The Great War at Sea - A WWI Central Power Victory TL

Please read my earlier post, I mentioned all the ships the Netherlands possessed in 1914. This is less than Germany or Italy, for that matter it is barely better than the Ottoman Empire
 

sharlin

Banned
Ahh yes, thank you ram

I'd say the naval rating would go like this:

UK
Germany
USA
Japan
France
Italy
Russia
Austro-hungary
Argentina (2 dreadnoughs in service as well as older vessels)
Brazil (2 Dreadnoughts in service as well)
Spain
Chile
Sweden
Holland
Norway

Also the 'mighty' Dutch navy was scattered over its wide spread holdings. Its 'premeir' ships, armed with 2 x 11 inch guns (most ships of their age had 4 x 12 inch guns) were in the Far East and the museium peices at home had 9.4 inch guns and a handful of 5.9 inch guns, less firepower than a British or French armoured cruiser as well as slower, less well armoured and much older with inferior armour.
 
Ahh yes, thank you ram

I'd say the naval rating would go like this:

UK
Germany
USA
Japan
France
Italy
Russia
Austro-hungary
Argentina (2 dreadnoughs in service as well as older vessels)
Brazil (2 Dreadnoughts in service as well)
Spain
Chile
Sweden
Holland
Norway

Also the 'mighty' Dutch navy was scattered over its wide spread holdings. Its 'premeir' ships, armed with 2 x 11 inch guns (most ships of their age had 4 x 12 inch guns) were in the Far East and the museium peices at home had 9.4 inch guns and a handful of 5.9 inch guns, less firepower than a British or French armoured cruiser as well as slower, less well armoured and much older with inferior armour.
Thank you for the complement, you are welcome

Mostly Agree with this, though I would put Italy below Russia (Maybe Austria-Hungary)

That said if the Netherlands completed their most ambitious possible building plan they would have had 9 Dreadnought Battleships and 3 Battlecruisers (not quite sure about this last part). However this would require a divergeance point well before that specified in the OP
 

sharlin

Banned
The italians had a considerable force of Dreadnoughts either built or building in 1914, as well as the 5 modern Roma class Semi-dreadnought battlecruisers and their 4 BIG armoured cruisers and a force of pre-dreadnoughts. The Russians were comissioning the Ganguts and the Black sea Dreadnoughts but had been virtually wiped out in terms of battleships and cruisers. That's why I put the Italians above them :)
 
The italians had a considerable force of Dreadnoughts either built or building in 1914, as well as the 5 modern Roma class Semi-dreadnought battlecruisers and their 4 BIG armoured cruisers and a force of pre-dreadnoughts. The Russians were comissioning the Ganguts and the Black sea Dreadnoughts but had been virtually wiped out in terms of battleships and cruisers. That's why I put the Italians above them :)
Forgot about the Roma's and the Armored Cruisers, oops sorry my bad

Still far better than the 7 Coast Defense ships, 6 cruisers, 8 destroyers, 7 subs and some minor colonial vessels that I could confirm the Dutch possessing
 
The problem here is that people take 17th century Netherlands and place it in the early 20th century. You just can't do that. 17th century Netherlands was one of the richest, most influential and strongest countries in the world. It did have one of the strongest (if not the strongest) navies in Europe. 19th century and early 20th century Netherlands? Not so much. It that point the Netherlands was a rather impoverished, barely industialised, backwards country; uncomparable with 17th century (or late 20th century) Netherlands. It was a mere shell of what it once was. Belgium was a stronger, richer country. Basicly most of the rest of Europe was. There used to be a saying in those days: If the world ends, I want to be in the Netherlands, as everything happens 50 years later there.

Thus the Dutch navy will not be a deciding factor for the Central Powers.
 
Hmm, I do seem to need an earlier POD then.

I know!

What if William III of England had had a child with his wife?

Oh wait, this is the wrong forum then. I'll move it.
 
Last edited:

sharlin

Banned
A different birth won't do bugger all without a MASSIVE industrial build up, something that did not happen in Holland until after WW2, you'd have to change the country so much to turn it back into a european power that in reality would be near impossible.
 
A different birth won't do bugger all without a MASSIVE industrial build up, something that did not happen in Holland until after WW2, you'd have to change the country so much to turn it back into a european power that in reality would be near impossible.
I dont know, avoid the Belgian-Netherlands split and the Netherlands suddenly an industrial backcountry in Wallonia. For that you need a couple of POD around the early 19th century (willem I being a bit smater would help a lot).

Stadholder/king William III having a child is an interesting POD, but would cause so much differences that World War I (and probably even Germany) as we know it would be butterflied away.
 
I dont know, avoid the Belgian-Netherlands split and the Netherlands suddenly an industrial backcountry in Wallonia. For that you need a couple of POD around the early 19th century (willem I being a bit smater would help a lot).

Stadholder/king William III having a child is an interesting POD, but would cause so much differences that World War I (and probably even Germany) as we know it would be butterflied away.

Avoiding the Belgian secession would certainly help a lot, and would give the "Great Netherlands" a serious industrial basis. It would not be enough to turn them into a major power, though. In terms of population they would still be outnumbered by both France and Germany, and their land border would be very hard to defend (not to mention that they would lack strategical depth): it is the same problem that the United Provinces had to face since the rebellion against the Spanish, and a problem that they were never really able to solve in a satisfactory way.

William III having an heir would certainly change a lot of European history after the POD, and would have huge impacts on the Franco-British wars of the 18th century. The union however would be clearly dominated by England (even if Holland would benefit in economical terms), and the land border issue is still unsolved.
 
Avoiding the Belgian secession would certainly help a lot, and would give the "Great Netherlands" a serious industrial basis. It would not be enough to turn them into a major power, though. In terms of population they would still be outnumbered by both France and Germany, and their land border would be very hard to defend (not to mention that they would lack strategical depth): it is the same problem that the United Provinces had to face since the rebellion against the Spanish, and a problem that they were never really able to solve in a satisfactory way.
True, this Netherlands would never be a major power. It would probably the biggest of the smaller countries in Europe. Strong enough to matter; something the Netherlands did not in th 19th and early 20th century (I like to think in the late 20th century and the early 21th century it does again).
 
Top