German Naval Laws, a WI.

[Janprimus]

If the Germans adopted something like the French Junne Ecole i'd say the Brits would not see them as quite the 'threat' that they were. The Germans set out to build a fleet that would rival the RN and this was seen as unacceptable in the eyes of the Brits. Going for something smaller, lots of torpedo boats, cruisers and smaller ships probably wouldn't get Whitehall's heckles up.

I agree, the German Empire already was the dominant power on mainland Europe, military and econically, which IIRC was more or less a fait accompli for Britain. Before the German Empire set out to also rival the British Royal Navy, Britain wasn't unsympathetic (doesn't mean like though) towards Germany (nice distraction for France and Russia). OTOH it was Britain, which already controlled a quarter of the Globe and in the same period where Britain gained their empire, Germany, Italy and Belgium, where used as the battlefields of Europe. This wasn't forgotten in these countries... The British attitude was perceived as ''arrogant and selfish'', because they denied them (mostly the German Empire...) their ''own place in the sun''. Britain OTOH feared a rival, especially since Germany already had overtaken them in Industrial terms; this increased British concerns, which in turn fall badly in the German public opinion and obviously that was received bad in the British public opinion. The ironic part is that Wilhelm II was an Anglophile and admired Britain for their colonial Empire and Navy; and he probably overestimated his influence as the eldest and favorite grandson of Queen Victoria in the British public opinion. OTOH it's very hard to pleasure two publics, which opinions increasingly become to opposite from each other.

 

[Shadow Master]

I am working on a big post, but I have to put some feelers out real quick and get your opinions on some things.

I am counting on the concepts of "status quo" and "status quo ante" playing a big part in explaining how a UK-Germany friendship could exist at the start of WWI, and then lead to a hostile UK-Germany rivalry emerging after the shooting stops, and this then setting the stage for WWII.

My take on 1880-1900 Europe was that the UK wanted to keep a divided group of nations in mainland Europe, as a divided Europe was the only state of affairs that would allow them to maintain their empire. So this means that any nation (or alliance of nations) attempting to gain supremacy was a threat to the status quo. I think we are all aware of this and so need not spend much time establishing it. What we need to do is examine how Germany could realistically come out of WWI as the dominant power in Europe after the war.

Going into the war, no one could have predicted the disasters that ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian revolution taking them apart, and Italy defeated in fact if not name. Never mind all this happening at the same time! This would leave the final battle to come down to France and Germany. Historically, the French choose to press a bad situation in the Franco-Prussian war, and after making the Germans defeat them even worse, were made to accept an even more unpalatable peace. If history should repeat itself (and I do not see any reason that it wouldn't), then the French will choose to pursue a 'last man standing' strategy in this TL. And if this should come to pass, they would suffer a much more devastating defeat and harsher peace.

After which, the UK is going to try to impose "status quo ante" in order to keep the only state of affairs that allows then to keep their empire. In Germany, this will rightfully be seen as totally unacceptable, as it would place Germany right back where she started from, despite the fact that she had just emerged, against all odds and at great cost, as the last man standing, and will never want Russia and France to be able to challenge her again.

On these points, are we in agreement?

So basically, Germany is going to be in a WWI that differs from OTL as follows:
The UK is not hostile, and therefor there is no blockade (Germany is made stronger)
The UK is not hostile, and therefor France is not as strong without UK troops (Germany is made stronger by a weaker French front)
The Russians are going to be harder pressed with the greater number of troops available to fight them than historically, and is therefore going to be forced to at least as bad a peace as Brest-Litovsk.
Without a UK blockage, no unrestricted submarine warfare, no US entry into the war.

And this should lead to:
Italy and Russia and AH all falling out of the war, leaving just France and Germany as the last two contenders left standing. France is not going to want to admit to yet another defeat at the hands of Germany, and Germany is never going to surrender to France, so the war goes on until Germany wipes the floor with France.

On the diplomatic front, both side will be asking for the UK to intervene on their behalf (and possibly for the USA to mediate, as well). On the one hand, an alliance with France will keep Germany down (but they will never trust the UK again --- ever), and offer up Germany's colonies as spoils to the victors. OTOH, an alliance with Germany will offer up a much more lucrative set of colonies as spoils, and perhaps the UK can then parlay the potential return of these colonies back to France in exchange for a successful war to break Germany later on....

Any thoughts?

 

[Elfwine]

Going into the war, no one could have predicted the disasters that ended the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian revolution taking them apart, and Italy defeated in fact if not name. Never mind all this happening at the same time! This would leave the final battle to come down to France and Germany. Historically, the French choose to press a bad situation in the Franco-Prussian war, and after making the Germans defeat them even worse, were made to accept an even more unpalatable peace. If history should repeat itself (and I do not see any reason that it wouldn't), then the French will choose to pursue a 'last man standing' strategy in this TL. And if this should come to pass, they would suffer a much more devastating defeat and harsher peace.

Let's see, the Balkans are becoming increasingly violent, protests within Russia are becoming increasingly violent, and Italy is a power in name only.

Predictable.

After which, the UK is going to try to impose "status quo ante" in order to keep the only state of affairs that allows then to keep their empire. In Germany, this will rightfully be seen as totally unacceptable, as it would place Germany right back where she started from, despite the fact that she had just emerged, against all odds and at great cost, as the last man standing, and will never want Russia and France to be able to challenge her again.

On these points, are we in agreement?

So basically, Germany is going to be in a WWI that differs from OTL as follows:
The UK is not hostile, and therefor there is no blockade (Germany is made stronger)
The UK is not hostile, and therefor France is not as strong without UK troops (Germany is made stronger by a weaker French front)
The Russians are going to be harder pressed with the greater number of troops available to fight them than historically, and is therefore going to be forced to at least as bad a peace as Brest-Litovsk.
Without a UK blockage, no unrestricted submarine warfare, no US entry into the war.

Any thoughts?

Yes. Why is the UK being non-hostile again?

I don't want to sound annoying here, but there has to be a pretty strong reason for the UK to be uninvolved, and we're not seeing one of any sort yet.

The absence of comments on other stuff is "this makes enough sense to accept" by implication.

 

[Shadow Master]

I think you must have missed it, or I must have missed something.

POD, Tirpitz is going to steer Germany as he did IOTL (he really was the main driving force and shaper of the German naval laws, strategy, and public awareness/opinion), but in this TL, he convinces the Kaiser to befriend the UK. This means that Germany is not going to pass the historical 2nd GNL (as there will not be the incident during the Boer war as Germany is biding her time), but will instead pass a "colonization defense law" (the details of which I am not posting as yet --- because they are not done), that takes the place of the "doubling of the fleets strength" GNL. German foreign policy is going to be focused upon defending the colonies that she has (rather than trying to squeeze someone else out of their colonies --- yet), so no crisis over morocco et al....

So basically, the historical crises (IOTL) that were contributing factors to the falling out between Germany and the UK are being removed, and what replaces them is a Germany that is going to spend the time and money to fortify and defend her fledgling empire first, and then worry about expanding it later.

The WWI that we know was shaped by the alliances that existed prior to the war breaking out. If we remove the problems that caused the Brits to start seeing the Germans as potential adversaries (see above) then how do we still end up in exactly the same position?

Another way of going at this is:
Name three (specific) things that cause the falling out between the UK and Germany IOTL that I have not already addressed in this thread (page 4 on, actually) and the effect they had in worsening the relations between them. Then I can go and research the crises and their causes and figure something out.

I am attempting to proceed with this thread as a means of being directed to specific areas where conflicts arose, so that I can then be able to write a fictional ATL where WWI goes along the lines I have already outlined.

 

[Elfwine]

I think you must have missed it, or I must have missed something.

POD, Tirpitz is going to steer Germany as he did IOTL (he really was the main driving force and shaper of the German naval laws, strategy, and public awareness/opinion), but in this TL, he convinces the Kaiser to befriend the UK. This means that Germany is not going to pass the historical 2nd GNL (as there will not be the incident during the Boer war as Germany is biding her time), but will instead pass a "colonization defense law" (the details of which I am not posting as yet --- because they are not done), that takes the place of the "doubling of the fleets strength" GNL. German foreign policy is going to be focused upon defending the colonies that she has (rather than trying to squeeze someone else out of their colonies --- yet), so no crisis over morocco et al....

What colonies are those at this point?

So basically, the historical crises (IOTL) that were contributing factors to the falling out between Germany and the UK are being removed, and what replaces them is a Germany that is going to spend the time and money to fortify and defend her fledgling empire first, and then worry about expanding it later.

The WWI that we know was shaped by the alliances that existed prior to the war breaking out. If we remove the problems that caused the Brits to start seeing the Germans as potential adversaries (see above) then how do we still end up in exactly the same position?

In regards to Austria-Hungary/Russia/Italy: Because what put them in the position of OTL hasn't been changed.

As for Britain and Germany: If Germany looks like its beating up everyone in sight, Britain will take that as a reason to intervene more actively than "You know, we'd really prefer a status quo ante bellum peace."

Britain doesn't have to be with the Entente to begin with to join the war on their side.

Another way of going at this is:
Name three (specific) things that cause the falling out between the UK and Germany IOTL that I have not already addressed in this thread (page 4 on, actually) and the effect they had in worsening the relations between them. Then I can go and research the crises and their causes and figure something out.

I am attempting to proceed with this thread as a means of being directed to specific areas where conflicts arose, so that I can then be able to write a fictional ATL where WWI goes along the lines I have already outlined.

I think you've been informed of the big stuff. Specifics like oh, Wilhelm's personal behavior are easy to change by virtue of "Wilhelm actually acts like a rational human being instead of an insecure nutter" so looking up his personal errors wouldn't help very much. Though on that note, have him be less obnoxious towards Bertie in regards to yacht racing. Just as a relevant and interesting detail. Its been a while since I read up on the specifics, so I can't think of more to say there - but its one of the more memorable (to me) "dear God Wilhelm had no sense of diplomacy" things when looking at him as an individual rather than policy.

A good relationship between the two ought to count for something as part of meaning efforts are made to smooth things out, as the two monarchs are going to support those who want smoother relations with all the beneficial impact monarchical support for something has.

 

[Shadow Master]

What colonies are those at this point?

The 2nd GNL was historically passed in 1900 (so maybe the ATL passes theirs in that year as well --- who knows), and at this time Germany already had:
German South West Africa 7 August 1884.
German East Africa 27 February 1885.
German New Guinea (Deutsch-Neuguinea) (1884)
Kamerun (1884)
German Solomon Islands or Northern Solomon Islands (Salomonen or Nördliche Salomon-Inseln) (1885–1899)
Bougainville Island (Bougainville-Insel) (1888–1919)
Nauru (1888–1919)
Marshall Islands (Marschall-Inseln) (1885–1919)
Mariana Islands (Marianen) (1899–1919) - present-day Northern Mariana Islands
Caroline Islands (Karolinen) (1899–1919) - present-day Federated States of Micronesia and Palau
German Samoa (Deutsch-Samoa) (1899–1914) - present-day Samoa

In regards to Austria-Hungary/Russia/Italy: Because what put them in the position of OTL hasn't been changed.

I know that. That part is WAD. Just because we can see (with hindsight) that all three are going down, all at the same time, and leave Germany to finish the battle 1:1 with France, doesn't mean anyone back then is going to believe that this is remotely possible. Even if someone did predict this as a possibility, they would likely be branded a crackpot and ignored thereafter. But this still has nothing to do with the prewar situation between Germany and the UK. I want to preserve as much as possible of OTL WWI, both for the purposes of making an opening as to avoid having to invent the whole thing from scratch.

As for Britain and Germany: If Germany looks like its beating up everyone in sight, Britain will take that as a reason to intervene more actively than "You know, we'd really prefer a status quo ante bellum peace." Britain doesn't have to be with the Entente to begin with it to join the war on their side.

By the time it is clear that Germany is going to win, the Eastern Front will have been decided. All that will be left then is to get France to agree to a peace in place, and a return to pre-war boundaries. Balance this with the French demands for German territory and war indemnities etcetera. Could the UK join in a lost cause at that point? France has lost the war, but has the choice to end the fighting and not loose a thing. Or they can continue fighting in the hope that the USA or the UK will jump on Germany (and neither will really gain anything for doing so), rather than have the national shame of a second defeat at the hands of Germany.

And as for personalities, does the Kaiser's blunders really matter? I believe that the public policies of the Germany nation are going to be far and away more important. And when we look at what Tirpitz wanted vs what Tirpitz got, I think it is very safe to say that if my POD is that Tirpitz wanted Wilhelm II to keep German naval policy non-confrontational, then he would have succeeded in this as he did in just about every other naval policy related endeavor.

I guess I need some specific points of contention that make sense on the scale of international policy and diplomacy to explain why, after elimination of all the historical causes of British and German relations going south, you guys still seem to think that things will still go as in OTL?!?

 

[Elfwine]

The 2nd GNL was historically passed in 1900 (so maybe the ATL passes theirs in that year as well --- who knows), and at this time Germany already had:
German South West Africa 7 August 1884.
German East Africa 27 February 1885.
German New Guinea (Deutsch-Neuguinea) (1884)
Kamerun (1884)
German Solomon Islands or Northern Solomon Islands (Salomonen or Nördliche Salomon-Inseln) (1885–1899)
Bougainville Island (Bougainville-Insel) (1888–1919)
Nauru (1888–1919)
Marshall Islands (Marschall-Inseln) (1885–1919)
Mariana Islands (Marianen) (1899–1919) - present-day Northern Mariana Islands
Caroline Islands (Karolinen) (1899–1919) - present-day Federated States of Micronesia and Palau
German Samoa (Deutsch-Samoa) (1899–1914) - present-day Samoa

Interesting. Some of those might turn out surprisingly handy in some circumstances, though I can't think of any for a country with no (other) Pacific interests.

I know that. That part is WAD. Just because we can see (with hindsight) that all three are going down, all at the same time, and leave Germany to finish the battle 1:1 with France, doesn't mean anyone back then is going to believe that this is remotely possible. Even if someone did predict this as a possibility, they would likely be branded a crackpot and ignored thereafter. But this still has nothing to do with the prewar situation between Germany and the UK. I want to preserve as much as possible of OTL WWI, both for the purposes of making an opening as to avoid having to invent the whole thing from scratch.

If you change Germany's behavior on the international scene, you do make some inevitable changes to the politics of the day. And thus the war. Maybe not in the big picture, but details falling into place differently will matter a great deal.

And having Britain uninvolved does seriously change the flow of things to the point of - well, let me put it this way. No Mediterranean theater.

By the time it is clear that Germany is going to win, the Eastern Front will have been decided. All that will be left then is to get France to agree to a peace in place, and a return to pre-war boundaries. Balance this with the French demands for German territory and war indemnities etcetera. Could the UK join in a lost cause at that point? France has lost the war, but has the choice to end the fighting and not loose a thing. Or they can continue fighting in the hope that the USA or the UK will jump on Germany (and neither will really gain anything for doing so), rather than have the national shame of a second defeat at the hands of Germany.

And I doubt Britain would take as long as you think it would to recognize that France and Russia are in enough trouble to worry about.

And as for personalities, does the Kaiser's blunders really matter? I believe that the public policies of the Germany nation are going to be far and away more important. And when we look at what Tirpitz wanted vs what Tirpitz got, I think it is very safe to say that if my POD is that Tirpitz wanted Wilhelm II to keep German naval policy non-confrontational, then he would have succeeded in this as he did in just about every other naval policy related endeavor.

They matter enough to strengthen suspicion and weaken efforts to mitigate it. Remember, Wilhelm is the Kaiser. His behavior, both officially and as Bertie's nephew, has a lot more impact than some random guy's.

I think you can fairly easily address this by assuming that the kind of Kaiser we see in TTL is also the kind of man who would be less unbearable, however. But if Wilhelm acts the same as OTL, it will make Germany's situation more difficult. I can't say how much more, but it is a serious problem to say "really, we're being peaceful, nevermind the loudmouth who happens to be the ruler".

I guess I need some specific points of contention that make sense on the scale of international policy and diplomacy to explain why, after elimination of all the historical causes of British and German relations going south, you guys still seem to think that things will still go as in OTL?!?

Because the basic situation Britain and Germany are in is going to inspire tension between the two. Germany's aims simply are too much for Britain to be comfortable with.

Its not as if Germany is necessarily asking for more than is "reasonable" in a wholly objective world, but when it comes to worries about national interests, a Germany looking over the world for territories not yet claimed is at best a rival and at worst a threat.

Politics sucks like that.

I do think you can lessen the extent of that, and have Germany be simply one of the powers Britain keeps a close eye on - it has a much longer history of antagonism with France and Russia and superbly executed German policy can take advantage of that - but there's only so much Germany can do.

And of course, a radically changed Germany alters a lot more than the naval laws. WWI as we know it happened from an alliance system that might not exist with a sufficiently different Germany as of 1900.

There are several things you might be interested in from the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, but most of them aren't relevant at this point - though the fact German policy (or lack of coherent policy) has become, to quote Chancellors Bethmann Hollweg, "to 'challenge everybody,get in everyone's way, and actually, in the course of all of this, weaken nobody.'"

Which brings us back how you need a better kaiser. Not necessarily a POD making him radically different, just his post-1900 actions showing more sense than OTL.

 

[Shadow Master]

You know what? I just now realized that you were thinking that when I said "a sudden, dramatic increase in the size of the German Empire" you were picturing overseas colonies, while I was referring to the eastern front.

Some of the posters have posited a "Russia First" strategy as being a possible alternative way for a non-confrontational Germany to avoid appearing the aggressor, specifically in regards to violations of neutrality. I have to agree that this is better for this ATL as it is more consistent with the posited POD path.

Well, I am getting to tired to think, so I'll call it a night (morning).

 

[Elfwine]

You know what? I just now realized that you were thinking that when I said "a sudden, dramatic increase in the size of the German Empire" you were picturing overseas colonies, while I was referring to the eastern front.

Well, the eastern front is still expansion that interferes with a major power's vested interests, and imbalances things in Germany's favor.

On the other hand, taking Russia down a peg or two won't really upset Britain, and if Germany has been cunning enough, it (Britain) won't recognize that. The area that was once Poland isn't a big deal.

Some of the posters have posited a "Russia First" strategy as being a possible alternative way for a non-confrontational Germany to avoid appearing the aggressor, specifically in regards to violations of neutrality. I have to agree that this is better for this ATL as it is more consistent with the posited POD path.

Well, I am getting to tired to think, so I'll call it a night (morning).

In the morning (or afternoon) then.

 

[Shadow Master]

Sorry for not being back in awhile. I have been tied up with RL and will be for some time I am afraid. OTOH, I have been reading up a bit and am wondering if for purposes of a good what if I should just go ahead and make a wiki page specific to the background for my WI?

What I mean is, should I make a page on wikipedia that contains links to the source pages I am drawing upon for background info and POD layout?

I am trying to put together a vast (to me, anyway) amount of information to explain my thinking in terms of what did occur and why, and combine that with my POD. I want to make a sort of 'one stop shopping' type of thing, where anyone that wants to participate in my what if can go to that page (assuming that I can build one in the first place) and there read up on all the pertinent background info (assuming that I do it properly) and then make informed posts in the WI thread.

To me, what with my slowly dawning realization of how little I actually know about history, combined with the desire to write something worthy and interesting and thought-provoking, I see that I should not attempt a TL thread until and unless I first make WI thread where I can get great amounts of input and participation from the forum community and get my facts straight. I would like to be able to 'hash things over' in a what if thread, run the ideas by an interactive group of readers, and only then proceed with a TL thread.

To that end, I would like input on how to organize my background information wiki page, as well as how to present said information so as to set the stage for the What If POD.

Currently, I am (slowly and painstakingly) amassing information on the following fleets:

Royal Navy
Italian Navy
Austro-Hungarian Navy
German Navy
Russian Navy
French Navy

And am wondering what other navies I might want to include. Right now, I have yet to write anything up for the wiki page (I have never done anything like this before, and so have no idea what all it will involve), but I want to include information in a cross-indexed table that shows who had what, when, and what the other fellows had and were building. I will be including battleship designs as well as cancelled construction, as I think that these entries have potential bearing upon a counter-factual history.

Looking at the above list, I am going to have to add in the Japanese Navy, as the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5 had great bearing upon history, what with the role the final battle played in the development of the Dreadnought type battleship revolution.

Additionally, I will definitely need to include the US Navy, as the USS Michigan was in many ways more of the 'father' to future battleships than was the HMS Dreadnought herself. Looking at the main battery layout on all pre-Michigan battleship classes and comparing them with all post-Michigan battleship classes, one can easily see why this is true.

Beyond this, I am going to want to write up a kind of year-by-year naval build up section, so that readers on the wiki page can get all the info in one spot, and folks that start reading up on the new thread (whenever I can get the time to start it), will have a much easier time of it, as all they will have to do is go to the wiki page and get a (hopefully) complete working knowledge of the portion of history upon which I hope to invoke an entertaining and thought-provoking "What If" discussion.

Anyway, I have just burned an hour rearranging a tiny portion of my files and writing this tiny tidbit.

What do you folks say about the idea of writing a wiki page, and starting a new thread?

 

[informationfan]

Hmmm.


Your right if we were discussing OTL here, but in this TL, the Germans have opted NOT to build a battle-fleet. No one who chooses not to build a battle-fleet is going to be "set on having a decisive battle" of any kind.
I think that you and I are talking at cross purposes here. If the OP (Original Post) didn't make it clear, Germany is NOT following the OTL naval laws, but their alternative, the construction of a larger number of smaller vessels. It does not follow from that that the Germans will continue to concentrate their forces in home water to oppose a blockade (something that they are definitely not designed to do), rather, these forces will be used in accordance with their designed for properties. The largest portion of their forces will not be in home waters at any given time, which prevents their being trapped by any such blockade in the first place.

Also, you seem to be saying that from a historical point of view, Britain was going to go to war with Germany no matter what.

yes - great britain offically joined the war because of belgium, in reallity they had sided long before and the british navy had to support the french navy by contract.

so either the brits break their treaties with the french or they need something... belgium was the "something"
but everybody knew that in a big war the brits will side with the enemy of germany, cause the brits lost their second place in world economy to germany. THIS is their main motivation to be in a war with germany... not belgium

 

[informationfan]

Don Lardo makes a good point about the Germany building a risk fleet and trying to get Britain to negotiate. In fact it almost worked, but mutual distrust and bad diplomacy from both sides made things worse; not to mention the fact that it became a matter of national prestige for both sides. A less aggressive expansion of the German navy, which is plausible since there was also some protests of the German army about the division of the defense budget between the army and the navy.

In any case the compromise would be something like Germany is allowed a fleet, which can defend them from Russia and France (and they are allowed to respond to Russian and/or French naval expansion); but at the same time Germany recognizes British naval superiority, so they will have to agree to some form of parity. Although maybe a bit uneasy for both IMHO it would be a compromise. IIRC something similar was offered during the British German correspondence about this matter (Wilhelm II and Hardinge), IMHO should have taken such an offer.

Well,

the germans wanted the 60% fleet... if the german fleet has 60% of the british, the brits cannot act at will against the german interests...

the great thing is, that all imperialistic nations lost

germany lost big - this lead to hitler and ww2
france lost big - its economy was ruined, its status as a big european nation went down
"the empire" - lost biggest - it lost its empire (30 years later it was gone) and its power (in 1919 the usa was much stronger)...

 

[Elfwine]

What do you folks say about the idea of writing a wiki page, and starting a new thread?

Go for it, on both counts.

Having all sorts of useful Naval Arms Race related material in one place would be a very good thing.

And if you think a new thread would be better for this what if, by all means start one. You seem to have a good plan, may real life grant you the time to execute it.

 

[informationfan]

True.
But, economical strength of Germany will make her an enemy of Britain.

they never want to belive it... so sad