How come germany is as succesful historically as france and britain without having an atlantic coast thus no...

How come germany is as succesful historically as france and britain without having an atlantic coast thus no significant colonial empire

Attached: Pepe.jpg (647x567, 27.74K)

>germany is as succesful historically as france and britain
they weren't though
maybe as successful currently, but not historically

>successful historically
Their country is younger than america

Jews

Because Europe had colonies because they were rich and powerful and not the other way around.

Germany was AFK until 1870s. They still had enough coast to colonize Dutch style if they wanted to.

They were able to rent seek on foot trade because of their location.

>germany is as succesful historically
?

Germany hasn’t been successful historically at all lmao, maybe only in the past decades

dutch had colonial empires and they're just bog germans

More like Germans are mongrelized Dutchies

germany has literally never succeeded

What made you come to that conclusion?

A lot of colonial empires, particularly African ones, were not that historically relevant. Every historian, both left and right, admits that the colonization oof Africa was a net loss and mostly undertaken as a dickwaving contest by the French in order to pretend we were still relevant in the face of Germany in the end of the XIXth century. But economically it was a loss, despite a profitable period in the early XXth century.
Only a sellect few colonies were ever really profitable and impactful, thay being Spanish South America, British India, Dutch Indonesia French Algeria, French West Indies and French Indochina.
Even then, one could make a case for Spanish South America bankrupting them due to mismanagement, and the abandonment of Dutch Indonesia being so successful that the "Dutch example" prompted a major decolonial movement within the French elite, as it turned out the Dutch became richer after giving up Indonesia.
Other ventures, particularly French Subsaharan Africa and British Subsaharan Africa were major wastes of money.

Well Germany wasn't really a united political entity until 1871. By that time it could harness the advancements in industrialization via organizational and institutional centralization. Another boon was that the various different german states focused mostly on their internal development, so that when united many resources, industries and infrastructures became available.

>as succesful historically as france and britain
Not even close.

coal reserves and france managed to obtain power before vehicles and machinery.

Attached: coal reserve.jpg (748x826, 219.66K)

netherlands is a fake country. it is built on reclaimed land from the north sea, with germans going to populate the new lands. you see the dutch are at the mouth of the rhine, and they speak a rhine german dialect. dutch identity is just a grift created by a bunch of germans that wanted to control and extract rents from the mouth of the rhine river

>germany
>as succesful historically as france and britain
kek

france could be easily preyed upon by stronger countries if they ever so desire because france has no oil, coal or iron for modern age but it has nukes now.

germanics are more successfull than anglos and frogs combined
thats all that matters, kneel spastics

Anglos are just as Germanic as Germans

Anglos and Frogs are Germanic tribes
The history of Germany is very tragic desu
Their modern day success is inspirational

Attached: oil production.jpg (617x954, 193.04K)