The various Versailles discussions has made me think. Given that the naval arms race between Britain and Germany is considered one of the major reasons for British/German hostility, and given the extreme costs of maintaining the naval race, what do people see as possible naval disarmament agreements in the event of something less than a complete Allied victory in WW1 occurs (either a truly negotiated armistice between equals or a limited German victory that leaves Britain largely unaffected). I tend to think that economically, the great powers would be forced to consider some sort of naval limitations, but with Germany (and to extent Austria-Hungary) still alive and kicking, it could look quite a bit different, both with respect to ratios, tonnage, and types of units.
"Washington Treaty" in a CP doesn't lose timeline
- Thread starter zoomar
- Start date
But that is before the war. Wouldn't the nation be close bankruptcy after the war? Britain sought an agreement in OTL. Might even the Kaiser and his cronies realize (as did the English) that without some agreements there was no way they could keep up with the US and even Japan, powers who had already grabbed the technological lead and not been as badly impacted by wartime expenses? Wouldn't there be any elements in German government that would see advantages to at least "regulating" the naval race?
'Doesn't lose' is not the same thing as win.
So if we have a scenario where the war in the East plays out similarly to OTL while in the West the US never joins the war. Then say in 1918 launch an offensive in the West that does not quite reach Paris or break the Allied lines, but is enough to make the UK and France offer peace negotiations. While Germany is hungry and also nearing the breaking point.
Lets say there is a compromise peace where the Germans keep everything they won in the east while they return to the prewar borders in the west. All colonies are restored except for those occupied by Japan in the Pacific. The Entente pay reparations but they are not crushing. Germany is the main winner but the British Empire is left intact though in debt. France is the big loser with Austria- Hugary, the Ottoman Empire, and Italy all broke and facing revolution.
Under these circumstances I can't believe for a second the Royal Navy will be willing to give up their naval superiority no matter how bad the economic situation.
Likewise, if the Kaiser is still in power he will point to the 'success' of the fleet in being as an important factor in final victory. He will likely want a surface fleet to try and match the Royal Navy as well as an expanded sub arm. Neither the Germans nor the British are going to be interested in an arms treaty even if their economies are struggling.
The likely outcome is a brand new arms race similar to the US - USSR one during the Cold War.
So if we have a scenario where the war in the East plays out similarly to OTL while in the West the US never joins the war. Then say in 1918 launch an offensive in the West that does not quite reach Paris or break the Allied lines, but is enough to make the UK and France offer peace negotiations. While Germany is hungry and also nearing the breaking point.
Lets say there is a compromise peace where the Germans keep everything they won in the east while they return to the prewar borders in the west. All colonies are restored except for those occupied by Japan in the Pacific. The Entente pay reparations but they are not crushing. Germany is the main winner but the British Empire is left intact though in debt. France is the big loser with Austria- Hugary, the Ottoman Empire, and Italy all broke and facing revolution.
Under these circumstances I can't believe for a second the Royal Navy will be willing to give up their naval superiority no matter how bad the economic situation.
Likewise, if the Kaiser is still in power he will point to the 'success' of the fleet in being as an important factor in final victory. He will likely want a surface fleet to try and match the Royal Navy as well as an expanded sub arm. Neither the Germans nor the British are going to be interested in an arms treaty even if their economies are struggling.
The likely outcome is a brand new arms race similar to the US - USSR one during the Cold War.
A reasonable point. Britain was able to advocate a limitation treaty because all of the remaining naval powers were current allies. However in the situation you describe, the equation is at least a four-way one. The USN was approaching parity with the RN - and had laid down a whole group of battleships and battlecruisers that would be superior to anything the British or Germans had. Japan's fleet, while smaller, was also engaged in a massive buildup of ships far superior to what the Germans and British had. Since the Germans had essentially ceased new construction in 1914, the gap between them and the three potentially enemy powers had grown astronomically. Even a Krazed Kaiser overcompensating for his withered arm might see the obvious: that there was no way Germany could ever match the allies so a fallback position would be to negotiate a combination of naval reductions and alliances to improve its position.
Precondition to peace,
A naval agreement would be one of the prerequisites for Britain to accept peace. If Germany offered to make peace in 1915, on reasonable terms, they could well use a naval limitation treaty as a bargaining tool. Germany would get some concessions on Europe, but would accept a reduced ratio vs Britain on capital ships?
Given the state of the major navies in 1915, the ideal treaty for Britain would be for ships launched to be allowed to complete, but no major warships to be laid down for 20 years, after which they could only replace existing tonnage. (in 1935 Germany could build a "Bismarck" to replace two Nassau)
This requires, of course, very reasonable german leaders...
A naval agreement would be one of the prerequisites for Britain to accept peace. If Germany offered to make peace in 1915, on reasonable terms, they could well use a naval limitation treaty as a bargaining tool. Germany would get some concessions on Europe, but would accept a reduced ratio vs Britain on capital ships?
Given the state of the major navies in 1915, the ideal treaty for Britain would be for ships launched to be allowed to complete, but no major warships to be laid down for 20 years, after which they could only replace existing tonnage. (in 1935 Germany could build a "Bismarck" to replace two Nassau)
This requires, of course, very reasonable german leaders...
BlondieBC
Banned
There will be too much bad blood and distrust. In a cold peace, you get no treaty. In a limited CP win, you might get some limitations on France and France alone. Most likely you get an arms race as the new 17" BB are built.
Treaty limits
I'm assuming the war ends in late 1917, with major naval actions more or less as in OTL. If so, Great Britain is the premier naval power in the world by far. The British might want status quo, but the USA sure won't--and will have no reason to accept it. I'd expect no treaty right after the war--and no treaty is possible if the USA doesn't play.
Result: Germany completes the Badens and Mackensens. This is needed regardless--a 12" gun fleet in 1918 is obsolete. That gives Germany 9 modern ships, plus the obsolesecent Derflingers and Konigs. The Ersatz York's may get some work on them.
Britain's 13.5" ships are adequate, and the 15" ships are very powerful
At this point, it's showing signs of getting expensive, as G3's, N3's, and L20 alpha's get brought up at budget and planning meetings. Now might be the time that a treaty of some sort becomes practical.
The difficulties will be number of ships--and the ratios. The USA won't settle for less than parity with Britain, and Britian will be much more nervous about this. The British didn't see much chance of war with the USA--and also didn't have to worry about any other maritime enemies. Now, Germany is a naval power that Britian could handle--but can Britain aford a solid German navy AND an equal American one? The USA was not in this Great War, I'm assuming, so there's no extra close ties formed...
I'm assuming the war ends in late 1917, with major naval actions more or less as in OTL. If so, Great Britain is the premier naval power in the world by far. The British might want status quo, but the USA sure won't--and will have no reason to accept it. I'd expect no treaty right after the war--and no treaty is possible if the USA doesn't play.
Result: Germany completes the Badens and Mackensens. This is needed regardless--a 12" gun fleet in 1918 is obsolete. That gives Germany 9 modern ships, plus the obsolesecent Derflingers and Konigs. The Ersatz York's may get some work on them.
Britain's 13.5" ships are adequate, and the 15" ships are very powerful
At this point, it's showing signs of getting expensive, as G3's, N3's, and L20 alpha's get brought up at budget and planning meetings. Now might be the time that a treaty of some sort becomes practical.
The difficulties will be number of ships--and the ratios. The USA won't settle for less than parity with Britain, and Britian will be much more nervous about this. The British didn't see much chance of war with the USA--and also didn't have to worry about any other maritime enemies. Now, Germany is a naval power that Britian could handle--but can Britain aford a solid German navy AND an equal American one? The USA was not in this Great War, I'm assuming, so there's no extra close ties formed...
1917 is too late
Once the US is in the war it will be much harder to get a peace deal Germany will accept. With the US in, the Allies smelled victory, and will require victors terms. I think peace would be possible in January 1915, after Ypres, Lodz and Limanowa demonstrate that the war will be long and bloody, or maybe in December 1915, with the German successes in the East and the failure of offensives in the west tempting Germany into a "this is as good as it gets" peace offer. After the Somme, and with the US involved, Britain will have to ask for a lot and the Germans will not give them much until they are beaten.
It's also an ideal time for Britain to negotiate a naval traty, her ten 15'' BB allready laid down giving the RN an upper hand since nobody had laid down 16'' ships by then.
Once the US is in the war it will be much harder to get a peace deal Germany will accept. With the US in, the Allies smelled victory, and will require victors terms. I think peace would be possible in January 1915, after Ypres, Lodz and Limanowa demonstrate that the war will be long and bloody, or maybe in December 1915, with the German successes in the East and the failure of offensives in the west tempting Germany into a "this is as good as it gets" peace offer. After the Somme, and with the US involved, Britain will have to ask for a lot and the Germans will not give them much until they are beaten.
It's also an ideal time for Britain to negotiate a naval traty, her ten 15'' BB allready laid down giving the RN an upper hand since nobody had laid down 16'' ships by then.
British offer in Jan 1915
So here's my offer, from the British side.
1. Ships allready laid down allowed to complete. No new capital ships (anything above 10000t) to be laid down for 20 years, after that date old ships can be replaced but tonnage totals are to be maintained.
2. Britain and Germany agree to limit submarine forces to a total of 50 000t each. AH, Italy and France to 25, 25, 35 000t each.
3. Cruiser and destroyer forces combined cannot exceed the total tonnage of each nations capital ships. (ie, for each QE the RN can have 3 CL and 10 D)
The British trump card is that they can afford to give up completing the R class BB therefore making a grand gesture and still come out on top.
There will be no agreement unless the RN is ready to see the USN as a partner rather than a potencial enemy. Even as early as Jan 1915 this is possible, if cool heads on all sides prevail.
France will be left with a very obsolete navy. They might have to get an exception to replace their predreadnoughs earlier. But they will be the ones having to make more concessions if they want to get anything in 1915.
So here's my offer, from the British side.
1. Ships allready laid down allowed to complete. No new capital ships (anything above 10000t) to be laid down for 20 years, after that date old ships can be replaced but tonnage totals are to be maintained.
2. Britain and Germany agree to limit submarine forces to a total of 50 000t each. AH, Italy and France to 25, 25, 35 000t each.
3. Cruiser and destroyer forces combined cannot exceed the total tonnage of each nations capital ships. (ie, for each QE the RN can have 3 CL and 10 D)
The British trump card is that they can afford to give up completing the R class BB therefore making a grand gesture and still come out on top.
There will be no agreement unless the RN is ready to see the USN as a partner rather than a potencial enemy. Even as early as Jan 1915 this is possible, if cool heads on all sides prevail.
France will be left with a very obsolete navy. They might have to get an exception to replace their predreadnoughs earlier. But they will be the ones having to make more concessions if they want to get anything in 1915.
After a long war, any "victorious" Germany would want a ratio too high for Britain to be acceptable. But all sides will be broke, there won't be money to lay down new ships. In that situation, a building moratorium which limits naval armament for a time is possible.
Another point to consider: would Germany still focus on the navy as much as they did IOTL? It wasn't enough to scare Britain into neutrality, it wasn't enough to prevent a blockade, it was utterly insuitable to defend the colonies or German trade, and most probably it wasn't the military arm that ended the war victorious. With all the new lands in the East (assuming Germany won there), the army will be even more important than pre-war. So would they take all the money that's needed to build an even larger navy even though what they had failed?
Another point to consider: would Germany still focus on the navy as much as they did IOTL? It wasn't enough to scare Britain into neutrality, it wasn't enough to prevent a blockade, it was utterly insuitable to defend the colonies or German trade, and most probably it wasn't the military arm that ended the war victorious. With all the new lands in the East (assuming Germany won there), the army will be even more important than pre-war. So would they take all the money that's needed to build an even larger navy even though what they had failed?
Since there was a defacto 60% limitation agreement on capital ship construction from 1912 on I would say you overstate things to a degree.
Michael
If war ends in 1917 or 1918 or 1919 certain key drivers on events are in place.
1) Both sides are going to be up to their eyeballs in debt.
2) Both sides face general economic disruption for at least a year when they demobilize their military and return to peace time footing.
3) For Germany the SPD and other non right parties are expecting political reform in Germany. Absolute minimum to be franchise reform in Prussia and shifting of control of the chancellorship to Reichstag. The Kaiser took a massive beating in terms of prestige during the war so his ability to influence policy is going to be greatly reduced; whatever the details of it are.
I am assuming some form of peace of exhaustion in the west. So with points 1 - 3 in mind I really don't see much interest by ANYONE in starting a new arms race.
Its possible, if unlikely that Germany agrees to a Japanese type standing. France would go nuts at this of course but in practical terms they are totally bankrupt and without even the hope of reparations there is zip they can do about it. I would expect France to refuse to sign and that means Italy refuses to sign. Of course neither can afford to do anything for several years at least. I would expect the treaty to have shorter terms than historic. The entire things could explode whenever France / Italy recover enough to start building ships and they build ships above the agreed displacement limits.
Its possible that Washington becomes more like 2nd London instead. Hard displacement and gun limits on new construction but not limit fleet size. I expect UK and Germany to do a side agreement on fleet size but that would only be between those two.
There was a general push in the 1920's to make a try at outlawing war and limiting armaments. It would still be there but it would go down unexpected paths with Germany still a player.
Michael
1) Both sides are going to be up to their eyeballs in debt.
2) Both sides face general economic disruption for at least a year when they demobilize their military and return to peace time footing.
3) For Germany the SPD and other non right parties are expecting political reform in Germany. Absolute minimum to be franchise reform in Prussia and shifting of control of the chancellorship to Reichstag. The Kaiser took a massive beating in terms of prestige during the war so his ability to influence policy is going to be greatly reduced; whatever the details of it are.
I am assuming some form of peace of exhaustion in the west. So with points 1 - 3 in mind I really don't see much interest by ANYONE in starting a new arms race.
Its possible, if unlikely that Germany agrees to a Japanese type standing. France would go nuts at this of course but in practical terms they are totally bankrupt and without even the hope of reparations there is zip they can do about it. I would expect France to refuse to sign and that means Italy refuses to sign. Of course neither can afford to do anything for several years at least. I would expect the treaty to have shorter terms than historic. The entire things could explode whenever France / Italy recover enough to start building ships and they build ships above the agreed displacement limits.
Its possible that Washington becomes more like 2nd London instead. Hard displacement and gun limits on new construction but not limit fleet size. I expect UK and Germany to do a side agreement on fleet size but that would only be between those two.
There was a general push in the 1920's to make a try at outlawing war and limiting armaments. It would still be there but it would go down unexpected paths with Germany still a player.
Michael
The situation pre-1914 is going to have nothing at all to do with how Britain and Germany act following World war One. If France and Russia have been pretty much wrecked Germany will be an even greater danger to Britain than it had been. Maintaining the superiority of the Royal Navy will probably be seen as THE core of British foreign policy.
A Germany that stands as the strongest power on the European continent will focus on the British empire as the most dangerous remaining threat. If the Kaiser is still in power in a mainly victorious Germany he will not be interested in any sort of limitations.
In a post war world where both empires are still intact neither has any interest in a Naval Treaty. From the British point of view any treaty would have to guarantee their naval supremacy. From the German point of view this would be entirely unacceptable. They could well argue that having just defeated the British in the greatest war the world had even seen they had no reason to allow the British to make any demands on them.
A naval treaty under these circumstances simply won't work because there is simply not enough common ground between the two sides.
A Germany that stands as the strongest power on the European continent will focus on the British empire as the most dangerous remaining threat. If the Kaiser is still in power in a mainly victorious Germany he will not be interested in any sort of limitations.
In a post war world where both empires are still intact neither has any interest in a Naval Treaty. From the British point of view any treaty would have to guarantee their naval supremacy. From the German point of view this would be entirely unacceptable. They could well argue that having just defeated the British in the greatest war the world had even seen they had no reason to allow the British to make any demands on them.
A naval treaty under these circumstances simply won't work because there is simply not enough common ground between the two sides.
Deadlines
Wich is why peace is only possible if the postwar situation is not that diferent from prewar. That's why I think January 1915 is the ideal time, followed by December 1915. The broad terms for peace would be a "fix" for the Balkans, naval limitation treaty, and some sort of arrangment on international trade. Any situation that leaves Germany alone as a continental power will be unacceptable to Britain. And Britain can stay in the fight as long as it as naval superiority, wich includes, in this context, the ability to escort convoys across the Atlantic if faced with a large scale submarine threat.
Wich is why peace is only possible if the postwar situation is not that diferent from prewar. That's why I think January 1915 is the ideal time, followed by December 1915. The broad terms for peace would be a "fix" for the Balkans, naval limitation treaty, and some sort of arrangment on international trade. Any situation that leaves Germany alone as a continental power will be unacceptable to Britain. And Britain can stay in the fight as long as it as naval superiority, wich includes, in this context, the ability to escort convoys across the Atlantic if faced with a large scale submarine threat.
This is an interesting point, and it applies even more in 1915/early 1916, when a "whitish" peace is most likely. Prior to Jutland, the record of Germany's new and expensive dreadnought force was singularly unimpressive. The only real successes were acheived by older cruisers and, of course, submarines. In this context, I could see Germany willing to accept British superiority in capital ships if it retained superiority over other potential foes and perhaps first rank in other types of ships that were useful (subs, commerce raideing cruisers, etc).
How will Britain and Germany approach the US and Japanese naval buildups? Technically, Britain wouldn't be too concerned because both Japan and the US were eitherl British Allies (Japan) or basically friendly neutrals (USA). While it is remotely possible that a peace treaty might restore some of Germany's African colonies, it is almost impossible that Japan would agree to relinquishing its conquests in China and the Pacific. How would Japan and the USA figure into a moratorium and ratios, given the fact that their own naval race is what prompted Washington in OTL? How would they be perceived by Germany? Would Italy, France, and Austria-Hungary even figure in such a treaty?
GarethC
Donor
If the US doesn't join the war, then why would it be perceived as "friendly" rather than "ruthlessly pragmatic" in a "watch them bleed each other then pick up the pieces" kind of way, by any and all powers involved?
Why would the Far East align so well to Britain & US vs Japan, and not Britain & Japan vs US?
Why would the Far East align so well to Britain & US vs Japan, and not Britain & Japan vs US?
BlondieBC
Banned
That is an unworkable treaty. Sure the UK might propose, but Germany also has to accept. And since both sides seem ok at the 60% number prewar, that is a better base to use. And it is likely a two step process. The war is ended, with a slim chance of some limitation on the German Navy. And then negotiating a naval armaments limitation treaty. Putting both in together will scuttle the process because you will now have the USA at the peace table, and I guarantee if you invite Wilson to the peace treaty, he will have demands unrelated to naval limits. And you have now a situation where the US Senate has to ratify the end to the war via combining the negotiations.
A more realistic scenario will be go back to prewar borders, no reparations, some Balkans solution, and an agreement limiting the German Navy to 60% of the UK Navy for 5 years.
BlondieBC
Banned
Yes, but it will be a different style navy depending on how the war ends. I see fewer big capital ships and more U-boats, naval aviation, and cruisers. A lot depends on how badly France and Russia are hurt in the war. If both are very weak, it can free up resources for the Naval project. Also, does Germany gets its colonies back or does Germany just get gains in Europe?
Like most wars, Germany will over learn on whatever its naval success are.