliant with Britains ambitions, and the German naval project was specifically trying to match the Royal Navy which the French navy never did.
After ww1 the French-British alliance actually fragmented in the interwar period which caused France to seek desperate new allies.
Given the German naval race lost to Britain, and the British naval blockade led to Germany starving into submission. Seems like a poor decision on their part.
If Britain didn’t contribute much in land forces… who cares? Britain would be supplying food and arms via the sea as well as fighting off enemies attempting to blockade Germany
That’s the whole point in a division of Labour
Given Germany’s end result for Russia in WW1 was creating huge puppet states out of western t Russian regions I can easily see Britain backing this as its once again just more huge markets. Germany gets military bases on the borders to keep order and prevent a Russian attempt to retake it. Britain would establish naval bases in places like Crimea and the Baltics
From what I've learned(and this is a somewhat subjective opinion because you asked it) an alliance with Russia would've been the best course of action. I don't believe that Britain would have ever caved in to the Germans in exchange for beating up the French. After the Fashoda Incident and the Ango-French Convention of 1898 most colonial disputes with the Frogs have been settled, not to mention that Germany was directly in the way for the Cape-To-Cairo Railway project which Britain wished to undertake and whether the germans would've allowed the construction of such is rather dubious. An Anglo-French friendship would've been a shaky one and the Germans as you said weren't too trustful of, especially since compared to them, they had a lot more leverage being on an island surrounded by The Most Powerful Naval Force at the time.
Russia on the other hand would've been a much greater ally instead of Austrians or perhaps even the British, even from the standpoint of WW1. They were both autocratic empires which wanted to project force and had a common enemy in the British.
Imagine a scenario where during the Congress of Berlin, Bismarck takes the side of the Tsar instead of the Austrian Kaiser and allows Russians to take over the Bosporous and the Dardanelles, while also establishing a Greater Bulgaria. This means that if a Central Powers is ever formed, then it will include Germans, Russia and the Bulgarians and likely the Italians as well(who now have no reason to switch sides considering Austria is forced to become a member of the Entente Cordiale).
A modified Schlieffen plan could see the unified German and Russian forces Blitz Austria, before moving to overrun the remaining French forces through both Belgium and through Italy. The British blockades would struggle cause the then highly agrarian Russians would be able to sustain them indefinetly.
>cont.
Eventually the British cave in and a peace treaty is signed, it is unlikely they will hand in any of their own colonies, but the French ones are certainly split up amongst the winners.
France is disarmed and humiliated, losing it's colonies, likely forced to play immense reparations.
Britain is likely forced some amount of sum aswell.
Austria is likely split up, Austria and Bohemia possibly annexed into Germany alongside Russia assimilates Galicia into the Polish Duchy.
A Greater Hungarian State ensures German interests in the Northern Balkans while Russian interests are secured in the South and Central.
Italy likely earns colonies and the Dalmatia coast aswell, Yugoslavia never comes to be because Bulgaria already serves such a purpose.
Economically the two Empires live in Symbiosis, cheap materials and grain consumed by the German aligned Central and western Europe, while refined products flow into the East, akin to the Hansa of the middle and renaissance age.
Evropa is saved and the West has Risen, but this is an extremely optimistic scenario, this is if everything goes well for the Central Powers and nothing for the Entente. That is the main issue with history that nothing is set in stone, we can only assume what may have likely happened.
>inb4 vatBlack person
If you have any better ideas, then go ahead and share them, but this is my take on how to get Grossgermanium.
Bismarck did regard Russia as an important ally and unironically went for the "eat the cake and keep it" by attempting to create an alliance of both Austria and Russia with Germany.
It didnt work out.
In hindsight, an alliance with Russia probably was more valuable than Austria. Vienna would likely have been eliminated in the first year from a German-Russian-Italian-Serbian offensive. It would essentially be a Schlieffen plan directed towards Vienna instead of Paris in 1914.
France would have to fight a 2-front war from north to south of the alps, while Germany is relieved from a 2-frontal war.
Commonwealth forces would be dedicated to make The Great Game in central Asia a frontline.
I doubt France would have been able to hold as well as it did if the entire central power force was dedicated on its frontline.
The wildcard here is Ottomans and Bulgaria. Would Bulgaria still be keen on joining central powers if Serbia is aligned? Would Ottomans if Russia is aligned?
Im honestly not too sure what the prime motivation for Ottomans entry to ww1 was. To fight Commonwealth or Russian incursion on its empire?
Would Bulgaria also even join the Entete if its a completely isolated member in the east?
Would France be able to resist a complete
The last sentence got fricked as I accidently posted. One day IQfy will have a quick edit feature. One day.
The last sentence was meant to reflect on Italy since its geographically extremely vulnerable to naval powers.
The destruction of Austria would have been a net negative for Germany, creating a vast Eastern and Southern border of Slavic nations beholden and allied to Russia. This is opposed to Austria, just strong enough to hold central Europe, willing to work with them, generally allied with German interests overall, no over seas pretensions and weak enough to economically dominate. The assumption that Russia and Germany could be allies in the long run has been put to rest by history time and again anyway. For Russia to dominate Easterm Europe, there can be no super-power in Central Europe, so their interests naturally align with France, at the time. Why, in the long run, would a successful pan-slavic Russia stay friends with a German Empire containing millions of Poles and Czechs? Even if France loses the first round, what's to say they won't come back, will the hypothetical victrious German-Russian alliance divide France between them? Why would the Brits be willing to negotiate the destruction of France and the total abandonment of the Continent at the height of their Naval Power? Even if they did, years on you'll have WW2, except Germany has a far worse position, with a Russia far more powerful and willing to go on the offensive while still having to deal with Franco-British forces in the west.
1. Don't force a fight with the Royal Navy by trying to compete with the Royal Navy
2. Don't act in a way to make France seem reasonable
3. Don't act like every problem is a nail just because you have the best hammer in the world
WW1 happened because of German arrogance and autism
Bismarckian diplomacy is grossly overrated, and it was capable neither of maintaining supremacy in Europe nor of keeping France isolated, on top of that it was also impossible to sell his foreign policy to the German public.
On the contrary, it's abandonment in favor of Der Kaisers autism directly led to the formation of the Entente Cordiale
That's a myth.
>Germany and Russia agreed to observe benevolent neutrality if either become involved in a war with a third country. If Germany attacked France or if Russia attacked Austria-Hungary, that provision would not apply.
This is from the famous Reinsurance Treaty, orchestrated by Bismarck, and it basically acknowledges that France and Russia are already allies.
None of the colonies provided economic or strategic benefit. They were entirely projects of "because I can", and Germany wanted colonies out of FOMO, because great powers have colonies, and we're a great power right?
By none of the colonies I mean those of the other European states as well for clarification; it is inconceivable what France would have gained from French West Africa in a pre-nuclear age, much less the swathes of completely worthless shithole that cover the rest of the continent.
The main purpose of colonising such places in the scramble for Africa was less so the economic potential but more so the strategic one.
If France didn’t stake their claim and enforce it on the worthless desert south of their actual useful colony in North Africa. Spain, Portugal or Britain would. Who could then build forts and easily station troops there for a potential invasion if things heated up
It’s why the great powers gave Belgium the huge middle of Africa in the Congo. Belgium was weak and everybody traded with it. Nobody felt threatened by it. They could all buy rubber from it. Belgium owning the Congo created a buffer state between the actual colonial powers to minimise potential border disputes
As for Britain at least there was major economic potential there, whether they harnessed it and had any overall benefit rather than drain is debatable. But if they’d succeeded in their cape to Cairo railway plan that would have been a huge economic boon. As you can see all they needed was to take German East Africa and remain stable long enough to build it
Same way the planned Berlin to Baghdad railway was considered so important it was one of many reasons people wanted to fight the central powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey in WW1. If they built it the potential to completely secure the areas via quick troop deployment and economic movement from the top coast of Germany Odin europe, through Anatolia and the Middle East to the bottom of the Iraq and the Persian gulf sea would have been a game changer. Unbroken supplies of oil and soldiers. Strengthening all the central powers economy and even threatening the neighbouring British empire colonies
berlin to baghdad and cairo to cape town would've been wonderful, but the israelites had other plans
I never understood whythey couldn't trade some of these colonies between them to make them better, like for example gambia to france and dahomey to UK
The British Navy liked having an outpost in Senegal and didn't need another one on the Gold Coast
couldnt they just stop in french controled senegal?
What was German Cameroon like? It has cool border.
It was only good for zoology which the germans liked.
It was only indefensible against Britain, the only country that could outmatch Germany at sea.
No, because the Soviet, American and British navies were so far ahead the colonies would be of no use in the war. Germans only did so well both on land and in water because of their racial ingenuity, but it was an unwinnable battle.
Lel
What's funny homosexual
>soviet navy targeting German colonies
>"soviet" navy stronger than imperial German navy
Togoland was profitable.
The commercial benefit of overseas coaling stations was allowing German merchant fleets operate under German law, which is pretty great. Militarily, it's necessary for naval force projection, which is important for influencing geopolitical events ie cultivating business partners and allies. A Germany that focused solely on Europe would have been wealthier right up until the discovery of a critical industrial resource that couldn't be sourced from Europe, like food in WW1