Prior to World War I, What Nation(s) Would You Considered to Be a World Power?
Poll - Total Votes: 17
Austria-Hungary
China
France
Germany
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
You may vote on multiple answers, up to 5.
36-40, FVIP
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
Prior to WW1, there were five European Powers that were considered great: Britain, Germany, France, Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Outside Europe: the USA was already a great power, though nowhere near as powerful as it was to become. It already had the world's biggest economy and over double Britain's population though was relatively untested in war at that time. Japan maybe deserves inclusion on the list too because they had a recent (comprehensive) victory against the Russians and were the only rising industrial force in the East. Although caveats apply because Russia was a mess and could never deploy its land army on its eastern flank. China was much too technologically backward to be on that list.
WW1 kind of proved that the A/H Empire and Russia were not really great powers at all. Both suffered crushing military defeats and collapsed completely during the conflict.
So I would say there were four and half great powers:
USA
Germany
France
Britain
Japan (the half.)
Germany and USA were probably a bit more powerful than Britain and France even then. Though only be middle distance. That distance increased a lot in WW2.
Outside Europe: the USA was already a great power, though nowhere near as powerful as it was to become. It already had the world's biggest economy and over double Britain's population though was relatively untested in war at that time. Japan maybe deserves inclusion on the list too because they had a recent (comprehensive) victory against the Russians and were the only rising industrial force in the East. Although caveats apply because Russia was a mess and could never deploy its land army on its eastern flank. China was much too technologically backward to be on that list.
WW1 kind of proved that the A/H Empire and Russia were not really great powers at all. Both suffered crushing military defeats and collapsed completely during the conflict.
So I would say there were four and half great powers:
USA
Germany
France
Britain
Japan (the half.)
Germany and USA were probably a bit more powerful than Britain and France even then. Though only be middle distance. That distance increased a lot in WW2.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero Maybe.
Britain had a more powerful navy than anyone in Europe. Though Franc probably had a slightly better land army and Germany definitely did.
Britain had a more powerful navy than anyone in Europe. Though Franc probably had a slightly better land army and Germany definitely did.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@Burnley123
The French just didn't know how to use their army. Neither did Britain.
Such a waste of lives.
The French just didn't know how to use their army. Neither did Britain.
Such a waste of lives.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero Absolutely and neither did the Germans. They were still using 19th-century tactics. However, machine guns had been invented so charges resulted in massacre instead of heroic victory. Shell guns were a similarly devastating defensive weapon but their offensive use was limited by the existence of trenches.
It was only later that the first tanks were made and when generals started learning from their mistakes that offensive moves weren't so disastrous. The USA only really joined during that late part of the war.
It was only later that the first tanks were made and when generals started learning from their mistakes that offensive moves weren't so disastrous. The USA only really joined during that late part of the war.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@Burnley123
Ironically, though it was Britain which introduced the tank into the war, it was Germany which used panzer units to great effectiveness in the next war.
Ironically, though it was Britain which introduced the tank into the war, it was Germany which used panzer units to great effectiveness in the next war.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero Absolutely. British tanks in WW2 were crap. The French did actually have some pretty good tanks but deployed them badly, spread out over a vast area. The Wehrmacht had Europe's best generals and were ahead of their time on tank warfare.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@Burnley123
The French should have built the Maginot Line to the Channel and reinforced the area with tank units.
The problem with doing that was they didn't want to alienate the Belgiums and the water table was higher as you got closer to to Channel.
The best course of action would have been to stop the Nazis in 1936 or 1938 before the gap between Germany's arms production (helped by the absorption of the Czech arms industry into the Reich) grew over that of Britain.
If Germany had to fight to capture all of Czechoslovakia, Poland would have stood a better chance and the The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact might never have came into being.
The French should have built the Maginot Line to the Channel and reinforced the area with tank units.
The problem with doing that was they didn't want to alienate the Belgiums and the water table was higher as you got closer to to Channel.
The best course of action would have been to stop the Nazis in 1936 or 1938 before the gap between Germany's arms production (helped by the absorption of the Czech arms industry into the Reich) grew over that of Britain.
If Germany had to fight to capture all of Czechoslovakia, Poland would have stood a better chance and the The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact might never have came into being.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero Even more crucial was that the Maginot line didn't cover the Ardennes, which meant that the allies were caught in a giant pincer. Though they got battered in the Low countries anyway.
It might have been better to fight Germany earlier but the main problem was how badly the Battle of France was organised by both the British and the French. The British had inferior weapons and the French military had loads of logistical and political problems. The coordination between the two allies was also poor. They were using a WW1 strategy (territory and defense) when the military technology favoured the dense concentration of forces at key points and rapid attack. Given the numbers of troops and weaponry available, the allies combined had at least as much power as the Germans but they were out-thought and out-fought.
Poland would have had no chance anyway, not least because Stalin was happy to annex part of it. It was a poor and relatively small country
It might have been better to fight Germany earlier but the main problem was how badly the Battle of France was organised by both the British and the French. The British had inferior weapons and the French military had loads of logistical and political problems. The coordination between the two allies was also poor. They were using a WW1 strategy (territory and defense) when the military technology favoured the dense concentration of forces at key points and rapid attack. Given the numbers of troops and weaponry available, the allies combined had at least as much power as the Germans but they were out-thought and out-fought.
If Germany had to fight to capture all of Czechoslovakia, Poland would have stood a better chance and The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact might never have come into being.
Poland would have had no chance anyway, not least because Stalin was happy to annex part of it. It was a poor and relatively small country
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@Burnley123
Exactly. And the Germans did it again in December 1944, same place. The Ardennes.
Stalin saw the Pact as a means to bide time.
Germany simply did not have the divisions available to fight a war against Britain and France, while invading Czechoslovakia, in 1938 - and then prepare to invade Poland the following year. A September 1, 1939 invasion date of Poland would have been highly unlikely.
Even more crucial was that the Maginot line didn't cover the Ardennes, which meant that the allies were caught in a giant pincer. Though they got battered in the Low countries anyway.
Exactly. And the Germans did it again in December 1944, same place. The Ardennes.
Poland would have had no chance anyway, not least because Stalin was happy to annex part of it. It was a poor and relatively small country
Stalin saw the Pact as a means to bide time.
Germany simply did not have the divisions available to fight a war against Britain and France, while invading Czechoslovakia, in 1938 - and then prepare to invade Poland the following year. A September 1, 1939 invasion date of Poland would have been highly unlikely.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@beckyromero The historians I've read have sources including the diaries of Soviet generals. Stalin was genuinly furious and upset that Hitler betrayed him, ridiculous as that seems. So I'm not agreeing there.
This 1938 counterfactual has too many factors to be making such specific claims. The Czechs had a limited force.
It might have been easier in 1938 but how much easier is impossible to know.
Baldwin appeasing Hitler obviously failed of course.
This 1938 counterfactual has too many factors to be making such specific claims. The Czechs had a limited force.
It might have been easier in 1938 but how much easier is impossible to know.
Baldwin appeasing Hitler obviously failed of course.
beckyromero · 36-40, FVIP
@Burnley123
About 1938.
Germany had 48 divisions, only three of which were panzer. Another four motorized infantry. Remainder were infantry with most of their equipment drawn by horses. Five of those divisions came from Austria.
It lacked training and quality in NCOs.
Case Green allotted 37 divisions for an attack on Czechoslovakia. Three would have remained in East Prussia. That would have left eight - eight - to confront the French and the Poles.
In 1938, the Kriegsmarine three "pocket" battleships, but no battleships, no battle cruisers, no heavy cruisers, a mere seven destroyers and only seven U-boats available for Atlantic duty.
The Luftwaffe's Schnell bomber wouldn't be ready for a year and their primary system used to guide bombers to their targets with radio beams was not yet developed, either. The High Command felt it would need to invade and occupy Belgium and the Netherlands before undertaking any attack on targets in the British Isles.
Germany would have had little chance of a decisive victory in the West had the war started in 1938 in Czechoslovakia.
About 1938.
Germany had 48 divisions, only three of which were panzer. Another four motorized infantry. Remainder were infantry with most of their equipment drawn by horses. Five of those divisions came from Austria.
It lacked training and quality in NCOs.
Case Green allotted 37 divisions for an attack on Czechoslovakia. Three would have remained in East Prussia. That would have left eight - eight - to confront the French and the Poles.
In 1938, the Kriegsmarine three "pocket" battleships, but no battleships, no battle cruisers, no heavy cruisers, a mere seven destroyers and only seven U-boats available for Atlantic duty.
The Luftwaffe's Schnell bomber wouldn't be ready for a year and their primary system used to guide bombers to their targets with radio beams was not yet developed, either. The High Command felt it would need to invade and occupy Belgium and the Netherlands before undertaking any attack on targets in the British Isles.
Germany would have had little chance of a decisive victory in the West had the war started in 1938 in Czechoslovakia.