Tweet
Originally posted by GePap
What are you talking about? IN real life and in the "theoretical" you seems to want to posit BOTH the Germans are buildin up forces for an eastern attack. Do you think an attack along a multi-thousand mile front with over 3 million men does not necessitate a massive build up of troops? Care to explain how Army Group Center magically teleported to the front on June 21, 1941, to be ready to strike the next day?
The Soviet leadership had plenty of warning that 3 million men were being ammased in their borders IN REAL LIFE and Stalin did nothing susbtantial about it.
BUt furthermore, your notion of the "theoretical" you are talking about seems very strange.
This is a discussion of capabilities-your whole statement about how Britian was a greater power than Germany was based on the notion that Brisith imperial GDP plus dominions was higher than Germany's and that thus the UK was a greater power than Germany.
My arguement is that this is incorrect- that Imperial GDP is not a particularly useufl measurement.
You then rbought forth the arguement that the UK's superirority was seen by the fact it outproduced the Germans. I then pointed out low German production was based on the particulars of the German regime, and NOT on some notion that Germany was economically inferior to the UK.
You keep thinking about some alternate hypothetical- hypotheticals serve only to illustrate my point- that Germany had greater power than the UK- German industrial and manpower potentials were higher than those of the UK, and such that the Germans were a more powerful state certainly than the UK, but also perhaps strong enough to take on both the UK and the Soviets and have a chance of winning (which is why I did not say the Germans would invariably beat the USSR, simply said they had a chance, one thrown away by the particulars of the Nazi regime).
And this relates back to the point of this thread by saying that, given we are discussing only economic and not the endlessly more particular notion of military sucess on battlefields, that China's vast potential means it will overtake the US now that China has began the road of development.
Which comes then back to the UK-Germany comaprison. Once Germany began the road to development, its surpassing of the UK economically was inevitable. And today, in 2005, Germany is a bigger economy than the UK even with a lower PCI, and even after losing two world wars, the hyperinflation and chaos of the inter-war period, and the split of Germany and subsequent re-unification.
Short of getting nuked I don;t see China suffering as much as Germany did in the 20th century, and even with all the Germany suffered, here it is nice and rich, and the largest economy in Europe, as its largest population would indicate.
What are you talking about? IN real life and in the "theoretical" you seems to want to posit BOTH the Germans are buildin up forces for an eastern attack. Do you think an attack along a multi-thousand mile front with over 3 million men does not necessitate a massive build up of troops? Care to explain how Army Group Center magically teleported to the front on June 21, 1941, to be ready to strike the next day?
The Soviet leadership had plenty of warning that 3 million men were being ammased in their borders IN REAL LIFE and Stalin did nothing susbtantial about it.
BUt furthermore, your notion of the "theoretical" you are talking about seems very strange.
This is a discussion of capabilities-your whole statement about how Britian was a greater power than Germany was based on the notion that Brisith imperial GDP plus dominions was higher than Germany's and that thus the UK was a greater power than Germany.
My arguement is that this is incorrect- that Imperial GDP is not a particularly useufl measurement.
You then rbought forth the arguement that the UK's superirority was seen by the fact it outproduced the Germans. I then pointed out low German production was based on the particulars of the German regime, and NOT on some notion that Germany was economically inferior to the UK.
You keep thinking about some alternate hypothetical- hypotheticals serve only to illustrate my point- that Germany had greater power than the UK- German industrial and manpower potentials were higher than those of the UK, and such that the Germans were a more powerful state certainly than the UK, but also perhaps strong enough to take on both the UK and the Soviets and have a chance of winning (which is why I did not say the Germans would invariably beat the USSR, simply said they had a chance, one thrown away by the particulars of the Nazi regime).
And this relates back to the point of this thread by saying that, given we are discussing only economic and not the endlessly more particular notion of military sucess on battlefields, that China's vast potential means it will overtake the US now that China has began the road of development.
Which comes then back to the UK-Germany comaprison. Once Germany began the road to development, its surpassing of the UK economically was inevitable. And today, in 2005, Germany is a bigger economy than the UK even with a lower PCI, and even after losing two world wars, the hyperinflation and chaos of the inter-war period, and the split of Germany and subsequent re-unification.
Short of getting nuked I don;t see China suffering as much as Germany did in the 20th century, and even with all the Germany suffered, here it is nice and rich, and the largest economy in Europe, as its largest population would indicate.
so have you looked at SHWI yet?
You just keep tellin' yourself that, Twinkle Toes. The reality is that I have MAYBE ten minutes a day to spend online anymore, and I grow tired of teaching you basic english.
Comment