Why can't Europe defend itself?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Idk about how much Germany spent at home, I just know they didn't have the empire England and France did and didn't have to spend nearly the amount of money and effort like they did trying to keep control over 1/4th of the worlds land.

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

The problem in America wasn't getting the money, the problem was not giving them representation.

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, that fits in with "not profiting that much off of empire building". And I think germany became an economic powerhouse through industrializing.

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

The british trying to pull a profit or stop their losses (can't remember which) from the colonies was the driving force I'm pretty sure. America couldn't be represented...their interests were too separate from the british interests. They would have had no power in parliament even with representatives.

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So again, I am just wondering if that consensus has answer for why Germany still lost even though it focused on itself. Is the general idea that if the war happened later, Germany would have surpassed Britain and France enough to defeat them?

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

I don't get it, they would have no power in Parliament anyway but we can't have been represented because their different interests are going to mess up the direction Britain wanted to go in?

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That consensus idea is about economic and monetary benefit. And it's two against one besides...

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

If they had given the US a few representatives they would not have had enough votes to repeal the taxes.

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well that's true. Either way you will have to excuse me that I am not just going to go along with your statement about this consensus without looking into it first. You are probably right though, but I'm not one to just run my mouth without having some knowledge/research on the subject.

I have only heard the theory in passing. Seems plausible though.

So why deny them the votes? If they can't stop the taxes anyway then give them representatives and prevent a rebellion over no representation from breaking out.

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It wouldn't have prevented anything...they would have just (rightly) said that they weren't truly represented. Besides with the revolution you have that weird thing where the british became convinced that we were going to rebel so they clamped down and then we became convinced they were going to become tyrannical and acted rebellious and then that further convinced them etc and so on. Not the most logical time period.

Well I think that is a bit extrapolating. I'm sure there would have been moderates who would have been pacified by the gesture and that the only ones left would have been the ones who were looking for a reason in the first place. Would those die hard people have rallied everyone anyway? Possibly. All I know is that there would have been no harm in giving them the representatives if it was a rebel or rebel situation and the benefit would have been the ability to keep taxing a rich region for while longer.

[Fragony]

Nukes kinda made standing army's absolete.

[CBR]

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

The modern global economy is doing more importing/exporting than ever so we rely more on each other. The wildest China has done recently was to cut off Japan from some rare minerals and that lasted a few days IIRC. Among the greater powers no one is saber rattling like we saw a hundred years ago in Europe.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't think the industrial decline seen in Britain had much to do with its colonies. It seems more like the newcomers being more competitive and innovative and the old dog not being able to learn new tricks.

Indeed there is the real reason the colonies cost Britain money it was because of tarriffs levied against it's own colonies never mind France or Germany.


No wonder it cost Britain money to have colonies they were trying to tax colonial industry to be more expensive than at home