Question about the Committe of Imperial Defence (CID)

Hello together,

I need some advice on - as the title says - the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID).

The situation in OTL: In August 1911 at the height of the Agadir Crisis Haldane (then War Secretary) thought it was a good idea to meet with the CID and to discuss the plans for a war together with France against Germany. In this fateful meeting the Admiralty made it clear that they would not support the transport of the BEF to France and that they would instead consider a close blockade of Germany - although such a strategy had been already discarded a few years earlier as unfeasible. This led to the replacement of McKenna with Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1911. Wilson (the admiral in question) would have been replaced, too, if he was not to retire some time later anyway.

Now the situation in an alternative TL: The Agadir Crisis is not the Agadir Crisis, but the Fez Crisis and for Britain no crisis at all. Germany reacts thoughtful and with great diplomatic skill: no Panther in Agadir, no intentions in Morocco, full disclosure of German aims only in the Congo towards British diplomats right from the beginning, no government sponsored nationalist campaign, joint exercise of both fleets continues as planned, no Mansion House speech and in the end the crisis already solved in the middle of August. So there never was the need for this fateful CID meeting to happen and it did not happen.

And here the question: In this ATL, with most other events going more or less like OTL besides a serious[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Anglo-German [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]détente in the beginning of 1912, when would such a CID meeting happen in this ATL? Would this lead to a similar outcome? As far as I gathered through some scarce sources on the CID the problems of McKenna and Wilson not supporting the army with their plans for the BEF was already known prior to that meeting. The CID and its subcommittees were coming together on a quite regular basis. So would it need an extended CID meeting with more cabinet members present like in August 1911 to lead to OTL results? What could trigger such a meeting? The Italian-Ottoman War? The Balkan Wars? Something else? Could there be other reasons for such a meeting? Or would this come up again on a regular meeting without extended attendence? How long would it take to make the rotation (if it would be done)? Around 1 - 2 months like in OTL? If McKenna is not sacked before the retirement of Wilson, who would become First Sea Llord? I gather that would be for McKenna to decide, no? Would it be still Bridgeman and later Battenberg?

Or would there never be a change before say July 1914 at all?

On a related note: I such an ATL, would there still be an Italian-Ottoman War? If so, would it be started later, earlier or approximately the same?

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,
G.
[/FONT]
 
"Germany reacts thoughtful and with great diplomatic skill"

Don't you need a rather earlier POD for this?
 
I am not sure it would have made any difference.
Presumably Churchill would not be at the Admiralty. Wilson was not well suited to be FSL. He was brought back from retirement to succeed Jackie Fisher because it was assumed he would protect the Fisher legacy against Beresford and his allies. Wilson did not have much in the way of political or bureaucratic skills so I think he would have been pushed aside regardless. One possible result is that McKenna would have let Beresford take a turn as FSL. Not sure what impact that would have had. By 1911 the dreadnaught was here to stay. Perhaps a reduction in battle cruisers but as we know they were an evolutionary dead end anyway.

I think the real question would have been what Germany would ultimately do. The Kaiser and Molke wanted a war and I suspect they would have found a way to get one.
 
Interesting on Beresford from Wiki

After his term with the Channel Fleet finished in 1909, Beresford returned to Parliament at the January 1910 general election, representing Portsmouth. In 1912, it was proposed by George V, who knew Beresford, that he might be promoted admiral of the fleet, but it fell to Beatty, now naval secretary to First Lord Winston Churchill to point out that others would be more deserving of such a promotion. Beresford had been somewhat left behind by the technological innovations and changes in the navy during the last years of his service as an admiral. It is likely that he would have performed poorly had he continued as an admiral into World War One. However, at times during his career he supported proposals to reform the fleet signal book, which might have made it more suitable for wartime use, and had championed reforms in fire control, where understanding of how best to use the new big guns on Fisher's dreadnought ships lagged behind their ability to hit at long ranges.

Fisher was replaced as First Sea Lord by Sir Francis Bridgeman. Bridgman proved to be unsatisfactory, and Churchill resolved to replace him with the Second Sea Lord, Prince Louis of Battenberg. Beresford questioned the matter of Bridgman's resignation, officially said to be for reasons of ill health, by challenging Churchill in the House of Commons. Churchill responded, saying of Beresford that "since I became first lord of the admiralty...within a fortnight he made a speech in which he said I had betrayed the navy...and ever since he has been going about the country pouring out charges of espionage, favouritism, blackmail, fraud, and inefficiency... The noble Lord nourishes many bitter animosities on naval matters". The House of Commons supported Churchill, considering that Beresford's attack was a continuation of his dispute with Fisher, who was now acting privately as advisor to Churchill

Reading between the lines, if McKenna remains, you could see Beresford promoted to Admiral of the Fleet, with I think the implication that he would command something important, and Bridgman continue as First Sea Lord not being replaced by Battenberg.

Churchill would be presumably still Home Secretary

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Interesting on Beresford from Wiki



Reading between the lines, if McKenna remains, you could see Beresford promoted to Admiral of the Fleet, with I think the implication that he would command something important, and Bridgman continue as First Sea Lord not being replaced by Battenberg.

Churchill would be presumably still Home Secretary

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It is hard to see Beresford accepting any position other than FSL. He had held the two major fleet commands—Channel and Mediterranean. My impression is that he would not have been interested in one of the largely honorary shore commands like Portsmouth or the Nore. I think George V was indeed suggesting his friend for FSL. Whether Lord Charles would have been better than the trio of Wilson, Bridgeman and Battenberg is open to debate. No question all 3 had weaknesses but so did Beresford.

I do not see any such development impacting whether there would be a war. That ultimately was up to the Kaiser.
 
Thanks to all for the input. If anybody else has suggestions as to how the CID would develop without Agadir, please feel free to add.

I had the distinct feeling that the issue of the BEF and the apparent unpreparedness of the Naval Staff would have toppled McKenna somewhere along the road before 1913 ends, but you two seem to differ. Interesting. I will look into Beresford.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Top