Anglo-German Alliance

Glen

Moderator
Question:

Given the claiming of the Portuguese colonies in Africa, coupled with the German and British gains in the War, would it make sense for the British and the Germans to consider at some point in the near future a swap of colonial possessions, Nigeria for German East Africa?
 

Glen

Moderator
Need to note somewhere that in the wake of the war, the great powers agreed to naval reductions...

Fortunate for the United Kingdom, since just after those treaties, the delayed building of the first Dreadnought occured, changing battleships forever....
 
Glen said:
Question:

Given the claiming of the Portuguese colonies in Africa, coupled with the German and British gains in the War, would it make sense for the British and the Germans to consider at some point in the near future a swap of colonial possessions, Nigeria for German East Africa?
I doubt it, after all due to the alliance there's no need for direct access between colonies.
 

Glen

Moderator
luakel said:
I doubt it, after all due to the alliance there's no need for direct access between colonies.

Well, that is a good point.

But both countries might take the long view that even the best of alliances may not totally last, and by such a swap they remove future problems...

...but maybe not. Just thought I'd ask...
 
Glen said:
Need to note somewhere that in the wake of the war, the great powers agreed to naval reductions...

Fortunate for the United Kingdom, since just after those treaties, the delayed building of the first Dreadnought occured, changing battleships forever....

Very fortunate, as the costs of maintaining that Empire must be phenomenal.
 
German procession of Angola [a much richer territory] is going to change the whole German SW Africa.

I'm trying to figure if the procesion of Mozanbuque strengens or weakens the Rodesian Annexation movement. [OTL it lost by less than 1% in 1923]
Either way Britian will have troubles with the Portuguese land Holders, and their [slave] like treatment of the natives.
 
I think if the new king of Sweden promises greater local Atomony to Norway,
As well as appealing for Norways help in rebuilding Finland, the Independce movement may collaspe at least temporaryly.

the US procession of Martinique & Guadolpe Will help focus US Intrests in the Caribean, leading to minor changes, with big effects in the future.

I See lots of the Indochina and other lost colonies French settleing in the Remaining Colonies. Thus boosting the French presence there.
 

Glen

Moderator
DuQuense said:
German procession of Angola [a much richer territory] is going to change the whole German SW Africa.

I would think so...

I'm trying to figure if the procesion of Mozanbuque strengens or weakens the Rodesian Annexation movement. [OTL it lost by less than 1% in 1923]

What were the issues surrounding the Rodesian Annexation movement?

Either way Britian will have troubles with the Portuguese land Holders, and their [slave] like treatment of the natives.

Yeah. And this might bolster the forces of Apartheid in South Africa....
 

Glen

Moderator
DuQuense said:
I think if the new king of Sweden promises greater local Atomony to Norway,
As well as appealing for Norways help in rebuilding Finland, the Independce movement may collaspe at least temporaryly.

That seems likely.

the US procession of Martinique & Guadolpe Will help focus US Intrests in the Caribean, leading to minor changes, with big effects in the future.

Not really. The US has had plenty of focus on the Caribbean in this era. If anything, they've just switched the Virgin Islands for Guadeloupe....

A much more important difference I believe is the Roosevelt Doctrine, that invasion of neutral nations gives the US the right to intervene militarily...

I See lots of the Indochina and other lost colonies French settling in the Remaining Colonies. Thus boosting the French presence there.

Hmmm...good point. Madagascar might actually be a big destination, as there are certain similarities between it and Indochina.
 
Glen said:
Good point.

Thanks.

The British are going to need carriers and small ships, light cruisers and down for anti-piracy and fighting colonial bush-fires, more than expensive battleships (not that carrirs are cheap).
 
Alratan said:
Thanks.

The British are going to need carriers and small ships, light cruisers and down for anti-piracy and fighting colonial bush-fires, more than expensive battleships (not that carrirs are cheap).
The role of an aircraft carrier in naval warfare was largely an offshoot of WWI in OTL. Without WWI-scale naval and submarine conflicts, the aircraft carrier may have to wait an extra generation to be recognized as the 'new order'.

IMHO, the 1905 war was just too early for aircraft to have had a meaningful role.

Is UK going to insist on a dominant share in your version of the Washington treaties? Just looking at all of the pink on the map shows that Britain may try to somehow preserve its "sum of the next two navies" ratio. This may lead to some friction with USA and Empire of Japan.
 

Glen

Moderator
tinfoil said:
The role of an aircraft carrier in naval warfare was largely an offshoot of WWI in OTL. Without WWI-scale naval and submarine conflicts, the aircraft carrier may have to wait an extra generation to be recognized as the 'new order'.

IMHO, the 1905 war was just too early for aircraft to have had a meaningful role.

Absolutely correct. There were no heavier than air aircraft in this war. And no carriers, and only limited if any use of submarines.

Is UK going to insist on a dominant share in your version of the Washington treaties? Just looking at all of the pink on the map shows that Britain may try to somehow preserve its "sum of the next two navies" ratio. This may lead to some friction with USA and Empire of Japan.

Actually, they get pretty much just that. The timing IMO works out remarkably in their favor, as during the course of the war the Japanese Army gained more and more importance as they moved inland into Russia, and Theodore Roosevelt actually believed that the best size for the US Navy was half that of the British.

BTW, I didn't plan it this way, but its falling out this way as a result of the earlier Great War.
 

Glen

Moderator
In 1909 the British helped foil a coup in Morocco against the pro-European Sultan. In consideration of their assistance, the Sultan granted Great Britain ownership of Tangier in perpetuity.

In this year, the new American president, William Howard Taft, sent forces to Nicaragua when some Americans were killed during an abortive rebellion against the Nicaraguan government.

Construction of major railways in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia continued forward, mostly by British and German firms.
 
Glen said:
Need to note somewhere that in the wake of the war, the great powers agreed to naval reductions...

Fortunate for the United Kingdom, since just after those treaties, the delayed building of the first Dreadnought occured, changing battleships forever....

Given the comments about a naval treaty further down, along with a favourable ratio between obtained by Britain you might not see such a revolution. If there are tonnage limits on individual ships you might see design changes drastically slowed down. Britain after all wants to maintain its security at the lowest possible cost. With a treaty there would be less point in other signatories trying for radical change either as they would have less room to change things.

The development of a carrier will be further delayed as such ships would have to be fitted into any tonnage limits and the more conservative elements in any navy will seek to preserve the maximum for their own 'proven' arms. However might be a way that a nation might seek to undermine the balance of power by developing a radical new arm. [Possibly Japan or the US?]

Steve
 
Glen said:
Question:

Given the claiming of the Portuguese colonies in Africa, coupled with the German and British gains in the War, would it make sense for the British and the Germans to consider at some point in the near future a swap of colonial possessions, Nigeria for German East Africa?

One problem with this might be that Nigeria is much richer and more populous than all the German African colonies [pre-war anyway] put together. Furthermore would still leave other colonies in W Africa, such as Gambia and Sierra Leone. In fact Britain would want some naval bases in the region. Also Germany might want to keep East Africa as that was suitable for European settlement, which was important for them. Nigeria lacked such a capacity both because of the much higher local population and the climate. Therefore I suspect this would not be a runner.

Steve
 

Glen

Moderator
stevep said:
Given the comments about a naval treaty further down, along with a favourable ratio between obtained by Britain you might not see such a revolution. If there are tonnage limits on individual ships you might see design changes drastically slowed down. Britain after all wants to maintain its security at the lowest possible cost. With a treaty there would be less point in other signatories trying for radical change either as they would have less room to change things.

Yes and no. I think Dreadnought will at least force the replacement of the fleets currently possessed. So we see a switch-out, but perhaps not as fast as would have happened IOTL.

The development of a carrier will be further delayed as such ships would have to be fitted into any tonnage limits and the more conservative elements in any navy will seek to preserve the maximum for their own 'proven' arms. However might be a way that a nation might seek to undermine the balance of power by developing a radical new arm. [Possibly Japan or the US?]

Steve

Right, it may speed up the building of carriers at some point just due to the fact that they weren't even in existence when the treaty was made.

But I think dreadnoughts will be the first focus.
 
Top