BooNZ
Banned
Then you should have no problem supporting with a reference your supposition the Franco-Prussian war illustrated the need for an elaborate German naval force. You should have no problem explaining why despite this learning the Germans waited 25 years before even starting to build a decent navy.Why did Germany have the budget and population to afford 12 armies and still spend less than rival compared to GDP. Why was missing 300K troops in 1905 plans never raised? Why did all of Germany war plans take such huge chances? Or A-H? Answer same to your question as these. People are not optimized decision engines.
I would also like to point out that I have read a huge number of primary and secondary sources from the era (over 10K pages). Literally every book I could find that was free and in English. What I am telling you is correct, even if goes against what you have learned.
The realities were the Germans up until 1900 were secure in the knowledge their armies could smash the French long before naval issues developed. Further the French had commitments in Mediterranean and its Jeune École naval doctrine did not espouse the construction of battle fleets. Further, geography meant French naval forces would need to brave the English channel and the neutral waters of both Belgium and the Netherlands to get at even the limited western coastline of Germany.
Essentially you are arguing the Germans were logical to build hammers to cut down trees...
25+ yearsNow as to why did Germany finally find the money for its navy despite ignoring the need for at least a decade.
As previously stated, up until 1900 the Royal Navy was the only genuinely big navy and the German colonial empire was a joke, consisting of the uneconomic crumbs no other colonial powers wanted.Big navies go with prestige and colonies.
No, rapidly growing economies ordinarily have a lack of liquidity and Imperial Germany was no exception. In part it was a product of industrial lobbying by Germany's industrial giants.Germany economy was rapidly expanding meaning more $$$ to spend.
The French were destroyed as a military force 25 years before the Risk Fleet was conceived and a German-Russian non-aggression pact was firmly in place. The Risk Fleet was conceived after the Franco-Russian alliance was in place and prima facie posed a greater continental threat to Germany.Germany was secure based on its army size if one makes the assumptions the Germans made. i.e. that in addition to A-H that either Russia or Italy would come to war to defend Germany.
As previously outlined, the Risk Fleet was conceived prior to the Boer war and harnessed the hostility generated by the Kruger Telegram in both Britain and Germany.Outrages over the Boer treatment by UK.
Can you provide a reference to support this? I doubt either party could have conceived of hostilities between those traditional allies before 1895. From my understanding any vague British threats prior to 1900 were related to maritime trade rather than continental Germany.And most importantly, UK constant poking of Germany coastline. Same reason that when USSR had navy that threatened Atlantic, US Navy went to 600 ship. When not true, US Navy struggles to find funding for 300 ships.
My point being you are busy espousing the virtues of primary sources, yet happy to resort to your own unsupported deductive reasoning when it suits.You mean beside the Germans had war plans to take Jutland if needed? Beside that Germany had fought a war against Denmark within the preceding 50 years. Beside that when needed in the next war, Germany just rolled over Denmark like Denmark military did not exist. The Germans clearly would take Jutland if required.
No, Germany relations were generally friendly, at least up until 1895, when things changed - not a long game at all.Now you also seem to be missing my point. There was a long diplomatic game played by the UK on one side and by Russia and Germany on the other related to the Baltic Sea entrance. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark had to choose a side. They choose the non-UK side IOTL. The pressure relates to how the Danes perceived how the Germans would react in a war. And the UK. And the Russians.
The naval equivalent of Belgium in some respects.Also, the Germans offered a better deal. The Germans asked for Danish neutrality and mining of coastal waters. The UK offer would mean the Danes joined the war.
No, the British provided Tirpitz with an excuse to build the German fleet - the naval race was the consequence. A naval race that Germany was doomed to lose, even if it did have every right to compete.Also, you words by Tirpitz support my position that the UK triggered the naval race. And he may be right that this one Telegram was the most important single factor in obtaining additional funding. Not sure how UK misstep to trigger bigger German naval budget impacts Germany moving into Jutland.