Prince Henry of Prussia: The Rise of U-Boat.

[wietze]

I have been thinking what likely would happen with flanders, and my thought is that french flanders (the pas-de-calais) is added to it and left neutral under dutch patronage (with the germans throwing in some french colonial real estate to make the deal pass). The dutch absorbing flanders is unlikely due to political considerations, but as always with politics given the right push it might happen.
So most likely would be a neutral flanders under dutch patronage which would be separate from german influence (this to ease the mind of the british).

Whether the french will be compensated with parts of wallonia depends on how the war develops.

I do wonder if the british would accept french colonial territory as part of the exchange deals, i could see them do it as the realise that france is going to be screwed no matter what, and they just decide to make the best of it. This would give a flawed peace just like versailles did, because it would very likely produce some myth in france that equals the OTL dolchstoß myth (in this case it would be the french complaining about being betrayed by the british).

for the colonies in east-asia and oceania it would depend if some common sense sets in with the germans. They just might decide to auction off new-guinea so they can concentrate on mittelafrika. Unfortunately i don't think that will happen, more likely is that wilhelm will get in a colonial frenzy and cause some big german overstretch.

 

[BlondieBC]

I have been thinking what likely would happen with flanders, and my thought is that french flanders (the pas-de-calais) is added to it and left neutral under dutch patronage (with the germans throwing in some french colonial real estate to make the deal pass). The dutch absorbing flanders is unlikely due to political considerations, but as always with politics given the right push it might happen.
So most likely would be a neutral flanders under dutch patronage which would be separate from german influence (this to ease the mind of the british).

Whether the french will be compensated with parts of wallonia depends on how the war develops.

I do wonder if the british would accept french colonial territory as part of the exchange deals, i could see them do it as the realise that france is going to be screwed no matter what, and they just decide to make the best of it. This would give a flawed peace just like versailles did, because it would very likely produce some myth in france that equals the OTL dolchstoß myth (in this case it would be the french complaining about being betrayed by the british).

for the colonies in east-asia and oceania it would depend if some common sense sets in with the germans. They just might decide to auction off new-guinea so they can concentrate on mittelafrika. Unfortunately i don't think that will happen, more likely is that wilhelm will get in a colonial frenzy and cause some big german overstretch.

Part of the reason the post are coming out much slower in the last few weeks is the difficulty with these issues. I can't see France surrender one inch of soil not occupied, so the Germans would first need to take Calais to impose their will, and since Belgium being neutral for British concessions is pretty much a given unless I want a war going into the 1920's. It is more the lands capture by the Germans that will be open to negotiation.

A lot will depend if the serious negotiations begin before the Tsar falls, and time is running low on that option. Once the Tsar falls, Germany will probably harden its position, and fight harder for gains. It is easy to have terms that both sides can agree to, at different times. It is hard to get terms that both sides can agree to on the same day. For example, Wilson 14 points did not look so bad when Germany was collapsing.

Under what scenario is France likely to give colonies to the UK? I can see France trading colonies to Germany, but to the UK is hard for me to see. Did you have something specific in mind?

IMO, MittelAfrika is a overreach. When Germany is controlling an area larger than Western Europe with the population of France, it is likely to find MittelAfrika more than the Reichstag wants to fund. Not to mention when the Douala ship yards start competing with German ship yards on building merchant ships, or the Kamerun Gun works starts competing for export gold with Krupp.

 

[wietze]

just to visualise the colonies
i included what you wrote the germans ideas were for mittel africa

 

[longtimer]

Probable France collapse.

Your number of Casualties in the battle of Verdun include wounded, MIA and KIA or just the MIA/KIA ?

OTL : france lost 378000 casualties (68000 KIA, 101000 MIA and 215000 wounded and a big part of the wounded are invalid).

ITTl : 667000 casualties. We can have 100000-120000 KIA, 150000-170000 MIA and around 400000 wounded.

The psychic impact must be tremendous : OTL, Verdun was a real Trauma because 70 per cent of the French army fight in the battle. ITTL, all France will be shock and morale will break after so much suffering and death. People will see the war not only as a failure but as madness too. The officer corps from active and reserve army is crushed. The "poilu" will know he is a dead man on foot.

I think France will probably collapse in 1917. The mutiny of 1917 will be worse and it will break the french army if the Nivelle offensive takes place with the same result.
In OTL, a minority of french refuse to fight but they stop after some executions and because Petain makes some concessions about stupid assault. He stops launching big offensive until the US forces arrive. In ITTL, the soldiers know they have no possibility of reinforcement. They are in hell and they will stay in hell. Nobody arrives to take care of their burden and with the first russian revolution of 1917, they will know that the russian are shaky and the alliance too.
After november 1916, Germans can have easier offensive in the west : the french army is bleed and ready to break, supply are short on front and the loss of Verdun has an enormous impact on soldiers and people. They can't hold another year because they have already try their best and it's a failure. ITTL, French soldiers will be desperate in late 1916 and if the next french offensive is another slaughter.... France will break because soldiers will not fight.

One problem for Germany if France don't collapse :
France will accept everything to conserve Verdun and Belfort. Germany needs more french territories to keep both cities. Calais isn't enough. Germany must advance to Abeville with a front line along the somme and Paris must be directly threaten.

1917 will be a turning point for France. France will never be a big power and the match France-Germany is over : 0-2. Lorraine and Alsace will stay german. French nationalism and republic are a failure. It's 1940 in 1917 without any hope in the future.
What will become France ? Communist ? Monarchy ? Neutral ? Pacifist ? she's out of the big game for 10-20 years and I think she will never fight another round against Germany : the disaster is to big and it's a true defeat : no revenge. All army leader lost their power after Verdun. I don't think you will have french nazis in 1930s but 1918 will be a time of political changes.

 

[BlondieBC]

Your number of Casualties in the battle of Verdun include wounded, MIA and KIA or just the MIA/KIA ?

OTL : france lost 378000 casualties (68000 KIA, 101000 MIA and 215000 wounded and a big part of the wounded are invalid).

ITTl : 667000 casualties. We can have 100000-120000 KIA, 150000-170000 MIA and around 400000 wounded.

The psychic impact must be tremendous : OTL, Verdun was a real Trauma because 70 per cent of the French army fight in the battle. ITTL, all France will be shock and morale will break after so much suffering and death. People will see the war not only as a failure but as madness too. The officer corps from active and reserve army is crushed. The "poilu" will know he is a dead man on foot.

I think France will probably collapse in 1917. The mutiny of 1917 will be worse and it will break the french army if the Nivelle offensive takes place with the same result.
In OTL, a minority of french refuse to fight but they stop after some executions and because Petain makes some concessions about stupid assault. He stops launching big offensive until the US forces arrive. In ITTL, the soldiers know they have no possibility of reinforcement. They are in hell and they will stay in hell. Nobody arrives to take care of their burden and with the first russian revolution of 1917, they will know that the russian are shaky and the alliance too.
After november 1916, Germans can have easier offensive in the west : the french army is bleed and ready to break, supply are short on front and the loss of Verdun has an enormous impact on soldiers and people. They can't hold another year because they have already try their best and it's a failure. ITTL, French soldiers will be desperate in late 1916 and if the next french offensive is another slaughter.... France will break because soldiers will not fight.

One problem for Germany if France don't collapse :
France will accept everything to conserve Verdun and Belfort. Germany needs more french territories to keep both cities. Calais isn't enough. Germany must advance to Abeville with a front line along the somme and Paris must be directly threaten.

1917 will be a turning point for France. France will never be a big power and the match France-Germany is over : 0-2. Lorraine and Alsace will stay german. French nationalism and republic are a failure. It's 1940 in 1917 without any hope in the future.
What will become France ? Communist ? Monarchy ? Neutral ? Pacifist ? she's out of the big game for 10-20 years and I think she will never fight another round against Germany : the disaster is to big and it's a true defeat : no revenge. All army leader lost their power after Verdun. I don't think you will have french nazis in 1930s but 1918 will be a time of political changes.

I understand the Battle of Verdun losses are dispute. Since I am doing the TL on the marginal basis (the delta), I need to give you the base. I used the Wiki number of 550,000 French losses and 430,000 for the Germans as the base. I then determine that the Germans would be willing to fight longer and harder because the Somme attacks did not press them as hard and the Germans have more reserves in the ATL from having a lot fewer troops on the Eastern Front. So the Germans would be willing to lose 530,000 men and I prorated the French casualties up to 667,000. Due to the worse supply situation (U-boat war) I determined, that the French had 20% fewer artillery shells to fire, and therefore 15% fewer casualties. (The TL is based on the rule of thumb that Artillery does 75% of the killing in WW1.) This is the long answer. As to how I figured when forts fell, about every other time I saw "French has success defending/attacking", i converted this to "French lose fort". It is not a perfect system, but I hope it gives a realistic feel to the battle, without making it too complicated for me to write.

Or for the short answer, the German losses were about the same, and the French took 21% more losses than OTL. Basically take whatever numbers you believe are most accurate for French losses at Verdun and multiply by 1.21. Do this for each category of losses and % of French Army rotated through.

Yes, it is hard on the French, and barring any other changes to the ATL, I would be writing about breaking French morale. But there is a big change. The Somme was 100% British. When I looked at the British % of population in army, it was lower than other major countries, so I decided that the British would draft 500,000 more men into the army in 1916, so all the infantry regiments in the Somme were UK forces, mostly from England. I know this is a bit complicated to have Italy not in the war means the Somme is an all British battle, but to keep the butterflies as realistic as I can manage, it had to happen.

The issues you bring up about France are valid, and I am trying to work through them. France will likely be saved in the near term by the Spring offensive in the East. The UK pulled their 5 most experienced corps from France to stabilize the Red Sea, and replace them with Green infantry light on artillery and machine guns. So there will likely be no 1917 major Entente offensive in France. Right now, i have to figure out if Falkenhayn will try to launch an ad hoc attack against the British in France, or save his strength to help the A-H, Poles, and Romanians in a few months. And the USA will likely sit out the entire war.

All these changes is why the Germans offered peace, because they think the Entente might be desperate enough to accept some pretty harsh terms. I have finally gotten to the point where there are so many butterflies, I have to write each section from scratch, and it takes a lot longer. It is easy to modify the Verdun for the French having less artillery rounds. Planning an attack with over 5 million men into Russia is a lot more work.

It is also important to understand that the CP have more men on the Eastern Front than the Russians. This is a huge change from OTL. The CP plan is simple, keep attacking and annex parts of Russia until the Tsar makes peace. The 1917 plan is to move the line 100 to 200 miles east. While we both know the Tsar is about to lose power, the CP in the ATL don't understand this event is coming. They just see that Russia is the easiest opponent to knock out. This is partially a political decision driven by Poland wanting land, partially a military decision.

Generally speaking, I don't think France will be viewed as a top tier power in 1920 in the ATL.

I hope this helps, but if this was not what you were asking about, just ask again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

 

[Monty Burns]

Under what scenario is France likely to give colonies to the UK?

Well, France and Britain will be in a very different position: France will be utterly defeated, maybe with German troops in Paris. They will get negotiations merely because the British are still out there and the Germans will find it to costly to finish the job once and for all. Britain, on the other side, is secure.

Britain will negotiate because continuing the war will promise no gains. France will negotiate before everything is lost.

As a consequence, Germany and Britain will be the main negotiators, and they may find a deal over French colonies.

IMO, MittelAfrika is a overreach. When Germany is controlling an area larger than Western Europe with the population of France, it is likely to find MittelAfrika more than the Reichstag wants to fund. Not to mention when the Douala ship yards start competing with German ship yards on building merchant ships, or the Kamerun Gun works starts competing for export gold with Krupp.

Depends on how large Mittelafrika gets. The one showed by wietze surely is overreach - although it was discussed back then. The depicted Mittelafrika minus Mocambique, Angola and Nigeria would be ok for me - but since you already have Nigeria and Angola conquered at least in parts...

Maybe the Belgian Congo survives? That would be new in WWI timelines.

By the way: why does no Mittelafrika ever encompass Chad?

 

[longtimer]

Thanks for your explanations.

Generally speaking, I don't think France will be viewed as a top tier power in 1920 in the ATL.

I hope this helps, but if this was not what you were asking about, just ask again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

In fact, you wrote an amazing battle of Verdun but a realistic one. From the start, your numbers look very good but I just wanted some precision because I went to Verdun two months ago. Walking in the forest, visiting theforts and the old trenches were very impressive. ITTL, it must be nightmare and madness for both countries. The Peace movement in France will be very powerful.
German experience of the war is doubled : glorious in Africa and Russia but a nightmare in The West.
France is completely defeated. They don't root yet and I think that "everything is lost but honour". France can't ask for a separate peace but will want it. She will not be happy at all if England want to pursue war another year.

Thanks again and congratulations for the job.

 

[longtimer]

As a consequence, Germany and Britain will be the main negotiators, and they may find a deal over French colonies.

They can make the deal. The problem is why England will want a french colony ?

First, The situation of the Empire as a global power is worse ITTL. RN fails in the strategic areas. Shipping capacity, trade, economy are jeopardised. Suez is probably a battleground for 1917. SA is gone. The Somme offensive is a bigger failure than OTL. A amazing number of seamen and soldiers are captured, MIA or KIA. At least, Mittelafrika develops amphibious capacities. Britain is secure but not the Empire. Australia and New Zealand will find less security in the commonwealth than before and they went to war by obligation. SA shows a possibility and with the USA in Philippines, it's a big one. England need to secure her Empire and don't need a new foreign problem.

Secondly, Gaining a french territory is more a burden : The french colonies are poor with few valuable natural resources : territory gain but financial losses. A colony with few infrastructure in a desert zone or a small island will be OK but England will not be interested.

Thirdly, I don't think english public opinion will allow this. True, they died for Belgium and against the growing power of Germany but in France. I think english men who friends (some of them french) died and who fought alongside french will see this move with very bad eyes. Three years of common fights will give birth to some friendship and respect between the two people. English opinion will not understand and accept the german. The Somme butcher's bill and the sub-war will create an English peace movement. With a french colony, England will gain an enemy. It will be a "Knife in the back" or the move of the "treacherous albion". France will claim that they lose the war because of the RN failure to protect the atlantic trade. I don't think the English prime minister so stupid. He lose the war, he will sign a terrible treaty for his political future. It's already a shame but not a suicide. He can recover. He will be damned for the rest of his political life and for history if he deals with the Germans for an interesting french colony like Madagascar, Ivory Coast..etc. English people will see that as a new casus belli against England.

Fourth point, I think an english government will see the new true threat : the German Global Power. He will want allies (not just the commonwealth) and some big ones. Who will form an alliance with a power who can abandon you and kick your back if you lose with her ? Not Germany, Not the USA (don't want to be involved in Europe) and they are the two other global powers after this WW1. Smaller countries (Italy, Japan, Australia, New zealand, SA...etc) can go to them and not to England. ITTL, I see England as the third global power after the war and she must play by the rules (all the losers lose but on a different level : no gift, no exchange). ITTL, she lost a good deal of her diplomatic capacity inside and outside the Empire. If she gains a good french colony, England will become the diplomatic bad boy of Europe and not the CP (and their ethnic cleansing).
Germany will find this laughable and a great achievement in foreign affair : turn the loser against the loser.
If England gains a colony, she shoot herself in the foot : every powers will see this as a prize of consolation given by Germany and she will lose another bit of reputation.

The english government will disagree for all these reasons. It will be a worse peace for England. She can make the deal but I think that's not an enough reason.

 

[BlondieBC]

Well, France and Britain will be in a very different position: France will be utterly defeated, maybe with German troops in Paris. They will get negotiations merely because the British are still out there and the Germans will find it to costly to finish the job once and for all. Britain, on the other side, is secure.

Britain will negotiate because continuing the war will promise no gains. France will negotiate before everything is lost.

As a consequence, Germany and Britain will be the main negotiators, and they may find a deal over French colonies.



Depends on how large Mittelafrika gets. The one showed by wietze surely is overreach - although it was discussed back then. The depicted Mittelafrika minus Mocambique, Angola and Nigeria would be ok for me - but since you already have Nigeria and Angola conquered at least in parts...

Maybe the Belgian Congo survives? That would be new in WWI timelines.

By the way: why does no Mittelafrika ever encompass Chad?

Broad writers TL.

1) March 1917 Tsar falls. Russia provision government likely keeps fighting. I have to do some research, but I don't think Russia was that close to accepting the loss of Poland and Lithuania in OTL.

2) March 1917-May 1917: Operation Barbarosa, WW1 version. It will have a different name, but it looks like to me that there will be more troops than WW2 in OTL. Now Falkenhayn/Hindenburg are more take land and absorb, so their will be no dash to Moscow, climatic fight like Hitler did. At some point Russia will make peace, but it is hard to see this happening before Autumn of 1917. So no major offensive in France. Maybe a 2-3 army attack, but nothing on the lets us end the war in a few days type attack.

3) So in Spring 1918, I am look at either the final attack to finish off the stubborn Russians or an attack to the west. 1917 in the France will be a year of rest. The problem is Germany is doing better, but the losses will still be huge, people hungry, Poles in Posen unhappy, why are there so many Jewish refugees in Germany. It might happen German decides to take Paris, but a negotiated peace will look good.

So to me, the key elements are how fast does Russia seek peace, and how stubborn are the British about fighting on. I don't have good answers for those yet.

Weitze plans is the right scale. Zimmermann wants to negotiate more logical border with South Africa, things like parts of Mozambique for parts of Zambia. He open to trading the inland deserts of SW Africa and possibly Angola for other land concessions.

The Congo surviving is unlikely. That is why he is going from 8 to 16 WA divisions, so the new 8 division can do garrison work to free up his 8 older divisions to attack the Congo, and there are less than 20,000 Entente troops in the Congo basin who largely have been unsupplied for a year. Once Zimmmermann has done that, the will be free to look at other small additions to his empire. And he will have a link to send troops by land to EA, it is a horrible route, but rail to the Ubangi, Rivers and some rail to the Rift Valley, take the train to Dar Es Salaam is doable.

I think MittelAfrika will have Chad. It is part of French Equatorial Africa, so splitting it off does not make a lot of sense. On why no one does, it is pretty worthless unless you are going to build a Hoover dam size project to divert part of the Congo. Zimmermann might also ask for big chunks of the Sahara north of Nigeria. But quite frankly, unless you find oil in the Sahara, it is worthless.

 

[wietze]

Weitze plans is the right scale. Zimmermann wants to negotiate more logical border with South Africa, things like parts of Mozambique for parts of Zambia. He open to trading the inland deserts of SW Africa and possibly Angola for other land concessions.

The Congo surviving is unlikely. That is why he is going from 8 to 16 WA divisions, so the new 8 division can do garrison work to free up his 8 older divisions to attack the Congo, and there are less than 20,000 Entente troops in the Congo basin who largely have been unsupplied for a year. Once Zimmmermann has done that, the will be free to look at other small additions to his empire. And he will have a link to send troops by land to EA, it is a horrible route, but rail to the Ubangi, Rivers and some rail to the Rift Valley, take the train to Dar Es Salaam is doable.

I am thinking it is unlikely they will let angola go, because parts of it are much more suited for european settlers, same with mozambique, however i do think it is likely they will try to trade SW-africa for other territory, maybe southern part of mozambique.

 

[Detlef]

I am thinking it is unlikely they will let angola go, because parts of it are much more suited for european settlers, same with mozambique, however i do think it is likely they will try to trade SW-africa for other territory, maybe southern part of mozambique.

Might be, but it seems to be unlikely to me.
The Germans just spent a lot of time and effort to get back to German Togoland overland. Going through British Nigeria and French Dahomey. Angola would give them a land connection to German South West Africa. The Belgian Congo a connection to German East Africa.
Seems to me the Germans are much more interested in keeping all their "old" colonies (matter of pride) and conquering any territories in between to connect them on land (railways). Giving them "Mittelafrika".

German South West Africa - if I remember correctly - was largely left "undisturbed" by the war so far. So why give it up? They already found the first diamonds there in 1908. Mining there would be profitable.

It´s far easier to either:
- leave Portuguese Mozambique alone.
- just annex a strip of land along the southern border of German East Africa if needed.
- leave it in the South African influence zone. Let them annex it if they want.
- a partition between Germany and South Africa if South Africa is interested

There won´t be enough German Settlers for both Angola and Mozambique anyway. So why not concentrate on Angola?

 

[Detlef]

Now Detlef hasn't convinced me yet about the infeasability of a German-Dutch alliance - but he's made a really important point: what should the German outpost be? To get access to Asia through Indonesia, Timor is no good. The Germans would either need northern Sumatra (Atjeh - which the Dutch might sell due to their problems there but the Germans likely wouldn't buy) or South-Eastern Sumatra, or Western Java - the later two are to central in the Dutch East Indies to be sold. Now without a feasible candidate for a larger German base, this is void...

Given that, my guess is that possibly a new Southern Chinese treaty port (there was a French one in Guangdong), a base in what will be left of New Guinea and a coaling station somewhere in the Pacific will have to do it.

The ultimate outcome in Asia will however depend on the further war in Asia. Right now, the Germans will have to negotiate for all Asian outposts. France won't care that much, that's why I think getting French Polynesia and that French treaty port should be easier to get - but Britain will use the German desire to return to Asia as leverage point. Germany will have to pay for it.

Now would Japan enter the war on the German side, the whole situation changes again, since in this case its new Ally would add bargaining tools in Asia from which Germany could profit. It would mean that Germany helps Japan conquering even more by essentially winning the war in the first place against a small part of the gains. In this case, a German presence in Asia is based on negotiations with Japan and doesn't need to be bought with concessions to France and Britain.

I like the friendly discussion.

Considering the Dutch, I´m just trying to think like the Dutch government back then:
- We want friendly relations with the big country just south and east of our borders.
- On the other hand Germany can´t really defend our most prized possession, the Dutch East Indies.
- And given our disparity in size we Dutch can´t really influence German policy even as allies.
- So Germany might enter a war - against our Dutch interests - and making the Dutch East Indies a legitimate target to enemies (of our alliance).
- Once peace negotiations start, large Germany might decide that a few - already lost - Dutch East Indian islands might be negotiation mass for the "greater good". Even if we object.
- So the best course might be to stay neutral for now. And cry for help and an alliance only if we are attacked by somebody. That would avoid too these new German ideas about native troops and how to treat them.

Concerning bases. Assuming Germany wants to return to Asia I´d go for:
- a "tertiary" supply base on East Timor. I don´t think Germany can get any British islands in the Indian ocean.
- a treaty port in China, Guangdong perhaps as you said.
- a "tertiary" supply base in French Polynesia. Tahiti would be nice for German tourism in the future.
- a "secondary" naval base in the Bismarck archipelago (Rabaul). Australia can keep mainland German New Guinea.
(- maybe, just maybe grabbing the French Comoros islands - including Mayotte - and Reunion island? in the Indian Ocean)

"Tertiary" supply base would mean:
- some supplies obviously
- a company up to a battalion of "See Battalions" (German marines)
- some coastal defense guns (up to 6.7"?)
- most of the time some torpedo boats and/or u-boats in the region
- some mines stored
- adding some natives to the military would be a plus

"Secondary" and "treaty" port/naval base would mean:
- some supplies stored
- at least a battalion deployed there
- some coastal defense guns (up to 9.4"?)
- mines stored
- some torpedo boats or u-boats deployed to them at all times. Plus the German Far East cruiser squadron cruising between bases.
- recruiting natives will be done

It would still be relatively cheap. Both types of bases can´t be defended against a determined enemy attack that far from home. At most one division of troops deployed. The coastal guns are from the older pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers. Likewise the torpedo boats are some of the older German HSF torpedo boats after the war.

I wonder though, given the new German respect towards native African soldiers, if German recruitment in Asia might not be higher than expected?

And if the Germans design fleet tenders like our TL "Dithmarchen" class they might be a bit more independent of naval bases?

 

[Monty Burns]

I like the friendly discussion.

Me too!

I guess it's down to one question: what is the right policy for a small country with respect to great powers? My proposal is to choose a side, yours is to avoid a side. Both have their merits.

You're right that may proposal leaves the Dutch at the mercy of the Germans. But in an official, mutually agreed framework.

Without such an alliance, the Dutch are still at the mercy of the Germans - or any other Great power, that is. The Germans already showed that they are willing to ignore neutrality. I don't think that they have any Illusions about the French or the British not doing the same in such a situation. This directly threatens the homeland. Then we have the fact that even if the Dutch East Indies were valuable and profitable, from an economic point of view trade with Germany is much more important for the Dutch.

As a consequence, I think Dutch neutrality is rather hollow even now - and with Germany building up some economic block in central Europe and an open fate of Belgium, that will even increase. Acknowledging this dependence against a place at the table and a pledge by Germany to help the Dutch is worth it, IMHO.

Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that Germany would be unable to defend the Dutch East Indies. A war against the US is unlikely - and at the time nobody would really know how superior they are. A war against Britain will be won in Europe and Africa - and the Germans are about to prove that they can do it. That leaves Japan, which is only a serious threat if they attack in a wider coalition, thus the war will again be decided in Europe.

Considering the Dutch, I´m just trying to think like the Dutch government back then:
- We want friendly relations with the big country just south and east of our borders.

Granted - both options offer these.

- On the other hand Germany can´t really defend our most prized possession, the Dutch East Indies.

As said, the Germasn cannot defend all islands, but some. A war against the US is unlikely - and at the time nobody would really know how superior they are. A war against Britain will be won in Europe and Africa. That leaves Japan, which is only a serious threat if they attack in a wider coalition, thus the war will again be decided in Europe. The Germans are about to prove that they can win a war in Europe against a powerful coalition - more powerful than a new coalition in a new war could be expected after the peace. Thus the Germans can hold out in the Indies and negotiate a comeback.

On the other side, neutrality is not much of protection. Belgium was neutral - and the Germans ignored it. There's no reason to believe that other great powers wouldn't do the same. Britain, for example, will prepare for a new trade war and blockading neutral shipping. After the war, it's clear to everybody that Dutch trade during wartimes only benefits the Germans and must be stopped.

- And given our disparity in size we Dutch can´t really influence German policy even as allies.

As an ally, they have a chance. As a neutral country with the homeland hopelessly exposed to Germany and economically dependent on Germany, nobody will listen - neither Germany nor its enemies.

- So Germany might enter a war - against our Dutch interests - and making the Dutch East Indies a legitimate target to enemies (of our alliance).
- Once peace negotiations start, large Germany might decide that a few - already lost - Dutch East Indian islands might be negotiation mass for the "greater good". Even if we object.

That's a big threat, true. But colonies of smaller or neutral countries aren't really secure from Great Powers. Just look at the Anglo-German partition plans on the Portuguese colonies. And I again refer to Belgium to see what happens to neutral territories which happen to be of strategical importance...

- So the best course might be to stay neutral for now. And cry for help and an alliance only if we are attacked by somebody. That would avoid too these new German ideas about native troops and how to treat them.

You're absolutely right that the Dutch don't need to decide on that before the war is over - actually, they shouldn't to avoid getting in. They can make proposals to Germany during the negotiations - but ultimately, they could offer to lease a larger base even after the war.

I always imagined that Germany could have this idea and come up with it. But your proposal for bases is very reasonable and sounds fairly cheap. Furthermore, it shouldn't be that hard to negotiate that outcome. Thus the Germans likely wouldn't approach the Dutch either before negotiations fail to produce them a presence in Asia.

Concerning bases. Assuming Germany wants to return to Asia I´d go for:
- a "tertiary" supply base on East Timor. I don´t think Germany can get any British islands in the Indian ocean.
- a treaty port in China, Guangdong perhaps as you said.
- a "tertiary" supply base in French Polynesia. Tahiti would be nice for German tourism in the future.
- a "secondary" naval base in the Bismarck archipelago (Rabaul). Australia can keep mainland German New Guinea.

I fully agree with this.

East Timor could be exchanged against parts of either Angola or Mocambique.

(- maybe, just maybe grabbing the French Comoros islands - including Mayotte - and Reunion island? in the Indian Ocean)

Is this needed with a "primary" base in East Africa?

I wonder though, given the new German respect towards native African soldiers, if German recruitment in Asia might not be higher than expected?

The new developments of German colonial policy - citizenship, education, industrialization - will probably make a far greater contribution to this being the beginning of the "German century" than any annexations in Europe.

There won´t be enough German Settlers for both Angola and Mozambique anyway. So why not concentrate on Angola?

There were hardly any settlers for Namibia, there'll hardly be any settlers for Traken-Memelland or the Vistula triangle. If anybody in Germany sill has illusions about settler colonies in Africa, he should be kicked out of office.

Point is that Germany doesn't need settler colonies anymore. They are converting Africans into Germans. For that approach, a more densely populated colony with a more advanced population like Angola is much more valuable. In fact, under the new colonial approach Togoland, Cameroon and East Africa would all be more valuable than SW.

Giving up SW Africa against Sambia and its copper mines would be sensible IMHO. Then add northern Mocambique and Malawi, southern Mocambique goes to Portugal, which in turn gives up East Timor, the rest goes to South Africa?

In any case, though, this depends on how much the Germans and the South Africans can conquer.

 

[Vnix]

I would like to remind you all that during WW1, the Dutch were considered capable of defending the DEI. The KNIL was relatively capable and the fleet effective (not at the standards of the HSF or anything but one of the better in Asia)


If the Germans win then the Dutch will have to face facts. Neutrality will only work if you can defend yourself if attacked. As such if the Dutch want to remain neutral they need to drastically increase the Dutch Royal Army, Royal Netherlands Navy, KNIL and everything. They will need to build more submarines and perhaps even get battleships/carriers.

Not doing so will turn them into something laughable and the playball of the Brits/Germans, but doing so will automatically put them in Germany's sphere of influence since an increased RNN will make the Brits wary. Increasing the size of the Dutch Army would close up the soft side entrance into Germany and increasing the KNIL will make the Brits wary about possible Dutch colonial expansion, ESPECIALLY if Germany retains its colonies in Asia.

As such I think the Dutch will be forced into a partnership with Germany since Brittain is going to be scared as hell about what the Dutch will have to do.

 

[BlondieBC]

I am thinking it is unlikely they will let angola go, because parts of it are much more suited for european settlers, same with mozambique, however i do think it is likely they will try to trade SW-africa for other territory, maybe southern part of mozambique.

SW Africa was the settler colony. While it makes sense to trade/sell it to a friendly Dutch speaking nation, national pride demands otherwise. And the Angola issue can be added to SWA, and then this allows the "premium" SWA colony to remain the settlers colony. The only complication is the massive infrastructure being built in interior Kamerun, which will tend to draw in the settlers with things like ample electricity for industrialization, iron mines, coal mines, aluminum smelters, etc.

Might be, but it seems to be unlikely to me.
The Germans just spent a lot of time and effort to get back to German Togoland overland. Going through British Nigeria and French Dahomey. Angola would give them a land connection to German South West Africa. The Belgian Congo a connection to German East Africa.
Seems to me the Germans are much more interested in keeping all their "old" colonies (matter of pride) and conquering any territories in between to connect them on land (railways). Giving them "Mittelafrika".

German South West Africa - if I remember correctly - was largely left "undisturbed" by the war so far. So why give it up? They already found the first diamonds there in 1908. Mining there would be profitable.

It´s far easier to either:
- leave Portuguese Mozambique alone.
- just annex a strip of land along the southern border of German East Africa if needed.
- leave it in the South African influence zone. Let them annex it if they want.
- a partition between Germany and South Africa if South Africa is interested

There won´t be enough German Settlers for both Angola and Mozambique anyway. So why not concentrate on Angola?

The Germans have no intention of giving up anything they have built a railroad through. The campaign is largely pride, but it also driven by Zimmermann desire to help Germany. He had hoped attacking Nigeria would have cause the British to start transferring divisions from Flanders to Nigeria. He is also trying to apply pressure to the UK and France to make peace by constantly taking colonies. And since the railroad work in West Africa is nearing completion, he is looking at railroad options to additional Entente colonies.

SWA has only had a few minor border skirmishes. Beside one Division fighting in Angola, its units have been idle, unless you see taking Walvis Bay as a major operation.

Mozambique - Conquer, sell to SA for gold and maybe parts of Northern Rhodesia to build a RR from Angola to SW Africa. But this is likely 1918 at the earliest. And they might keep a border strip. Zimmerman would like easily defended borders at natural border such as a high mountain range.

The plan for post war:

Angola - Settler colony for farmers.
Kamerun - Industrial settler colony.
Rest - Just some mining, resource extraction.

 

[BlondieBC]

It would still be relatively cheap. Both types of bases can´t be defended against a determined enemy attack that far from home. At most one division of troops deployed. The coastal guns are from the older pre-dreadnoughts and armored cruisers. Likewise the torpedo boats are some of the older German HSF torpedo boats after the war.

I wonder though, given the new German respect towards native African soldiers, if German recruitment in Asia might not be higher than expected?

And if the Germans design fleet tenders like our TL "Dithmarchen" class they might be a bit more independent of naval bases?

I can give you an even cheaper option.

Germany sells older surplus ships to the Dutch at a really low price. The Dutch then have the operating costs, and I don't have to deal with the issues of upsetting the UK or Japan or the USA. I can then negotiate for Zanzibar, and make Dar Es Salaam a quality "tier 1" port. The ships there can make it to a Dutch Harbor in a month, assuming there is some war that does not involve the UK. So in the Dutch-Japanese war of 1928, I can help defend the islands without spending near as much money. And in any war with the UK, I would try to close the Suez, close the South Atlantic with my Navy instead of fight some capital ship battle in the Pacific.

As to the resupply ship, there will be something like this in the future. For the AMC/U-boat combos, they can easily be at sea for 6-12 months. The AMC has spare U-boat crew members and some basic repair facilities. Since this is working so well for the Germans, it will form the base of their post war doctrine which will be an evolution. Once the Germans have worked out how to base squadrons of U-boats thousand of miles from the home base, why spend so much money on a bunch of ports. Also, if you look at the specifications, the U-boats I am building are very long range, even by WW2 standards. And if needed, I have the "milk cow". Have the UM class ships carry fuel and supplies, and I can project power with U-boats alone. The UM/UX combination could simply have the U-boats sail to near the DEI, refuel, then sail and attack Japan. The Germans currently have a power projection ability with submarines not seen until the post WW2 era with the USA. The Germans could almost fight a U-boat war off the coast of Alaska if needed with the UM/UN combination.

 

[BlondieBC]

As such I think the Dutch will be forced into a partnership with Germany since Brittain is going to be scared as hell about what the Dutch will have to do.

Also with the "Dutch" ruling South Africa, the UK is likely to view the word in 3 groups - English speakers, German/Dutch Speakers, and neutrals.

Me too!

I guess it's down to one question: what is the right policy for a small country with respect to great powers? My proposal is to choose a side, yours is to avoid a side. Both have their merits.

....


The new developments of German colonial policy - citizenship, education, industrialization - will probably make a far greater contribution to this being the beginning of the "German century" than any annexations in Europe.



There were hardly any settlers for Namibia, there'll hardly be any settlers for Traken-Memelland or the Vistula triangle. If anybody in Germany sill has illusions about settler colonies in Africa, he should be kicked out of office.

Point is that Germany doesn't need settler colonies anymore. They are converting Africans into Germans. For that approach, a more densely populated colony with a more advanced population like Angola is much more valuable. In fact, under the new colonial approach Togoland, Cameroon and East Africa would all be more valuable than SW.

Giving up SW Africa against Sambia and its copper mines would be sensible IMHO. Then add northern Mocambique and Malawi, southern Mocambique goes to Portugal, which in turn gives up East Timor, the rest goes to South Africa?

In any case, though, this depends on how much the Germans and the South Africans can conquer.

I doubt Germany would be forcing the Dutch to take a side, since Germany knows push comes to shove, it can force the Dutch to join Germany.

MittelAfrika will be a driving force after the war. I think I have either created a German speaking India that will seek freedom in a few generations. Or, I have this weird hybrid Greater Germany that is half Africa, half Euro.

The Colonial office does have hopes for settler, but it understands it will not be pulling from wealthy German areas, but people like Germans in South America, Germans in Russia, Eastern Jews might be possible settlers with the right incentives. As could any oppressed people such as Armenian or Greeks in Turkey or Christians in Lebanon. They key is getting settler who are loyal to Germany, want to become "German" and have useful skills. The last thing MittleAfrika needs is illiterate, unskilled people whose skin happens to be white.

 

[wietze]

something like this? the darker brown part becoming german, the yellow part of mozambique going to south-africa.

Wondering if madagascar Could end with south africa too (would they be interested in it)?

 

[Vnix]

what is the maroon going to become? I suggest it to be part of SA

 

[wietze]

what is the maroon going to become? I suggest it to be part of SA

mittel-afrika, the yellow part going to S.A. (in the previous map it was part of S.A., this is a variation to form optimised borders)