What year to start in Alternate 1914

Fine, I’m sending it now

Ha! You think you can defeat me with cringe? I’ve seen worse than what you can throw! Bring it on!

-launches minuteman ICBM-

Nukes give me more power. This is why we are starting in 1910.

Inside is barbieheimmer

Did I spell that right??

The British Army had almost always been famous for it's very good discipline and effective size,

Carking the 6th wrote:

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Germany was definitely more powerful. They managed to defeat Russia, and almost break France a Britain at the same time, while having to prop up their useless allies. Had this been Germany alone VS. France and Russia, I think they would have won.

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Ah I meant military in general. I always do that. Britain had the strongest military overall…

That’s somewhat debatable at first, since their poorly drilled and some land force at the start really weighed down their navy, allowing dance with a great navy and super strong army to beat UK with a decent army and Super strong navy. As they grew in size and training though, combined with their performance against a major rebellion and 3 world powers, I’d be inclined to agree. They remained the stringers military up until Napoleon.

Perhaps… but they knuckled down essentially after 1801, to form a formal coalition to defeat napoleon. They were certainly the richest nation, and could use that to their advantage, and did.

Still, it took a coalition to bring them down. The UK alone probably was weaker. At least until after 1812.

Not against napoleon - they just didn’t have enough interests there. Napoleon was an insanely good general - with anyone else, the British would just win by default. Essentially the first french revolutionary war was won by napoleon because there was no solid coalition against them, and the British didn’t commit enough. Perhaps you’re right but I would argue for britain being stronger.in any case, britain were the undisputed strongest power until around the 1930s

You are 100% right economically, but counting generals and that more subjective category, the First French Empire and Imperial Germany were definitely more powerful than Britain. Once the UK committed it still took many coalitions and a lot of effort to take down France. And in WW1, the German army was significantly stronger, while their fleet was rapidly growing in a close second (Anglo-German naval arms race). I also think the US overtook Britain in the 20’s, their massive economic power made it so that when the U.S. would inevitably use its industry, it would rapidly become the most powerful force on Earth (which it did when japan made a mistake).

I would like to direct you to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica

The US certainly did not overtake Britain in the 1920s, that was 1943 when the UK shifted from producing warships to predominantly convoys, and also the fact that we were still following the treaty of London (about ship size), which no one else was following, and that the US, as you rightly pointed out was using the insane amounts of the industry it had, if isolationism had never been big in America (but it will always be) they could have been much stronger much quicker.

I will say though that people still saw UK and France as world powers until 1956, at Suez, that is when the Second British Empire ended.

Zaktty wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Germany was definitely more powerful. They managed to defeat Russia, and almost break France a Britain at the same time, while having to prop up their useless allies. Had this been Germany alone VS. France and Russia, I think they would have won.

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Ah I meant military in general. I always do that. Britain had the strongest military overall…

That’s somewhat debatable at first, since their poorly drilled and some land force at the start really weighed down their navy, allowing dance with a great navy and super strong army to beat UK with a decent army and Super strong navy. As they grew in size and training though, combined with their performance against a major rebellion and 3 world powers, I’d be inclined to agree. They remained the stringers military up until Napoleon.

Perhaps… but they knuckled down essentially after 1801, to form a formal coalition to defeat napoleon. They were certainly the richest nation, and could use that to their advantage, and did.

Still, it took a coalition to bring them down. The UK alone probably was weaker. At least until after 1812.

Not against napoleon - they just didn’t have enough interests there. Napoleon was an insanely good general - with anyone else, the British would just win by default. Essentially the first french revolutionary war was won by napoleon because there was no solid coalition against them, and the British didn’t commit enough. Perhaps you’re right but I would argue for britain being stronger.in any case, britain were the undisputed strongest power until around the 1930s

You are 100% right economically, but counting generals and that more subjective category, the First French Empire and Imperial Germany were definitely more powerful than Britain. Once the UK committed it still took many coalitions and a lot of effort to take down France. And in WW1, the German army was significantly stronger, while their fleet was rapidly growing in a close second (Anglo-German naval arms race). I also think the US overtook Britain in the 20’s, their massive economic power made it so that when the U.S. would inevitably use its industry, it would rapidly become the most powerful force on Earth (which it did when japan made a mistake).

I disagree that Imperial Germany was stronger than the British Empire, Germany was good, but they were plagued by faults in their leadership, they were small for an empire and their trade could be severely damaged by Britain (Not to say that wasn't vice versa).

I would like to direct you to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Britannica

The US certainly did not overtake Britain in the 1920s, that was 1943 when the UK shifted from producing warships to predominantly convoys, and also the fact that we were still following the treaty of London (about ship size), which no one else was following, and that the US, as you rightly pointed out was using the insane amounts of the industry it had, if isolationism had never been big in America (but it will always be) they could have been much stronger much quicker.

I will say though that people still saw UK and France as world powers until 1956, at Suez, that is when the Second British Empire ended.

I disagree about the US - by the 1920s they just had a crazy economy. The UK was badly hit by WW1, with fewer workers, a downturn in the economy, and military spending being incredibly unpopular. You could even argue by 1919 the US overtook the UK.

Leave it to the British to clog the thread

SamPGS_17 wrote:

Agreed about Suez - people definitely realised the UK was declining slightly, but it only really hit home when they lost to Egypt. The Falklands war helped restore their reputation slightly though.

I disagree about the US - by the 1920s they just had a crazy economy. The UK was badly hit by WW1, with fewer workers, a downturn in the economy, and military spending being incredibly unpopular. You could even argue by 1919 the US overtook the UK.