Without using the internets, what aircraft won the Battle of Britain?

[Closet_Skeleton]

(including their own bomb project, even if in the end the scientists involved supposedly decided that defeat was a lesser evil than Hitler with nuclear weapons)

The Nazis lost all their decent physicists in purges of the academia before the war. Its hard to develop a nuke at the same time as dismissing all modern physics as Jewish nonsense.

not knowing that the division of Germany after their surrender had already been decided on

I'm not sure about that. Everything I was taught at school says that the division of Germany wasn't planned at all and was almost a surprise when it happened in 1949. Zones of occupation and a collection of satellite states for the USSR was agreed upon but they didn't plan to have two Germanies (unless you want to count Austria). I'm not even sure when Silesia and Prussia going to Poland was decided.

Due to the democratic election cycle and FDR's death, the politicians in charge of the occupation weren't the guys who had fought the war and made those plans.

I'd say that the BoB was lost by Germany, because in the end there wasn't the Operation Sea Lion.
Even with a more effective air supremacy by Luftwaffe, you cannot conquer an Island without a landing.

I don't recall an example even in fiction... (unless you consider "winning" a wh40k exterminatus)

Germany didn't plan on conquering Britain, just like it didn't conquer France whole either. The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.

Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).

It wasn't just Hitler, everyone including the British exaggerated how nasty the treaty was. It was also considered unfair because Germany didn't technically lose. The most contentious point was the War Guilt clause, not the Reparations.

But that's besides the point. People don't consider the Treaty of Versailes a disaster because it was punishing, its only a disaster in light of the later economic depression. The reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian was is often brought up in comparison (including in that BBC article) because they were a lot harsher, but France recovered and paid that back very quickly but Germany failed to.

[nedz]

It is also important to remember that BARBAROSSA went in later and in lesser strength than the plans called for due to Mussolini's failed Greek adventure. When the entry of Greece into the war opened the entire southern flank of the Axis to Allied attack, Germany had no choice but to take units intended for BARBAROSSA and use them to knock out the new threat, while holding off long enough to ensure that they were fighting only one enemy at a time.

Actually, last time I checked, Historians were still debating this. Now from an Operational and Logistics point of view this argument makes sense but all of the documents from the period stick to the official position at the time: that the ground was still too wet for mobile operations. YMMV.

[Killer Angel]

The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.

I doubt even Hitler knew his own goals, given all contradictions during the war, regarding priorities of targets...

Now, back on topic: who is the winner (aka the one with more votes)? the hurricane or the spitfire?

[Closet_Skeleton]

I doubt even Hitler knew his own goals, given all contradictions during the war, regarding priorities of targets...

I'm pretty sure his goal was to sit on in his deck chair on his balcony while the reports of famous cities falling to his forces came in.

[Miriel]

Some interesting points which nuance what I've said earlier. One minor nitpick though: the Versailles treaty wasn't as harsh as Hitler made it out to be. I remember BBC writing an article that actually shows Versailles was pretty lenient (point 9 in the list).

Whatever was in the Versailles treaty is irrelevant. The point is everyone was unhappy with it.

Not just everyone in Germany, even though that was true. Everyone. France was unhappy because it didn't crush Germany enough. The US were so unhappy much that they didn't sign the thing. And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism. The new Eastern European nations were unhappy as well, and all had various claims on each other. (Although technically that isn't about the Versailles treaty, but anyway.)

Of course, the German governement was the most important to have persistent, vocal opinions on many specific points of the treaty (and had most of them revised before Hitler came near to power, in fact). And most importantly, the Germans felt they had been treated unfairly. To a point, it doesn't matter what the ideal content of the treaty is, but what its effects are in practice. And the Versailles treaty was a failure on all accounts, almost since the beginning. Everybody in Europe was intent on revising it in some way, even those who wrote it.

[Aedilred]

Whatever was in the Versailles treaty is irrelevant. The point is everyone was unhappy with it.

Not just everyone in Germany, even though that was true. Everyone. France was unhappy because it didn't crush Germany enough. The US were so unhappy much that they didn't sign the thing. And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism. The new Eastern European nations were unhappy as well, and all had various claims on each other. (Although technically that isn't about the Versailles treaty, but anyway.)

That the US didn't sign (or join the League of Nations) was partly down to bad luck and internal political shenanigans, though, rather than serious, universal dissatisfaction. It could have passed Congress on a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority - which is hard to achieve in any political system - was needed to pass it, and even then they might have been won round had Wilson not had a stroke and deprived the country of meaningful leadership from the White House for a year or so.

[Miriel]

That the US didn't sign (or join the League of Nations) was partly down to bad luck and internal political shenanigans, though, rather than serious, universal dissatisfaction. It could have passed Congress on a simple majority, but a 2/3 majority - which is hard to achieve in any political system - was needed to pass it, and even then they might have been won round had Wilson not had a stroke and deprived the country of meaningful leadership from the White House for a year or so.

Actually, what would have been likely to pass would have been an amended version of the treaty. Except Wilson and his closest supporters, very few people liked the Versailles treaty as previously agreed in Europe. IIRC (no internets, after all -- but then my source is a book, so I guess I'm just lazy) the final Senate vote, which had majority but not 2/3, was about accepting the treaty with reservations (and Wilson voted it down, in fact, because he wanted the whole thing), whereas the initial one, with the full treaty, US military commitment, etc., didn't even get half the Senate.

[Stardrake]

The Nazis lost all their decent physicists in purges of the academia before the war. Its hard to develop a nuke at the same time as dismissing all modern physics as Jewish nonsense.

All? I hate to be catty about it, but I think there is some uncertainty in your equation.

Granted, they lost quite a few, including the most famous German Jew of all time, but a few of their big names did remain for various reasons, and they certainly still had a lot of decent ones. Despite the various other conditions, Germany was where a lot of the scientific discoveries of the 20s and even the 30s were made - the academic purges and emigrations as the Nazis tightened their control didn't help, but Germany was probably still the scientific powerhouse of the world. One of the late-war objectives of both the Western Allies and the USSR, in fact, was grabbing as many of the German scientists as possible before the other side did to give them an advantage in the cold war they all knew was likely to come (even if the term hadn't been coined yet).

I'm not sure about that. Everything I was taught at school says that the division of Germany wasn't planned at all and was almost a surprise when it happened in 1949. Zones of occupation and a collection of satellite states for the USSR was agreed upon but they didn't plan to have two Germanies (unless you want to count Austria). I'm not even sure when Silesia and Prussia going to Poland was decided.

I was referring to the zones of occupation rather than the division of Germany into East and West. Specifically, that the region that would end up under Soviet occupation had already been decided, despite German efforts to stall the Soviet advance as much as possible while all but inviting the Western Allies in with the hope that that would keep as many Germans as possible out of Stalin's hands.

Germany didn't plan on conquering Britain, just like it didn't conquer France whole either. The idea that the Nazis goal was world conquest as soon as possible is just silly.

Yeah, they basically just wanted them out of the war, particularly since many Germans still had a high regard and some fraternal feelings for the British even after World War 1. Nazi Germany made a number of overtures to Britain in 1940 and 1941 to the effect of 'no, really, this can end any time you want'. If anything, this just encouraged Churchill.

It wasn't just Hitler, everyone including the British exaggerated how nasty the treaty was. It was also considered unfair because Germany didn't technically lose. The most contentious point was the War Guilt clause, not the Reparations.

But that's besides the point. People don't consider the Treaty of Versailes a disaster because it was punishing, its only a disaster in light of the later economic depression. The reparations France had to pay after the Franco-Prussian was is often brought up in comparison (including in that BBC article) because they were a lot harsher, but France recovered and paid that back very quickly but Germany failed to.

Pretty much. Germany was going to lose without a miracle, but they offered an armistice and voluntarily withdrew from France earlier than they really had to on the assumption that they'd get the better deal offered by Wilson's Fourteen Points as opposed to what they actually got - and France used Germany's good-faith withdrawal from Eastern France in order to push it through by threatening to invade Germany proper there and then if Germany didn't accept on all points. (And even then, the German government at the time seriously considered whether a resumption of hostilities was actually a less bad option than accepting the treaty.)

And yeah, the war guilt clause was essentially a case of the winners rewriting history, since the start of World War 1 was the kind of clusterfrell where the blame is shared pretty much everywhere (except, arguably, the English-speakers - America is well-known, and Britain supposedly sent a message to Germany to the effect that if Germany respected the neutrality of the Low Countries, Britain would sit out. According to one dramatisation I've seen, the Kaiser sent a directive to cancel the Schlieffen plan in response, only for his generals to respond by telling him that they'd already initiated hostilities by the time the order arrived. Like I said, clusterfrell.)

EDIT: Just noticed I forgot to add:

Ah, but by that criteria the 109 should have been *better* than the Spitfire and Hurricane, considering it was being developed while Germany was actually at war while the other two were peacetime developments.

One of the ironic things, actually, is that the British and German aircraft in the Battle of Britain were actually better at each other's jobs - the Spitfire would have made a better escort than the 109, and the 109 was a better interceptor than either Spitfire or Hurricane at the time.

[Aedilred]

And yeah, the war guilt clause was essentially a case of the winners rewriting history, since the start of World War 1 was the kind of clusterfrell where the blame is shared pretty much everywhere (except, arguably, the English-speakers - America is well-known, and Britain supposedly sent a message to Germany to the effect that if Germany respected the neutrality of the Low Countries, Britain would sit out. According to one dramatisation I've seen, the Kaiser sent a directive to cancel the Schlieffen plan in response, only for his generals to respond by telling him that they'd already initiated hostilities by the time the order arrived. Like I said, clusterfrell.)

There seemed to be a widespread sentiment in Germany (and, indeed, everywhere) that Britain was a reluctant partner in the Entente and unlikely to fight, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter: the army was too small to make a difference, and the navy was both irrelevant in a land war and matched by the German navy. While the Treaty of London was known, the general perception was that Britain wouldn't go to war over a "piece of paper" without compelling strategic reasons.

None of which was entirely ridiculous in itself. The BEF was tiny and for all the stories of heroics at Mons and Ypres made relatively little difference in the opening phase of the war. The German navy proved a match for the Royal Navy when they met on equal terms, and in the brief war the German high command was planning the navy would indeed have been largely irrelevant.* And nobody really took the Treaty of London seriously. But it was a gross misjudgment all the same and one that Britain did nothing much to correct: really I think the intention always was to fight if necessary, but to try to head off war if at all possible. Whether Germany would have acted as she did had Britain made her intentions clear is one of the great what-ifs, I think.

Pinning the blame on Germany entirely was completely unfair, but there is a case to be made that Germany was more to blame than most; the issuing of the blank cheque to A-H was one of the critical factors in kicking things off, and Germany had always been the most pro-war of the great powers. There are various stories of messages being deliberately obfuscated or delayed in the German high command to try to sabotage diplomatic initiatives, although I don't know how much of that is true. The Kaiser did seem to have second thoughts, but by that stage it was a bit late.

*Of course, the superior numbers of the RN meant they could afford to take heavier losses, and in a longer war the resultant blockade proved a decisive factor...

[Stardrake]

There seemed to be a widespread sentiment in Germany (and, indeed, everywhere) that Britain was a reluctant partner in the Entente and unlikely to fight, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter: the army was too small to make a difference, and the navy was both irrelevant in a land war and matched by the German navy. While the Treaty of London was known, the general perception was that Britain wouldn't go to war over a "piece of paper" without compelling strategic reasons.

The impression I had was actually kinda the reverse - that Germany had made their plans assuming that Britain would enter the war regardless as part of the Entente, and thus the Treaty of London was effectively a paper tiger (no point holding back from invading Belgium to avoid Britain entering the war if Britain was going to enter the war anyway - in fact, the assumption that Britain would enter the war would give added impetus to the Schlieffen plan in order to end the war before Britain's forces could really make a difference). From my sources, the suggestion was made that Britain recognised that it was a clusterfrell they didn't really want any part of, and sent a message to Germany to the effect that they'd stay out as long as Belgium's neutrality was recognised (which wouldn't have been the only pre-war agreement that was dishonoured - Italy switched sides altogether). However, that message arrived too late for anything to be done about it - and if messages were in fact obfuscated or delayed as you say, that wouldn't have helped either.

[Avilan the Grey]

It seems Hitler did the same mistake prince Wilhelm did. He never understood the British (Wilhelm's mistakes were grander since it was his actual RELATIVES he failed to understand, despite meeting them every summer in Denmark or England) yet held them in very very high regard.

(I was going to recommend a documentary here, but damn if I can remember the name of it... It's the years leading up to WWI from the Royal perspective. How Wilhelm, unlike his mother, was violent, impulsive and jealous, how his cousin in Britain couldn't stand him, how his cousin in Russia liked him just as little, and how his cousins in Denmark (the twin sister princesses) desperately tried to both secure the peace while at the same time tried to set up a firm English-Russian alliance to shut out their weird cousin in Germany, especially since they also wanted revenge for the German conquests of Danish territory in the 19th century. It was named something like "Victoria's children" or something like that (Queen Vicky I of course)).

[Kaeso]

It seems Hitler did the same mistake prince Wilhelm did. He never understood the British (Wilhelm's mistakes were grander since it was his actual RELATIVES he failed to understand, despite meeting them every summer in Denmark or England) yet held them in very very high regard.

(I was going to recommend a documentary here, but damn if I can remember the name of it... It's the years leading up to WWI from the Royal perspective. How Wilhelm, unlike his mother, was violent, impulsive and jealous, how his cousin in Britain couldn't stand him, how his cousin in Russia liked him just as little, and how his cousins in Denmark (the twin sister princesses) desperately tried to both secure the peace while at the same time tried to set up a firm English-Russian alliance to shut out their weird cousin in Germany, especially since they also wanted revenge for the German conquests of Danish territory in the 19th century. It was named something like "Victoria's children" or something like that (Queen Vicky I of course)).

All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

Bismarck opposed the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine because it would make France a permanent enemy to Germany. However, this happened against the will of Bismarck so he had to fabricate complex diplomatic webs to make sure not a single country in Europe would be likely to ally with France (France was still a militarily very powerful nation, in spite of their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war (which was mostly due to bad organization, the French actually had better equipment than the Germans) and in spite of having only half the population of Germany at the time. France with any other ally would be a severe threat to Germany.)

As soon as Bismarck was dismissed, German-Russian relations deteriorated (driving Russia into France's arms) and the Brits felt under threat by German militarism (driving them into Frances arms as well). Italy was a wildcard because they had claims on both French and Austrian territory, and likely to side with the countries that offered them the most of their claims.

*Another interesting prediction: Ferdinand Foch, supreme commander of the Allied Forces in WWI, looked at the Versailles Treaty and said "this is no peace, it's a 20 year armistice". His prediction was off... by about 70 days.

As for Wilhelms relationship with his family, wasn't he actually really close to Nicholas II? I think they even referred to eachother as Nicky and Willy.

[Avilan the Grey]

All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

That was part of his slowly growing paranoia, though, wasn't it? (Wilhelm's). He started disliking Bismarck as his own ambitions failed. He became more and more desperate to impress his British cousins, at the same time as he hated them because they were trying to "encircle" germany through a military alliance between Russia, Italy, France and Britain. This led to him trying to show off, instead shutting him out even more (like when he shows up in Britain with a huge orchestra and a firework ship when everyone else just wanted a quiet week by the sea. As I said, he never "got" his relatives, on any level). Anyway, personal trivia aside, Hitler seems to have had the same conflicted feeling for the British (They are Arians! Yay! And they are equal to us! Yay! But they are acting so WEIRDLY...!)

[Closet_Skeleton]

And after a time, the British thought it was too harsh with Germany and that it created a risk of French militarism.

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.

Germany had always been the most pro-war of the great powers.

Hah.

France had been gunning for war with Germany for 40 years.

The Blank Cheque was to force Austria-Hungary to declare war as soon as possible in the hope that Tsar Nicolas would be too busy mourning his distant cousin Franz Ferdinand and full of anti-regicide anger to want to support Serbia who he had no formal alliance with. It was supposed to limit the war not expand it.

Russia had just announced that it was going to complete a massive re-armament plan in 1916 and France was heavily investing in its railways which would allow it to mobilise. Germany was practically baited into wanting war before 1916.

There are various stories of messages being deliberately obfuscated or delayed in the German high command to try to sabotage diplomatic initiatives, although I don't know how much of that is true. The Kaiser did seem to have second thoughts, but by that stage it was a bit late.

Basically the Kaiser had no actual interest in the War. It was his Prime Minister who started comitted to it because he knew that Wilhelm was just a sabre rattler who would chicken out of a real fight.

All true, but I think you failed to mention his greatest blunder: dismissing Bismarck, arguably the only German politician who actually had an idea what he was doing. Bismarck even famously said that 20 years after he was gone, all would be over.* 20 years after his resignation, WWI started.

Bismark was old and had vastly declined in capability. Dismissing Bismark was not a mistake, the problem was having no one to replace him.

the Brits felt under threat by German militarism (driving them into Frances arms as well).

Britain was just having a temper tantrum because they hated the idea of anyone else having a navy. If they hated militarism they would have been in an alliance against France who was militarism central, but France was willing to accept British naval superiority so Britain didn't fear them. Germany also spoke out against Britain when they invaded some random dutch farmers to steal the gold under their feet.

Britain didn't join the war because of treaties, they joined it because everyone else had and being the only Great Power not in the war would have meant they weren't really a Great Power at all. Great Power politics are all about prestige, if you can't sit at the negotiating table you don't matter, neutrality is a sign of weakness that might make others lose respect for you. The British people loved hearing about winning wars and with almost the whole planet already colonised that wasn't happening any more. If the government had staid neutral then they would have lost the next election to a pro-war party once the populace decided they were missing out on all the glory.

[Kaeso]

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.

Not entirely true. They were revanchist but far rom militarist. Germany, on the other hand, had in recent years waged wars against Austria, Denmark and France with the intent of expanding, and even after their unification was very agressive in asserting their newfound dominance (see: Wilhelms behavior during the Boxer Rebellion (there's a reason why the Entente called them Huns), the Herero genocide, the Morocco Crisis, the Daily Telegraph scandal and the July crisis). The Germans had pretty much made a point out of pissing off everyone around them, from the French to the Brits to the Russians to even the Japanese.

The Blank Cheque was to force Austria-Hungary to declare war as soon as possible in the hope that Tsar Nicolas would be too busy mourning his distant cousin Franz Ferdinand and full of anti-regicide anger to want to support Serbia who he had no formal alliance with. It was supposed to limit the war not expand it.

Russia had just announced that it was going to complete a massive re-armament plan in 1916 and France was heavily investing in its railways which would allow it to mobilise. Germany was practically baited into wanting war before 1916.

Correct, but I'm not sure how much you could call it "baited" when the Germans pretty much made their own bed. They invoked revanchism through annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismarck opposed), and were only worsening and worsening their relations with Russia. They had already created a climate in which nearly every Great Power had at least some hostility.

Bismark was old and had vastly declined in capability. Dismissing Bismark was not a mistake, the problem was having no one to replace him.

That is true. Bismarck was not immortal, but there was nobody who could take his reins after his death.

Britain was just having a temper tantrum because they hated the idea of anyone else having a navy.

I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.

If they hated militarism they would have been in an alliance against France who was militarism central, but France was willing to accept British naval superiority so Britain didn't fear them. Germany also spoke out against Britain when they invaded some random dutch farmers to steal the gold under their feet.

Boers, not Dutch. They don't even really speak Dutch but Afrikaans. And this again was related to the Daily Telegraph scandal: Wilhelm accused the Russians and French of supporting the Boers (which they didn't), understandably pissing htem off.

Britain didn't join the war because of treaties, they joined it because everyone else had and being the only Great Power not in the war would have meant they weren't really a Great Power at all. Great Power politics are all about prestige, if you can't sit at the negotiating table you don't matter, neutrality is a sign of weakness that might make others lose respect for you. The British people loved hearing about winning wars and with almost the whole planet already colonised that wasn't happening any more. If the government had staid neutral then they would have lost the next election to a pro-war party once the populace decided they were missing out on all the glory.

It was not about glory alone. It was also about containing Germany. Their industry was rapidly expanding, they were militarily capable and willing and Belgium already had the 4th largest economy of the world at the time (believe it or not). Keeping it out of German hands was a major priority for them, not to speak of the Belgian ports which would mean the German navy would be right on Britains doorstep. They had far more interests in the war than just gloryhounding.

[Miriel]

Do you mean risk from French militarism? France was the most militaristic country in the world at the time, it couldn't slide any further into militarism.

Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

[Stardrake]

I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.

Indeed, this is one of the major misunderstandings leading up to war. Kaiser, essentially, wanted battleships for a mix of wanting to have toys and the idea that a nation's strength was measured in how many battleships they had. Britain, on the other hand, legitimately wondered what else Germany could intend such a powerful fleet for if not to fight the Royal Navy.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Not entirely true. They were revanchist but far rom militarist. Germany, on the other hand, had in recent years waged wars against Austria, Denmark and France with the intent of expanding, and even after their unification was very agressive in asserting their newfound dominance (see: Wilhelms behavior during the Boxer Rebellion (there's a reason why the Entente called them Huns), the Herero genocide, the Morocco Crisis, the Daily Telegraph scandal and the July crisis). The Germans had pretty much made a point out of pissing off everyone around them, from the French to the Brits to the Russians to even the Japanese.

They invoked revanchism through annexation of Alsace-Lorraine (which Bismarck opposed), and were only worsening and worsening their relations with Russia.

What definition of militarism are you using? Militarism isn't just about being a warmonger, its about how you arrange your society. Socially, France was more militarist than Germany which was limited mostly to Prussia (and only parts of Prussia, thanks to all that expansionism) who had a lot less control over their Empire than is usually claimed. Switzerland is a quite militaristic society despite being neutral. Prussian militarism was always essentially a copy of French ideas, they were pretty bad at inventing things on their own but often better at implementing those ideas than their originators were. Frederick the Great was a massive francophile and his army was created by his father as a copy of the French army and then destroyed decades later by the Napoleonic French army leading to the creation of a modernised Prussian army based off the Napoleonic French one.

France interfered in the Belgian war of independence to either annex it or turn it into a puppet state, threatened to annex large amounts of Prussian territory in the 1840 Rhine crisis, forced Sardinia into a war with Austria so it could annex Nice and Savoy, tried to turn Mexico into a puppet state under a figurehead Emperor, readily jumped into declaring the Franco-Prussian war after being baited with a very minor insult, annexed Algiers after a debt default and Tunisia just to stop Italy from getting it, grabbed by far the largest chunk during the Scramble for Africa, walked into Indo-China just to have a joke of a counterpart to British India and openly promoted the idea that their culture would drive all others to extinction.

The Revanchists didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine because they had any respect for nations keeping their borders, they cared because it was an affront to France, they had no interest in the injustice of Austrian (sundgau, also in Alsace), Spanish (Rousilon), Italian (nice) claims on their territory.

I think it's unfair to discount it as a mere tantrum, as the Germans had already shown a potential for aggression and the navy was Britains first, last and only line of defense.

Oh no, the Germans showed a potential for aggression while most of Europe joined in carving up Africa.

Pre-WW1 Germany was bascially the annoying little brother of Europe saying 'let me join in' and 'I want one too' at everything France and Britain did. Germany combined diplomatic ineptitude (without Bismark) with being desperate to be in a club whose members didn't want it there. That was its main sin (above those horrible things that everyone else was doing).

It might be unfair to characterise the states of the past as small children but since they act like it and it works why not?

Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

I was really just quoting the last historian I saw on TV. It is pretty much a matter of opinion. France is so often let off despite doing even more extreme things than Germany that people make sweeping statements to address the balance.

[Aedilred]

France interfered in the Belgian war of independence to either annex it or turn it into a puppet state, threatened to annex large amounts of Prussian territory in the 1840 Rhine crisis, forced Sardinia into a war with Austria so it could annex Nice and Savoy, tried to turn Mexico into a puppet state under a figurehead Emperor, readily jumped into declaring the Franco-Prussian war after being baited with a very minor insult, annexed Algiers after a debt default and Tunisia just to stop Italy from getting it, grabbed by far the largest chunk during the Scramble for Africa, walked into Indo-China just to have a joke of a counterpart to British India and openly promoted the idea that their culture would drive all others to extinction.

The Revanchists didn't care about Alsace-Lorraine because they had any respect for nations keeping their borders, they cared because it was an affront to France, they had no interest in the injustice of Austrian (sundgau, also in Alsace), Spanish (Rousilon), Italian (nice) claims on their territory.

Well, nobody ever has any interest in the claims of other states over their territory. It's a great double standard; if someone's taken land off you in war then it's an injustice, if you've taken it off them then it's only fair. There are current examples of exactly this in Europe, though I won't go into it since real-world politics and all that. France is/was hardly unique in that. (Nice wasn't a conquest, though, it was traded away in exchange for French support for Piedmont in the war of unification).

There's also context to take into account. The Franco-Prussian War was still within living memory for many French people; Roussillon and Sundgau had been severed 250 years before, virtually in the pre-Westphalian era when the idea of recognisable statehood was still in its genesis. The original draft of the Treaty of Paris had much (all?) of Belgium to remain with France, and that was only amended after Napoleon's return to create a new unified kingdom in the area, so it's not surprising that France felt she had an interest fifteen years later when the failed attempt at a united kingdom broke up.

[Asta Kask]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

[lio45]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

For the record, that would turn Rich Burlew into a Swedish citizen. He lives in Philly.

:)

[Avilan the Grey]

"Fair" borders are easy to define - the maximum extent my country has had historically, taken all territories as being possessed at one time (i.e., Sweden should have Norway, Finland, the Baltic States, Vorpommern, Hinterpommern, Bornholm, the New Sweden colony and St. Bartholomew. And probably some territories I have forgotten).

Karelia, Livonia, Estonia, Ingria. On the top of my mind.

[Asta Kask]

Most countries were fairly militaristic. In fact, all of them. It's hard to say France was worst than the others, as they were all pretty bad.

*nods*

Look at the national anthems of the day. I believe la Marseillaise has something about the blood of the enemies watering the fields, but most national anthems are like that. Great Britain has "rule the waves", which is the imperative form - get out and conquer. Germany famously proclaims that it is above everything else in the world. And so on.

Karelia, Livonia, Estonia, Ingria. On the top of my mind.

That's them Baltic states.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Great Britain has "rule the waves", which is the imperative form - get out and conquer.

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem.


1.
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save The Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save The Queen.
2.
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save The Queen!
3.
God bless our native land,
May heaven's protective hand
Still guard our shore;
May peace her power extend,
Foe be transformed to friend,
And Britain's power depend
On war no more.
4.
May just and righteous laws
Uphold the public cause,
And bless our isle.
Home of the brave and free,
Fair land and liberty,
We pray that still on thee
Kind heaven may smile.
5.
And not this land alone-
But be thy mercies known
From shore to shore.
Lord, make the nations see
That men should brothers be,
And from one family
The wide world o'er.

On the other hand, you may have been looking for this song.

Germany famously proclaims that it is above everything else in the world. And so on.

Deutchland Uber Alles doesn't mean that. It means Germany over Lippe-Detmold, Saxe-Weimar, Hesse-Darmstadt etc.

[Asta Kask]

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem

I was looking for this:



It seems that the German phrase in question means "above all other things in importance". As for the implications of that, I think I'll bow out here.

[Iruka]

It seems that the German phrase in question means "above all other things in importance". As for the implications of that, I think I'll bow out here.

The Deutschlandlied only became the german anthem in 1922 during the Weimar Republic.
From 1871 to 1918 the imperial anthem (and unofficial national anthem) was "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", adopted from a hymn to a danish king and sung to the melody of "God save the Queen".

[Aedilred]

No it doesn't. God Save the King/Queen is the national anthem. *snip*

I'll take the liberty of adding the original last verse, one you don't hear often these days...


n.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God Save the King!



Worth noting that while the German national anthem was indeed titled Deutschland uber Alles when written in 1848 the first verse hasn't been sung since WW2, for reasons that are fairly obvious if you look at the lyrics (which describe the bounds of Germany fairly generously by modern standards).

[Asta Kask]

The Deutschlandlied only became the german anthem in 1922 during the Weimar Republic.
From 1871 to 1918 the imperial anthem (and unofficial national anthem) was "Heil dir im Siegerkranz", adopted from a hymn to a danish king and sung to the melody of "God save the Queen".

*looks at "Heil dir..."*

Dear lord, that's even worse.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hey, we haven't changed our national anthem since Norway broke away. It still sort of assumes they are part of us.

[Asta Kask]

That's iffy. Norway was never formally a part of Sweden - the two countries were united under one crown. And they had their own national anthem in 1869 - 35 years before the Union was dissolved. No, I prefer to think that the Swedish national anthem is just confused. There are certainly other signs of it.