Search results

Oil and rubber my dude. That and production facilities with sufficient labor are all issues. Horses are cheap by comparison. They'd need to seriously rationalize agriculture along the lines of the 1950s reforms if they were going to really change the situation as of the 1910s.

Nope, only created in the 1920s. I mean as a viable industrial quantity process. Same with synthetic rubber. IIRC both were created in labs prior to 1914, but the process to make it in large amounts was a later development.

Probably is the logistics of trucks: they need oil and rubber, neither of which Germany had anywhere near enough of to make it a viable thing. As it was it took the French+British+US economies combined to achieve substantial levels of motorization by 1918.

Wait what? Do you have a source on that??? Have you read the 'blank check' letter? https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_'Blank_Check' All he said was he would stand by his treaty obligations and it was up to A-H to figure out the Serbia situation. That was at the end of a letter mostly...

Nice article for the Wilhelm haters: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1521 (Here is the author for anyone curious: Thomas Fleming (historian) - Wikipedia ) Literally Nazi-esque propaganda.

Problem was Germany didn't have enough horses to form more units without caused big food problems (which is what happened during the war). There are several books that cover this, "The Kaiser's Army" is probably the most accessible. Effectively the German army thought they had topped out in...

Yet Britain didn't have a problem with it until 1908. Or really 1905 when the RN formulated the blockade policy. So what decisive changes actually happened in the 1890s? Or is it a hollow phrase? Seems is one of those dangerous words if not supported by actual data. How could they be when...

He could, doesn't mean it would work.

You literally have yet to cite a source, I have several. Until you do you don't get taken seriously with your accusations. Especially considering you don't understand that only the Reichstag could vote funds for the navy, so Wilhelm couldn't force anything through. Take a read...

Again Britain's fuck up, not Germany's. Of course there were people in Britain, the majority in fact, who had no hate for Germany. The power brokers though did and they decide what happens, so there was war. Again Germany offered an alliance Britain refused and OTL was because of the policies...

So specifically what did I post that makes the German moves only sound noble? They were the newcomers and trying to react to a hostile reaction from the existing powers who were relatively falling off. All I'm seeing you post is sophistry because you don't like the conclusion that the evidence...

That's largely the excuse that British propaganda used to justify their increasingly hostile behavior towards Germany. See the book "Sleepwalkers". Germany was trying to be friendly to Britain it was Britain who pushed them away and targeted them since they were economically threatening. The...

Power projection into India was virtually non-existent. They'd have had to go through Afghanistan, which as the British knew from experience wouldn't go well for the Russians. The bigger issue was about Persia, which they sort of resolved with the Anglo-Russian treaty. Besides even there...

Neither was as economically powerful as Germany even with the French Empire. Germany was rising and a lot stronger than Britain, so the British got uneasy; Russia far away, Germany is close. France is manageable.

Germany offered Britain an alliance historically around 1900, it was Britain would refused to ally with Germany. Russia's ultimate goals were incompatible with Germany as well, hence the three emperor's league falling apart, same with the Reinsurance Treaty. Plus Austria was really a loyal...