如果没有殖民亚洲和非洲，欧洲还会成为“发达地区”吗？
Could Europe have ''developed'' without colonizing Asia and Africa?
译文简介
当然可以。欧洲的经济霸权依赖于内在的因素和新世界（美洲）的殖民化。其他地方都是多余的。
正文翻译
Could Europe have 'developed' without colonizing Asia and Africa?
如果没有殖民亚洲和非洲，欧洲还会成为“发达地区”吗？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 3 )
收藏
, I am the West African History Guy
Sure.
European economic hegemony rested on intrinsic factors and the colonisation of the New World. Everywhere else was surplus to requirements.
Everyone knows this map by now, yes?
Throw in the time-bound contributions of the Caribbean Isles, and you get a clear picture of the only territories the Europeans needed/need.
Everywhere else is surplus to requirements.
, 喜欢西非历史
当然可以。
欧洲的经济霸权依赖于内在的因素和新世界（美洲）的殖民化。其他地方都是多余的。
下面这张图大家应该都很熟悉吧？
抛开加勒比群岛在某一段时间内有过一定的贡献，从这张图你就能清楚地看到欧洲人唯一需要的领土是哪里。
其他地方都是多余的需求。
Most people seem to be unaware that most of Europe didn't have colonies, including, most especially, the countries that are now the most developed of the entire continent (in fact, some of them were themselves conquered and ruled by foreigners, like Finland, Poland and Ireland), or had only minor colonies directly ruled for a pretty short time that didn't make much of a difference to them economically.
Even more numerous are the European countries that really took off and became developed only in the post-colonial times, especially between the 1940s and 1990s, including old colonial powers such as Spain and, even more so, Portugal. They virtually stagnated after the mid 17th century, despite having many colonies.
So, even analyzing Europe as it is and as it was, it's clear colonialism didn't do that much to make European societies rich and developed. In most cases, it seems that what happened was that colonialism was the consequence, not the cause, of the European “great divergence”: because some European countries had become more technologically advanced and wealthier than most other areas, they could even plan to invest on trying to reach and conquer lots of disparate lands and still be successful at that in a relatively short time.
Italy and Flanders, for instance, were the wealthiest parts of Europe by 1400–1500 A.D., even if they weren't exactly big pioneers of the great navigations and far and wide colonial enterprises (that position was taken by Portugal and Spain and, only many decades later, the French, British and Dutch).
What colonialism and overseas imperialism did a lot was to make some European individuals, a tiny elite class, very wealthy and, perhaps even more than that, very prideful in their social and political status. In some places, colonial endeavors were even detrimental to the large majority of the society, diverting precious taxes and human workforce (and lives, too) from the people of the metropolitan countries to their colonies, needed to make investments, sustain the entire bureaucracy there and to keep tight military control on them.
大多数人似乎都不了解的一点是，欧洲大多数国家都没有殖民地，尤其包括现在整个欧洲大陆最发达的国家（事实上，其中一些欧洲国家本身就是被外国人征服和统治的，比如芬兰、波兰和爱尔兰），或者只在相当短的时间内拥有直接统治的小殖民地，在经济上对自身没有什么影响。
更多的欧洲国家是在后殖民时代才真正起飞和发展起来的，特别是在1940年代和1990年代之间，包括老牌殖民国家，如西班牙，甚至是葡萄牙，后者在17世纪中期以后几乎停滞不前，尽管拥有许多殖民地。
因此，对现在的欧洲和过去的欧洲进行分析，很明显，殖民主义并没有为欧洲社会的富裕和发展做多大贡献。在大多数情况下，似乎发生的情况是，殖民主义是欧洲"大分化"的结果，而不是原因：因为一些欧洲国家在技术上变得比其他大多数地区更先进，更富有，他们甚至可以计划投资于试图到达和征服许多遥远的土地，并在相对较短的时间内在这方面取得成功。之后，理所当然地，一个过程以辩证（和滚雪球）的方式相互加强和促进了另一个过程。
例如，公元1400-1500年，意大利和佛兰德斯是欧洲最富有的地区，即使他们并不是伟大的航海和拥有遥远而广泛的殖民企业的先驱（这一地位被葡萄牙和西班牙以及几十年后的法国、英国和荷兰所取代）。
殖民主义和海外帝国主义所做的很多事情是使一些欧洲人，一个极小的精英阶层，变得非常富有，而且，也许比这更多的是，使这些人对他们的社会和政治地位感到非常自豪。而在一些地方，殖民主义的行为其实对社会上的大多数人都是有害的，他们把宝贵的税收和人力（还有生命）从原生国家的人民那里转移到他们的殖民地，进行投资，维持那里的整个官僚机构，并对他们进行严格的军事控制。
Not quite.
The likes of Portugal and Spain took off relative to other European countries. They were much richer than the rest of the world. They were also more powerful in Europe when they could still live off rents from their New World colonies. Losing those and keeping the rest was a burden.
The New World, SA and Australia are the only valuable pieces of real estate. Everywhere else shoulda been left alone.
The colonisation of the New World was indispensable to European industrialisation because of how important it was to England's prosperity. Without England; no industrialisation.
The 20th-century European industrialisers you mentioned were participants in the second and third industrialisation. A process that would have been impossible without the first. The first would not have happened without the colonisation of the New World.
并非如此。
相对于其他欧洲国家，葡萄牙和西班牙这样的国家依靠殖民地就起飞了。他们比世界其他国家要富裕得多。当他们还能依靠从新世界殖民地收来的“租金”过活时，他们在欧洲也强大得多。失去了这些而保留了其余部分才是一种负担。
新世界（北美）、南美和澳大利亚是唯一有价值的地方。其他地方的殖民地都应该被抛弃。
新世界的殖民化对欧洲的工业化是不可或缺的，因为它对英国的繁荣极其重要。没有英国，就没有工业化。
你提到的20世纪的欧洲工业化国家是第二次和第三次工业化的参与者。如果没有第一次工业化，就没有第二次第三次。而如果没有新大陆的殖民化，第一次工业化就不会发生。
Yes, it's a tricky one alright.
Unfortunately, we have no shortage of English Quorans in particular who peddle the line the Britain didn't profit from the British Empire because of the prohibitive costs of running the empire. However, Britain and Europe ultimately became rich through trading lixs built on the back of the empire building.
As you point out, even if a European region didn't have a colony, it traded with those who did.
Sure, it was only an elite few who profited from this exploitation, but the systems (finance, trade, inventions, transport) to support it benefitted the development of Europe as a whole.
The problem is Europeans look at the great buildings of old and think of it as a golden age and see it as proof of European exceptionalism rather proof of elitism.
There is also no shortage of opulent old buildings in Latin America which display the former wealth of the elite in colonial times. Hell, you may see some opulent new buildings in Latin America belonging to a cartel or two or in the form of a presidential palace Is that proof of exceptionalism?
是的，这是种狡诈的推脱。
不幸的是，这个网站上并不缺乏那种兜售“因为经营帝国的成本太高，所以英国本身并没有从大英帝国获利”论调的英国人。然而不管他们怎么说，英国和欧洲最终确实通过建立在帝国这座大厦背后的贸易联系而变得富有。
正如你所指出的，即使某个欧洲国家没有殖民地，它也与那些有殖民地的地区进行贸易。
当然，只有少数精英从这种剥削中获利，但支持这种剥削的系统（金融、贸易、发明、运输）使整个欧洲的发展受益。
问题是现在的欧洲人看着那些古老伟大的建筑，认为这是一个欧洲的黄金时代，并将其视为欧洲例外论的证明，而不是欧洲精英主义的证明。
在拉丁美洲也不乏展示了殖民时代精英财富的富丽堂皇的古建筑。你甚至可能会在拉丁美洲看到一些属于一两个卡特尔（垄断企业）的富丽堂皇的新建筑，甚至以总统府的形式出现，但你会认为那是拉丁美洲例外主义而不是精英主义的证明吗？
As Ygor Coelho mentioned, it’s not quite as simple as that.
Europe definitely benefited enormously from its blessed geography, which allowed it to prosper at the expense of the Americas and Africa, but Spain and Portugal were ruined by their colonial endeavors, largely because their rulers frittered the wealth of colonialism away on fighting foreign wars.
Furthermore, Portugal and Spain got in on the colonialism game at the very beginning, when there were still plenty of kinks to work out, as controlling vast colonies overseas was extremely expensive and inefficient.
The real reason Britain and to a lesser extent the rest of Europe prospered due to colonialism was because the Triangle Trade provided a massive impetus to the development of technologies such as shipbuilding and weapons manufacturing.
War, government debt financing and the trade in drugs and slaves furnished the start-up capital to begin industrialization, as well as furnishing the modern financial instruments, advanced division-of-labor systems and legal institutions needed for the development of modern capitalism.
I highly recommend the late David Graeber’s book Debt The First 5000 Years and its chapter on early modern history.
Basically, it all started when states became better at squeezing taxes out of their populations, which they then used to invade and subjugate new populations to tax. Although government revenues skyrocketed, so did the costs of maintaining standing armies of professional soldiers that grew ever larger, causing governments to borrow money and create increasingly elaborate financial instruments to keep themselves solvent. This is the origin of modern banking systems and financial markets.
All of this was supercharged by the fact that these states were cashing in on the ludicrously lucrative trade in slaves, weapons and drugs/alcohol/sugar/tobacco.
All of these government expenditures and indebtedness of course, created massive war profiteering, and it was these war profits, the theft of common lands from the peasants by the gentry, the massive repressive/legal machinery of the modern Leviathan State that gave birth to modern capitalism.
正如Ygor Coelho所提到的，事情并没有那么简单。
欧洲无疑从其得天独厚的地理条件中受益匪浅，这使得它能够以牺牲美洲和非洲为代价实现繁荣，但西班牙和葡萄牙却被他们的殖民主义所毁，主要是因为他们的统治者将殖民攫取的财富浪费在了对外战争上。
此外，葡萄牙和西班牙在一开始就参与了殖民主义这场游戏，而当时在这方面还有很多问题需要解决，因为控制庞大的海外殖民地是非常昂贵和低效的。
英国以及小部分欧洲其他国家因殖民主义而繁荣的真正原因是，三角贸易为造船和武器制造等技术的发展提供了巨大推动力。
战争、政府债务融资以及毒品和奴隶贸易为最初的工业化提供了启动资金，并为现代资本主义的发展提供了现代金融工具、先进的劳动分工体系和法律制度。
我强烈推荐已故的大卫-格雷伯的《债务的最初五千年》一书及其中关于早期现代历史的章节。
基本上，这一切都始于国家变得更善于从其人口中榨取税收，然后他们利用这些税收来入侵和征服新的人口来征税。虽然政府收入激增，但维持由职业军人组成的常备军的成本也越来越大，导致政府要借钱并创造越来越复杂的金融工具来保持自己的偿付能力。这就是现代银行系统和金融市场的起源。
所有这一切都因为这些国家从利益巨大的奴隶、武器和毒品/酒精/糖/烟草贸易中套现而得到了加强。
当然，所有这些政府开支和债务都创造了大规模的战争暴利，而正是这些战争利润、乡绅从农民手中窃取的公共土地、现代利维坦国家的大规模镇压/法律机制，催生了现代资本主义。
sure they would have been developed, but colonization did hampered developement of colonies and by hampered i mean stopped, in india the british forced farmers to grow cash crops for raw material in factories in UK, and strictly prohibited selling to local people, and only to company for dirt cheap, this not only led to famines but destroyed native indian garment industry (industry is not correct word, since it was all handmade/manual, i don't know the correct word) also the cheap produce from UK factories flodded indian market forcing majority of indian producers out of business, meanwhile ensuring no technological think comes to india, just another example, british laid railways to carry the loot to ports, for which they need engines/boogies, despite local manufacturers providing cheaper product with equivalent quallity, they imported every gram of material from UK, to prevent local manufractrers do bussiness, intrestingly the whole project was funded by indian taxpayers money.
（殖民地在被殖民过程中）当然会被开发，但是殖民化确实阻碍了殖民地的发展，我这里说的“阻碍”是“停止”的意思，在印度，英国强迫农民为身处英国的工厂种植经济作物作为原材料，并严格禁止向当地人出售，并且以非常便宜的价格卖给东印度公司，这不仅导致了印度发生饥荒，而且摧毁了印度本土服装业（工业不是正确的词，因为它都是手工制作的，我也不知道用什么词比较好）英国工厂的廉价产品也淹没了印度市场，迫使大多数印度生产商停业，同时确保印度无法发展技术思想，再举一个例子，英国铺设铁路将战利品运送到港口，为此他们需要发动机，然而尽管当地制造商可以提供同等质量的更便宜的产品，他们还是从英国进口每一克材料，以防止当地制造商做生意，有趣的是，整个项目都是由印度纳税人的钱资助的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
No. Colonies are some of the most developed places in the world. People misuse that word. Colonisation is a sub-category of conquest and empire not the things themselves. That is why we do not write of the USA colonising Japan.
Indian development was not stopped. It simply could not have competed with an industrialised economy because of the massive investment needed for industries.
It was the shift of India’s comparative advantage by British industrialisation that caused India’s relative decline compared to the industrialised countries. Certain Indian industries developed under the Raj, textiles and Jute especially. India was second only to Japan as an Asian industrial power in the early 20th-century.
The problem was that those industries could not provide enmasse employment. A problem that India still has today. Agriculture is also still India’s largest employer demonstrating how little those terms of trade have changed.
Your comment assumes the British were supermen. Often, the easiest answer to why the British didn’t do A is that they couldn’t. The Viceroys couldn’t industrialise India. They couldn’t even keep the Americans and Germans from surpassing them.
不，殖民地是世界上最发达的一些地方。人们误用了这个词。殖民化是“征服与帝国”下的一个子类别，而不是事物本身。这就是为什么我们不称呼为美国殖民日本的原因。
印度的发展并未停止。由于工业需要大量投资，它根本无法与工业化的经济竞争。
正是英国的工业化转移了印度的比较优势，导致印度相对于工业化国家相对的衰落。印度的某些工业在英国统治时期得到了发展，特别是纺织品和黄麻。在20世纪初，印度是仅次于日本的亚洲工业大国。
问题是，这些工业不能提供大量的就业机会。今天，印度仍然存在这个问题。农业也仍然是印度提供就业的最大雇主，这表明这些贸易条件没有什么变化。
你的评论是建立在英国人是超人的假设下的。通常情况下，对于英国人为什么不去做某一件事的疑问，最简单的答案就是他们做不到。英属印度总督们无法使印度工业化。他们甚至不能阻止美国人和德国人超过英国自己。
NOO!! are you kidding me, british laws and actions were to not let india industrialize, british forced farmers to grow things like indigo, cotton, etc. this not only created artificial famine but also the farmers were given dirt cheap prices for their cotton, to feed mills in Manchester, not India, and cheap factory goods replaced indian handmade good, traders could not keep up, most of them went out of business, some who had the capital did built some mills to compete but they were very small scale, and that too only parsis like TATAs who were close to british. and that too when British factories were busy making bombs for ww1
by the time of Indian independence, 72% of the population was involved in agriculture, Infact not more then 1% of Indian population worked in “Registered” factories.
不！你在开玩笑吧，英国的法律和行动就是不让印度工业化，英国人强迫印度农民种植靛蓝、棉花等东西。这不仅造成了人为的饥荒，而且农民的棉花也只能卖非常便宜的价格，用来养活处于曼彻斯特的工厂，而不是印度的。英国廉价的工厂产品取代了印度的手工产品，印度商人无法跟上，他们中的大多数都倒闭了，一些有资本的印度人确实建立了一些工厂来竞争，但他们的规模非常小，而且都是像塔塔集团这样与英国人关系密切的合作者，而且那时候还恰逢英国工厂正忙着为第一次世界大战制造炸弹。
到印度独立时，72%的人口从事农业，事实上不超过1%的印度人口在"注册"工厂工作。
The Dutch republic became rich through trade in the Baltic Sea and not through the slave trade or the trade routes to Asia.
Because the Netherlands was prosperous, it was interesting to conquer it. In 1672 the Dutch republic was attacked simultaneously by England, France and the German States.
The Dutch republic therefore had no other choice to build colonies as well, to offer counter-force to the larger European nations.
荷兰共和国通过在波罗的海的贸易而不是通过奴隶贸易或通往亚洲的贸易路线变得富有。
因为荷兰很繁荣，所以大家都想将其纳入其中。1672年，荷兰共和国同时受到了英国、法国和德意志国家的攻击。
因此，荷兰共和国没有其他选择，也要建立殖民地，培养反击欧洲大国的力量。
It became rich from all those things. Nor was the Baltic trade an insular business. It shifted Eastern European grain to the booming urban cities of the Mediterranean. Those cities prospered from their trade with Asia.
Finally, as you note, if the Europeans had remained constrained in Europe, they would have wasted a golden age fighting over scraps. Today, your sense of history would be akin to the pre-revolutionary Chinese: a cycle of rise and collapse rather than persistent progress.
它是从所有这些环节中变得富有的。波罗的海的贸易并不是孤立的业务。它将东欧的粮食转移到地中海蓬勃发展的城市。而这些城市正是因为与亚洲的贸易而变得繁荣。
最后，正如你所指出的，如果欧洲人一直被限制在欧洲，他们将浪费一个黄金时代来争夺残羹剩饭。那么到了今天，你对历史的感触就会类似于革命前的中国人：总是处于一个上升和崩溃的循环，而不是持续的进步。
The problem is, the height of European industrial and economic might didn’t happen until after they lost their colonies in the New World, but gained colonies in Africa and Asia.
You could indeed say that it was the New World that jumpstarted Europe’s hegemony; the first step is always the most important after all. But the prize was always in Asia and Africa.
问题是，欧洲工业和经济实力到达高峰是在他们失去新大陆的殖民地，在非洲和亚洲获得殖民地之后才发生的。
你的确可以说，是新大陆启动了欧洲的霸权；毕竟第一步总是最重要的。但总要之处在于亚洲和非洲。
They never lost them. New World countries continued to be the leading trade and investment partners for the Europeans even after their independence.
And I'd say that they didn't have many colonies in the Old World anyways. India and the rest were imperial provinces. Their importance was more related to trade than Europe's march towards Industry.
The role of the New World, the USA especially, was giving Europeans essentially virgin territories to transpose their latest technologies and knowledge of the world without the baggage of tradition.
Second, it allowed them to vend off their population without resorting to war against each other. Compare the outcomes of France and Germany that always sought territories in Europe to Britain that took hers abroad.
Third, it allowed them to produce tradeable goods from sugar to silver while preserving their labour force for the transition to industrial production and services.
他们从未失去新大陆。新世界国家即使在独立后仍然是欧洲人的主要贸易和投资伙伴。
而且我想说的是，他们在旧世界并没有多少殖民地。印度和其他地区是帝国的省份。他们的重要性更多的是与贸易有关，而不是与欧洲向工业化迈进有关。
新世界，特别是美国的作用是给欧洲人提供了基本的处女地，让他们在没有传统包袱的情况下实践世界上最新的技术和知识。
其次，它允许他们在不诉诸战争的情况下转移他们的剩余人口。比较一下法国和德国，它们总是在欧洲寻找领土，而英国则把这件事带到国外。
第三，它使他们能够生产从糖到银的贸易商品，同时为过渡到工业生产和服务保留了他们的劳动力。
The short answer is yes, Europe (by virtue of geography) had been on the three most developed places on the planet since the rise of the Greeks. Looking at the places and people we conquered only India would have potentially developed comparably of its own accord. Everybody else was decades to centuries behind.
While I don’t doubt that imperial expansion enhanced European power, relative growth and hegemony was already transferring back from the Muslim world to Europe by the time that the Spanish Empire rose.
A world in which Africa and South America are left alone is a world in which they are even poorer than they are today.
简短的回答是：是的，自希腊人崛起以来，欧洲（由于地理原因）一直是地球上最发达的三个地方之一。看看我们征服过的地方和人民，只有印度有可能自行发展得比较好。其他国家都落后了几十年到几个世纪。
虽然我不怀疑帝国的扩张增强了欧洲的力量，但在西班牙帝国崛起时，相对增长和霸权已经从穆斯林世界转移回了欧洲。
在一个非洲和南美被抛弃了（没有被殖民）的世界里，这些地方的人的生活会比今天的世界里更贫穷。
, knows Slovak
First, Europe has developed before starting the whole colonialism business. Second, only the Americas were really worth it.
Think about it. How could a poor, undeveloped Europe conquer rich, developed Africa and Asia? It doesn’t make sense, in the same way it doesn’t make sense Myanmar could become rich by conquering Taiwan.
Europeans created the highest concentration of human capital in the world before colonialism and used this human capital to conquer the world.
African and Asian colonialism was a drain on European treasuries more often than not and didn’t contribute in any meaningful manner to European development.
，懂斯洛伐克语
首先，欧洲在开始整个殖民主义事业之前就已经发展得不错了。第二，只有美洲是真正值得殖民的地方。
想一想吧。一个贫穷、不发达的欧洲怎么可能征服富裕、发达的非洲和亚洲？这说不通，就像缅甸通过征服台湾而变得富强了那样说不通一样。
欧洲人在殖民主义之前创造了世界上最集中的人力资本，并利用这些人力资本来征服世界。
对非洲和亚洲的殖民主义更多时候是对欧洲国库的一种消耗，对欧洲的发展没有任何有意义的贡献。
, BA in Economics
Actually, Europe didn't develop because of colonialism. It was centuries of scientific, philosophical, political, and cultural progress. The culmination of which gave rise to the industrial revolution. And that's the revolution that put Europe into the path of wealth and prosperity. It wasn't Colonialism. In fact, Colonialism slowed Europe.
, 经济学学士
实际上，欧洲的发展并不是因为殖民主义。它是几个世纪以来科学、哲学、政治和文化进步的结果。其中的高潮催生了工业革命。而这一革命使欧洲走上了富裕和繁荣的道路。这并不是殖民主义。事实上，殖民主义减缓了欧洲的发展。
The Americas? Was Europe developed and scientific in the 16th century? No.
美洲表示：？
欧洲在16世纪是发达的、科学的吗？不是。
Yes, Europe began developing since Ancient Greece and Rome. Then since the late Middle Age and Renaissance, the ideas that would lead to their prosperity began.
是的，欧洲自古希腊和罗马开始发展。然后自中世纪晚期和文艺复兴以来，开始了导致其繁荣的思想。
Hmm so you made a big jump of more than a millennium (of dark ages) and expect people to hear your argument? Where were the world centers of knowledge accumulation and what was the “lingua franca” 1000 years ago? Look it up and come back here.
嗯，所以你来了一个超过一千年的大跳（对于黑暗时代闭口不谈），并期望人们相信你的论点？1000年前，世界知识积累的中心在哪里，"通用语言"是什么？查一查，然后再来回答。
Latin and Greek
拉丁文和希腊文
Wrong! This is a falsification of history. It was Arabic and If you wanted to do philosophy (the name of the system of knowledge accumulation before it was called science) , you would go to Baghdad or Cordoba. Without the Islamic Golden Age, there wouldn’t be the Modern West. Arabs preserved thr ancient Greek texts while Europe elites were burning them in the Middle Ages. The renaissance was basically a retranslation from Arabic back to Greek and Latin. Read this. (2 documents, of credible Western sources).
https://lix.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9780230393219_2.pdf
错! 这是对历史的篡改。是阿拉伯语，如果你想研究哲学（在它被称为“科学”之前的知识积累系统的名称），你会去巴格达或科尔多瓦。没有伊斯兰的黄金时代，就不会有现代的西方。当欧洲的精英们在中世纪焚烧古希腊文献时，阿拉伯人却保存了这些文献。文艺复兴基本上是将阿拉伯语重新翻译成希腊语和拉丁语。请看这个。(2份文件，来自可信的西方信息源）。
Gu Jiangmin
sure of course! But not for long. Innovation and industry revolution could help Europe to become developed. But this advantage can't be kept long because other powers will learn.
Rising powers can become more competitive than the old ones. For example China and India is probably more powerful than the Europe alone today, however The West world is still stronger because their former colonies like North America and Australia joined in. Something like what happened when German arised to challenge UK and France. German was probably more advanced and more efficient in WW1 and WW2 but it still failed because it's enemies had huge advantage in manpower and resources through their vast overseas territory and colonies. If German only have to fight the Europe part of France and UK, it could have won the war.
当然可以! 但不会持续太久。创新和工业革命可以帮助欧洲成为发达国家。但这种优势不会保持太久，因为其他大国会学习。
崛起的大国可以变得比老牌大国更有竞争力。例如，中国和印度可能已经比今天的欧洲更强大，但“西方世界”这个整体仍然更强大，因为他们的前殖民地，如北美和澳大利亚加入。就像当年德国崛起挑战英国和法国时的情况一样。在一战和二战中，德国可能更先进，更有效率，但它仍然失败了，因为它的敌人在人力和资源方面有巨大的优势，因为他们有广阔的海外领土和殖民地。如果德国只需要与法国和英国的欧洲部分作战，它就能赢得战争。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处