Taiwan: Would War be viable?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Hello, no state had a history of an industrial middle class prior to development!

Yes, thats my point. We're dealing with a limited history here. And the two thousand years of Chinese pre-industrial history is not illuminating.

China has already disrupted the global market. If opne believes in capitalism and globalization,

im not sure I do, not as much as you do.

is notion of "not having lots of internal resources" should not matter, since the free movement of materials makes it an outdated worry. China is currently in an export mode, but at some point it builds enough of an internal market to boom.

Im not sure what you mean by building enough of an internal market to boom. All the historic booms of the last 40 years have been export driven. Internal markets develop slowly - fast booms are the result of taking advantage of wage differentials in the international market - you can keep growing beyond that, of course, but no reason to expect a "boom"

fact, China exports to get the money to buy resources- in an open world market, there should be no issue. UNless you predict the collapse of the global commodities market, I don;t think this is too great a worry.

I predict nothing. I only point out we dont KNOW how the global commodity market will behave in these circumstances.

Size affects organization and implementation, but there is no theoretical reason why 200 Million and 1 billion should make a difference in having a dmeocracy, specially as communications tehcnology becomes more powerful.

Im not (at this point) making a theoretical argument. Im only pointing out that prior precedent, as precedent, is not probative.


[q]besides, there was no real transition between "UK to US"- the UK was the ex- strongest power in a multipolar system, and by 1905 it was clear the strongest European power was Germany, with Russia's accendence unclear. The two world wars were sorting out the multi-polar system in flux. Today we don't have a real multipolar system.

I was, at this point, focusing on the transition from GDP number one from UK to US. Im quite aware that transitioned through a multipolar world. I would expect that China will emerge as GDP number one in a multipolar world as well.

4. What is the demographic future? Prior transitions, at least those based on new adopters of the capitalist model (thus excluding the different case of the rise of Spain), involved shifts from countries with intrinsically small resource bases to ones with larger resource bases. Venice to Netherlands, Netherlands to UK (and France) and UK to US. The US has a larger resource base than China (or India)- China has a larger population at this time due to accidents of history. Will the transition be different because of this?

Russia has more resources than the US, but you don;t see them going anywhere.

obviously resources alone arent enough. Im simply pointing out that past transitions have not been to a relatively resource constrained nation.

5. How will Chinese potential isolationism affect the transition? The US surpassed UK in GDP in 1905, but didnt clearly emerge as number one world power till 1942. Due to a deep reluctance to bear the costs and responsibilities. How does this play out with India and China today?

The global UN system changes the equation significantly, as "world policing" has been codified, and responsibilities set.

If you say so.

I would dispute the notions that 1. The Uk was the top power until 1942- heck, from 1900 on they were NOT, specially after 1918. And the uS became accendant in 1945, not '42.

Id say that the UK was the single strongest power during WW1 (there failure to defeat Germany earlier had to do more with certain specific operational features of the western front, that made it difficult to bring power to bear), and certainly in the interwar world. From 1939 to 1942 they fought Germany largely alone, and were gradually turning the tide. In 1942 the US forces, miliary role and political influence began to dominate. The increasing US position happened gradually through the war years, not all at once.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
This site gives estimates of GDP per capita at various times:

http://woodstock.wesleyan.edu/acsocsci/jmcguire/table/income.htm

Witht he estimated US population being 76 Million in 1900, 38 Million for the UK and 56 Million for Germany,the comparative GDP's in 1900 were:

UK: 174.5 Billion
Germany: 175.5 Billion
US: 311 Billion

BY 1900 Germany and the US had both surpassed the UK. Even after its defeat in 1918, germany remained a more powerful state than the UK, as the second world war shows. BY 1900 the uS was well beyond either of these states, and this was clear in 1918 and beyond.

that obviously doesnt include the British empire, and thus doesnt really reflect British power at the time.

I would suggest taking a look at Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, for data.



The Second world war most assuredly does not show that Germany was beyond the power of the British empire. I again suggest you take a look at Paul Kennedy. Once Britain fully mobilized, there production - including dominions and colonies - outpaced Germany and all of German occupied Europe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The Dutch were NEVER the "world leaders"- at one point they were cetrainly commercially the richest, but they never eclipsed French or Habsburg, or English power. So I don't see where you statement that the Dutch were the leading power comes from- they were a power, but by no means the leading power. GDP alone does NOT measure being a great power. Also, I am extremely doubtful on many of your numbers. Germany certainly passed the UK in the early 1900's, and the US did even earlier.

And there are certainly precendent for a relatively poor state becoming a great power- Russia was always behind the Western European powers when it entered that club. The sheer size of Russia and thus the army it made possible made the Tsars rulers of a great power.

I used the Dutch as part of a simplified model of capitalist technology being passed to ever larger bases, making for new number ones. Im quite aware that in the period when Dutch power peaked they were still far weaker than the Habsburgs, which was why i explicitly mentioned and excluded Spain, whose power was driven by other factors. When I said this in SUPPORT of your thesis, you seemed to have no problem with this simplification. Now that im making the distinction between population base and resource base, you seem troubled. Im not sure why. 17th century Britain and France exceeded the Netherlands in BOTH population AND resources - the question of the Netherlands is therefore irrelevant to the q of whether population or resources are more important. Which makes sense when you think about it - prior to the IR, population and land resources generally moved together - population moved to what the land could bear. If we were still living in such a malthusian world, US population would grow to surpass Chinas - and the US would emerge with a large GDP. We do not, as populations no longer expand to match local resources. But that means we dont have precedent for a transition of top power status under these circumstances. Certainly in the pre-WW1 and post-WW1 era great powers were very concerned with their demographic position. However birthrates proved difficult to manipulate, even with considerable subsidies. The US, as an immigrant nation, however, has other policy options. IF the US were to be unwilling to cede great power status, for whatever reason, the US could open its borders to larger number of immigrants, till it matched China in population. I dont expect that, but if we're talking inevitabilities, its worth bearing in mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


that obviously doesnt include the British empire, and thus doesnt really reflect British power at the time.

Empires do NOT power make. Spain stopped being the leadeing world power in the mid 17th century, even while it still had by far the biggest and most populous colonial empire. The UK's performance in WW1, and its performance in WW2 more than make clear that if anything, having a huge colonial empire was as much burden ad wonder for Britian.

The Second world war most assuredly does not show that Germany was beyond the power of the British power. I again suggest you take a look at Paul Kennedy. Once Britain fully mobilized, there production - including dominions and colonies - outpaced Germany and all of German occupied Europe.

Oh, of course, this is why the British alone stormed Berlin...Oh, wait, they didn't, and in fact by 1943 the UK was playing second banana to the US, and it was still the USSR that crushed the German army.

I am sorry, but is a prime example why your measurements 'lie' (as in, lies, damned lies, and statistics"). Germany's low production was caused by
1. Terrible planning and incompetence
2. Troubles in the empire.

But you would be very very alone in your claims that the Uk was a greater power than Germany in 1940, even with am empire and friendly dominions. The issue is having the ability to concentrate power were it matters. Britian alone, vs Nazi Germany would have lost the war, because the home island, and not india nor all of Africa, is what matters to a modern state.

This si why, as well, thinking that world leadership passed from Venice to the Netherlands is nothing short of bizzare.

Oh, and I won;t read Mr. Kennedy- I will stick to examining what actually went on.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I used the Dutch as part of a simplified model of capitalist technology being passed to ever larger bases, making for new number ones. Im quite aware that in the period when Dutch power peaked they were still far weaker than the Habsburgs, which was why i explicitly mentioned and excluded Spain, whose power was driven by other factors. When I said this in SUPPORT of your thesis, you seemed to have no problem with this simplification. Now that im making the distinction between population base and resource base, you seem troubled. Im not sure why. 17th century Britain and France exceeded the Netherlands in BOTH population AND resources - the question of the Netherlands is therefore irrelevant to the q of whether population or resources are more important. Which makes sense when you think about it - prior to the IR, population and land resources generally moved together - population moved to what the land could bear. If we were still living in such a malthusian world, US population would grow to surpass Chinas - and the US would emerge with a large GDP. We do not, as populations no longer expand to match local resources. But that means we dont have precedent for a transition of top power status under these circumstances. Certainly in the pre-WW1 and post-WW1 era great powers were very concerned with their demographic position. However birthrates proved difficult to manipulate, even with considerable subsidies. The US, as an immigrant nation, however, has other policy options. IF the US were to be unwilling to cede great power status, for whatever reason, the US could open its borders to larger number of immigrants, till it matched China in population. I dont expect that, but if we're talking inevitabilities, its worth bearing in mind.

The US could NOT match China's population through immigration- I find that notion unthinkable. Such a huge and rapid growth in the population of the US would probably lead top a decline in PC GDP and immense social and political tensions that would render the state appart. China's growth was "natural", ie, Chinese having Chinese kids.

China's growth will not be based on "land and resources", but Capitalism and the free market, a system in whcih China has not significantly participated ever. Take that link I gave and look at Japan- even by 1960 Japan is well behind Europe and the US, and was well behind as it rose in power and began its own colonial empire in the late 19th century and early 20th. Japan's immense rise to having an economy that was second only to the US's until very recently and immense wealth was NOT based on having control of huge resources (something Japan did NOt have, and tried, gained, and lost during its imperial expansionistic period) but opening itself up to world markets and competing succesfully.

In fact, that is the very same thing that explains Dutch rise form its moment of independence to the mid 17th century. The Dutch got very rich trought trade, not European conquest, and their colonial empires, while profitable, were never significantly vast nor highly populated. The Netherlands got to were it got through trade.

I believe China will become rich like Japan became rich, through competion in the world economy- its immense size and its resources (China is NOT resource poor, it lacks in certain strategic resources, but so does the US and all European states) means that it does have to try a mix of Japan and the US.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Empires do NOT power make. Spain stopped being the leadeing world power in the mid 17th century, even while it still had by far the biggest and most populous colonial empire. The UK's performance in WW1, and its performance in WW2 more than make clear that if anything, having a huge colonial empire was as much burden ad wonder for Britian.




Oh, of course, this is why the British alone stormed Berlin...Oh, wait, they didn't, and in fact by 1943 the UK was playing second banana to the US, and it was still the USSR that crushed the German army.

I am sorry, but is a prime example why your measurements 'lie' (as in, lies, damned lies, and statistics"). Germany's low production was caused by
1. Terrible planning and incompetence
2. Troubles in the empire.

But you would be very very alone in your claims that the Uk was a greater power than Germany in 1940, even with am empire and friendly dominions. The issue is having the ability to concentrate power were it matters. Britian alone, vs Nazi Germany would have lost the war, because the home island, and not india nor all of Africa, is what matters to a modern state.

This si why, as well, thinking that world leadership passed from Venice to the Netherlands is nothing short of bizzare.

Oh, and I won;t read Mr. Kennedy- I will stick to examining what actually went on.

Spains power was a result of its empire - that power want enough to overcome the growth of power elsewhere and internal decline- though the decline in silver production in the new world was ALSO a factor in Spanish decline.


As for Britain storming Berlin alone, I would note that the US did not either - the USSR did. However the UK provided most of the manpower for Operation torch, and the UK and Canada provided the majority of the manpower at Normandy. And that was considerable UK forces, and ALL Australian, NZ, and Indian forces being used against Japan.

If you want to explore alternative WW2 scenarios without the US, i suggest looking at and posting to Soc.History.what-if - some VERY serious people there.

Britain was able to get resources to the home island, despite the U boats And in fact from late 1940 on was sending troops out FROM the home island to Egypt. Troops from Australia, India and SA made it with less shipping. Im sorry but you really need to read a DETAILED history of the UK in WW2.

Are you suggesting Paul Kennedy didnt write about what actually happened? Im not surprised you wont read him - as before you refused to read Paul Berman. Its surely better to argue on the internet than to read something that might change your opinion. If what youre trying to do is win arguments and not learn. (i will freely admit i havent lately read any books you or others have suggested as a challenge - but I surely wouldnt toss them aside out of hand as sources)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


The US could NOT match China's population through immigration- I find that notion unthinkable. Such a huge and rapid growth in the population of the US would probably lead top a decline in PC GDP and immense social and political tensions that would render the state appart. China's growth was "natural", ie, Chinese having Chinese kids.

China's growth will not be based on "land and resources", but Capitalism and the free market, a system in whcih China has not significantly participated ever. Take that link I gave and look at Japan- even by 1960 Japan is well behind Europe and the US, and was well behind as it rose in power and began its own colonial empire in the late 19th century and early 20th. Japan's immense rise to having an economy that was second only to the US's until very recently and immense wealth was NOT based on having control of huge resources (something Japan did NOt have, and tried, gained, and lost during its imperial expansionistic period) but opening itself up to world markets and competing succesfully.

In fact, that is the very same thing that explains Dutch rise form its moment of independence to the mid 17th century. The Dutch got very rich trought trade, not European conquest, and their colonial empires, while profitable, were never significantly vast nor highly populated. The Netherlands got to were it got through trade.

I believe China will become rich like Japan became rich, through competion in the world economy- its immense size and its resources (China is NOT resource poor, it lacks in certain strategic resources, but so does the US and all European states) means that it does have to try a mix of Japan and the US.

ah but the US doesnt have to MATCH Chinas pop, if you assume any GDP per capita to the US. If the US can maintain double GDP per capita, it only needs half the population of China. If Chinese population with the one child policy ends up at 1 billion, the US only needs 500 million. We're close to 300 million as it is. 500 million in thirty or forty years need not lead to social collapse.


Japan's from 1950 to 1990, happened in a world of open markets maintained by US power, and a time of generally favorable terms of trade for a resource importer (aside from the early 70s blip) Japan is one tenth the size of China. Even so during the 80's Japans growth was straining the international trade regime. Japan since then has stagnated. Chinese growth that looks at all like Japans will require much larger volumes of resource imports, and much larger product exports.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im not sure what you mean by building enough of an internal market to boom. All the historic booms of the last 40 years have been export driven. Internal markets develop slowly - fast booms are the result of taking advantage of wage differentials in the international market - you can keep growing beyond that, of course, but no reason to expect a "boom"

China is so large that it simply can;t sustain itself purely on exports- it needs to develop an internal market, and for that, it needs to have lots of investment to set up the gorundwork so that the main customer of Chinese corporations will be Chinese customers. As for the slow development of internal markets- why? Anyone who sees their income qudruple will spend 4 times as much, and spur significant growth.

I predict nothing. I only point out we dont KNOW how the global commodity market will behave in these circumstances.

Yes, they will be red hot, meaing those countries selling commodities will have lots of cash that they can then spend on buying or internal development.

obviously resources alone arent enough. Im simply pointing out that past transitions have not been to a relatively resource constrained nation.

The Netherlands always remained rich after getting there. The fact that it was small kept its power small. C

[QUOTE]
Id say that the UK was the single strongest power during WW1 (there failure to defeat Germany earlier had to do more with certain specific operational features of the western front, that made it difficult to bring power to bear), and certainly in the interwar world.[QUOTE]

I am sorry, but this is so far from reality. The original British army ceased to exist by 1915. It put another army on the field, certainly much bigger but much smaller than the overall German army fighting in 2 fronts, and blew it to pieces by early 1918. IN the first hyalf of 1918 its army was beaten back further than it ever advanced, and the german thrust broke itself out of exhaustion and thanks to an infusion of American troops. Britian AND France would have been crushed by Germany, which had to also fight Russia (which it beat) and in the end also the US.

Britian by itself could NEVER have beaten Germany.

From 1939 to 1942 they fought Germany largely alone, and were gradually turning the tide. In 1942 the US forces, miliary role and political influence began to dominate. The increasing US position happened gradually through the war years, not all at once.

I am sorry, but this view is also completely divorced from reality:

From 1939 to mid 1940 the British fought the Germans longside France, Norway, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands. Gemany alone beat all of them driving the UK from the continent and bombing its cities.

Between mid 1940 and mid 1941 they did :"fight alone". IN this period they were able to do nothing directly against Germany. They fought the Germans and their italian allies at sea and on the fringes, but the Uk was till in the defensive.

From Mid 1941 on to say the Uk was "fighting alone" is a giant slap at reality. IN mid 1941 the German conquered Yugoslavia and Greece,m booted the UK out, dorve the Uk back in the desert- hecll, you can say that the Germans in April 1941 won over more square kilometers than the Brist would do the entire war.

From June 22 on, vast bulk of the German army would be fully engaged in the Soviet Union. Maybe the fact that the Eastern front was the largest and bloddiest military campaign in Human history has escaped you??

This is what you get LoTM by baisdng your views on people's books, instead of just reading history and looking at thge facts directly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Spains power was a result of its empire - that power want enough to overcome the growth of power elsewhere and internal decline- though the decline in silver production in the new world was ALSO a factor in Spanish decline.

Having a large empire might have helped the Spanish kings, but they still had a rich and large empire by 19650, but they were backwards at home, and this meant they loss dominance- that and bankruptcy due to endless exhausting wars.

As for Britain storming Berlin alone, I would note that the US did not either - the USSR did.

No ally can claim to have stormed Berlin alone, because the US, UK and USSR fought Germany as a coolition. The USSR alone would have lost a war to Germany.

However the UK provided most of the manpower for Operation torch, and the UK and Canada provided the majority of the manpower at Normandy. And that was considerable UK forces, and ALL Australian, NZ, and Indian forces being used against Japan.

Torch was done against relatively weak eney forces- and while UK and Canadian troops might have been the bigger force on D-day, which only involved 6 divisions, the huge bulk of allied forces that broke throught France and the low countries and futher on were Americans. As for UK vs Japan- it took those forces years to gain back Burma-the Japanese were still in the offensive there by 1944. And while those forces were crucial in South East Asia and the East Indies, the UK by iself, even with its dominions, would hardly have been able to tackle Japan in the east, afr less germany and Japan at the same time.

Britain was able to get resources to the home island, despite the U boats And in fact from late 1940 on was sending troops out FROM the home island to Egypt. Troops from Australia, India and SA made it with less shipping. Im sorry but you really need to read a DETAILED history of the UK in WW2.

Yes, it was doing so because it was in danger of losing Egypt to Italy, no less, and then got chased back by a couple of German divisions. They could weaken the home island because Germany, without a descent navy and unable to make one due to the vast resource needs of its immense war in the east could not invade them.

Are you suggesting Paul Kennedy didnt write about what actually happened? Im not surprised you wont read him - as before you refused to read Paul Berman. Its surely better to argue on the internet than to read something that might change your opinion. If what youre trying to do is win arguments and not learn. (i will freely admit i havent lately read any books you or others have suggested as a challenge - but I surely wouldnt toss them aside out of hand as sources)

I have a rather extensive library, specially on WW1 and 2. I do not thougth accept people's own theories of the world- I prefer to gather data and argue my own. Unless Berman and Kennedy have significant data you can;t find elsehere, what it the point? One should change their opinion when they see a well argued theory that makes sense of the facts. If Kennedy argues that gross imperial GDP made the UK a greater power than Germany in 1942, when a simple look at history shows you britian losing on the battlefield constantly and ending up in a susbservient position, than I must say I find much wrong with Kennedy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


China is so large that it simply can;t sustain itself purely on exports- it needs to develop an internal market, and for that, it needs to have lots of investment to set up the gorundwork so that the main customer of Chinese corporations will be Chinese customers. As for the slow development of internal markets- why? Anyone who sees their income qudruple will spend 4 times as much, and spur significant growth.

I predict nothing. I only point out we dont KNOW how the global commodity market will behave in these circumstances.

Yes, they will be red hot, meaing those countries selling commodities will have lots of cash that they can then spend on buying or internal development.

obviously resources alone arent enough. Im simply pointing out that past transitions have not been to a relatively resource constrained nation.

The Netherlands always remained rich after getting there. The fact that it was small kept its power small. C



I am sorry, but this view is also completely divorced from reality:

From 1939 to mid 1940 the British fought the Germans longside France, Norway, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands. Gemany alone beat all of them driving the UK from the continent and bombing its cities.

Between mid 1940 and mid 1941 they did :"fight alone". IN this period they were able to do nothing directly against Germany. They fought the Germans and their italian allies at sea and on the fringes, but the Uk was till in the defensive.

From Mid 1941 on to say the Uk was "fighting alone" is a giant slap at reality. IN mid 1941 the German conquered Yugoslavia and Greece,m booted the UK out, dorve the Uk back in the desert- hecll, you can say that the Germans in April 1941 won over more square kilometers than the Brist would do the entire war.

From June 22 on, vast bulk of the German army would be fully engaged in the Soviet Union. Maybe the fact that the Eastern front was the largest and bloddiest military campaign in Human history has escaped you??

This is what you get LoTM by baisdng your views on people's books, instead of just reading history and looking at thge facts directly.

The French fell with a tiny BEF. Britain had only been rearming for a few years, and most of its rearmament had gone to naval, air, and air defense. Which made sense, since they thought the French army could beat the Germans.

no they couldnt beat the German army on land on the continent in 1941. German strength was largely ground forces, less air and hardly at all naval. And Greece and Yugo were horrible places for the brits to reach, logistically. During 1940 to 1941 they were still building up their forces. by early 1941 the Germans had lost the ability to hurt them badly from the air, and they were hitting the Germans from the air. They dealt with axis possesions in Ethiopia, the situations in Iraq and Syria. and fought a seasaw war in North Africa.

Could they have gotten back to the Continent without the USSR and/or the US? probably not, but that speaks to the difficulty of amphibious warfare - opposed landings are a very hard thing, and the logistical followup is difficult.

However while UK would have had difficulty beating Germany, Germany could NOT beat Britain. they tried for a year and failed. and british production was growing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


And while those forces were crucial in South East Asia and the East Indies, the UK by iself, even with its dominions, would hardly have been able to tackle Japan in the east, afr less germany and Japan at the same time.


If Britain didnt have to face Germany, they could easily have beaten Japan. They had only two capital ships in SE Asia in Dec 1941, cause the rest were in the Atlantic, the Med, etc.

If youre saying UK had less power than Germany, Japan, and Italy combined, I heartily agree.

Yes, it was doing so because it was in danger of losing Egypt to Italy, no less, and then got chased back by a couple of German divisions. They could weaken the home island because Germany, without a descent navy and unable to make one due to the vast resource needs of its immense war in the east could not invade them.

1. but you said only power in the home island mattered, and resources overseas did not.
2. Germany built its army to beat France. Once they did that it was too late to build a navy. It takes a considerable amount of time to build ships - and they didnt have the infrastructure, theyd have had to build that. Meanwhile Britain would have kept expanding its Navy, and its air force. So it all comes down to production numbers, which i will have to look up for you.





I have a rather extensive library, specially on WW1 and 2. I do not thougth accept people's own theories of the world- I prefer to gather data and argue my own. Unless Berman and Kennedy have significant data you can;t find elsehere, what it the point? One should change their opinion when they see a well argued theory that makes sense of the facts. If Kennedy argues that gross imperial GDP made the UK a greater power than Germany in 1942, when a simple look at history shows you britian losing on the battlefield constantly and ending up in a susbservient position, than I must say I find much wrong with Kennedy.

Britain and Germany were in a stalemate. What ifs cant be determined from history, but only from analysis.

[lord of the mark]

WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
UK 7940 15049 20094 23672 26263 26461 12070
US 2141 6086 19433 47836 85898 96318 46001
USSR 10382 10565 15735 25436 34900 40300 20900
Germany 8295 10826 12401 15409 24807 40593 7540
Japan 4467 4768 5088 8861 16693 28180 8263


UK outproduced Germany in aircraft production from 1940 to 1943 (by '44, with western allied troops in europe, it was no longer necessary to continue the aircraft race)

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The French fell with a tiny BEF. Britain had only been rearming for a few years, and most of its rearmament had gone to naval, air, and air defense. Which made sense, since they thought the French army could beat the Germans.

The combined Fraco- british army was greater than the German forces in the west, and the BEF was not tiny, at least a quarter of a million men. The Brits were also beaten in Norway at that time, along with the French.

no they couldnt beat the German army on land on the continent in 1941. German strength was largely ground forces, less air and hardly at all naval. And Greece and Yugo were horrible places for the brits to reach, logistically. During 1940 to 1941 they were still building up their forces. by early 1941 the Germans had lost the ability to hurt them badly from the air, and they were hitting the Germans from the air. They dealt with axis possesions in Ethiopia, the situations in Iraq and Syria. and fought a seasaw war in North Africa.

What are you talking about? The UK was not doing any significant damage to Germany by 1941- hell, the mass bombing of German cities and industries in a sacel close to what the Germans did to the Uk in late 1940 does not begin until mid 1942 and even beyond, and this is with the addition of vast US resources. That the Germans were not going after the UK anymore was because they needed their planes in the east.

Yes, the UK too Ethiopia form Italy, and Syria from the Vichy French (with free frenc forces along), but these were minor peripheral wins. I remember readiong a Time magazine from July 1941, when the UK took Syria- the Times people's compare the quiet tea time game of cricket of the Syria campaign to the World Series being fought between the Germans and Soviets. Heck, even then people had a clue about the relative importance.

Could they have gotten back to the Continent without the USSR and/or the US? probably not, but that speaks to the difficulty of amphibious warfare - opposed landings are a very hard thing, and the logistical followup is difficult.

You know this makes no sense? IF the UK had more resources, a greater pool of manpower, and you say they outproduced the Germans, then why would it have been so unlikely that the UK, without the support of the USSR and the US could not still have mounted succesul amphibious assaults, specially since the UK had naval superiority AND according to you control of the air over western Europe by 1941? Again, your claim of why the Uk was greater power was based on the fact the Uk outproduced Germany-well, if this has the meaning you give it, in the end, even if Germany was a land power, the UK should have beaten them. NO?

However while UK would have had difficulty beating Germany, Germany could NOT beat Britain. they tried for a year and failed. and british production was growing.

Wow, a WHOLE year...

The Germans certainly would have needed a few years of significant ship building to crush the Royal Navy and have the sea lift capable of a cross channel landing-but the fact the Germans did not overwhelm the Brits was that the German leadership gave far more priority to their ideological racial war in the East than fighting the UK. Had Germany focused itself on taking the UK< the Germans would have done it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

If Britain didnt have to face Germany, they could easily have beaten Japan. They had only two capital ships in SE Asia in Dec 1941, cause the rest were in the Atlantic, the Med, etc

Riight.. The Japanese blitzed British posesion in the East- the impregnable Singapore taken, Burman fell, so forth and so on.

A better sense- in 1941 Japan had a larger and more developed Carrier fleet than the UK- British forces would have been fighting VERY far from home, would have lines of supply much easier to cut, so forth and so on. NO, the UK would not have "easily" beaten Japan in a one on one- in fact, I doubt the UK could have beaten Japan in a one on one.

1. but you said only power in the home island mattered, and resources overseas did not.

Yes. Note how the UK had to ship troops FROM HOME to the empire to defend its colonies. This is a function of the fact the UK could NOT raise significant forces in its colonial empire outside of the three mostly self-governing dominions of SA, Canada, and Australia, and even then the production capabilities of those dominons were very small compared to those of the home country.

2. Germany built its army to beat France. Once they did that it was too late to build a navy. It takes a considerable amount of time to build ships - and they didnt have the infrastructure, theyd have had to build that. Meanwhile Britain would have kept expanding its Navy, and its air force. So it all comes down to production numbers, which i will have to look up for you.

Germany built its army to dominate Europe, not only "beat France". Actually, beating the Soviet Union was much higher on the list. You are correct, the UK had a bigger navy, which sould be no surprise given Germany had no navy of any note in 1935.

All you are saying is that the UK suvived because the Germans put their priorities elsewhere, ie,, NOT THEM. That is hardly a vote for grand UK power.

Britain and Germany were in a stalemate. What ifs cant be determined from history, but only from analysis.

Britian and Germany were in a short stalemate because the Germans lacked the ability to whack the Brits down- but it was not really a stalemate outside of northern Europe- in the Balkans the British got their buts kicked and in the desert it wa sback and forth, and this with the British moving the bulk of their army there, while the Germans were adding a small portion of their to stiffen the weak Italian forces.

Again, if a stalemate lasted, its because the Germans had bigger fish to fry.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
WW2 Aircraft Production Numbers
Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
UK 7940 15049 20094 23672 26263 26461 12070
US 2141 6086 19433 47836 85898 96318 46001
USSR 10382 10565 15735 25436 34900 40300 20900
Germany 8295 10826 12401 15409 24807 40593 7540
Japan 4467 4768 5088 8861 16693 28180 8263


UK outproduced Germany in aircraft production from 1940 to 1943 (by '44, with western allied troops in europe, it was no longer necessary to continue the aircraft race)

And this mattered because?

Also, note that once the Germans actually mobilized their eocnomy for total war (1942-1944) Geman production was higher than the UK's.

Note that UK production from 1942 to 1944 increase by 12% from the 1942 figure. NOte that German production rose form 1942 to 1944 by 163%, form the '42 numbers.

The UK hit its peak production in 1944, and its clear that this was about as high as it would go, becuase the number is about the the same as in 1943, and the Uk was building at over 20000 since 1941.

The Germans on the other hand obviously were not producing anywhere near as much as they could- note that it is during 1944, when its factories were being regularly bombed by the allies and thier armies were in full retreat in the east, and one assumes the German armies need for armored vehicles and all other production was its most critical that German plane production was more than 12000 more than 1943, but that it vastly eclipsed UK production, topped USSR production, and came second only to the US, which was ridiculously ahead.

Imagine if Germany had fully mobilized its economy for war in 1940, and not 1942