Why can't Europe defend itself?

[a completely inoffensive name]

iirc, the argument is that countries who invested at home rather than abroad ended up doing better.

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Britain's and France's empire were much larger then Germany's at the beginning of WW1 and they certainly spent more effort in making and maintaining an empire abroad then Germany did. Why did Germany lose?

Not attacking you, just putting forth questions popping in my head. Which is why I should probably read about it before commenting.

Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why was Germany able to compete at all? Because they invested more at home? Wasn't one of the causes of the American Revolution the fact that parliament was trying to actually get some money out of the colonies? I have to think the British profited a lot from India though...

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.

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

[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.

[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