Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[North German Realm]

-snip

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.

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).

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. 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.

Okay first of all the indemnities enforced on France in the Franco-Prussian war was nowhere close to the indemnities forced on Germany (which was also, by the virtue of being the last one standing, forced to pay indemnities on behalf of its allies too) in the First Great War, even then France declared a Sovereign Default in the reparations of that war (though it did pay it in 5 years' time). That said, Germany could -and probably would- absolutely pay the reparations in record time if a select number of events (i.e. the Great Depression) hadn't happened without even forcing its citizens to pay the taxes. The actual problems with the Treaty of Versailles were not about the reparation (which everyone accepted was necessary and the norm after any war).

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Okay first of all the indemnities enforced on France in the Franco-Prussian war was nowhere close to the indemnities forced on Germany (which was also, by the virtue of being the last one standing, forced to pay indemnities on behalf of its allies too) in the First Great War, even then France declared a Sovereign Default in the reparations of that war (though it did pay it in 5 years' time). That said, Germany could -and probably would- absolutely pay the reparations in record time if a select number of events (i.e. the Great Depression) hadn't happened without even forcing its citizens to pay the taxes. The actual problems with the Treaty of Versailles were not about the reparation (which everyone accepted was necessary and the norm after any war).

I'm referring to the actual indemnities paid by Germany between 1919 and 1932. Germany only paid 1/8 of the initial amount, a fraction of reparations owed even after the Young Plan of 1929. And while the French indemnity was smaller than the original value of German reparations, the financial burden was much larger. In 1920, German reparation payments made up around 2.5% of GDP. For France, it was almost 23% of GDP, two and a half times larger than the French annual budget.

[North German Realm]

Okay first of all the indemnities enforced on France in the Franco-Prussian war was nowhere close to the indemnities forced on Germany (which was also, by the virtue of being the last one standing, forced to pay indemnities on behalf of its allies too) in the First Great War, even then France declared a Sovereign Default in the reparations of that war (though it did pay it in 5 years' time). That said, Germany could -and probably would- absolutely pay the reparations in record time if a select number of events (i.e. the Great Depression) hadn't happened without even forcing its citizens to pay the taxes. The actual problems with the Treaty of Versailles were not about the reparation (which everyone accepted was necessary and the norm after any war).

I'm referring to the actual indemnities paid by Germany between 1919 and 1932. Germany only paid 1/8 of the initial amount, a fraction of reparations owed even after the Young Plan of 1929. And while the French indemnity was smaller than the original value of German reparations, the financial burden was much larger. In 1920, German reparation payments made up around 2.5% of GDP. For France, it was almost 23% of GDP, two and a half times larger than the French annual budget.

But you compared the reparations (and for some reason brought up the French Indemnity which had a historical basis in what Napoleon had forced the Prussians to pay in 1807), not the effect it had on the respective people who were supposed to pay the indemnities.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

But you compared the reparations (and for some reason brought up the French Indemnity which had a historical basis in what Napoleon forced the Prussians to pay in 1807), not the effect it had on the respective people who were supposed to pay the indemnities.

Yes, to show how France paid off their indemnities dutifully and before schedule, whereas Germany dragged it out because of political considerations and a lack of enforcement. This is not a unique argument, I recall an economist making a similar point to criticise German demands for austerity in Greece. Basically that German history was a long line of debt forgiveness and it was rather hypocritical. I don't agree with his accusation of hypocrisy, but I think his comparison of France and Germany was spot on.

[North German Realm]

But you compared the reparations (and for some reason brought up the French Indemnity which had a historical basis in what Napoleon forced the Prussians to pay in 1807), not the effect it had on the respective people who were supposed to pay the indemnities.

Yes, to show how France paid off their indemnities dutifully and before schedule, whereas Germany dragged it out because of political considerations and a lack of enforcement. This is not a unique argument, I recall an economist making a similar point to criticise German demands for austerity in Greece. Basically that German history was a long line of debt forgiveness and it was rather hypocritical. I don't agree with his accusation of hypocrisy, but I think his comparison of France and Germany was spot on.

On that, we have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

On that, we have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

Fair enough.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

In other news, I'm moving into my dorm in about... two to three hours. It's a mildly jarring process, I must admit.

Also, I'd like to apologize for if my rhetoric yesterday was acrid/boorish/harsh/uncouth. I know I shouldn't apologize excessively, but I found this situation to necessitate one. In a way, I almost view it as my fault for starting the "Brit v. Yank" pissing match, given that I was the one who brought up the topic of monarchy.

So... yeah. That's all for now.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Why?

To prevent it from ever posing a threat again. A united Germany is as for Britain. Militarily and economically.

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

[Old Tyrannia]

In other news, I'm moving into my dorm in about... two to three hours. It's a mildly jarring process, I must admit.

Also, I'd like to apologize for if my rhetoric yesterday was acrid/boorish/harsh/uncouth. I know I shouldn't apologize excessively, but I found this situation to necessitate one. In a way, I almost view it as my fault for starting the "Brit v. Yank" pissing match, given that I was the one who brought up the topic of monarchy.

So... yeah. That's all for now.

This is a political discussion thread, there's no need to apologise for initiating a discussion about a political topic even if it did lead to an off-topic argument. That's not something that you could have foreseen. I thought our brief discussion about the differences between monarchies and republics, and about the basis of political legitimacy, to be quite interesting.

To prevent it from ever posing a threat again. A united Germany is as for Britain. Militarily and economically.

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

I don't see why it would be unethical for a state to seek to secure the future safety of its citizens by preventing a future threat from arising. A government has no particular moral obligation to the subjects of another state.

[North German Realm]

To prevent it from ever posing a threat again. A united Germany is as for Britain. Militarily and economically.

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

If that's necessary for your own people's continued prosperity (that is to say, the modern state's primary function), yes. Absolutely. Completely. Totally.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

In other news, I'm moving into my dorm in about... two to three hours. It's a mildly jarring process, I must admit.

Also, I'd like to apologize for if my rhetoric yesterday was acrid/boorish/harsh/uncouth. I know I shouldn't apologize excessively, but I found this situation to necessitate one. In a way, I almost view it as my fault for starting the "Brit v. Yank" pissing match, given that I was the one who brought up the topic of monarchy.

So... yeah. That's all for now.

This is a political discussion thread, there's no need to apologise for initiating a discussion about a political topic even if it did lead to an off-topic argument. That's not something that you could have foreseen. I thought our brief discussion about the differences between monarchies and republics, and about the basis of political legitimacy, to be quite interesting.

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

I don't see why it would be unethical for a state to seek to secure the future safety of its citizens by preventing a future threat from arising. A government has no particular moral obligation to the subjects of another state.

I mean, one could make the argument that a government has one moral obligation to the subjects of another state, namely to annex the other state and integrate its subjects into one’s own. If I recall correctly, your country did this quite a bit. A shame that the Empire fell, honestly. You all were this close to unifying the all under heaven beneath the British Crown.

[Lower Nubia]

All these things can be resolved in time, that’s the beauty about forests, their awfully patient.

These things do not deny the reality: population and development will put equal, and greater, powers at the US’s door.

Indeed in the 1860’s I’m sure the UK gave the same arguments about German and US economic and military development lagging behind British gains - yet they blossomed rapidly.

Well one can not predict the future, and sure things can change.
Yes it will put one such power at our door, it already has.

Things will change.

That is the struggle for this century, the US vs the PRC.
We might lose, but we should try our best not to,
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/US-and- ... ips-to-5th

The current estimations about India put them above the US in terms of GDP by 2050-2070. The reality is that economic power will be concentrated in South-East Asia, especially with the emergence of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam too.

I also call into question the source who extrapolate that diminished population will hamper growth of the Chinese economy by 2060, however the Chinese will not be idle in promoting childbirth for further economic expansion. It seems shallow that they would not think to do such a thing

And you should hope so as well, a PRC victory is not to your advantage.

I don’t hope for China, if the EU continues to expand and then federalises, it will by one of the largest economies. We also have to remember the EU has far more potential for growth, especially seeing the least developed eastern states of the Union. It will put my country at a better position being part of one of the largest economies.

Until 2060 at least that will be the competition barring some revolutionary changes.
Beyond that who knows?

The competition involves all the countries I mentioned, GDP growth is tied to population, the US is not excelled in that department.

But until 2060 the US vs PRC is the name of the game. Even by then the other trees are small.

And India and more than likely the EU. India’s GDP growth is 6% with little sign of slowing down, while the EU will likely, by 2050, expand to include Turkey, The Balkan states, Ukraine, and maybe even Russia (in a far more distant future). It seems unlikely that the EU has reached peak power at the moment.

Of course we should continually reassess and make changes as necessary but we have pretty good data predictions up until that point.

China is already growing more rapidly than the US it certainly won’t be long before they outstrip the US in GDP - let alone 2060.

In terms of population the US is expected to remain number 3 until at least past mid century.
And population growth is rapidly slowing most places.

The US does not vastly outperform other countries in terms of population compared to GDP.

Actually demographically the US is doing better than most developed countries, though we should take actions to increase our birth rate, immigration and so on as well as seeing if we can incorporate some new states ideally. We can increase our population. Pretty much on demand via immigration.

Sure we absolutely may fall behind, and will not last forever. So we should seek to do what we can to ensure we remain competitive.

Of course, we wouldn’t want the US to lose its edge.

[Hanafuridake]

Yeah, I don’t actually care about the theology, because you can’t prove any of it.

Yet you're trying to argue over theology here. You can't have it both ways.

The worship of two opposing principles is impossible.

[Greater Loegria]

To prevent it from ever posing a threat again. A united Germany is as for Britain. Militarily and economically.

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

Of course? Why would you jeopardise the security of your own country or even entertain such a possibility?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is it ethical to dismantle a country like it's your bitch, just because it might pose a threat in the future?

Of course? Why would you jeopardise the security of your own country or even entertain such a possibility?

It's not really jeopardizing the security of your country. It's clamping down the iron first to counter a tiny risk.

[Greater Loegria]

Of course? Why would you jeopardise the security of your own country or even entertain such a possibility?

It's not really jeopardizing the security of your country. It's clamping down the iron first to counter a tiny risk.

Tiny risk?

You mean them being able to bounce back and start WW2? Right.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It's not really jeopardizing the security of your country. It's clamping down the iron first to counter a tiny risk.

Tiny risk?

You mean them being able to bounce back and start WW2? Right.

A bit off topic, but do you think Germany will start another major conflict in this century?

[Kowani]

Tiny risk?

You mean them being able to bounce back and start WW2? Right.

A bit off topic, but do you think Germany will start another major conflict in this century?

About as likely as the Sentinelese invading Bolivia.

[Fahran]

Ethnic nationalism and racism can be mutually exclusive.

You'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to reach that.

Not really.

Here, they're viewed as synonymous.

In Europe it doesn't exactly have a good reputation either.

That's because the people most often associated with ethnic nationalism were/are racists.

[Fahran]

That would arguably be a more culture identity than an ethnicity.

Ethnicity is a slippery thing, deeply rooted in culture and identity.

Also I am not sure the South is the example I would use given historically it was practiced hyper racism as a method of uniting whites around the oligarchy.

Yeah, and that's dumb. Black folks who say "y'all" and "ain't" despite living in New York or Chicago are the valorous Southern vanguard, storming the ramparts of Yankee-ism on behalf the glorious, unified, post-racial Southern nation.

[Diopolis]

A bit off topic, but do you think Germany will start another major conflict in this century?

About as likely as the Sentinelese invading Bolivia.

They are awfully aggressive...

[Fahran]

Why?

To prevent it from ever posing a threat again. A united Germany is as for Britain. Militarily and economically.

So we should dismantle China and Russia?

[Kowani]

That would arguably be a more culture identity than an ethnicity.

Ethnicity is a slippery thing, deeply rooted in culture and identity.

Also I am not sure the South is the example I would use given historically it was practiced hyper racism as a method of uniting whites around the oligarchy.

Yeah, and that's dumb. Black folks who say "y'all" and "ain't" despite living in New York or Chicago are the valorous Southern vanguard, storming the ramparts of Yankee-ism on behalf the glorious, unified, post-racial Southern nation.

She says, despite the Great Migration being an effort to get away from the south.

[Fahran]

She says, despite the Great Migration being an effort to get away from the south.

You can't leave the South, not when it lives in your heart.

Please don't actually take that seriously.

[Diopolis]

She says, despite the Great Migration being an effort to get away from the south.

You can't leave the South, not when it lives in your heart.

Please don't actually take that seriously.

It’s lodged in your heart, clogging it up.