Clearing up a misperception, Tirpitz did not invent German navy-

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's an overstatement of a misperception, but it's a common trope or response on alternate history boards that Germany didn't have either a consequential navy or global ambitions prior to the appointment of Tirpitz and the passage of the Navy laws and the construction ordered under them coming into effect.

But for much of it's first 30 years, Germany had a respectable fleet.
Sondhaus, pp135

“In 1872 the German Navy ranked last in size among the fleets of six European great powers, but four years later {1876} it passed the Austro-Hungarian navy in total tonnage of warships in commission. In 1880 Germany passed Italy in total tonnage, and by 1882 it trailed only Britain and France in armored tonnage.


After its first decade of growth from 1872-1882, there was a bit of lull and others (Russia and Italy I think) pulled ahead of them again.

“Amid the declining budgets of his {Stosch}last years in office, Germany laid down no armored warships at all between 1879 and 1883.

pp164, German admiralty under Caprivi concerned about expansion of Russian Baltic fleet.

pp171: In the late 1880s the Italians had the world’s third largest navy and expected no help from the Germans at sea.


Sondhaus, pp189

“In 1894, two years after Russia’s naval expansion dropped Germany to fifth in armored tonnage among European fleets, the completion of the Brandenburgs enabled the navy to pass Italy and recover fourth place. In 1896 , Germany finally passed Italy in total warship tonnage”

So, these rankings show Germany twice having the third largest European fleet. The data I am specifying don't deal with contemporary non-European fleets, like America's and Japan's, but I would expect that US armored tonnage was less at a few points in the this period and Japan was probably less at all times.

German gunboat diplomacy was not a brand new thing starting in China, the Philippines and Venezuela in the later later 1890s either.

Caribbean gunboat diplomacy started as early as the 1870s:
“Compared with the Pacific, far fewer German warships visited these waters, but under Stosch the most dramatic cases of gunboat pressure came in Latin America.
1871 sent a warship to Rio to support a German merchant and consul.
Winter 1871-1872, a warship visited Venezuela to encourage debt repayment.

pp118 “After Haiti reneged on a promise to pay a claim of 20,000 thalers to a Hamburg merchant, Batsch took his ships to Port-au-Prince in June 1872. In a daring nighttime operation, a landing party led by Lieutenant Friedrich Hollman stored the town, while others seized two Haitian navy paddle steamers anchored in the harbor. They suffered no casualties, and the debt was promptly paid.”
After that in 1872, German warships went to Colombia successfully encouraging payment for railroad development.

“The next great display of gunboat diplomacy in Latin American waters came in March 1878, after Germany demanded reparations of $30,000 for alleged ill treatment of the German consult in Nicaragua. When Managua refused to pay, the corvettes Leipzig, Elisabeth and Ariadne blockaded the Nicaraguan coastline on the Pacific side, the corvette Medusa on the Atlantic side. The government in Managua remained defiant until it learned that German agents had leased a number of oxcarts to carry supplies for an inland march by a large landing party. Payment of the debt and a Nicaraguan salute to the German flag brought a quick end to the crisis. The Leipzig had to double back across the Pacific to join the demonstration; the ship even had Japanese cadets on board, who were put to shore temporarily in Panama.”

“At the turn of the century, the Nicaraguan demonstration of 1878 was still being hailed as a classic example of gunboat diplomacy.”

Also, for all the identification of Bismarck with anti colonialism and antinavalism, and Wilhelm II with enthusiasm for those items, the German Empire annexed much more territory and population overseas during Bismarck's ministry than in any of Wilhelm II's later ministries. I mean Micronesia and and Qingdao are pretty small, especially if you don't count their EEZ waters. I guess if you count those, Wilhelm II wins the contest.
 
Last edited:
Also, for all the identification of Bismarck with anti colonialism and antinavalism, and Wilhelm II with enthusiasm for those items, the German Empire annexed much more territory and population overseas during Bismarck's ministry than in any of Wilhelm II's later ministries.

Yabbut by the time Bismarck left office, there was almost no colonial territory to be had.

Bismarck was in power during the Scramble for Africa, when there was lots of territory being shared out. It was politically required that Germany get something out of it. Compared to what was available, Bismarck-Germany didn't take much.

Post-Bismarck Germany, pushed by Willy, tried hard to get as much as it could in an era when there was almost nothing left.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yabbut by the time Bismarck left office, there was almost no colonial territory to be had.

Bismarck was in power during the Scramble for Africa, when there was lots of territory being shared out. It was politically required that Germany get something out of it. Compared to what was available, Bismarck-Germany didn't take much.

Post-Bismarck Germany, pushed by Willy, tried hard to get as much as it could in an era when there was almost nothing left.

fair enough on that point. the other information from the Sondhaus book though was a revelation to me.
 
I think that is based on the awful shorthand version that history is mostly taught in.

The navy was one of the key projects of German unification. It was onew of the first things the '48 parliament instituted and immediately scrapped by the reactionary forces after. Germany had to have one after '71, nothing else was an option.

Bismarck never liked the navy or the colonies (naturally, as a reactionary Prussian), but neither was anything he could prevent. The colonies were acquired largely in spite of his policy stance simply because of public pressure and powerful interest groups, mostly from the free cities and the Rhineland. He went along with it because he had to and it gave him leverage in negotiations. But if Germany had notv acquired any colonies, nobody would have taken it seriously, and he knew that.

Tirpitz invented something much more dangerous: the strategic conception of 'Risikoflotte'. The original stance of the German navy was defensive. It was supposed to stand against the Russian Baltic fleet and/or prevent a close blockade of the North Sea ports by France. Its colonial complement was supposed to push around small copuntries and overawe natives because that's what navies did. Tirpitz came up with the idea that he could improve Germany's position among the great powers by giving her a fleet that could challenge dominance of the high seas - one that would be too risky for even Britain to tangle with. That was the new factor, and Bismarck would never have allowed it because for all his faults, he knew both maths and foreign policy.

Kind of like the difference between, say, India having a nuclear deterrent and India having a multi-hundred warhead ICBM force.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I think that is based on the awful shorthand version that history is mostly taught in.

The navy was one of the key projects of German unification. It was one of the first things the '48 parliament instituted and immediately scrapped by the reactionary forces after. Germany had to have one after '71, nothing else was an option.

Bismarck never liked the navy or the colonies (naturally, as a reactionary Prussian), but neither was anything he could prevent. The colonies were acquired largely in spite of his policy stance simply because of public pressure and powerful interest groups, mostly from the free cities and the Rhineland. He went along with it because he had to and it gave him leverage in negotiations. But if Germany had notv acquired any colonies, nobody would have taken it seriously, and he knew that.

Tirpitz invented something much more dangerous: the strategic conception of 'Risikoflotte'. The original stance of the German navy was defensive. It was supposed to stand against the Russian Baltic fleet and/or prevent a close blockade of the North Sea ports by France. Its colonial complement was supposed to push around small copuntries and overawe natives because that's what navies did. Tirpitz came up with the idea that he could improve Germany's position among the great powers by giving her a fleet that could challenge dominance of the high seas - one that would be too risky for even Britain to tangle with. That was the new factor, and Bismarck would never have allowed it because for all his faults, he knew both maths and foreign policy.

Kind of like the difference between, say, India having a nuclear deterrent and India having a multi-hundred warhead ICBM force.

Indeed yes!

Seen from our post-events point of view you can't help wondering how/why Germany walked into the strategic blunder of alienating GB - on top of France and Russia.

Seen from a late 19th century point og view I guess however, that it wasn't that easy. Having colonies apparently was seen as a prerequisite for being a truely 1st rate power and for a young proud nation as Germany with a vain regent like Wilhelm such symbols seriously counted.

It is intersting however that colonies apparently never were on the agenda for Austria-Hungary. After the 1848, 1859, 1866 "string of pearls" I guess the Habsburgs had more serious problems than snatching vacant deserts or jungles, but actually Germany wasn't much better off.

France was explicitly revanchist and Russia already huge but growing in strength each day (had the highest growth in industrialisation pre WWI). That you in such a situation choose to alienate GB instead of capitalising on the almost hysterical British anxiety over French and Russian greed for colonies is diifficult to understand seen from post-events of 20th century.

Would Friederich III living longer have been enough to keep Germany at home?

Regards

Redbeard
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Friedrich III's impact would depend on how much he was simply a Britain-lover or a Britain-imitator.

The most friction-free Germany would do as Britain wants, not as Britain does.
IE, have liberal domestic institutions but the non-expansionary foreign policy of a Switzerland or Sweden.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
One has to have in mind the German Navy was also strengenthed because of the British threats to blockade the German coast. It was no unilateral step by Germany.

Also Austria-Hungary had made some moves to take colonies, but none was successful (Nicobares for example).
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Friedrich III's impact would depend on how much he was simply a Britain-lover or a Britain-imitator.

The most friction-free Germany would do as Britain wants, not as Britain does.
IE, have liberal domestic institutions but the non-expansionary foreign policy of a Switzerland or Sweden.

We need to remember that while he was dominated by his British wife, this woman believed in the British SYSTEM more than British policies.

The Husband-wife pair pushed the idea of a Reichstag along the lines of the British parliament where the crown obeyed the people and ministers reported to the Reichstag and not the crown. Given the hatred that British policies generated in Germany (the Boer War being just one of many) its quite possible that Germany under Frederich becomes MORE anti-British rather than less
 
I would argue that German navies were more inevitable than Germany messing with Russia. The interesting bit of data underlying this thread is nice. But: it is also no big surprise. Germany, especially pre-WW1 Germany, has a long coastline and massive industry. This tends to translate into naval power (and, of course, the North-German cities had a decent naval tradition to go with it).

I think the comparison to multi-hundred nuclear ICBMs isn't so bad. Germany was a great power, it was bound to not be at Britain's mercy when it came to trade. The only way to secure that would be to have a navy strong enough to deter Britain (even if, indeed, that proved a fool's hope).

Russia and Germany, however, shared a long but restless border. Both still had an interest in keeping Poland off the map, and neither had a good capability to truly knock the other out.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
We need to remember that while he was dominated by his British wife, this woman believed in the British SYSTEM more than British policies.

The Husband-wife pair pushed the idea of a Reichstag along the lines of the British parliament where the crown obeyed the people and ministers reported to the Reichstag and not the crown. Given the hatred that British policies generated in Germany (the Boer War being just one of many) its quite possible that Germany under Frederich becomes MORE anti-British rather than less

first time I've heard that argument--interesting.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
first time I've heard that argument--interesting.

Just thought of it actually. But it does make sense. She pushed reforms like having the ministers answer to parliament rather than the crown. Just what would the effect be?

The British pushed some high handed policies and never really cared about foreign public opinion. This would actually be fatal if the Reichstag was in control of German foreign policy. If Britain didn't pursue a more concilitory policy towards German colonization, a Franco-German-Russian alliance might become more plausible

It would require a more accomadating policy of Germany versus France but the truth is that by 1900 Europe was sick of war. Given the huge socialist vote in Germany, a more peaceful continent is possible though German policy would be subjected to public opinion which is uninformed and short term which might make for more instability.

The English princess was more pro English of course but her reforms would have destroyed the power of the crown. Her opinion wouldn't carry much weight especially with a Reichstag. She could easily have been seen as a foreign influence to be ignored or resisted sort of like Alexandra in Russia.

It could lead to the total estrangement of Germany from Russia- but the two were neighbors and some desire to keep on good terms would be needed. Certainly a German reichstag wouldn't want to annex Poland. Just what the effects would be on German Austrian relations would also be interesting as well

Would a liberal Germany still be seen by Franz Joseph as a reliable ally? Would he possibly fear the influence on his country? A liberal Germany might constantly take up the cause of the Germans in Austria. Doing so might make his nationality problem even worse as he wouldn't make any concessions to the Slavs out of fear of angering Germany. This might make him swallow his pride and reconcile with Russia
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
Turning to the German Navy- yes it was substantial long before Tripitz. In 1895, the completion of the Kiel canal revolutionizes the situation as Germany was now capable of uniting its fleets (which before would have been very difficult). This allowed her to capitalize on her central position and dominate the Baltic (the Russians had to divide their fleet between the Black Sea and the Baltic, the French between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean).

In fact, Admiral Loman went so far as to abandon the Baltic as countering Germany was hopeless, covering the main points with coastal artillery and torpedo boats and concentrating in the Pacific

The British were the last to grasp the situation and did so only after Tirpitz made the navally correct if diplomatically questionable decision to fully exploit Germany's position.

Germany with few colonies to defend could never seriously engage in commerce warfare, had no need to do so against Russia being able to close the sound at anytime and thereore should concentrate on Battleships. This would give it dominance over France and Russia and allow it to challenge Britain as well.

It was Germany's great advantage in the naval sphere. Versus Britain, Germany could concentrate its fleet while Britain couldn't Germany could also save huge sums by not having to need many bases and staffing its navy with virtually unpaid conscripts. Germany came very close in the naval race and only her need to deal with Russia and France on land kept her from beating Britain to her knees

This is why Britain came to fear Germany and the reason she chose the Entente- Germany could threaten her far more than France and Russia even if the latter two combined.
 
Top