![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
I don't agree because either:
A: The depression would have lowered Germany's economy just as it did everyone elses. B: Had there been no depression everyone else's economy would have been just as high. In either instance all countries would have had to rebuild after WW1 and Britain would still have been the worlds foremost maritime power. I will be honest here and say that I do not believe Germany could have won WW1 I certainly think they could have defeated France and Britain on the Continent but like Napoleon the Kaiser would have been trapped on the Continent with Britain controlling the seas and as such German industrial capacity. I think the best outcome for Germany would have been a repeat of the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war outside that defeat was the only outcome given the array and mass of forces opposed to them. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Well; regarding the depression.
In November 1923, a currency reform was undertaken. A new bank, the Rentenbank, was created to issue a new currency--the Rentenmark. This money was exchangeable for bonds supposedly backed up by land and industrial plant A total of 2.4 billion Rentenmarks was created, and each Rentenmark was valued at one trillion old paper marks. From that moment on the depreciation stopped--the Rentenmarks held their value; even the old paper marks held stable. Inflation ceased. In August 1924 the reform was completed by introduction of a new Reichsmark, equal in value to the Rentenmark. The Reichsmark has a 30% gold backing. It was not redeemable in gold, but the government undertook to support it by buying in the foreign exchange markets as necessary. Drastic new taxes were imposed, and with the inflation ended, tax receipts increased impressively. In 1924-1925 the government had a surplus. The only major wartime confrontation between the Royal Navy and the German High Seas Fleet was The Battle of Jutland (known as the Battle of Skagerrak in Germany),on 31st May 1916. The British lost three battlecruisers, three cruisers, eight destroyers and suffered 6,100 casualties; the Germans lost one battleship, one battlecruiser. Four cruisers and five destroyers, with 2,550 casualties. The Royal Navy was shocked by the outcome considering that it clearly outnumbered German forces. A heavy defeat for the British could quite easily result in Britain being knocked out of the war. Well; at least we can agree that we disagree. ![]() Cheers mate Kristina ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Regarding the Royal Navy I will disagree again as even had the British lost in a major naval battle in the North Sea it could still replace its losses from the various fleets it had around the world where as Germany could not.
The battle of Jutland was a tactical loss for the British but it could easily have been a crushing defeat for the Germans and they knew it which is a reason the German High Seas Fleet never put to sea again. Regarding losses yes the British did lose more ships but many German ships were badly damaged and not capable of putting to sea to exploit any gains made over the Royal Navy at the time so given the situation after Jutland it was a strategic victory for the British as they still had their battleships at sea and in full operational readiness. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
The British navy had the key task of blockading Germany so that attrition could eventually wreack its havoc on the German ability to produce enough for the war effort. If Jellico followed too aggressive a policy and lost too many ships, the ability of the British navy to perform this task could be compromised.
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
Yes but what I am saying is that the Royal Navy was so much bigger than the German High Seas Fleet (approximately 10 times the size) that it could sustain and replace its losses where as Germany did not have that capacity so no matter what the outcome of the battle for France Britain was secure as an island and could still strike back elsewhere (as I have mentioned there were British, French and American troops in Russia).
This is not a matter of quality in troops, material or technology as German equipment and training was at least as good as its Allied equivalent it is simply a case of resources, the Allies had the resources and Germany did not. Anyway back to the original topic I guess, had Germany won WW1 it is unlikely Hitler would have achieved power as that still would have rested in the German monarchy and without the angst of Versailles there would have been nothing for the Nazi's to use as a driving force to power. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
But while you have a good point, I'm not certain the rise of Hitler would have been prevented. Bear in mind that the key factor which propelled the Nazis to power was the depression. I suspect that even if the German monarchy was somewhat strengthened by victory, the depression could have led to a revolutionary situation and Hitler could have capitalized on that to rise to power. This could have been likely if the monarchy fell by 1931-33 and there was a good opportunity for someone to rally the rightist forces to oppose the "Bolsheviks."
|
![]() |