View Single Post
  #125 (permalink)  
Old July 17th, 2009, 01:25 PM
redcoat's Avatar
redcoat redcoat is offline
WW2F Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Stockport , England
Posts: 1,277
Salute!: 40
Saluted 80 Times in 53 Posts
redcoat is just really niceredcoat is just really niceredcoat is just really niceredcoat is just really niceredcoat is just really niceredcoat is just really nice
Default Re: Was Churchill overrated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruska View Post
redcoat, would you please be so kind as to forward an occasion between 1900 and before 28th July 1914 , were Prussia threatend any country in Europe by military aggression so as to dominate!!
No actual threats, but Britain did see German dominance of Europe by military aggression as a very real threat. This was not helped by the Haldane Mission of 1912, when British Secretary of State for War Lord Haldane went to Berlin to try to restrain Tirpitz's naval program. In the talks the Germans wanted a conditional promise of British neutrality in a continental war as a price for suspension of the new naval bill.
Tragedy & Hope - Carroll Quigley (Part 5: The First World War: 1914 - 1918)


Quote:
Regarding the armsrace between Europe and Germany "threatening" British and other European army and naval power from 1904 - 1913 in average per/year:

Germany 12.84 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army
UK 12.78 Reichsmark per / head of population on the army

Germany 5.49 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy
UK 17.20 Reichsmark per / head of population on the navy

The UK spend as much per head as Germany on the army.
The UK spend 3times more per head as Germany on the navy

Germany had to stand up against Russia and France in the case of a war - the spendings per head of those two countries are not even included into the above comparrison.

Now with that kind of numerical military spendings in total favour for the "maybe enemies" of Germany you are actually forwarding that Germany: threatened to dominate mainland Europe through military aggression
These figures are quite meaningless in any comparison, Prussia did not have a vast Empire to police and control, Empires are costly to run (why Britain got rid of their Empire so quickly after WW2) Its also true that Britain went on a massive ship building program in response to Prussia's attempts to build a fleet capable of taking on the Royal Navy.
Lets not forget that the Kaiser himself referred to the British army as that 'contemptible little army' which is understandable when you realise that the British were only able to send six infantry divisions and one cavalry division when war first broke out

Read more: The British Army in 1914: World War One's Professional Fighting Force. | Suite101.com


Quote:
Redcoat, so far in our posting dispute Prussia - UK you have absolutly not provided a single proof or document or reference that supports your claims besides forwarding your unsupported personal opinions and trival comments!!
Seeing another poster has politely asked you for a source for the figures you gave above, and you have refused, don't you think this statement is more than a little hypocritical

Quote:
As I stated already before, this posting is getting meaningless and absurd, so if you want to continue come up with documents or reference.
Go on then, lets see yours.
__________________
if in doubt....Panic!!!!