Anglo-German Alliance
- Thread starter Glen
- Start date
Glen
Moderator
Apparently the demand for ag products during WWI pushed into production a lot more marginal lands on the Great Plains, stripping away native plants, and contributed heavily to setting up the conditions later that led to the Dust Bowl.
The over-production was the set-up, and then the several years of drought made it bloom. Remove one or the other, and you might have some problems, but not the OTL dust bowl.
Glen
Moderator
Mexican Revolution happened in 1910 or so, IIRC.
Roosevelt is out of the presidency by then, just like OTL.
Glen
Moderator
Hughes wins in 1916. He was one of the forces behind the Washington Naval Treaty as SecState in the 1920s. I think we're pretty safe on heading off a naval race in that regard.
So no Naval Treaty as there is no naval race to limit. If the US remains self-absorbed and China seems more capable of looking after itself, then the US may not feel it neccassary to deploy a counter to growing Japanese strength.
In the coming decades, having offended both China and Russia, the Japanese are going to want to cling awfully tightly to the British and Germans.
On that front, a more powerful China will require heavy British investement into the defenses of Indochina and Burma, and the resurgent Great Game in Central Asia. On the other hand, if both China and Russia are increasingly threatening, the British may be more prone to be tactful in India, and also more likely to use potential Russian and Chinese agression as a justification for the British presence.
Thinking of India, the outbreak and build up to war should interrupt the bungled partition of Bengal in 1905, so that flashpoint should be removed, allowing the government to consider its actions more thorougly, and manage the situation better.
We may seean eariler Government of India Act, depending on when the Liberals are in Power, bringng in Diarchy. As I mentioned above, the greater demands on British overseas commitments, and the increasing inward focus on British investment and education, will make something like this possble, especially combined with, as I say, the neccessity to secure the loyalty of India in the face of rival Powers.
If this Diarchy is given time to bed in, and nothing like the Rowlatt Act is passed (which is very unlikely to occur, as it was the extension of historically il-liberal war time powers that will never have been assumed during a shorter war that made them possible), then we may see a successful model developed for the British Empire to move towards local autonomy for the "natives".
About the earilest we would see such a government of India Act would probably be the mid 1910s, depending, as I say, on who's in power and how far Churchill is from power.
If this occurs we could see a similar program being put in place towards the end of the 20s in the more developed of the other colonies, although I don't know where would be suitable. We could well see it in Indo-China, Malaya, and Burma, but I don't think we'll see it in Africa for a while.
In the coming decades, having offended both China and Russia, the Japanese are going to want to cling awfully tightly to the British and Germans.
On that front, a more powerful China will require heavy British investement into the defenses of Indochina and Burma, and the resurgent Great Game in Central Asia. On the other hand, if both China and Russia are increasingly threatening, the British may be more prone to be tactful in India, and also more likely to use potential Russian and Chinese agression as a justification for the British presence.
Thinking of India, the outbreak and build up to war should interrupt the bungled partition of Bengal in 1905, so that flashpoint should be removed, allowing the government to consider its actions more thorougly, and manage the situation better.
We may seean eariler Government of India Act, depending on when the Liberals are in Power, bringng in Diarchy. As I mentioned above, the greater demands on British overseas commitments, and the increasing inward focus on British investment and education, will make something like this possble, especially combined with, as I say, the neccessity to secure the loyalty of India in the face of rival Powers.
If this Diarchy is given time to bed in, and nothing like the Rowlatt Act is passed (which is very unlikely to occur, as it was the extension of historically il-liberal war time powers that will never have been assumed during a shorter war that made them possible), then we may see a successful model developed for the British Empire to move towards local autonomy for the "natives".
About the earilest we would see such a government of India Act would probably be the mid 1910s, depending, as I say, on who's in power and how far Churchill is from power.
If this occurs we could see a similar program being put in place towards the end of the 20s in the more developed of the other colonies, although I don't know where would be suitable. We could well see it in Indo-China, Malaya, and Burma, but I don't think we'll see it in Africa for a while.
Glen
On what basis are you presuming there's no naval race? If your presuming a treaty then you have the question of relative numbers. Britain may well be unwilling to accept equality with the US under those circumstances. [A history of naval pre-eminence, great dependence on maritime trade, a massive shipbuilding industry and a lot of dosh having avoided a major conflict]. Would the US accept inferiority? Also, even if some ratio was agreed with there are the question of numbers and construction rates. Britain would probably want a higher number of ships than the US's ideal target because of its world-wide commitments. Similarly Britain was badly hit by the treaty historically because it forced a battleship building holiday. This not only left Britain with an older, outdated fleet, but drastically affected the construction industry, which could not revive quickly enough when WWII started to approach. This may be less significant with the educational reforms which will give a broader technological and engineering base but will still be a danger that Britain will be aware of.
I'm not saying that a race is inevitable, nor that some sort of implicit agreement couldn't keep spending a lot lower. However I doubt if a formal treaty is that likely because the two powers are a fair distance apart. Also I would expect a fair amount of mistrust between the two nations, more than occurred historically.
Steve
Thinking about it, I think Stevep has a point. To avoid a Naval Race you need more than a President who is an anti-navalist, you also need something to distract the populace from the navalists in Congress and the Senate.
As I say above, the best way to this is to keep the US inwardly focused, or at least focused on the Americas. Having the US being embroiled, even if in a reasonably low level way, in the ongoing shenanigans of Mexico during this period would it the bill admirably. It wouldn't even have to cost the US that much, in lives and treasure, as long as its a distraction.
As I say above, the best way to this is to keep the US inwardly focused, or at least focused on the Americas. Having the US being embroiled, even if in a reasonably low level way, in the ongoing shenanigans of Mexico during this period would it the bill admirably. It wouldn't even have to cost the US that much, in lives and treasure, as long as its a distraction.
Glen
Moderator
Okay, to summarize my thoughts here....
There was a naval limitations section to the peace treaty of 1906, so the idea of ratios on the navies of the world is very well established by 1918. The US would have agreed to a two to one ratio with Britain, which Theodore Roosevelt is on the record in OTL as having supported...well, maybe more like 1.5 to 1 when it comes to the capital ships, just to assuage the naval hawks. Though I would remind people that TR WAS a naval supporter, but even he saw that the British had more need of a larger navy than the USA.
Likely the 1918 Naval Conference will not change the ratios established in 1906 but reduce total numbers proportionally. This would be a fairly conservative addition, and welcome by the British and Germans who want to put more money into their imperial acquisitions.
There was a naval limitations section to the peace treaty of 1906, so the idea of ratios on the navies of the world is very well established by 1918. The US would have agreed to a two to one ratio with Britain, which Theodore Roosevelt is on the record in OTL as having supported...well, maybe more like 1.5 to 1 when it comes to the capital ships, just to assuage the naval hawks. Though I would remind people that TR WAS a naval supporter, but even he saw that the British had more need of a larger navy than the USA.
Likely the 1918 Naval Conference will not change the ratios established in 1906 but reduce total numbers proportionally. This would be a fairly conservative addition, and welcome by the British and Germans who want to put more money into their imperial acquisitions.
Glen
Moderator
India will get earlier responsible government, but also remain closer to the British overall. Probably we see a looser confederation forming that retains the Islamists, Hindus, and Buddhists in an Indian Commonwealth.
The Chinese are going to be much more interested in internal improvements than territorial acquisitions. They will be distrustful of the Japanese, but not as interested in Manchuria as one might first believe. Manchuria is still predominantly Manchu, and the Han have risen to power once more in China in the form of the Republic. Adding Manchuria back to the Republic is more headache than it might be worth. Tibet is developing more into a neutral state between China and the British subcontinent, so less friction there overall. The Russians are chumming up to the Chinese because they have similar interests and both need friends in this Anglo-German dominated world.
The Chinese are going to be much more interested in internal improvements than territorial acquisitions. They will be distrustful of the Japanese, but not as interested in Manchuria as one might first believe. Manchuria is still predominantly Manchu, and the Han have risen to power once more in China in the form of the Republic. Adding Manchuria back to the Republic is more headache than it might be worth. Tibet is developing more into a neutral state between China and the British subcontinent, so less friction there overall. The Russians are chumming up to the Chinese because they have similar interests and both need friends in this Anglo-German dominated world.
Naval limitation:
Given the nature of the Naval Limiation treaty, probably focusing on battleships and crusiers, and the character of Jackie Fischer, combined with the significant prestige of the RN in this scenario, the British are still going to spend disproportionatly on the navy. However, the RN is going to be spending on non-Treaty items, particularly submarines and naval aviation, which will be very good for them in the long run, and consolidating training and things like gunnery reform.
China:
I'd expect that, at least initially, China is going to have a very weak central state. After the second revolution the Provincial government is going to be very hesitant about granting either money or authority to Beijing.
Given the nature of the Naval Limiation treaty, probably focusing on battleships and crusiers, and the character of Jackie Fischer, combined with the significant prestige of the RN in this scenario, the British are still going to spend disproportionatly on the navy. However, the RN is going to be spending on non-Treaty items, particularly submarines and naval aviation, which will be very good for them in the long run, and consolidating training and things like gunnery reform.
China:
I'd expect that, at least initially, China is going to have a very weak central state. After the second revolution the Provincial government is going to be very hesitant about granting either money or authority to Beijing.
Glen
Moderator
Yes, but not as much as one might think. They need to do more infrastructure investment, so as long as the other nations play ball and the UK are locked in as top dog, they'll play along too. They'll innovate, but not build up massively.
Well, the guy who got the boot was a left-over of the Imperial Era. It won't be 'strong' but I think the provincial governments will end up being able to work with this central government a lot better.
Hendryk, whereforth art thou?
Submarines are cheaper than battleships, and aviation is generally useful when one is a colonial power. It is likely that substantially les will be spent than OTL, but SteveP is correct in that the British have to keep their dockyards active, otherwise their expertise will atrophy. I would imagine that the British will be having a high turnover of ships. It is also that the British will invest in naval (and other) fortifications at key strategic points, at Singapore and the Dardanelles, and in Morocco/Gibralter, and at Alexandria, to control the shipping around the expanded Empire.
Only if the central governmet lets the governors go mostly their own way, and isn't too expensive. At this point, everyone will rmember the excesses of the Imperial Court, and that as soon as somone else got their hands on the central levers of power, they tried to recreate it. The best way to prevent this is not to have any central levers which work. In summary, their ae strong centrifugal forces at work.
Hendryk, whereforth art thou?
Indeed
Glen
Moderator
I agree almost entirely.
I think the Chinese Republic can strike the balance.
I think I'll PM him.
Alratan
I'm not sure Britain would spend that much on subs [provided we avoid the K-class fiasco!
] Especially given the earlier and shorter war they would still be mainly seen as coastal-defence units of relatively short range. Ditto with carriers, although their development will probably be more likely to seem more important. [This could be a possible path to a US victory in the Dark Alliance scenario, if a conservative Britain relies more on traditional big-gun ships and the US, aware of their smaller numbers commits more to other areas of development]. In this scenario Britain may well spend more in those experimental categories. I would expect there would be at least some restrictions on all categories, with the possible exception of subs, because their considered irrelevant, and the smaller DD classes as the workhorses of the fleet. [If nothing else to avoid cheating by bogus classification. For instance in the historical Washington Treaty the definition of carriers banned guns of more than 8" to avoid anyone using their carrier tonnage to build ships that just happened to have say 8x 15" or 16" guns].Steve
Alratan
I'm not sure Britain would spend that much on subs [provided we avoid the K-class fiasco!
Steve
As I remember it, Jackie Fisher, who should be in charge of the RN in both ATL and TTL, was a big advocate of both submarines and carriers. He advocated that the British replace their Mediterranean squadron almost entirely with submarines. He was also a massive advocate of carriers, and Britain, in OTL, was a real pioneer in their use. I would assume that a wealthier Britain would do the same, only more so. Given Britain's strategic needs and large number of useful places to put aircraft, I could easily see lots of investment in land-based anti-shipping aviation, as a way of bypassing the effects of the Naval treat. This is particualry relevant if Brtain got the Azores in the division of Portugal's colonies (I can see them insisting on it as a precondition).
For the Dark Alliance scenario, having Britain embrace naval aviation and America battleship the like would actually make the war more interesting. The US+Russia >> Germany + UK industrially, so they need the initial headstart that the US having to reuild its shatered fleet from scratch brings. The US taking the Azores in the face of a determined aerial defense would also be interesting.
Last edited:
On Fisher in both threads. If he gets a good 5-10 years to go at submarines it will be too late for the RN to get rid of subs, they will have been embeddedin the service, too many careers and istitutions and shipyards will be built about them, so they will have their own momentum. They might be scaled down, but if he manages a substanital deployment their development, and development of the doctirine of their use will continue to be developed. They might not be a substantial part of the fleet, but they would remain an actively developed and built one, to a much greater degree than OTL.