Washington Naval Treaty After negotiated end to WW1

[AustrianFanboy]

I know this has been discussed many times, still:
PREMISE:
Assume that the eastern front goes according to OTL.
Several PODs keep the US out of the warm (no USW, no Zimmerman telegram etc, etc).
The western front goes more or less as per OTL(but with the Germans performing a bit Better overall: the french enter the last year of the warm a bit weakened compared to OTL, but still in the fight), with the main differences arising in 1918: with less of a hurry to crush the french before Uncle Sam comes in strenght to their rescue, the Germans plan Better; they do not sell the spring offensive as war-winning glory marches, but instead they go After the BEF: they reach and keep Amiens and unhinge the BEF logistics; some blunder on the side of the British allows the Germans to encircle most of the British troops.
Now the Germans hold most of the BEF hostage, and the British start to look for a way out, sending peace feelers.
French morale starts to crumble.
In the end a negotiated settlements is hammered out where German gains in the East are acknowledged, while in the west status Quo ante Is mostly reestablished:UK does not lose anything; they do not gain much either, but the Ottomans are forced to recognize Egypt and Kuwait as British protectorates, instead of anglo-turkish condominiums; the same apllies to Cyprus, which becomes a full-fledged British territory.
France loses Briey-Longwy for 25 years, after which a plebiscite will be held in the region; they also lose some colonies, mamely French Congo, and Djibouti, while Morocco becomes a German protectorate; all in all they are cut down to size, but not crushed.
Italy Is forced to accept some minor border agreements in favour of Austria-Hungary.
Belgium loses Congo, but retains full independence.
Japan gains German Mariana and Carolines Islands, but not Palau Island; Germany keeps Kiaoutschou (Qingdao) as well.
END OF PREMISE
Question now is: can a naval limitation agreement be hammered out in the early 1920s?
If Yes, on what Lines? Apart from political issues (let's assume there Is a bout of intelligence and good will on the behalf of everybody), the main issue I see Is the following:
In 1922 the UK could deploy 10 + 3 15" armed ships; germany would, at best be capable of fielding 4, assuming they finish cosntruction of all the Bayerns
This means that most of the Germans fleet would be obsolete by the time the negotiations start.
Obviously, between 1918 and 1922 there are 4 years, during which the Germans could theoretically complete work on L20a BBs and Mackensen-class BCs; anyway I have huge doubts concerning their ability to do so, given their financial situation; also Building those ships would spur the British into Building all of their Admiral-class BCs and a lor of other stuff, so that would be e no-go for any half-sane political leadership.
So let's assume that some sort of informal agreement occurs between the Brits and the Germans, where both agree to scrap their oldest ships. This means that at the start of the negotiations the British mostly have what they had OTL, while the Germams have the Kaiser-, Konig- and Bayern-class BBs, their remaining BCs (except Von der Tann) and one Mackensen-class BC.
How do negotiations unfold?
Germany (assuming sane leadership) might want to go for a 5:5:3:3:1,75:1,75;1,75 ratio, putting themselves at the same tier as Japan and putting Austria-Hungary at the same level as France and Italy, but I sense this would be unacceptable to the UK

 

[CV(N)-6]

Austria-Hungary would be lucky to survive the war intact and even then it has three dreadnoughts assuming Viribus Unitis survives the war, the smallest number any of the OTL WNT powers had was Italy with five and the possibility of raising da Vinci to make it six. Plus Austria will be in a very rough situation postwar, their naval programs in the 20's probably resemble those of the USSR: complete a handful of ships under construction and build some gunboats or something.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Austria-Hungary would be lucky to survive the war intact and even then it has three dreadnoughts assuming Viribus Unitis survives the war, the smallest number any of the OTL WNT powers had was Italy with five and the possibility of raising da Vinci to make it six. Plus Austria will be in a very rough situation postwar, their naval programs in the 20's probably resemble those of the USSR: complete a handful of ships under construction and build some gunboats or something.

I concur with your assessment of the Austrian situation, though as my Nickname suggests, it grieves me deeply.
Anyway the main focus of the thread Is on Germany, of course

 

[CV12Hornet]

Several PODs keep the US out of the warm (no USW, no Zimmerman telegram etc, etc).

This scuppers a global treaty right off the bat. The US entry into WW1 dramatically delayed their 1916 construction program, without which by 1922 they'd have launched the first of their South Dakota-class battleships and Lexington-class battlecruisers, and completed all four Colorados - and on top of that the problematic weight growth plaguing the South Dakotas would be unlikely to have set in.

This gives the US both a dramatic lead in both Category B ships (16" guns <35,000 tons/40,000+ tons but guns <16"), and a pioneering position in Category A vessels (16"+ guns, 40,000 tons+). The former were a contentious enough topic during the actual treaty negotiations to nearly scupper it at points; the latter are something nobody wants the US to keep and the US isn't likely to give up, unlike IOTL where everything was delayed and the South Dakotas were in a death spiral of unchecked weight growth.

tl;dr the US Navy has a lead in modern vessels they're very unlikely to willingly give up.

Smaller treaties between individual powers may be possible, though.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

This scuppers a global treaty right off the bat. The US entry into WW1 dramatically delayed their 1916 construction program, without which by 1922 they'd have launched the first of their South Dakota-class battleships and Lexington-class battlecruisers, and completed all four Colorados - and on top of that the problematic weight growth plaguing the South Dakotas would be unlikely to have set in.

This gives the US both a dramatic lead in both Category B ships (16" guns <35,000 tons/40,000+ tons but guns <16"), and a pioneering position in Category A vessels (16"+ guns, 40,000 tons+). The former were a contentious enough topic during the actual treaty negotiations to nearly scupper it at points; the latter are something nobody wants the US to keep and the US isn't likely to give up, unlike IOTL where everything was delayed and the South Dakotas were in a death spiral of unchecked weight growth.

tl;dr the US Navy has a lead in modern vessels they're very unlikely to willingly give up.

Smaller treaties between individual powers may be possible, though.

Ok, I get It, and frankly speaking I expected the general consensuns to be that no encompassing treaty can be reached.
That said, where do you think the sole storto would out the great powers' navies? What would the general naval balance of Power be by, say, the 30s?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I know this has been discussed many times, still:
PREMISE:
Assume that the eastern front goes according to OTL.
Several PODs keep the US out of the warm (no USW, no Zimmerman telegram etc, etc).
The western front goes more or less as per OTL(but with the Germans performing a bit Better overall: the french enter the last year of the warm a bit weakened compared to OTL, but still in the fight), with the main differences arising in 1918: with less of a hurry to crush the french before Uncle Sam comes in strenght to their rescue, the Germans plan Better; they do not sell the spring offensive as war-winning glory marches, but instead they go After the BEF: they reach and keep Amiens and unhinge the BEF logistics; some blunder on the side of the British allows the Germans to encircle most of the British troops.
Now the Germans hold most of the BEF hostage, and the British start to look for a way out, sending peace feelers.
French morale starts to crumble.
In the end a negotiated settlements is hammered out where German gains in the East are acknowledged, while in the west status Quo ante Is mostly reestablished:UK does not lose anything; they do not gain much either, but the Ottomans are forced to recognize Egypt and Kuwait as British protectorates, instead of anglo-turkish condominiums; the same apllies to Cyprus, which becomes a full-fledged British territory.
France loses Briey-Longwy for 25 years, after which a plebiscite will be held in the region; they also lose some colonies, mamely French Congo, and Djibouti, while Morocco becomes a German protectorate; all in all they are cut down to size, but not crushed.

Who gains the French Colonies? What about the German African colonies that were captured during the war? Are they returned to German control?

Italy Is forced to accept some minor border agreements in favour of Austria-Hungary.
Belgium loses Congo, but retains full independence.

And who gains control of the Belgian Congo? Germany?

Japan gains German Mariana and Carolines Islands, but not Palau Island; Germany keeps Kiaoutschou (Qingdao) as well.

What about the other German Pacific territory? Nauru, Solomon Islands?

END OF PREMISE
Question now is: can a naval limitation agreement be hammered out in the early 1920s?
If Yes, on what Lines? Apart from political issues (let's assume there Is a bout of intelligence and good will on the behalf of everybody), the main issue I see Is the following:
In 1922 the UK could deploy 10 + 3 15" armed ships; germany would, at best be capable of fielding 4, assuming they finish cosntruction of all the Bayerns
This means that most of the Germans fleet would be obsolete by the time the negotiations start.

Most of Continental Europe's fleets were obsolete.

Obviously, between 1918 and 1922 there are 4 years, during which the Germans could theoretically complete work on L20a BBs and Mackensen-class BCs; anyway I have huge doubts concerning their ability to do so, given their financial situation; also Building those ships would spur the British into Building all of their Admiral-class BCs and a lor of other stuff, so that would be e no-go for any half-sane political leadership.

Why would they have financial problems worse than anyone else. Given that they were victorious in the east they may be in better shape depending if they get reparations from the Russians.

By the way what is the situation in Russia? Did The revolution take place? Are the factions fighting it out? Are the Japanese trying to take advantage in the Far East? What about in the Stans and central Asia, Is Britain, Germany and France pushing factions in that area to try and get control of portions of what used to be Imperial Russia?

So let's assume that some sort of informal agreement occurs between the Brits and the Germans, where both agree to scrap their oldest ships. This means that at the start of the negotiations the British mostly have what they had OTL, while the Germams have the Kaiser-, Konig- and Bayern-class BBs, their remaining BCs (except Von der Tann) and one Mackensen-class BC.
How do negotiations unfold?
Germany (assuming sane leadership) might want to go for a 5:5:3:3:1,75:1,75;1,75 ratio, putting themselves at the same tier as Japan and putting Austria-Hungary at the same level as France and Italy, but I sense this would be unacceptable to the UK

What is 'sane'? Is the Kaiser still in charge?

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Who gains the French Colonies? What about the German African colonies that were captured during the war? Are they returned to German control?

And who gains control of the Belgian Congo? Germany?

What about the other German Pacific territory? Nauru, Solomon Islands?


Most of Continental Europe's fleets were obsolete.

Why would they have financial problems worse than anyone else. Given that they were victorious in the east they may be in better shape depending if they get reparations from the Russians.

By the way what is the situation in Russia? Did The revolution take place? Are the factions fighting it out? Are the Japanese trying to take advantage in the Far East? What about in the Stans and central Asia, Is Britain, Germany and France pushing factions in that area to try and get control of portions of what used to be Imperial Russia?

What is 'sane'? Is the Kaiser still in charge?

Uh, Oh, I will try to answer in good order:
1) Germany gains the specified french colonies
2)Germany gets Congo
3)Those German pacific possessions which are not esplicitly stated remain in german hands
4) Russia is as per OTL; I do not see the germans meddling in the civil war, at the moment

 

[James Ricker]

There would be tonnage limitations with greater tonnage allotments for Great Britain because they would have to deal with Germany. Germany would have a number that would make them happy
The same forces that led to the Washington Naval treaty ITL would still be in effect in this alternate timeline, everyone was broke.

 

[DougM]

Yes but just because you are broke does not mean you are willing to agree to let the other country have more/better ships and a bigger navy.
And the US will be in a lot better position then the rest and not willing to give that up so unless GB is willing to play second fiddle to the US you are going to have an impasse on the agreement

 

[CalBear]

Forget about ANY Treaty. Zero probability event.
The Germans will be draining the East of everything of value to build up the HSF to prevent the same sort of blockade from throttling them in the future. The British are going to pawn the Crown Jewels to maintain the RN's advantage,


United States is going to go Apeshit. The U.S. now has to deal with a major German building program, a major British building program, the Japanese with the Mandates (probably with a renewed Anglo-Japanese alliance to help the RN in the West and SW Pacific) AND a clearly territorial acquisitive, freshly victorious Germany with a major basing site in the Palaus plus the Concessions in China threatening the Philippines. It has been recent enough that the Americans will very much remember the German intense interest in Hawaii. Great time to be a shipbuilder in the U.S.

Let's all say it together - Tillman III battlecruisers and Tillman IV super BB (which make the 1920 South Dakota class look like protected cruisers) as the American ante at the table.

Mortal lock: MAJOR, probable World wide War no later than 1935, possibly as early as 1929. From the school of cool perspective there will be a series of big gun ship engagements in three (five if you split the Atlantic into North/South) plus the Med and 50:50 chance in the Caribbean.

At least there Depression get butterflied. Not a good trade for 40 million casualties, but gotta look for silver lining wherever you can.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Forget about ANY Treaty. Zero probability event.
The Germans will be draining the East of everything of value to build up the HSF to prevent the same sort of blockade from throttling them in the future. The British are going to pawn the Crown Jewels to maintain the RN's advantage,


United States is going to go Apeshit. The U.S. now has to deal with a major German building program, a major British building program, the Japanese with the Mandates (probably with a renewed Anglo-Japanese alliance to help the RN in the West and SW Pacific) AND a clearly territorial acquisitive, freshly victorious Germany with a major basing site in the Palaus plus the Concessions in China threatening the Philippines. It has been recent enough that the Americans will very much remember the German intense interest in Hawaii. Great time to be a shipbuilder in the U.S.

Let's all say it together - Tillman III battlecruisers and Tillman IV super BB (which make the 1920 South Dakota class look like protected cruisers) as the American ante at the table.

Mortal lock: MAJOR, probable World wide War no later than 1935, possibly as early as 1929. From the school of cool perspective there will be a series of big gun ship engagements in three (five if you split the Atlantic into North/South) plus the Med and 50:50 chance in the Caribbean.

At least there Depression get butterflied. Not a good trade for 40 million casualties, but gotta look for silver lining wherever you can.

Question: do you think this fanatical battleship Building would delay study on aircraft carriers?

 

[Dorknought]

For a successful Arms limitation treaty you need to remove the need for the arms first and then the arms control can safely follow. The WNT needed German naval power neutered as a prerequisite.

 

[CalBear]

Question: do you think this fanatical battleship Building would delay study on aircraft carriers?

Not really. Carriers were already "a thing" before the War ended IOTL. Originally as scouting platforms/anti enemy scouting platforms (Royal Navy was interested in using them vs. Zeppelins) and as light strike. As soon as you get more powerful aircraft engines the carrier get increasingly lethal.

That, of course, means if a war is somehow avoided in this scenario until ~1940 you now have double or triple the number obsolescent capital ships cluttering up the world's naval bases.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Not really. Carriers were already "a thing" before the War ended IOTL. Originally as scouting platforms/anti enemy scouting platforms (Royal Navy was interested in using them vs. Zeppelins) and as light strike. As soon as you get more powerful aircraft engines the carrier get increasingly lethal.

That, of course, means if a war is somehow avoided in this scenario until ~1940 you now have double or triple the number obsolescent capital ships cluttering up the world's naval bases.

One curious scenario I was thinking about: It Is clear that the US was the only power capable of pursuing a full fledged naval rearmament policy:
-The UK May try to match them, but they would not have the finances for doing so indefinitely without compromising the stability of their empire
-Germany was resigned to be tier 2 even before the war: sure they could use time and resources from their new clients in the East to prop up their shipbuilding capacity, plus most of their debt is internal, but that would come to the detriment of other critical areas of investment.
-France would be just broke, even wothout significant reparations to the Germans (unlikely to occur); also they would be deprived of their most important iron ore deposits
-Japan has neither the shipbuilding capacity, or the financial resources to pursue, as per OTL
-Italy, same as Japan on larger scale.
Now, wouldn't this make the US top 1 public enemy for anyone else?
Think about It: in this scenario the Anglo-Japanese alliance still stands, meaning Japan Is already ok with the UK; if the Brits and the Germans manage to come to terms, which Is doable, assuming sane leadership on both sides, as long as the British acknowledge Germany's position as top dog in Europe and Germany acknowledge British supremacy overseas, then I can see some sort of anti-american coalition form.
I am not saying It Is a given, but the way I see It:
1) the experience of the war would have put some salt in the head of both the British and the Germans
2) After the war it would have been clear in London that Washington, not Berlin would be the long term threat to British dominance of the world markets
3) Tokyo would know that It would be the US, not the UK to really attempt at thwarting their designs for East Asia and the pacific, at least as long as they do not ho wildly over the top.
In short, I see everyone having an incentive to put aside their differences and cooperating against the rising american juggernaut.
After all by the war's end, It would be clear to the brits that (in this scenario) siding with a defeated France and what remains of Russia Is a losing choice; if you can't beat the Germans, then ally with them.
The same apllies to the germans

 

[Catspoke]

Why wouldn't the Americans just win this, no WW1 happens so the army is still puny, no war debts, only a navy to worry about building.

I feel the German gains in the east are worth far more than the German colonies, with Krivy rog, Ukrainian grain, Nikopol, Caucasian mines in Georgia, under their control, etc.., can they not worry about blockades in a future war?? If they just take their new found toy in the Congo and its Katanga copper mines and don't cause their typical trouble maybe they could just reach an accommodation with Great Britain, i.e. a naval agreement, and spend their thin $ on securing the east and the Congo instead of building ships.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Why wouldn't the Americans just win this, no WW1 happens so the army is still puny, no war debts, only a navy to worry about building.

I feel the German gains in the east are worth far more than the German colonies, with Krivy rog, Ukrainian grain, Nikopol, Caucasian mines in Georgia, under their control, etc.., can they not worry about blockades in a future war?? If they just take their new found toy in the Congo and its Katanga copper mines and don't cause their typical trouble maybe they could just reach an accommodation with Great Britain, i.e. a naval agreement, and spend their thin $ on securing the east and the Congo instead of building ships.

I agree with your reasoning; in this scenario Germany basically got all they need and all they want as well
In hindsight, British dependence on an empire that sooner or later will be impossible to mantain will be their doom along with their faltering dominance of the world markets.
You can't just keep 1/3rd of humankind under your thumb forever from tiny Britain.
Already in this scenario Germany would be master of the continent, having already vanquished both France and Russia

 

[CalBear]

One curious scenario I was thinking about: It Is clear that the US was the only power capable of pursuing a full fledged naval rearmament policy:
-The UK May try to match them, but they would not have the finances for doing so indefinitely without compromising the stability of their empire
-Germany was resigned to be tier 2 even before the war: sure they could use time and resources from their new clients in the East to prop up their shipbuilding capacity, plus most of their debt is internal, but that would come to the detriment of other critical areas of investment.
-France would be just broke, even wothout significant reparations to the Germans (unlikely to occur); also they would be deprived of their most important iron ore deposits
-Japan has neither the shipbuilding capacity, or the financial resources to pursue, as per OTL
-Italy, same as Japan on larger scale.
Now, wouldn't this make the US top 1 public enemy for anyone else?
Think about It: in this scenario the Anglo-Japanese alliance still stands, meaning Japan Is already ok with the UK; if the Brits and the Germans manage to come to terms, which Is doable, assuming sane leadership on both sides, as long as the British acknowledge Germany's position as top dog in Europe and Germany acknowledge British supremacy overseas, then I can see some sort of anti-american coalition form.
I am not saying It Is a given, but the way I see It:
1) the experience of the war would have put some salt in the head of both the British and the Germans
2) After the war it would have been clear in London that Washington, not Berlin would be the long term threat to British dominance of the world markets
3) Tokyo would know that It would be the US, not the UK to really attempt at thwarting their designs for East Asia and the pacific, at least as long as they do not ho wildly over the top.
In short, I see everyone having an incentive to put aside their differences and cooperating against the rising american juggernaut.
After all by the war's end, It would be clear to the brits that (in this scenario) siding with a defeated France and what remains of Russia Is a losing choice; if you can't beat the Germans, then ally with them.
The same apllies to the germans

I would tend to go the other way. Even before the War IOTL the British had taken the U.S. out of the famed "2+1" formula.

They did it for the simplest of reasons - 1. The U.S. was simply not a threat, at all. The Americans were perfectly happy sitting behind their two Oceans and didn't seem to have the slightest interest in growing a colonial Empire. The Americans also had no network of coaling stations, a prerequisite for any sort of empire building The American Army was a constabulary force barely large enough to police the border with Mexico and garrison the Philippines.

2. They realized that there was no hope of outbuilding the Americans along with Germany and that the American fleet was, as far as a major navy could be, purely defensive (American scouting assets were flat out pitiful, something that remained the case well into the late 1920s). U.S. Navy was designed for two things 1. Repelling any attacker once they were close to the Continental Shelf and 2. Keeping things tidy in the Western Hemisphere north of the Equator.

The British would look at a victorious Germany with abject horror. British foreign policy, going back centuries, had been centered on preventing any single European power from consolidating the economic strength of the Continent under their Banner. In this scenario, Britain's worst nightmare has come to pass, and it has come into being with a dangerous, to the United Kingdom, manchild at the controls. The Kaiser, in this scenario, now controls Central and Eastern Europe, has a long established hostility to his Cousin sitting on the British throne, had access to enormous amounts of Iron ore, 89% of what was once Russia's coal, and SIX BILLION marks in reparations to support the construction of additional heavy warships. Germany has gained enormous potential wealth in the Congo and has been granted the keys to the Suez Canal with Djibouti* (this alone will require the Royal Navy to devote a force at least half the size of the Grand Fleet to ensure freedom of navigation from the Raj). Not a chance in the world that the British don't drive themselves to the edge of bankruptcy in increase the size of the fleet.

The Kaiser, for his part, was, possibly as a result of his massive inferiority complex toward his cousin, completely devoted to seeing Germany have a navy equal to, if not more powerful than, the Royal Navy while also having a really severe case of "Oooh SHINY!" Moreover, to support their increased Empire, Germany will need far more naval power projection than was the case when it was a purely Continental power.

This all points to doing everything possible to stay "on sides" with the Americans, even if the Americans are less than thrilled with the Anglo-Japanese alliance, as does the fact that the damned Americans hold bonds with a value exceed the UK's GNP (which, even with considerable loan forgiveness, were not paid off until the 21st Century).

The Japanese would, without any question, see the U.S. as "the Bad Guy". That was pretty much set in stone following TR's mediator role in the treaty that ended the Russian-Japanese War (where the Japanese were convinced that they got seriously jobbed) and by the truly henious treatment of Japanese nationals under U.S. law. Everyone else would be a bit PO's since the Wall Street held paper on pretty much everyone, but would also realize that the damned Americans were happy to do business with anyone, wanted nothing to do with European politics, and were pretty much the rich uncle who was a bit overbearing at Thanksgiving dinner, but was also the go to guy if you needed a few bucks and gave the best Christmas presents.


*This is also where, IMO, the basic premise of the scenario breaks down. British would NEVER have accepted this and had plenty of forces close enough to ensure that the French never had the chance to hand over the Keys. There is also no way to "trap" the BEF, the British were in Belgium for a reason well beyond their casus belli, if things went to Hell in a Handbasket the Grand Fleet could cover any evacuation via the Channel ports. As long as the Grand Fleet overmatches the HSF Britain is invulnerable.

 

[James Ricker]

Question: do you think this fanatical battleship Building would delay study on aircraft carriers?

No , the Lexingtons were going to be useless in combat and the US Navy knew it
Their conversation into aircraft carriers was rather fast and obviously not a rush job it was obviously planned ahead of time
With increased budgets there would be more funds available for aircraft carrier development

 

[AustrianFanboy]

I would tend to go the other way. Even before the War IOTL the British had taken the U.S. out of the famed "2+1" formula.

They did it for the simplest of reasons - 1. The U.S. was simply not a threat, at all. The Americans were perfectly happy sitting behind their two Oceans and didn't seem to have the slightest interest in growing a colonial Empire. The Americans also had no network of coaling stations, a prerequisite for any sort of empire building The American Army was a constabulary force barely large enough to police the border with Mexico and garrison the Philippines.

2. They realized that there was no hope of outbuilding the Americans along with Germany and that the American fleet was, as far as a major navy could be, purely defensive (American scouting assets were flat out pitiful, something that remained the case well into the late 1920s). U.S. Navy was designed for two things 1. Repelling any attacker once they were close to the Continental Shelf and 2. Keeping things tidy in the Western Hemisphere north of the Equator.

The British would look at a victorious Germany with abject horror. British foreign policy, going back centuries, had been centered on preventing any single European power from consolidating the economic strength of the Continent under their Banner. In this scenario, Britain's worst nightmare has come to pass, and it has come into being with a dangerous, to the United Kingdom, manchild at the controls. The Kaiser, in this scenario, now controls Central and Eastern Europe, has a long established hostility to his Cousin sitting on the British throne, had access to enormous amounts of Iron ore, 89% of what was once Russia's coal, and SIX BILLION marks in reparations to support the construction of additional heavy warships. Germany has gained enormous potential wealth in the Congo and has been granted the keys to the Suez Canal with Djibouti* (this alone will require the Royal Navy to devote a force at least half the size of the Grand Fleet to ensure freedom of navigation from the Raj). Not a chance in the world that the British don't drive themselves to the edge of bankruptcy in increase the size of the fleet.

The Kaiser, for his part, was, possibly as a result of his massive inferiority complex toward his cousin, completely devoted to seeing Germany have a navy equal to, if not more powerful than, the Royal Navy while also having a really severe case of "Oooh SHINY!" Moreover, to support their increased Empire, Germany will need far more naval power projection than was the case when it was a purely Continental power.

This all points to doing everything possible to stay "on sides" with the Americans, even if the Americans are less than thrilled with the Anglo-Japanese alliance, as does the fact that the damned Americans hold bonds with a value exceed the UK's GNP (which, even with considerable loan forgiveness, were not paid off until the 21st Century).

The Japanese would, without any question, see the U.S. as "the Bad Guy". That was pretty much set in stone following TR's mediator role in the treaty that ended the Russian-Japanese War (where the Japanese were convinced that they got seriously jobbed) and by the truly henious treatment of Japanese nationals under U.S. law. Everyone else would be a bit PO's since the Wall Street held paper on pretty much everyone, but would also realize that the damned Americans were happy to do business with anyone, wanted nothing to do with European politics, and were pretty much the rich uncle who was a bit overbearing at Thanksgiving dinner, but was also the go to guy if you needed a few bucks and gave the best Christmas presents.


*This is also where, IMO, the basic premise of the scenario breaks down. British would NEVER have accepted this and had plenty of forces close enough to ensure that the French never had the chance to hand over the Keys. There is also no way to "trap" the BEF, the British were in Belgium for a reason well beyond their casus belli, if things went to Hell in a Handbasket the Grand Fleet could cover any evacuation via the Channel ports. As long as the Grand Fleet overmatches the HSF Britain is invulnerable.

Agreed; point now is: how far can the British go until they go bankrupt?
After losing WW1, even if they do not lose territories or Money, as per this ATL, they are going to stop being the top dog economy-wise.
It is just a matter of time

 

[CV12Hornet]

Agreed; point now is: how far can the British go until they go bankrupt?
After losing WW1, even if they do not lose territories or Money, as per this ATL, they are going to stop being the top dog economy-wise.
It is just a matter of time

They’d long since lost their status as top dog economically to German and the US.