WI: Willhelm II without his fleet obsession?

Deleted member 160141

Why so rude? Both of us were offering a correction to a mistake.

If you don't care about mistakes, fair enough.
Sorry, was editing while you were typing up. Should be better now, but still! your notions of 'mistake' and 'shorthand' are baffling when everybody knows by inference wtf I'm talking about. It's not even something only historians get; regular people make this shorthand too!
 
Sorry, was editing while you were typing up. Should be better now, but still! your notions of 'mistake' and 'shorthand' are baffling when everybody knows by inference wtf I'm talking about. It's not even something only historians get; regular people make this shorthand too!
It was a mistake. There has been no English government since 1707.

I knew what you were talking about. I only responded because you gave a rather rude response to someone pointing out it was the British not the English which is factually accurate.

Its not worth arguing over. It was akin to calling Germany Prussian.

In the UK at least, most 'regular people would say British.
 
Last edited:
Double tracking the Trans Siberian would be about 7500 kilometers. The Russians planned about 4000 in Poland by 1917. This would increase their capacity from 360 to 560 trains a day.

It would also leave enough money to increase the rolling stock by 6000 locomotives and 150,000 cars. That's the amount of rolling stock the Army used in 1914.

The 18 far Eastern divisions could be moved to Europe speeding things up even more.

Take it all together and Germany is done for if she doesn't build a fleet in 1898.

The Russians spend 3 billion rubles on The Manchurian War so their weapon stocks could be enormous.

This assumes a complete abandonement of the Russian East - and thats out of the question. Reduced attention and resources - sure can happen. But to completly detract all - no way in hell.

Also if we assume that in this case the british are neutral - or even on the german side - thats still a big win and a much stronger position for Germany compared to OTL.

Another consideration: the Russo-Japanese war was the last war of great-powers for decades - and though the lessons it thought werent enough to make the generals completely aware of what was coming, without it they will remain even more in the dark about what to expect. This might have interesting consequences.
 
Why, what's it to ya?

Besides, England is the main piece of Britain, both its governing part and the most populous. Calling Britain Scotland would be presumptuous, but not England.
Not to make too much of it: but it implies that England is a mere synonym and not a nation in it's own right, whereas it has history of it's own. Albeit with no English monarch since Edgar the Atheling was proclaimed King of England in 1066 after the death of Harold Godwinson.
 

Deleted member 160141

Not to make too much of it: but it implies that England is a mere synonym and not a nation in it's own right, whereas it has history of it's own. Albeit with no English monarch since Edgar the Atheling was proclaimed King of England in 1066 after the death of Harold Godwinson.
At this point, it's just the overriding cog in Britain, and so by synecdoche it is Britain.
 

Driftless

Donor
That's a slippery slope you really don't wanna go down. IOTL, the Germans only funded the Reds after it became a question of "if we don't, we die next year; if we do, we'll die later but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it".
If you start funding Reds or separatists, you show yourself to have no ideological standards whatsoever and show your willingness to strike low blows in peacetime, which marks you out as dishonorable in a time when honor means something. Two can play at that game, and there's nobody more motivated to play hard than somebody who's just been low-blowed and a.) wants revenge, and b.) is outraged that you would stoop so low.

And considering the politics of Imperial Russia, you really, really don't want to touch the Reds around them, because that's guaranteed to end badly for you. Not just because they hate the Reds' guts, but because the Okhrana are elbow-deep into all the revolutionary movements in Europe (the fear of subversion by Okhrana IOTL motivated a lot of the early Leninist purges) (^1). To precede the inevitable "but why didn't they destroy the Reds then?" comment: simple, the country was completely fractured by that point and the Okhrana couldn't exercise that level of active power anymore even if they still had all their observatory power.
Given that the Okhrana are the guys whose instruction manuals the KGB followed without modification well into the 70s (ie. back in the glory days of Russian counterintelligence culture), you ought to be very afraid of them if you start playing around in their pen. After all, if they have their hands in the revolutionary and terrorist movements of Europe, they can easily do things to you with them that you wouldn't want done to you (assassinations, bombings, etc).​

Germany funding Reds? Well, Russia can fund Reds too, and plenty. Funding Ukrainian separatists? Well, how about fund crazies like the Black Hand or any other thorn in Austria's side? It's all the sort of stuff that can very easily escalate into a no-holds-barred war, because by the end of the escalation nobody will give a shit about being honorable or holding themselves back.

People didn't play around like this back then for a reason, and it wasn't because they didn't know this sort of shit existed.
Destabilizing elements are like torpedos: once they're out of the tube, they're not your (or anyone else's) friend.
^1: Look up Roman Malinovsky and Yezno Azef. Just goes to show how deep the Okhrana had infiltrated the revolutionary movements, and what they could do with them.
Fair point about opponents playing the same game. My post that you responded to was flippant, but I still do think that sort of thing was done/is done on varying levels historically. i.e. Today, its economic-political cyber-warfare as one avenue for attempting to manipulate your opponent at some level.

What are the Germans to do? The HSF was a dead end. They are not just going to roll over and wait for the inevitable Franco-Russian steamroller to flatten them. If they haven't piddled away a big chunk of treasury on the HSF, how can some of those funds be better used to gain an edge?
 
The germans only increased their budget vis-a-vis to the franco-russian alliance in 1912. Before that, german military spending was under funded if compared with the franco-russians. So, assuming the germans don't invest too much on a navy, they'll be able to keep parity and invest for longer, in the army, in comparison to the franco-russian alliance. The russians will also suffer from the domestic problem of supplying their armies and replacing their material loses as OTL, so it's not as bleak as it may look, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 160141

Fair point about opponents playing the same game. My post that you responded to was flippant, but I still do think that sort of thing was done/is done on varying levels historically. i.e. Today, its economic-political cyber-warfare as one avenue for attempting to manipulate your opponent at some level.

What are the Germans to do? The HSF was a dead end. They are not just going to roll over and wait for the inevitable Franco-Russian steamroller to flatten them. If they haven't piddled away a big chunk of treasury on the HSF, how can some of those funds be better used to gain an edge?
At a guess...

1. Fortresses, probably akin the Maginot Line. When you know you face the risk of imminent invasion, that's one of the top priorities.
2. Any kind of esoteric weapons they can get their hands on, including nuclear weapons once the physics really gets proven. Germany was strapped for uranium at the time, but it still had some of the best universities and had all the best physics scientists, Jewish or not, working on it. Without the Nazis foolishly driving them away / killing them, the Germans would stand in good stead. It also doesn't hurt that Russia, by contrast, is anti-Semitic as hell and the thought of them lording over Europe will seem very unappealing to German Jews.
3. Alliances, particularly economic ones.

Thing is, Germany in this universe might actually ally with Britain since their interests don't fully clash, and Britain still considers Russia a dormant and ever-increasing threat.
Thus, we might have an alliance of Britain, Germany and Italy facing off against an alliance of France and Russia and maybe Austria.


You know, it occurs to me that this is just a retread of the Diplomatic Revolution-era map.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

'British' if you please. England is a nation in it's own right and not a synonym for Britain.
I find it easy to make this error when I am writing, but if I am talking about the short from to describe the Empire, it is alway Britain.
 
More railroads and trains is always a good thing. Also the new automobile industry is a good investment for the future. A strategic reserve of rare materials like rubber and other stuff that are vulnerable in case of blockade.
 

Deleted member 160141

How about with something less warlike? Like sports cars or football teams.
I get that this is meant to be a lighthearted comment, but no. The sports-entertainment industry isn't there yet in Europe, and that doesn't do anything about the underlying jingoism; it's not even a good outlet, if the Football War is to show for it.

Wilhelm II was a wargamer, though, so...
 
If he kept the old system of alliance with Russia ww1 may not have happened. A different Willhelm II with, say, fascination with science may redirect a lot of money towards scientific research
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if I just don't give a shit about maintaining propriety 100% of the time? Maybe, just maybe, it's a shorthand and not a mark of ignorance?

Also, please read the second line! It does rather fix the issue for you, doesn't it?
Well, you went WAY too far with this one (BTW: Mods can see original posts, not just the later edited versions).

You need to stop being this level of abusive and argumentative with everyone you interact with.

Kicked for a week.
 
The Navy is a good thing, creates jobs, its the "Germany" service. A place for aspiring middle class officers. Ships are the big high tech thing of the time. Kaiser Wilhelm was into passenger liners too, non military, so I suspect he was in to all things tech already OTL (as would most of the people on this board, if transported back to that time and made Kaiser.)

I suspect Britain and France are just going to end up together regardless of fleet building, they both have a lot of the same interests. Egypt for Morocco for starters.

As for Germany: Just don't declare war on Russia on August 1st and agree to a peace conference, or agree to a peace conference after Belgrade gets occupied by the Austrians. The naval issue had settle out anyway by then. Britain had won.
 

Aphrodite

Banned
This assumes a complete abandonement of the Russian East - and thats out of the question. Reduced attention and resources - sure can happen. But to completly detract all - no way in hell.
Not a complete abandonment just a passive policy. If threaten ed in the West, which Germany increasing her army budget means, Russia would concentrate on Europe. In OTL, the army under Orbuchev and Kuropatkain, already were urging such a course.
Also if we assume that in this case the british are neutral - or even on the german side - thats still a big win and a much stronger position for Germany compared to OTL.
Why would we do that? The Entente had nothing to do with the German fleet. Britain merely solved it's Colonial disputes at the expense of Germany. A threatening Germany would make France and Russia offer better terms. The Entente came close to forming in 1895 floundering over the Triple Intervention and Russian support for the Sultan.

The British still won't like Germany invading Belgium or controlling the Channel Coast



Another consideration: the Russo-Japanese war was the last war of great-powers for decades - and though the lessons it thought werent enough to make the generals completely aware of what was coming, without it they will remain even more in the dark about what to expect. This might have interesting consequences.
Very true. Generally speaking, Germany did a much better job of applying the lessons of that war than the French
 
I wonder if the assumption that the army gets the savings of any ships not built is a faulty one, perhaps the money is mostly just saved, i.e. lower taxes. You still have to sell it in the Reichstag, Tirpitz was a good salesman, others may not be so successful.

If there is a bit of extra money it would probably go to the reserve artillery, coastal fortresses, even colonial defenses, since the "distance" defense of the high seas fleet is less.

If there was a bit of money for fortifications, fortifying the "Intersburg" gap from Memel to the Masurian Lakes. The steel in the forts would be good for Krupp to make up for lost naval profits.
 
Top