Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Lower Nubia]

This only reinforces the fact that Europe was dependent on Confederate cotton. They had to go to extraordinary lengths to even attempt to meet the demand, which the source I originally quoted says they could not.

One of the reasons that Britain didn't intervene was that grain imported from the Union was more important than cotton imported from the Confederacy. Britain wasn't self-sufficient in either department, but obviously not starving comes before having clothes... I guess.

Even if the South had won and grain could be sourced elsewhere the total monopoly of cotton by the Confederacy would never be acceptable. This is literally why the doctrine of "King Cotton" failed, the pride that the world supply was controlled by the confederacy.

[Greater Loegria]

Medium effort. It’s not a proper night if at least one branch of the emergency services don’t get involved.

They told me I would get evicted if I do my usual shit, so I have to keep some level of calm. Back in April I got drunk and jumped off a cliff twice, for example.

Good stuff.

My shenanigans have got me curled up in the footwell of a police car.

I annoyed my halls staff my hanging some freshly shot pheasants from my dorm window.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Even if the South had won and grain could be sourced elsewhere the total monopoly of cotton by the Confederacy would never be acceptable. This is literally why the doctrine of "King Cotton" failed, the pride that the world supply was controlled by the confederacy.

Cotton diplomacy did not fail because of British fears of a Confederate monopoly. The British had been perfectly content to allow that monopoly until the war began. They didn't intervene on behalf of the Confederacy because the Union produced as much as a quarter of their food supply, war with the Union would be disastrous militarily and could result in the loss of Canada not to mention threaten Britain's naval ambitions, and, quite frankly, they had no desire to be involved in the war.
In any case, Britain found itself hard-pressed to replace the Confederate monopoly, as cotton imported from elsewhere, even at its peak during the war, made up less than a third of the bales which were imported from the antebellum South.

[Kowani]

Even if the South had won and grain could be sourced elsewhere the total monopoly of cotton by the Confederacy would never be acceptable. This is literally why the doctrine of "King Cotton" failed, the pride that the world supply was controlled by the confederacy.

Cotton diplomacy did not fail because of British fears of a Confederate monopoly. The British had been perfectly content to allow that monopoly until the war began. They didn't intervene on behalf of the Confederacy because the Union produced as much as a quarter of their food supply, war with the Union would be disastrous militarily and could result in the loss of Canada not to mention threaten Britain's naval ambitions, and, quite frankly, they had no desire to be involved in the war.
In any case, Britain found itself hard-pressed to replace the Confederate monopoly, as cotton imported from elsewhere, even at its peak during the war, made up less than a third of the bales which were imported from the antebellum South.

Also, after the Emancipation Proclamation, Public opinion in the UK shifted quite strongly into the side of the Union.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

I'm not fond of quote spirals, so I'll respond by broadly answering your points. Firstly, I don't believe the Anglo-Americans had malicious intent by renegotiating reparations to be more forgiving, I just think that it was misguided, especially with the benefit of hindsight. They gave Germany a grace period to build up its industry, while the reliance on foreign loans resulted in an economic crisis and slide into radicalism. So the initial goal of helping keep Germany stable and integrated into the European economy failed miserably.

Missed this earlier.

Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't mean that the treaty wasn't unfair.

As for whether Germany could pay reparations, I'm afraid we're at an impasse. I subscribe to the view of economists and historians such as Etienne Mantoux and Sally Marks. Even A.J.P. Taylor, who accused the treaty of Versailles of having no moral validity, agreed that Mantoux had debunked Keyne's arguments that Germany could not afford reparations. And most modern historians generally agree, regardless of their opinions on reparations as being payable or not, that Germany's immediate economic troubles were not caused by reparations, but war debt and generous social benefits for veterans. Austria, for example, suffered similar hyperinflation without accompanying reparations (because the peacemakers realised Austria couldn't afford them).

You're most likely much more knowledgable about economics than I am, and so I will agree to disagree with you on this one.

I will say that, the reparations generally just put the German government in a very difficult situation, and at the very least they exacerbated the tensions and economic difficulties that followed.

As for France, they were able to pay nearly as much as Germany (from 1919-32) in two years, with an economy twice as small. These reparations were intended to cripple France for thirty years, but the French Republic borrowed from its citizens and introduced necessary reforms to get the job done.

This is actually a common misconception. The French Indemnity was paid off almost entirely with loans from the Bank of France and some foreign countries (including Germany). Their response to the Indemnity was quite similar to Germany's response to the Versailles reparations, except that the French introduced reforms afterward which helped to rebuild the economy.

While I concede that paying reparations would have been politically suicidal for the German government, I don't think that's a legitimate excuse not to pay. If you owe a debt, you can't just refuse to pay it because your family would get pissed off. But of course, without a clear mechanism for enforcement, Germany got off rather lightly. That mistake was not made the second time.

It's less like pissing off your family and more like pissing off many, very dangerous, and very influential factions in your country, as well as literally all of your constituents, who very much have the power to overthrow you at any time.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

Also, after the Emancipation Proclamation, Public opinion in the UK shifted quite strongly into the side of the Union.

Public opinion in Britain generally favored the Union due to the strength of the Abolitionist movement there, whereas the upper classes of Britain generally favored the Confederacy for a variety of reasons. Either they had familial or business ties to the South, or thought that the South's victory would cripple the United States and reinforce British supremacy.

[Lower Nubia]

Even if the South had won and grain could be sourced elsewhere the total monopoly of cotton by the Confederacy would never be acceptable. This is literally why the doctrine of "King Cotton" failed, the pride that the world supply was controlled by the confederacy.

Cotton diplomacy did not fail because of British fears of a Confederate monopoly. The British had been perfectly content to allow that monopoly until the war began. They didn't intervene on behalf of the Confederacy because the Union produced as much as a quarter of their food supply, war with the Union would be disastrous militarily and could result in the loss of Canada not to mention threaten Britain's naval ambitions, and, quite frankly, they had no desire to be involved in the war.
In any case, Britain found itself hard-pressed to replace the Confederate monopoly, as cotton imported from elsewhere, even at its peak during the war, made up less than a third of the bales which were imported from the antebellum South.

But we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where the confederacy survives past the civil war into an alliance with the French and British. The bottle neck of cotton trade during the civil war would still occur, furthering the development of cotton production in India and Egypt. Meaning that when the civil war ends with a confederate victory, the confederacy now competes with imperial production elsewhere.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

But we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where the confederacy survives past the civil war into an alliance with the French and British. The bottle neck of cotton trade during the civil war would still occur, furthering the development of cotton production in India and Egypt. Meaning that when the civil war ends with a confederate victory, the confederacy now competes with imperial production elsewhere.

This understanding is ignorant of history. Even historically, where the South lost the Civil War, Britain abandoned Egyptian and Indian cotton in favor of cheaper American-produced cotton. In a scenario where the economy and plantations of the South were not devastated and Confederate cotton exporters were able to continue using cheap labor, American cotton would have been even cheaper and more plentiful, and Britain would have been even more eager to switch to it over the costlier and meager Egyptian and Indian cotton.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Hindsight is 20/20. That doesn't mean that the treaty wasn't unfair.

I don't buy this idea that the treaty was unfair on Germany. Germany dragged France, Belgium and Britain into the war, and German troops marched through foreign streets while exploiting Franco-Belgian industry. Germany's industrial base was relatively untouched by the war, not so for France. When there's vigorous debate on Versailles among historians, you cannot say unilaterally that it was unfair.

This is actually a common misconception. The French Indemnity was paid off almost entirely with loans from the Bank of France and some foreign countries (including Germany). Their response to the Indemnity was quite similar to Germany's response to the Versailles reparations, except that the French introduced reforms afterward which helped to rebuild the economy.

I'll concede that, nevertheless, France succeeded where Germany failed, even though the financial burden was larger (23% to 2.5% of GDP).

It's less like pissing off your family and more like pissing off many, very dangerous, and very influential factions in your country, as well as literally all of your constituents, who very much have the power to overthrow you at any time.

The point still stands. Whether or not it was politically convenient to pay reparations, Germany had an obligation to pay, and no amount of catastrophising can avert that. Again, this is made abundantly clear with the benefit of hindsight. Germany didn't pay (much) and it still ended up in the toilet.

[Proctopeo]

I'd personally give Austria-Hungary and Serbia more blame for starting the war than Germany.

Germany was just the competent member of its alliance, but not responsible for the war itself happening. No more than any country that's not Austria-Hungary and Serbia, anyway.

[Totally Not OEP]

I’m sauced send help

[United Muscovite Nations]

I’m sauced send help

Get a different living situation tbh.

[Totally Not OEP]

I’m sauced send help

Get a different living situation tbh.

I’m in a house full of sorority girls and you’re not Arthur

[United Muscovite Nations]

Get a different living situation tbh.

I’m in a house full of sorority girls and you’re not Arthur

Yes, and that's a very sinful living situation.

[Totally Not OEP]

I’m in a house full of sorority girls and you’re not Arthur

Yes, and that's a very sinful living situation.

Bro, don’t knock it till you made it there.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, and that's a very sinful living situation.

Bro, don’t knock it till you made it there.

I can knock it because it speaks against the principles of Christian living to live in a house with "three women and a stripper pole."

[Crysuko]

Bro, don’t knock it till you made it there.

I can knock it because it speaks against the principles of Christian living to live in a house with "three women and a stripper pole."

and if one happens to not care about such principles?

[United Muscovite Nations]

I can knock it because it speaks against the principles of Christian living to live in a house with "three women and a stripper pole."

and if one happens to not care about such principles?

OEP claims to when he denounces adultery and divorce.

[Crysuko]

and if one happens to not care about such principles?

OEP claims to when he denounces adultery and divorce.

you misunderstand, he's engaging in the age old christian tradition of cherrypicking

[Proctopeo]

and if one happens to not care about such principles?

OEP claims to when he denounces adultery and divorce.

it's only adultery if someone involved is married
:rollsafe:

[United Muscovite Nations]

OEP claims to when he denounces adultery and divorce.

you misunderstand, he's engaging in the age old christian tradition of cherrypicking

Hypocrisy, the sin which Christ denounces more than any other.

[Crysuko]

you misunderstand, he's engaging in the age old christian tradition of cherrypicking

Hypocrisy, the sin which Christ denounces more than any other.

fascinating

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Imagine if more righties lived to the values they espouse. Perhaps the right wouldn't be in such a parlous state.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hypocrisy, the sin which Christ denounces more than any other.

fascinating

Christ criticized hypocrites so harshly that the word Pharisee, which originally referred to a sect of Judaism, took on a negative connotation because of it.

[Totally Not OEP]

When I’m sober y’all are fucked