Kaiserreich supports merchant subs in 1914

[Dave Bender]

Germany and KuK would have demonstrably benefited from more airplanes.

They would have benefitted more from a lot of other things like early production of light mortars and a light machinegun. Aircraft just weren't a war winning weapon during WWI.

[Baltasar]

I think we're leaving the topic a bit. Let's focus on the merchant subs, shall we?

As we've seen, the industry was dependant on minerals like tungsten or mangan. Some of those are only needed in comparatively small quantities, so the merchant subs could probably alleviated the German problems to a measurable extend if they managed to transport this cargo to Germany. Question being: would it be enough to turn the table?

[BDV]

As we've seen, the industry was dependant on minerals like tungsten or mangan. Some of those are only needed in comparatively small quantities, so the merchant subs could probably alleviated the German problems to a measurable extend if they managed to transport this cargo to Germany. Question being: would it be enough to turn the table?

By themselves I doubt. Although it would be interesting to see how an influx of 20,000-30,000 tons of strategic materials per year would help the german war economy. That's only 30-40 round trips, which a fleet of 25 boats could achieve. Also you're talking influx of hard currency of a quarter to a half billlion dollars for the US industry. This would definitely change the demeanor of US-Entente relationship and US-Germany relationship.

Trouble is, the Kaiser was all wet about his military underlings (who would dump his ass nicely in due time), and did not force the military-politician switcheroo that was amply justified by the fiasco of August-September 1914. And, as seen in Belgium, and then at Verdun, Kluck types would always favor "Triumph of Will" type of convincing over silver pieces' persuasion.

P.S.
Also, German bidding on strategic materials would increase the price of stuff for the Entente. Look at the price of rubber barely budging during the war after its post-1910 price collapse:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/fran ... ber.market

[Dave Bender]

I don't think WWI Germany needs that much. Specialty steels are only a small part of total steel production. And such steel alloys use a relativey small amount of nickel and other such additives.

Does the historical KRA documentation provide annual requirements in tons? Stating that 100% of nickel must be imported isn't terribly helpful.

[Baltasar]

The website I referred to earlier does not cointain such information.

[Takao]

It wasn't that Germany was without these resources, it was simply cheaper to import the materials than it was to mine them. Hence, her mines were not very well developed. Germany was actually getting her nickel from France until 1915(yes, money is more powerful than loyalty). The submarine imports from America helped in 1916, and in 1917 she had expanded her nickel mining operation in Silesia.

Germany had compensated for the paucity of strategic raw materials by reducing how much was used. For example, the proportion of nickel in steel was reduced from 4%-8% down to 1%-3%. The use of Tungsten in her high quality steel was halved. Apparently the were no stoppages of production for want of these materials, but sources on this matter differ. A good source for information pertaining to this is "The First World War: To Arms" by Hew Strachan

What Germany really needed was fertilizer for her food production. Her scientists created many synthetic items during World War I, but did not produce a reliable synthetic fertilizer until after the war had ended. But fertilizer is not a considered a "strategic resource," until you have no food.

[Dave Bender]

I don't know how much nickel was mined in metropolitan France. As I understand it pre-WWI Krupp owned nickel mines on French controlled New Caledonia. Either way WWI Germany must import nickel from the USA, which more then likely is being trans-shipped from Canada.

This sort of pre-war commerce with nations that were diplomatically hostile was perfectly normal. Prior to WWI practically everyone including Britain, France, Russia and the USA, imported toluene from Germany. Toluene is essential for the manufacture of high explosives like TNT, lyddite and melenite. These explosives, either alone or mixed with something else, were used in everything from torpedo warheads to artillery shells.

[stg 44]

During the war, until 1917, Germany was trading with her enemies, mainly because her industrialists were more tempted by money than patriotism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2YqjfH ... 14&f=false

[Takao]

I'm not talking about pre-war commerce, I'm talking about wartime commerce. Look at the date 1915, France and Germany were at war at that time. French businesses were selling nickel to Germany to make a profit. Even though England had declared Nickel to be "Absolute Contraband" in October, 1914, France did not declare Nickel to be contraband until May, 1915, and as such continued to sell it to Germany.

[Dave Bender]

That makes some sense.

France had nickel to sell. They needed money to import massive quantities of coal from Britain and massive quantities of steel from the USA, replacing what they lost at Lille and Briey. I'm ony guessing but France probably used this as diplomatic leverage to obtain a large loan from Britain. In return they would support British restrictions on nickel sales.

[BDV]

During the war, until 1917, Germany was trading with her enemies, mainly because her industrialists were more tempted by money than patriotism.

Interesting assumptions you make here, Herr Assault Rifle Model 44. Assumptions that led Germany to two glorious disasters in the last century... Demonstrably wrong in a general sense. But even moreso given the particulars of WWI's Germany.

Should we duke it out here, or on a separate thread?


P.S. We can go also into the religious affiliation of these alleged traitorous scoundrels, if you care?!? A certain Adolf, son of Schicklgruber, made his political bones by shameless exploiting this alleged factoid, IIRC.

[stg 44]

During the war, until 1917, Germany was trading with her enemies, mainly because her industrialists were more tempted by money than patriotism.

Interesting assumptions you make here, Herr Assault Rifle Model 44. Assumptions that led Germany to two glorious disasters in the last century... Demonstrably wrong in a general sense. But even moreso given the particulars of WWI's Germany.

Should we duke it out here, or on a separate thread?


P.S. We can go also into the religious affiliation of these alleged traitorous scoundrels, if you care?!? A certain Adolf, son of Schicklgruber, made his political bones by shameless exploiting this alleged factoid, IIRC.

I wasn't aware that some of this phase would offend you so much, but it is provable that German industrialists (obviously not all, or most. Rather the trade was usually with France or Russia for just iron or coal.) were trading with the enemy until 1917. If I had to speculate about their religions, which is a pointless exercise, as the issue is not their religion, rather their desire to profit, something business owen would generally like to do, I would say the vast majority were Protestants or Catholics, as these were the most represented religious group in businesses like mining and manufacturing. While I am sure there were some Jews involved in this trade, I don't see what their religion has to do with their running their businesses to profit, even if it comes from the 'other' side.

If anything, the businesses involved in said trade are likely to have supported Hitler's rise when it was convenient for them. Ultimately German industry has had a habit of being more concerned with profit over ethics , but this has nothing to do with religion, but rather a business culture that emphasizes this. Germany was hardly unique in this; they had to trade with someone, so France and Russia at least also engaged in this trade. Should we question the religion of the owners of these businesses too? I am prepared to continue the debate anywhere.

[BDV]

her industrialists were more tempted by money than patriotism.

i.e. - seeing people and their effects (businesses, valuables) as "property" of the "country", that is property of the "state", that is property of the politicians/state leadership, that is those ranging from incompetent criminals to criminally incompetent.

This concept of total nation/country supremacy over the individual, lead directly to the Europe's disastrous century. In the short run (1914) gave birth to the total war concept. In the medium run, it gave birth to the fascist Europe. In the long run, it gave birth to the European Union bureautarchy, which stopped the fighting by abolishing individuals ability to do anything.

So yeah, I've got a big problem with that.

In the short run, a country that prided itself in military prowess should do allow its citizens to engage in all the commerce they can. Remember Vespasian's dictum. Fighting the war is expensive, and profits can be taxed to help fund it.

[Dave Bender]

Britain, France and Russia all conducted wars of aggression during the two decades prior to WWI. Which nation are you referring to?

[Terry Duncan]

Britain, France and Russia all conducted wars of aggression during the two decades prior to WWI. Which nation are you referring to?

Almost nothing seems right with this statement, perhaps you could supply a few examples of these 'wars of aggression' for us to see? It should at least be amusing to see quite how counterfactual the list is. Lets guess;

Britain - The 2nd Boer War - will need ignore the Boers declared war and attacked first - but by that standard the US waged an aggressinve war on Japan in 1941-45.

France - Morocco - will need to ignore that there was no actual war.

Russia - The Russo-Japanese War - Will ignore Japan attacked first against a standing Russian colony and to aquire Korean land.

Of course this would mean Germany had also fought wars of aggression very recently and was hardly peace-loving as you like to claim - the genocidal Herero War etc.