Bismarck and Tirpitz canceled for more Scharnhorst-class

Saphroneth

Banned
No one was prepared to goto war against another European nation in the 30's except Italy and Germany perhaps.
Um... you may want to define that one more carefully. What changed between 1938 and 1939 which led to the British and French being willing to go to war against Germany?

Answer... that Germany was making treaties and then violating them ASAP, making them look like a
rougue cowboy state
 
what are you calculating the allowance for carriers to be? and how (opinion) do you think the British look at them with 16 - 5.9" guns? (not the particular flawed design they produced, just the idea of large fast ship equipped with that many guns?)

Graf Zeppeling was designed to act as a commerce raider like most larger german warships of her day, so needed a certain means to deal with merchantships quickly, Her heavy AA was considered not enough for that purpose, so the cassemated 5.9 inch twin guns were included in the design, just for that purpose. These guns were not to be used against warships, as the German Navy correctly assumed that the main defense was by her aircraft. (At some time the Graf Zeppelin was also to have included torpedotubes btw, just for the german practice of finishing off a detained merchant ship quickly, like the HSK´s performed in reality.)

thanks, learn something new all the time, the heavy armament is always portrayed to fend off warships and casemate installation ridiculed, the scenario you outlined makes perfect sense.
 
Yes and no one in the FOREIGN OFFICE is going to be bullied into war ,just because the navy is whining about the enemy has a few more pocket battle cruisers.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
I could see the UK going and just sinking any vessels that violate the treaty, especially in the mid 30's, Germany couldn't do much about it but try to resist and have her entire fleet demolished.


I mean, what other retaliation does she have? Invade some county that's not the UK? In 1936?


Its unlikely to lead to open war (since it doesn't do anything for Germany), and the UK gets what it wants.
 
No one was prepared to goto war against another European nation in the 30's except Italy and Germany perhaps. UK and France certainly, due to internal problems and economic resession were absolutely not willing to go to war with whoever was irritating them. (Otherwisem they would have fought Italy due to its agression in Abbessina, Germany and USSR due to interfering in the Spanish Civil War and don't forget Japan's agression in China.) It is too simple to state someone would go to war, like an idiot being not treated the way he wanted. We are speaking of civilized democracies here, who were trying to avoid war, whenever possible, not rougue cowboy states.

The watershed you fail to see, exactly like Hitler did, is named vital national interests.

To focus on Britain, the British did not give a flying damn about the Ethiopians because who was in charge in Addis Ababa did not change a thing in the City or the West End. They did not see an anti-Communist military regime in Spain as really that bad a thing if compared to a Communist revolutionary regime there. And they still considered the Sudeten a distant place about whose inhabitants and quarrels they knew very little.

Now, however, when it comes to having one continental power gain hegemony over the continent, that's what raises the red flag. That's not "irritating". That's a threat to the British key national interest in the continent. Something to go to war for.
 
I could see the UK going and just sinking any vessels that violate the treaty, especially in the mid 30's, Germany couldn't do much about it but try to resist and have her entire fleet demolished.


I mean, what other retaliation does she have? Invade some county that's not the UK? In 1936?


Its unlikely to lead to open war (since it doesn't do anything for Germany), and the UK gets what it wants.

I don't see that happening. That's not the way things were done back then, and the British public opinion, not what the Germans could do, would be the stumbling block.

On the other hand, the British could very well decide to draw their line in the sand in Prague instead of in Warsaw. Which would entirely derail this whole Nazi stuff.
Additionally, there would be the political will to boost the Royal Navy, especially when it comes to the smaller stuff that wasn't constrained by Treaties and which would be particularly useful against both submarines and these big-gunned but soft-skinned German bullies.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yes and no one in the FOREIGN OFFICE is going to be bullied into war ,just because the navy is whining about the enemy has a few more pocket battle cruisers.
The FOREIGN OFFICE doesn't have the authority to declare war or peace - Cabinet does, it's a Royal Prerogative. What they can do (Cabinet, FO, and FO under Cabinet direction) is take a harder line (not much harder) diplomatically over the Sudetenland.

The logic OTL was that Hitler was not violating treaties, except for Versailles (for which the public perception was that it was overly harsh, and which he inherited from a previous government).
TTL, however, he's shown he's willing to sign a treaty and then immediately violate it. This means there is no reason to trust a TTL Munich agreement even for a short time.
 
I could see the UK going and just sinking any vessels that violate the treaty, especially in the mid 30's, Germany couldn't do much about it but try to resist and have her entire fleet demolished.


I mean, what other retaliation does she have? Invade some county that's not the UK? In 1936?


Its unlikely to lead to open war (since it doesn't do anything for Germany), and the UK gets what it wants.

Do you realy think so? It is too simplistic to do such a thing, wiothout thinking of the consequenses internationally, as the UK would be then considered a "Pirate State"just sinking ships at sea at its own liking, like Blackbeard the Pirate did centuries earlier?

Does the word Appeachement say anything? Western Democracies in the 30's were unwilling to go to war and wanted to act in the name of the League of Nations at best, according to International Law, not just treaties. Unless you put an idiot as head of the government, which was not the case in the OTL, peace was the general goal and everything threatening it was to be avoided at best.

So the best the British and other opposing states to the German Naval building, could do was simply a diplomatic protest, eventually backed by some economic presure, nothing more.
 
The watershed you fail to see, exactly like Hitler did, is named vital national interests.

To focus on Britain, the British did not give a flying damn about the Ethiopians because who was in charge in Addis Ababa did not change a thing in the City or the West End. They did not see an anti-Communist military regime in Spain as really that bad a thing if compared to a Communist revolutionary regime there. And they still considered the Sudeten a distant place about whose inhabitants and quarrels they knew very little.

Now, however, when it comes to having one continental power gain hegemony over the continent, that's what raises the red flag. That's not "irritating". That's a threat to the British key national interest in the continent. Something to go to war for.

Not the UK in the 30's. War was the last resort, just like the actual start of the war was caused by the Alliance with Poland, which was invaded, casuing a casus belly by treaty of Mutual support. The Czechoslovakian case lacked this sort of treaty, so no war here. Besides that, the UK were politcally not very enthousiastic to go to war in september 1939 and certainly were not before, as peace was to be preserved as long as possible.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Not the UK in the 30's. War was the last resort, just like the actual start of the war was caused by the Alliance with Poland, which was invaded, casuing a casus belly by treaty of Mutual support. The Czechoslovakian case lacked this sort of treaty, so no war here.
As a learning exercise, please look up the date of the treaty between the UK and Poland. Consider how that may have been affected by the Czechoslovakian case.
Discuss.
 
Not the UK in the 30's. War was the last resort, just like the actual start of the war was caused by the Alliance with Poland, which was invaded, casuing a casus belly by treaty of Mutual support. The Czechoslovakian case lacked this sort of treaty, so no war here. Besides that, the UK were politcally not very enthousiastic to go to war in september 1939 and certainly were not before, as peace was to be preserved as long as possible.
Who is to say that Britain wouldn't have signed a treaty of mutual support with the Czechs before Munich if Germany was pissing them off too much.

Yes peace is to be preserved but there's only so often a nation will roll over like a dog. Germany breaking an AGNA or there being no agna and Germany building a fleet that's a threat means that an appropriate flash point Britain will be at war with Germany.

France Will follow along. I assume it will be Munich because that's an extra ally to have but it could be before that.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Do you realy think so? It is too simplistic to do such a thing, wiothout thinking of the consequenses internationally, as the UK would be then considered a "Pirate State"just sinking ships at sea at its own liking, like Blackbeard the Pirate did centuries earlier?

Does the word Appeachement say anything? Western Democracies in the 30's were unwilling to go to war and wanted to act in the name of the League of Nations at best, according to International Law, not just treaties. Unless you put an idiot as head of the government, which was not the case in the OTL, peace was the general goal and everything threatening it was to be avoided at best.

So the best the British and other opposing states to the German Naval building, could do was simply a diplomatic protest, eventually backed by some economic presure, nothing more.

Its not as though they would do it off the cuff. And if Germany is in violation of the treaty, it's well within their rights to go to war.

This just happens to be a war the UK can win in a single battle, and cannot possibly lose. It's anything but piracy, your myopic stance on the matter notwithstanding.
 
Its not as though they would do it off the cuff. And if Germany is in violation of the treaty, it's well within their rights to go to war.

This just happens to be a war the UK can win in a single battle, and cannot possibly lose. It's anything but piracy, your myopic stance on the matter notwithstanding.

Breaking treaties is not enough to go to war. You need a very lot more to trigger a war in those days. We are speaking of the 30's, the time of the illfated League of Nations! Not the 21st century of today with hipocrates ruling in some nations, doing what they want, with no one willing to call them off. (No names to be not insulting, but simply read the news). A minor treaty, like a naval agreement is not enough to trigger a war.

BTW, a minor war at sea perhaps, but with a major escalation risk, you seem to forget. Both UK and France certainly were not strong enough to fight a full blown war, while Germany was more or less ready to do so. (Yes on land, but still a major risk to her neighbours.) Is the UK willing to fight a war against France at the same time? Yes, France would get realy pissed off by an unreliable UK going to war over a minor issue, while France was more or less defenseless still, due to cuts in the defensebudget over the years prior to the late 30's. Fracne would ba allienated from the UK and perhaps even go to war against her, to even the odds, as well as preventing a two front encircling with Germany in the east and UK in the North (Belgium). Compared to Germany France did have a navy of certain power, able enough to defend its shore as well as hurting an enemy at sea, if needed.

As said: The topic is far too simplistic and irrelevant as such. Politcs require a more thourough approach, especially in the 30's.

Conclussion: NO WAR over such an insignificant issue as the breach of a minor naval treaty agreement between the world's biggest navy adn a new born fledgling, which basically was the Kriegsmarine at the time. The Britihs had more arguments to fight wars in other parts of the world (Imperialism still ruling in this period of history), than bringing dissaster uppon their own by foolish single minded issues, that were not important at all.

BTW, the Deutschland class cruiser was bassically a typical heavy cruiser, with the same missionprofile as the old French Armored cruisers of the early 20th century, namely commerceraiding as primary objective. Therefore creating a cruiser with more firepower than aything faster (appart from three British left over battlecruisers) and faster than anything stronger in terms of firepower. As such these ships were correctly rated as heavy cruisers by the German Navy from 1940 on, though orriginally classed as "Panzerschiffe in the capitasl ship group, as they replaced obsolete capital ships of an earlier generation. The missionprofile was typpical for cruiserwarfare, primarily disturbing enemy commerce, as lone wolfs at sea, not in a taskforce, or battlefleet as in capital ships.
 
Who is to say that Britain wouldn't have signed a treaty of mutual support with the Czechs before Munich if Germany was pissing them off too much.

Yes peace is to be preserved but there's only so often a nation will roll over like a dog. Germany breaking an AGNA or there being no agna and Germany building a fleet that's a threat means that an appropriate flash point Britain will be at war with Germany.

France Will follow along. I assume it will be Munich because that's an extra ally to have but it could be before that.


BTW, Explain how a continental nation, like Germany can be a threat to a maritime nation withj the biggest fleet in the world, by just building three odd cruisers? The UK had around 50 cruisers against these three of comparable and slightly smaller size, though with smaller guns. This is no Cassus Belli. The UK would be seen as agressor and unreliable, frustrating other democratic nations more than frustrating Germany. So an infinite NO to war over such a minor issue.

There were far bigger reasons to go to war against Germany besides these minor naval issues. German politics were clear enough about this, relating to the Threaty of Versailles as such, the border issues everywhere and the expansion of territory.
 
BTW, the Deutschland class cruiser was bassically a typical heavy cruiser, with the same missionprofile as the old French Armored cruisers of the early 20th century, namely commerceraiding as primary objective. Therefore creating a cruiser with more firepower than aything faster (appart from three British left over battlecruisers) and faster than anything stronger in terms of firepower. As such these ships were correctly rated as heavy cruisers by the German Navy from 1940 on, though orriginally classed as "Panzerschiffe in the capitasl ship group, as they replaced obsolete capital ships of an earlier generation. The missionprofile was typpical for cruiserwarfare, primarily disturbing enemy commerce, as lone wolfs at sea, not in a taskforce, or battlefleet as in capital ships.

Agreed the Deutschland class were built for the cruiser raiding. The Royal Navy and the British political background was terrified that the Germans would adopt cruiserkrieg for a new war. That is to say a 'freak fleet' of Deuschland class raiders and submarines with minelayers and torpedo boats for coastal defence.

AGNA was meant to lure the Germans into abandoning the 'freak fleet' which scared the British.

If Germany broke it you are a step closer to war. It won't be the only thing to raise tensions but it will piss the British off.

Germany pissed the British off a lot over the 30s and historically Poland was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Germany are building a fleet of 35 raiding ships backed by submarines Britain will run out of patience with Germany earlier.

Remember this conversation about war began when a poster suggested that Germany should ignore treaties and build 35 ships in the style of the Deuschlands. Either breaking the agna or not signing it. This isn't about 3 panzerschiffe starting a war it's about 35 doing so.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Britihs had more arguments to fight wars in other parts of the world (Imperialism still ruling in this period of history), than bringing dissaster uppon their own by foolish single minded issues, that were not important at all.
Name an issue more important to the British than an unchecked German naval challenge.
 
We are speaking of the 30's, the time of the illfated League of Nations! Not the 21st century of today with hipocrates ruling in some nations, doing what they want, with no one willing to call them off.
I was under the impression the 30s restraint only worked against other Developed/European powers fighting in the rest of the world was fine but most of it would have been just suppressing rebellions anyway as they already owned it....
 
AGNA was meant to lure the Germans into abandoning the 'freak fleet' which scared the British.

If Germany broke it you are a step closer to war. It won't be the only thing to raise tensions but it will piss the British off.
This raise the point of what would GB do come 2LNT with all of Japan, Italy and Germany not in the treaties or even looking like they might be brought in later, would they really carry on with them? If not what would they build?
 
This raise the point of what would GB do come 2LNT with all of Japan, Italy and Germany not in the treaties or even looking like they might be brought in later, would they really carry on with them? If not what would they build?
Not really sure. If Germany are going for the 'freak fleet' and Italy and Japan go for conventional fleets it's going to be hard for Britain to figure out a building strategy as they have to counter two distinct threats.

In an ideal world we would see Britain wanting to go for fast light battleships (like the French Dunkquerke) to counter Germany and heavy battleships to counter Italy/Japan. I'm sure the treasury would not approve.

Maybe an increased focus on carriers as it was thought in the 30s that you wouldn't sink a battleship underway at sea but a cruiser was doable. For war in the Mediterranean or Far East the carriers would be till be useful.
 
Not the UK in the 30's. War was the last resort, just like the actual start of the war was caused by the Alliance with Poland, which was invaded, casuing a casus belly by treaty of Mutual support. The Czechoslovakian case lacked this sort of treaty, so no war here.

Not in OTL, yeah.

In OTL you have this sequence:
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British don't worry because after all it's part of Germany and it was an unreasonable clause of Versailles anyway.
- Rearmament - the British don't worry because it was another unreasonable clause of Versailles and because the AGNA contains the naval part of it... the part of German rearmament that is most worrisome to the British.
-Annexation of Austria - the British don't worry because to some extent the Austrians were OK with that.
- Annexation of the Sudeten - the British accept that grudgingly, provided that Germany undertakes a commitment to stop there.
- Dismemberment of the remaining Czechoslovakia - the British enter a military alliance with the next target, Poland, because this is the proof that Germany can't be trusted when it undertakes a commitment, i.e. it's bent on war no matter what.

In this ATL you have a similar sequence:
- Remilitarization of the Rhineland - the British don't worry because after all it's part of Germany and it was an unreasonable clause of Versailles anyway.
- Rearmament - the British don't worry because it was another unreasonable clause of Versailles and because the AGNA contains the naval part of it... the part of German rearmament that is most worrisome to the British.
-Annexation of Austria - the British don't worry because to some extent the Austrians were OK with that.
- Annexation of the Sudeten - the British accept that grudgingly, provided that Germany undertakes a commitment to stop there.
- Blatant violation of the AGNA - the British enter a military alliance with the next target, the rump Czechoslovakia, because this is the proof that Germany can't be trusted when it undertakes a commitment, i.e. it's bent on war no matter what.

Besides that, the UK were politcally not very enthousiastic to go to war in september 1939 and certainly were not before, as peace was to be preserved as long as possible.

Read again my post about vital national interests.
 
Top