Nice summaries. One detail that brought me up short in reading Ch. 23 was a quotation from one of the British delegation at Genoa which illustrated the unthinking identification of anti-Semitism with anti-Communism at the time. That played out well, as we know, but I hadn't realised that it was such a prevalent assumption so early.
More generally, the short sightedness of Anglo-American attitudes to France continues to amaze me. The country had been a battlefield for four years and had lost about 1,000 men killed per day over that period, as your principal ally. So you then turn around and refuse them any economic concessions while deliberately carving them out of the naval deal. And you wonder why they turn into embittered spoilers!
'founding European security on the disintegration of Germany.'
This part keeps interesting me. A partition wouldn't have been that far from what happened in 1945: Prussia annexed out of existence or separated as East Germany, the remainder, centered in the Rhineland, joined at the hip to France, beginning with coal and steel.
(Not garbled at all.)
Prussia annexed out of existence
Annexed by whom? Poland couldn't have functioned with a reluctant Prussia within its borders. It worked in 1945-6 by ethnically cleansing East Prussia and planting the Red Army in Brandenburg. I don't think either of those could have been done in 1919 even if there'd been the will.
4: I mean the rest of Germany separated from Prussia, as mentioned in the OP. Prussia would still have existed in 1923. And France could have imposed such a partition, at least in terms of military power. Doubtful they could have sustained though. Takes us back to 'snatching peace from the jaws of victory' in 1918.
France could have imposed it for a few years, but they'd have had to print a lot of money to pay for it. And the perfidious Anglo-Saxons drew the line for solidarity a lot lower than that. And as soon as it became possible, Germany would have reunified anyway (see: Saar referendum, 1935; East German Declaration of Accesssion, 1990).
the short sightedness of Anglo-American attitudes to France continues to amaze me
And maybe continues today: 'surrender monkeys', Brexit. I have a suspicion that many of the pathologies of British, especially Tory, politics come from not actually being invaded in WWII, so the country could emerge thinking it had won when in fact it had only survived, and that only with help from allies. In France that dependence couldn't be ignored, in either war. One of the themes in Deluge is that the French realized the limitations of sovereignty much earlier and more deeply than others.
Prussia annexed out of existence
It's interesting that the allies in 1945 went out of their way to formally abolish Prussia specifically. Did Prussia, as distinct from Germany, even exist at the time?
6: True. Interesting to play with though. I wonder how much separation it takes to make partitions work. In South Korea there's steadily dropping support for reunification, the North Koreans who manage to immigrate don't assimilate at all and are treated like dirt; most Taiwanese want independence, Hong Kongers are heading that way; and apparently the Ossies have apparently never really been happy in reunited Germany either.
No wonder. It's a very long way from Australia to Germany.
9: Don't know about the Weimar or Nazi constitutions, but under the Bismarckian 1870 constitution Germany was a confederation of kingdoms, with the king of Prussia simultaneously serving as emperor of Germany. There was also an imperial legislature and budget. Don't remember the details, but the upshot was that Prussia weighed more than the rest combined. Post WWI Prussia definitely still existed as a state/province/whatever.
9: yes, it was one of the constituent states of Weimar Germany.
7 is wrong; until very recently the idea that Britain could survive in "splendid isolation" was reserved to the lunatic fringe. Postwar British foreign policy has revolved around membership of international organisations and alliances. Britain was a founder member of NATO, it has been an enthusiastic ally of the US, it has been one of the few dues-paying members of the UN, British politicians remain largely in favour of EU membership, etc etc.
Though 'Prussia' in 1870 was essentially a sub-empire, with the core Brandenburg-Polish territories, plus all the German territories it had accumulated over the centuries. IIRC it covered about 2/3 of Germany at the time. Presumably all those territories were split off under Weimar. It would be very weird if they weren't. OTOH, Weimar.
14: Let's you and chris fight!
Post WWI, Tooze makes a point of showing inconsistent British engagement with the continent.
Post WWII obviously you're right with regard to the ruling class, but how small was the lunatic fringe in popular opinion? Brexit didn't come from nowhere; one of our British correspondents pointed out the right-wing press has been playing chicken with Brexit for 40 years or so.
I wonder how much separation it takes to make partitions work.
An entirely unscientific sample of my friends and relations there suggests that people in the RoI couldn't give a shit about Irish reunification after 90(?) years. If anything they're unenthusiastic about shouldering the financial burden of the Belfast rust belt. OTOH, in NI, "Nationalist" is still an identity with a powerful history. This will probably be strengthened by Brexit, since NI was one of the sane regions in the referendum.
And Thatcher made a point of negotiating some kind dues-dodging deal about the agricultural policy, right? Even if the real significance was small, she got political traction out of that, or thought she could.
Also "thinking it had won when in fact it had only survived, and that only with help from allies" is a fairly specious description. What would "winning" have looked like, if not like 1945?
I'm not sure about the British case of "winning", but my family was poor when World War II started and moderately well-off when it ended. That was pretty common in the U.S. farm belt.
I thought the summary was great.
This was an interesting period to read about; my school memories are hazy and almost purely domestically focused (the roaring 20s, flappers, prohibition). I remembered the Red/White conflict in Russia and Britain's support, but Corfu and Turkey were new to me, as was the 'alliance of pariahs'.
19: It would have looked like 1815 or 1919: an intact empire, Britain clearly a first-rank power. In 1945 it was second-rank at best, and second by a very large margin. It is a specious description, but my (unscientific) impression of British popular consciousness is that the country totally fails to recognize how much the victory was won by Americans and Soviets, and how totally the British position was shattered worldwide.
Right, "winning" isn't facing rationing and shortages ~15 years after the war ended.
Actually, I've no idea the answer to this question: which country was materially better off in 1950, UK or France? And in 1960?
The intra British Empire politics aspect was interesting. For example, British support for the Greeks in Turkey causing them trouble in India. Not something I'd ever really thought about before.
Here's a map of the states of Weimar. Prussia was split up.
I don't understand why it was still called "the Reich".
I knew Germans spelled stuff wrong, but I had no idea they weren't even close on "Bavaria".
22: At least according to popular legend, it was Suez in 1956 that finally brought the reality of the situation home.
That's what I learned in graduate school.
23: The postwar economics of Europe is something I need to read about. I'm pretty sure Britain was richer in 1950, and they drew level in the 1960s or 70s.
I don't understand why it was still called "the Reich".
Well in one sense Prussia had to be divided because it was literally split into two by the Polish corridor; but a lot of the smaller states that had been entirely annexed by Prussia in the 19th century also seem to have been restored.
22 is a ludicrous standard. You can't say you won a war unless you finish up as an superpower?
Also, presentist. It was pretty widely accepted in the 1920s that WW1, not WW2, marked the end of Britain's career as a superpower. See "1066 and All That", whose final chapter, describing the aftermath of WW1, reads:
A BAD THING
America therefore became Top Nation, and history came to a .
27 is what my parents told me. They were very much alive at the time. My father refused to wear a Homberg for the rest of his life because he was so disgusted, but at the outset Eden had widespread support in the country.
Another point Tooze makes is how much Bismarckian Germany was a Prussian empire, violently assembled and very recent. Things like Bavaria and Wurttemberg pressing for the Versailles terms to be accepted ahead of the national government I'd never heard of.
Right, "winning" isn't facing rationing and shortages ~15 years after the war ended.
So the USSR didn't win the Second World War either, in that case.
23.2: here you go.
http://www.edmundconway.com/2015/02/the-uk-germany-and-france-gdp-over-history/
The lines cross in 1969 and again in 1997.
31: I think the standard for winning is whether or not one achieves one's objectives. If Britain's objective was 'survive', sure they won. But I doubt that Britain's objectives were that limited. The behavior of the country postwar, as in Suez, suggests the political class wanted to survive as a global power with some kind of colonial sphere.
34: Exactly! USA was the only winner! World domination!
Arguing whether or not Britain "won" doesn't seem very productive.
Compared to the rest of what we argue about?
38: I think it might be, for the reasons in 7. Which, what do other British people think? The electorate is evenly divided at this point.
Everything I argue about is of very great import: Trump, the causes and natures of peace, Kanye. The issues of our age.
There's a distinction to be drawn between whether Britain was on the winning side in WWII, which it obviously was by any rational criterion, and whether it "won the war" in the sense that its contribution was the decisive one. In that sense, the decisive contribution of Britain was to have survived until late 1941, which is I think what MC is driving at. The actual death blows in the European war were struck by "American industry and Russian infantry", with Britain as a supporting actor- a valuable supporting actor, but, as Roosevelt's and Stalin's attitude to Churchill in the late war summits showed, nevertheless a supporting actor.
Wouldn't radar and Bletchley Park count as decisive contributions? Perhaps that comes under "survived until late 1941"? (Not to mention there were British scientists working on the A-bomb.) (Of course, the bomb wasn't used in Europe, but it was its use that confirmed the US as a superpower, right?)
44: Those things brought victory faster, but victory was coming anyway. I don't deny that Britain made a vast contribution to the war; my claim is that British popular memory drastically inflates that contribution, while discounting that of others, and largely ignoring the scale of Britain's defeats.
45 is trivially true. And not just of Britain either, but of all its allies. Yes, of course the British contribution was decisive. Of course British popular memory inflates it and discounts the contributions of others.
Your original statement was that "the country emerged thinking it had won when in fact it had only survived, and that only with help from allies" which is rather different.
I don't think it is that different, especially considering the 'downplaying of defeats' part. In terms of global power, Britain was reduced from a global power with a widespread empire to a large European nation state. In that sense it lost the war just as badly as France or the Netherlands; and I reiterate that survival as a global power appears to have been among the objectives of at least the political class, if not the public.
In that sense, the decisive contribution of Britain was to have survived until late 1941
One has trouble imagining what America would have done without that platform for staging, assembling, preparation. Airfields. My temptation is to say...nothing in that theatre. I am open to suggestions.
Thanks, guys. Hopefully it was helpful - I didn't have time to think hard about the questions the chapters raised, unfortunately, so no real analysis on my part. At least after all those years in grad school I can still summarise!
the unthinking identification of anti-Semitism with anti-Communism at the time
I was utterly struck by the vicious anti-Semitism of the British, Chris Y. I knew that it was there, but the examples Tooze chose were particularly striking.
'founding European security on the disintegration of Germany.'
This part keeps interesting me. A partition wouldn't have been that far from what happened in 1945: Prussia annexed out of existence or separated as East Germany, the remainder, centered in the Rhineland, joined at the hip to France, beginning with coal and steel.
I found this fascinating, too - it makes me want to read more about German unification. I've studied 17th century Germany and 20th century Germany, but I've never really thought about or considered the impact of a unified Germany in between these periods. I think my understanding of 19th century Germany can basically be boiled down to 'Bismarck did stuff.'
On the subthread re: did Britain win the war, I really enjoy rankling my father in law (who loves British WWII history) by basically make exaggerated claims to the effect that they did not, unlike us plucky Americans. So fun - I think I now know why trolls do what they do.
48: They would have island hopped to the continent. United States>Cape Verde/Canaries>French North Africa>France. And/or US>Iceland>Scotland/Ireland>GB>France. Would have taken a lot longer, but they could have done it. As is, the North Africa landing in 1942 staged in part all the way from the US, in part from Britain.
49: It was useful, thank you! I also second needing to know more about Germany, in exactly the period you say.
my understanding of 19th century Germany can basically be boiled down to 'Bismarck did stuff.'
If you focus on the 2nd half of the 19th century, this might not be far off.
51 By which time the Red Army would have been in Paris at the very least.
True! And then the Americans would have defeated all the evil empires at once, never have had a Cold War social democratic world order, and allowed everything to go to hell in a handbasket 50 years ago instead of now! Alt-hist is fun!
14 seems to disagree with 15 and 25. As near as I can tell Prussia still existed in all its glory as the Free State of Prussia (i.e., no king after the Hohenzollerns deposed). The Nazis Gaue were much smaller and the real administrative unit, but Prussia and the other states still existed de jure.
On NI/Brexit, have there been any polls as to how closely the vote followed the Nationalist/Unionist line? From eyeballing the maps I'd assume fairly close (i.e. it was mostly Belfast suburbs & County Antrim that voted leave), but I've also heard of DUP ministers telling their constituents to apply for RoI passports.
51 is precious. They would have island hopped their way to an invasion of occupied Europe! Dear God. Because Normandy was dead easy, and the Atlantic is basically just the Channel but wider.
Who needs Britain when you have Newfoundland and the Canary Islands?
I didn't say it would be easy. Admittedly 'it would have taken a lot longer' doesn't do the problem justice, but I maintain it would have been possible. For comparison, does anyone doubt that the US could have invaded Japan? Okinawa-Kyushu is comparable to Algiers-Marseille. Or do you think Germany could have defended the entire North African and West European coast to the same extent they did Normandy? More straightforwardly, do you doubt the US could have nuked the Ruhr?
The discussion is really pointless though, in that Britain not surviving implies a totally different balance of capabilities.
My alternate-history America can beat up your alternate-history America. By construction.
The question is, can it beat up Barry's alternate-history Soviet Union?
But, 59 seems to contradict the earlier part out Britain not winning. That is, if British power was sufficient that Germany never really had a chance of defeating them, that would seem to make them very separate from France and the Netherlands and the like.
Before joining Patton for a tour of northern France, my grandfather spent the first years of the war in Iceland.
You know, if you're island hopping, your next island after that would be Great Britain. Whatever its reason for not participating in the war.
Never really had a chance of invading Britain or blockading it into starvation. But it, and Japan, could and did bleed the empire to death by attrition. Again, survival versus survival-as-global-power.
I try to avoid thinking or reading about wars in themselves or detail, but with Britain conquered or neutral, I did wonder about navies, transport and control of the seas in any scenario of "island hopping" or a North Africa landing.
Anyway, here to troll
Reading Harold Isaacs Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, at the critical point of the Shanghai Massacre, reading Isaacs excoriation of the Comintern and Chinese Communists for their passivity and submission to CKS and the KMT...got to wonder if those who support Isaacs interpretation agree with those who think that Bernie Sanders has committed a fatal error and betrayal in not walking out of Philly and doing a third party run.
I know I never trust the bourgeois or liberals, and as I said, if the major shooting war (Russia or China) starts in a year, those who supported Bernie will likely regret it direly. Sanders and his supporters are no longer in a position to resist catastrophic imperialism or domestic neoliberal betrayal.
61: I'll probably have to change a few more things, but yeah definitely. In my alt-history (really, history fanfic) America they nonsensically minimax the 19th century, kinda like the way S.M. Stirling did with his Draka. Oh, but they do it in a morally upstanding way. Somehow. Lots of "2. ???" going on.
I try to avoid thinking or reading about wars in themselves or detail
This seems something of an oversight in one who professes himself interested in violent political change.
It's a pretty useful characteristic in a troll, though.
Only for some subspecies. Those who do take an interest in such details are especially vulnerable to the well-read troll, as ajay and I demonstrate upthread.
He'd only be vulnerable if he cared about correction. Whichever of you is working on a troll-free alt-history has my vote.
The trolls you will have with you always.
Fine, interesting trolls are acceptable. Evil and engaging ones a plus! But there are limits.
Are those limits before or after accepting the presidential nomination of a major political party?
I ask because I'm thinking of this really outlandish subplot about a reality-TV star.
Can you think of a way to restrict him back to reality TV? Because that would really help us out.
There are limits to how much I want to read from or about them, I mean.
I don't know how far disbelief can be suspended. Something totally random, like being run by Russian spies all along?
I don't see any plausible alt-hists arising from these chapters. It all seems depressingly inevitable.
Prussia was a federal state in the Republic up to 1932. It's the blue one on the map - you can see that it was still fucking enormous compared to the rest. Legally it continued to exist up to 1947, although the Prussian government was taken over by the feds in 1932 as part of one of the crises leading to the Nazi seizure of power.
After WW2, the British (for some reason) were very keen on getting rid of it, and it was actually Herbert Morrison who signed the Allied Control Commission order abolishing the Prussian state. Nordrhein-Westfalen is basically the Rhine Province of Prussia.
If you wanted a territorial solution in the 20s, your best bet might be to cut Prussia down to size and hand much of it to Saxony, its historic rival for power in northern Germany. The French thought about doing this on various occasions. There's a hint of this in the current set-up of Germany - the bit between Brandenburg and NRW is called Lower Saxony. See what they did there?
Am I right in remembering that substantial chunks of Saxony in the east were hacked off and given to Prussia by the Treaty of Vienna because Saxony had been friendly to Napoleon and Prussia had eventually joined the Sixth Coalition. Whether there was any residual feeling about this in Saxony by 1920, I have no idea.
Lower Saxony is based on the historical Kingdom/Electorate of Hannover, which originated as part of the Duchy of Braunschweig. Not part of the Kingdom of Saxony as it existed before the French Revolution.
I am always entertained that the French use "Anglo-Saxon" in a way that very definitely rules out any actual Saxons.
Lower Saxony is, as I understand it, (part of) the original homeland of the Saxon confederacy, whence people migrated to southern England, and where they got beaten up by Charlemagne and eventually Otto the Great emerged to found the Saxon dynasty of emperors. But I think all the territories around Leipzig and Dresden were Saxonised by industrial immigration in the middle ages.
You need to use a linguistic definition. Where do the Saxophones live?
That's confusing. Adolphe Sax was a French speaking Belgian.
So was Hercule Poirot and he figured out who killed Roger Ackroyd.
"The Act of Roger Murgatroyd" and "A Mysterious Affair of Style" by Gilbert Adair are really rather good.
Because I am horribly behind at work, yesterday I read "The Road to Wigan Pier." I'm sure glad they cleaned up at least the parts of Lancastershire that I visited in the 90s.
Ideally, I would have been streaming a Smiths album, but it didn't occur to me at the time.
