Is a Victorious Germany in WW1 a serious threat to the UK?

Lets assume that the UK remain s neutral in WW1 - possibly events in Ireland are speeded up to distract them. Is Germany, which presumebly wins WW1, a serious threat to Britain or is a Britain that has not been financially crippled by WW1 able to see them off.
 
Depends on how badly Germany is damaged - economically, and how much traction the revanchists in the defeated nations have, how cash flush Britain is from war profiteering. if this is some sort of pyhrric victory for Germany then its a lot less threat that if it were a easy & profitable victory.
 
The German Empire was expanding its navy heavily, so Britain's naval dominance is threatened. Also Germany would probably advance heavily in military tech if conflict caused them to advance. Also the Germans had the best army in the world before they met their demise. Well I think they did.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Septemberprogram would allow a victorious Germany to gather sufficient resource to openly challenge Britain's naval dominance.
 
A victorious Germany would be a superpower and vastly more powerful than even an undamaged Britain. I doubt it Britain would have much trouble making itself invasion proof, but in any later European war Britain would be under the pump from day 1 from a powerful German navy and airforce. While Britain would likely defend herself well enough her offensive power against Germany itself would be insignificant and would go head to head with Germany in many places outside Europe so would struggle to make many gains elsewhere.
 
France was considered a military threat for the purpose of determining the size of the inter-war RAF. It's a matter of perception. Far more important are the commercial and industrial ramifications of a strong Germany. If you worry about it, you could always take a Bayer aspirin.
 

trajen777

Banned
Yes all major nations can be a threat. Most likely it is like this..
1. France loses paris in 14 fights on
2 1914 eastern front same
3. 1915 germany can't push into France much further and has to pull some troops to eastern front
4. France is crippled but hanging on. GB making a fortune. GB continues to expand fleet
5 1916 Russia is driven back ..
Peace .. Germany gets middle Europa .. Which is trade in middle Europa .. Russia has czar in place.. Loses poland and parts of lith ..to new states tied to germany .. Finland independent .. France loses coal areas. GB has remained whole and has massive additional wealth from war. Germany spends next 20 years rebuilding its economy and integrating middle europa.. Germany reduces it's fleet to rebuild its economy and army .. Forms a NATO type org of middl Europa ....ah survives and forms a tri state austria chec Hungary country
Three great powers ... Germany .. GB ... Usa ........ Then japan . Russia ..


So yes a threat but if the war goes to 16 then no threat. Germany will win but end up strongly democratic .. Have lost lots of men..have lots of debt .. And will need to build middle Europa .. They cannot afford the luxury of a massive fleet. GB will have enhanced their fleet in 14 to 16 and have lots more funds from selling to both sides.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Absolutely.

GB would have fallen pretty far behind in military technology, as well as basically letting Germany inflict whatever terms it pleases on France.

Basically, the German economy is exhausted in the short term, but as consumers start being able to buy comercial goods, resources from newly annexed Northern France start rolling in, and German firms leap ahead in areas such as engine design, civil aviation, military exporting, etc.

Additionally, German post war Oberschlesien tanks are the best in the world, and Germany begins to experiment with the tactics that would become hallmarks of the OTL "blitzkrieg" in 1918 or so.


On land, German basically becomes able to utterly trounce any prospective opponent.

Great Britain is now vulnerable from the air, and her naval supremacy is being challenged. Improved German designs match English boats, (which is a deadly, deadly threat to the UK, as she needs roughly 10 ships to hunt down every one raider, as well as the need to station ships throughout her empire, and the Navy becomes incredibly expensive to maintain to a needed level of capability.
 
Yes all major nations can be a threat. Most likely it is like this..
1. France loses paris in 14 fights on
2 1914 eastern front same
3. 1915 germany can't push into France much further and has to pull some troops to eastern front
4. France is crippled but hanging on. GB making a fortune. GB continues to expand fleet
5 1916 Russia is driven back ..
Peace .. Germany gets middle Europa .. Which is trade in middle Europa .. Russia has czar in place.. Loses poland and parts of lith ..to new states tied to germany .. Finland independent .. France loses coal areas. GB has remained whole and has massive additional wealth from war. Germany spends next 20 years rebuilding its economy and integrating middle europa.. Germany reduces it's fleet to rebuild its economy and army .. Forms a NATO type org of middl Europa ....ah survives and forms a tri state austria chec Hungary country
Three great powers ... Germany .. GB ... Usa ........ Then japan . Russia ..


So yes a threat but if the war goes to 16 then no threat. Germany will win but end up strongly democratic .. Have lost lots of men..have lots of debt .. And will need to build middle Europa .. They cannot afford the luxury of a massive fleet. GB will have enhanced their fleet in 14 to 16 and have lots more funds from selling to both sides.

DOn't see any logic to this. First, the Germans aren't going to need twenty years to rebuild an economy. They are going to be getting massive French and Russian reparations. They will also get favorable trade terms and won't have to spend nearly as much on their army.

So what happened to the Franco-Russian navies? Do they get turned over to Germany or do they get scrapped somehow. If the later, why and how

What are Italy and Austria doing? They both have sizeable navies. Will they ally with Germany, who can be in Vienna and Rome pretty easily or with Britain who had just abandoned France and Russia. I'd say they stay in the Triple Alliance and take what crumbs they can from the Anglo-German War

Britain and France couldn't beat Germany in 1914-18 and they couldn't do it in 1940 either. But somehow, you think Britain can hold out alone against Germany with the continent beneath their feet

As for your scenario- how is France hanging on in 1914? We'll forget that Italy is almost certain to join the war against her and just note that 150,000 British soldiers won't be there for the Marne. France's industries will be crippled and the Germans would be able to import war goods by the boatload. Then there's how the Russians are going to recover from Gorlice-tarnow without the Anglo-French drawing off some of the German troops
 
Economically? Yes. Militarily? No, at least not immediately. If Germany (read Wilhelm II) decides to restart the naval race, Britain will treat Germany as an enemy unless given massive concessions, concessions that would likely be impossible for Germany to comply with while building up to face down the RN.
If Germany instead decides to reach out to Britain without a naval buildup, however, I can see the establishment of a coexistence where Britain and Germany easily do business, but always with a knife behind their back should the other undertake any "threatening" actions. Not friends, but certainly not enemies.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Lets assume that the UK remain s neutral in WW1 - possibly events in Ireland are speeded up to distract them. Is Germany, which presumebly wins WW1, a serious threat to Britain or is a Britain that has not been financially crippled by WW1 able to see them off.
Good question. Is there at reason why Germany would want to be a threat to Britain? Before WW1 Germany was clearly portrayed by British media as a serious threat to Britain, so that must obviously have been the truth...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Basically, the German economy is exhausted in the short term, but as consumers start being able to buy comercial goods, resources from newly annexed Northern France start rolling in, and German firms leap ahead in areas such as engine design, civil aviation, military exporting
There wouldn't be any significant lead if the war ended in 1914.

Depending on the situation, France and Russia might decide to abandon their OTL offenaive strategy, and the French might even adopt the Victor Michel Plan, which means things would be very nasty for Germany (currently there is an active TL for this).

First, the Germans aren't going to need twenty years to rebuild an economy.
Well, he said rebuilding its economy and integrating Mitteleuropa, but I think a decade at most is needed to do both.

Good question. Is there at reason why Germany would want to be a threat to Britain? Before WW1 Germany was clearly portrayed by British media as a serious threat to Britain, so that must obviously have been the truth...
A German victory after a long war means that Germany would certainly have a substantial lead over Britain in military and industrial engineering tech.
 

BooNZ

Banned
A German victory after a long war means that Germany would certainly have a substantial lead over Britain in military and industrial engineering tech.
In a continental war the German naval tech would still be shit compared to the Royal Navy - unless you are suggesting German flutter-board tech...
 

Thomas1195

Banned
In a continental war the German naval tech would still be shit compared to the Royal Navy - unless you are suggesting German flutter-board tech...
Well, but superior aviation tech (if long war). In this case, the German would be the most likely to champion naval aviation.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
DOn't see any logic to this. First, the Germans aren't going to need twenty years to rebuild an economy. They are going to be getting massive French and Russian reparations. They will also get favorable trade terms and won't have to spend nearly as much on their army.
Well, ... that's the kind of "logic" the Entente employed after WW 1. ... and how did this work ?
Actually not very well.
Why should it work better for a victoriuos germany ?

In a continental war the German naval tech would still be shit compared to the Royal Navy - unless you are suggesting German flutter-board tech...
I would assume at least the crews of HMS Queen Mary, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Invincible, HMS Defence, HMS Warrior, HMS Black Prince and several destroyers might have a different opinion.



However,
for the OP question :
IMO a victorious Germany could become a threat for Britain ... but not necessarily has to.

Though by many Britain was actually seen as the "ultimate" enemy (Falkenhayn, von der Goltz, Bernhardi) prior to WW 1, there were also the leading german diplomats strongly pro-british ... and actually on a good road to an "understanding" with Britain (the "agreement" on the portuguise colonies just at the end of 1913 as only one indicator).

IF Britain stays neutral I would be well able to envisage it becomming the "peace-broker" between the CP and the franco-russian alliance.
In that role it would be well able to push its own "issues" like what happens to naval forces (i.e. the french fleet NOT surrendered to the germans, the still unbuild russian ships also "shifted" to the OE and maybe Austria or japan to be "kept" away from the nOrth Sea/british "home waters").

That way it would be well able to reduce any "threatening" potential of Germany.

Why should Germany "allow" such a role to Britain ?
The diplomats as well as the navalists knew pretty damn well, that they would be unable to fight a british blockade over some distance of time. And the military, aka war ministry, knew it too. Otherwise Rathenau would not have been received so quick so well as IOTL.

And Kaiser Bill ... would most likely be sidelined by the politicians and diplomats since at least the "Daily-Telegraph"-affair and therefore would have no influence at all on the actual negotiations (despite whatever he might blunder around).
 
Well, ... that's the kind of "logic" the Entente employed after WW 1. ... and how did this work ?
Actually not very well.
Why should it work better for a victoriuos germany ?

The short list:

The Germans won't let the Franco-Russian crews sit on their interned ships while they bicker with the Austrians over what to do with it. Therefore, these ships won't be scuttled and the ones that are building will be finished and turned over

The Germans proved after the Franco-Prussian War that they knew how to collect an indemnity. You just don't leave until you get your money

The Germans get to set the terms without interference. No negotiations among the victors mean that the terms will be what Germany can and will enforce

The War is likely to be much shorter and the damage done to the losers far less. Realistically, a neutral Britain means that Italy will never join the Entente and that she probably joins her German allies in an attack on France. American, Greek and Romanian intervention isn't happening either Even a neutral Italy dooms France and Russia to a quick defeat probably by January 1 1916 at the latest
 
Lets assume that the UK remain s neutral in WW1 - possibly events in Ireland are speeded up to distract them. Is Germany, which presumebly wins WW1, a serious threat to Britain or is a Britain that has not been financially crippled by WW1 able to see them off.

It takes a lot to form a serious threat to a globe-spanning economic and political entity such as the pre-war British Empire. The German Fleet was deemed to be such a threat, as it was a direct challenge to the century-old cornerstone of the British geopolitical strategy.

However, this was a threat Britain could and did contain in OTL. Germany is still surrounded by revanchist powers, and can also be collaborated with in some colonial questions. It is not an ideal diplomatical situation, but not intolerable either.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The Germans won't let the Franco-Russian crews sit on their interned ships while they bicker with the Austrians over what to do with it. Therefore, these ships won't be scuttled and the ones that are building will be finished and turned over
Well, the German is not going to get the Russian BBs unless they could occupy as much Russian lands as OTL. Occupying Poland alone is not enough, and the war is too short to occupy as much territories as IOTL.

Also, depending on the situation, the French could end up not employing Joffre's idiotic offensive strategy (too risky without British backing) and instead choose Victor Michel's one and hence manage to stonewall German troops in Belgian borders. And if the German could not set a boot on French lands, their industrial base would be safe. Remember that until 1916, defenders (if they actually employ defensive strategy) always had the advantage thanks to machine guns, and the Germans could end up like the French during Nivelle Offensive IOTL.
 
Top