What could bring 19th century Germany closer to the UK?

[BlondieBC]

My question is pretty simple: what sort of event or events could have changed in the 19th century that would bring Germany closer alliance-wise with the United Kingdom, such that the UK and Germany are allies by the 20th?

The caveat is Germany should still have its 1871 borders at least, to the present day. Austria can still be separated or merged with Germany, either way, and Sudetenland can be annexed to Germany or at least gain some minority protections within the Czech nation. By the end of the 20th century, Germany should be a relatively free (having freedom of the press, speech, religion, conscience, assembly, etc), democratic (regular elections), and prosperous nation. This Germany would not have been an enemy to the UK or USA during any wars fought, and be seen in a relatively positive light by a good portion of the world as a stable, free, fair country to deal with internationally.

With that, how would the late 19th century through the 20th play out? Would France seek out a revanchist alliance with Russia, or perhaps even Austria-Hungary, for some war in the 20th? How would the Kaisers develop into present day? What kind of country do you think Germany would look like in such a timeline?

Germany was free, rich, and democratic before WW1, so any POD with major losses means Germany remains these items.

Both Germany and the UK were overplaying their hands, overestimating their strength, overestimating the value of African Colonies. Either side having a more realistic assessment of the facts will give you what you want. The UK does not want to maintain a large standing Army. Germany is better off without a naval rivalry with the UK.

So if Germany understands the situation, it will offer the UK a Naval treaty that give Germany concessions and allows the Germans to have an adequate Navy.

If Britain is more rational, it will help Germany get more money losing colonies in Africa. Seriously, is Southern Sudan and Uganda really worth a Naval race? Or, I understand why a naval base in Morocco panics the Brits, but the Germans need a naval base half way between Germany and Kamerun due to ranges of ships. The Morocco Crisis could have been resolved by German purchasing the Cape Verdes Island or give a port such as Freetown. Or Germany could have been give real compensation instead of the Ubangi River Basin, which was viewed as joke even back then. Germany easily could have been given the Ubangi River Basin and some land other land in Congo or Southern Sudan/Uganda so they had a connecting colony.

Just think on the Cape to Cairo railroad. A lot of friction was generated because German East Africa was in the way, but even when the Brits controlled the needed land for over 20 years it was not built. So the UK created friction with Germany over a railroad that makes no economic or strategic sense based on a few delusional dreams of Rhodes and a few other Brits.

 

[BlondieBC]

Well, it seems far more likely that friendly means Britain continues Splendid Isolation, than an active alliance.

How long did Wilhelm (II) live OTL? For comparison with how long Wilhelm I lived.

He died in 1941 as the German armies were rolling across Russia. He likely died believing Germany had secured its place as the dominant power in the world.

Possible. Although that raises the question why Germany wants to support Britain - as in, what does it get for this?

Would make an interesting timeline, I think.

French Colonies and an ally to Blockade France in case of war.

 

[Elfwine]

He died in 1941 as the German armies were rolling across Russia. He likely died believing Germany had secured its place as the dominant power in the world.

And here I was hoping he matured in his old age.

French Colonies and an ally to Blockade France in case of war.

French colonies might be tempting. France being blockaded, when Germany thinks it can defeat France on its own? Not so much.

 

[BlondieBC]

That is completely wrong. The Anglo-German Naval Rivalry culminated in the Dreadnought, but originated in the German Naval Law of 1900, and the subsequent additions and was a continuation of the 'naval scares' the Royal Navy cooked up thru out the mid to late 19th century, first against France, then Russia and now Germany, in order to get its funds from Parliament.

This is an important point. There were other Naval Scares before Germany. Reading through the sources of the time period, it appears the Royal Navy used naval scares to increase the budget, and through a chain of events, ended up with a UK/Germany rivalry. One book had Russia invading the Midlands in the late 1890's, and had an endorsement in the front by a Vice Admiral basically saying if the naval budget was not increased this would happen. To get a modern equivalent, imagine the movie Red Dawn starting with a active duty senior USA general stating this movie was realistic, and could easily happen if the military budget is not increased. Or the Hunt for Red October where at the end an Admiral comes on screen and says that "due to low naval funding, the USA navy would not even be able to find the SSBN."

 

[BlondieBC]

And here I was hoping he matured in his old age.

French colonies might be tempting. France being blockaded, when Germany thinks it can defeat France on its own? Not so much.

Depending on the year, German confidence levels varied on its ability to defeat France quickly. There were generals who saw difficulties with the possibility of a long war, and would be able to see how the UK would be able to help.

 

[Elfwine]

Depending on the year, German confidence levels varied on its ability to defeat France quickly. There were generals who saw difficulties with the possibility of a long war, and would be able to see how the UK would be able to help.

Sure. But by and large, not so much. I think it would be a useful addition to a more convincing sweetener, but not enough on its own.

On the naval scare issue: And . . . so? Britain never in response to any of those concentrated nearly all of its battleships at home.

That took the perceived threat of the Germany navy.

 

[BlondieBC]

The problem is that until Dreadnought, we're not seeing both powers essentially focused on building up their fleets against each other with one of the major players (Tripitz) making it clear in no uncertain terms it was about the other. I'm not saying Dreadnought being launched suddenly turned things from warm to cold, but it certainly started the build up that sees the German navy specifically built against Britain (because honestly, if Germany was not concerned about Britain, why is it refusing to accept/offer any compromises relative to the power of the Royal Navy?)

And given the importance of the Royal Navy to Britain's security, that Germany acted the way it did is a surefire way to ensure not-so-friendly feelings last as long as Germany is seen as a potential threat.

Not necessarily open war - but it's the opposite of "bringing Germany closer to the UK".

Add in excruciatingly bad German diplomacy, and you get a recipe for OTL - unlike how for instance France's issues with Britain and vice-versa were dealt with more deftly.

I'm not saying Germany was the big bad aggressor - just the clumsy, ambitious newcomer who upset all the existing arrangements just by being large and powerful within Europe, and seemed like it was out to do the same elsewhere.

There is a lot of truth to what you say, but depending on ones perspective, the truth can vary. What is a very reasonable offer to the UK can be a joke to Germany.

As to the compromise. The UK initially wanted 2.0 to 1 ratio, that over time became a 1.6 to 1 ratio. In a vacuum where Russia and France do not exist, it could be seen a reasonable. But the Germans knew they would need to fight two powers, so they tended to add the French and Russians Navy together. If you add up the combined French and Russian Navy, then multiple by 2.0 you get in the ballpark of the German Navy. So there is a basic problem that the UK wants Splendid Isolationism and wants to limit Germany's navy. Germany wants to be able to beat the French/Russian navy. So for the British offer of say 1.8 to 1 to appear reasonable, the UK will either need to offer an alliance with Germany or to insure that the French Navy is not harming German interest. Or stated another way, either a formal alliance with Germany or an informal alliance where France knows that the UK will go to war with France if France attacks German colonies or Merchant shipping.

There is also a face saving portion of negotiations. The UK demanding publicly any ratio, then Germany agree is a humiliation for the Germans. The Kaiser did equally dumb public statements, but UK government did some unwise actions too.

An lets not forget an important factor of the Boer Wars. Crushing a "German speaking" colony where the German people are enraged also greatly complicated the naval arms race. And the UK also failed to understand it relative economic decline compared to Germany.

We are only one more A-H victory from having spend the last 100 years talking about how dumb Fisher was, not the Kaiser. The UK policy drew it into a war in Europe that the UK was unwilling to prepare for. An UK/German rivalry causes Germany to need a large navy, but it also cause the UK to need a large standing army.

 

[BlondieBC]

Sure. But by and large, not so much. I think it would be a useful addition to a more convincing sweetener, but not enough on its own.

On the naval scare issue: And . . . so? Britain never in response to any of those concentrated nearly all of its battleships at home.

That took the perceived threat of the Germany navy.

You missed my point. The UK spent over 25 years scaring its public over an invasion that was not even a realistic threat. While this is not the spark that cause the fire, it is pouring gasoline on the wood kindling. And having the public primed to panic makes it much harder to continue the Splendid isolationism. With a calm British public and British leaders not making statements that inflame the German public, it would have been much easier to find a workable solution. Even with all these issues in OTL, by the end, they were only 0.1 apart on the ration, which would literally translate to the Germans scrapping/selling a couple of predreadnoughts or perhaps sending a couple of capital ships to one of the colonies.

In 1880, the UK had dominated the world for over 60 years unchallenged, largely built on maintaining a large navy, and having Prussia as an ally. 25 years later, the UK is in an naval race with Germany (Greater Prussia) over mostly small issues such as money losing colonies in central Africa and statement/actions that inflamed the German people.

 

[Elfwine]

There is a lot of truth to what you say, but depending on ones perspective, the truth can vary. What is a very reasonable offer to the UK can be a joke to Germany.

Except for the fact Germany does not need a navy anywhere near as powerful as Britain's, and Germany's position was (largely) not "Your offer is not good enough" but "we refuse to accept any limitations".

The bias of the contenders should not get in the way of seeing, as someone who is a supporter of neither, which one has the better case to be worried and the greater need.

As to the compromise. The UK initially wanted 2.0 to 1 ratio, that over time became a 1.6 to 1 ratio. In a vacuum where Russia and France do not exist, it could be seen a reasonable. But the Germans knew they would need to fight two powers, so they tended to add the French and Russians Navy together. If you add up the combined French and Russian Navy, then multiple by 2.0 you get in the ballpark of the German Navy. So there is a basic problem that the UK wants Splendid Isolationism and wants to limit Germany's navy. Germany wants to be able to beat the French/Russian navy. So for the British offer of say 1.8 to 1 to appear reasonable, the UK will either need to offer an alliance with Germany or to insure that the French Navy is not harming German interest. Or stated another way, either a formal alliance with Germany or an informal alliance where France knows that the UK will go to war with France if France attacks German colonies or Merchant shipping.

For it to appear reasonable to Germany, and fuck Britain. Yes, I do mean that - for Germany to have the navy it wants unless Germany compromises is essentially having a navy that Britain has very good reason to find too strong for comfort.

If Germany is concerned with "reasonable", Britain offering a 1.8 or even 2.0 to 1 ratio is more than Germany needs - keeping in mind that the Royal Navy is trying to be ahead of those powers too.

I mean, I'm sure that the only way Germany with its OTL leadership would have found nothing short of what you said acceptable. But that's them being unreasonable and demanding - Germany does not need to have a powerful navy to deal with France and Russia, it will win or lose those wars on land and it ignores that the Russian and French navies are not all in a position to concentrate everything against Germany anyway.

And of course all of this ignores statements that the German Navy is being built up to face Britain - either in so many words or not.

There is also a face saving portion of negotiations. The UK demanding publicly any ratio, then Germany agree is a humiliation for the Germans. The Kaiser did equally dumb public statements, but UK government did some unwise actions too.

An lets not forget an important factor of the Boer Wars. Crushing a "German speaking" colony where the German people are enraged also greatly complicated the naval arms race. And the UK also failed to understand it relative economic decline compared to Germany.

We are only one more A-H victory from having spend the last 100 years talking about how dumb Fisher was, not the Kaiser. The UK policy drew it into a war in Europe that the UK was unwilling to prepare for. An UK/German rivalry causes Germany to need a large navy, but it also cause the UK to need a large standing army.

Agreed on the colonial stuff.

Again, I'm not saying Germany is being bad and evol - but it has ambitions and desires directly contrary to Britain's security concerns, and so long as those are the case, it will earn British unfriendship.

Not sure how an A-H win makes Fisher a fool.

 

[Elfwine]

You missed my point. The UK spent over 25 years scaring its public over an invasion that was not even a realistic threat. While this is not the spark that cause the fire, it is pouring gasoline on the wood kindling. And having the public primed to panic makes it much harder to continue the Splendid isolationism. With a calm British public and British leaders not making statements that inflame the German public, it would have been much easier to find a workable solution. Even with all these issues in OTL, by the end, they were only 0.1 apart on the ration, which would literally translate to the Germans scrapping/selling a couple of predreadnoughts or perhaps sending a couple of capital ships to one of the colonies.

That is not the issue (the calm or lack thereof of the British public or British leaders making stupid statements), though.

Show me the German (official) effort to tone things down instead of demand more ships, more compromises favoring Germany, more giving in by Britain.

Then we can talk about the British public being at a fever pitch of tension as responsible.

I'm not saying the British are innocent - but in their position, Germany is more than a rival but an actual threat - and the reason for the Royal Navy's dominance is precisely that the British Empire hasn't let the navy slide behind its rivals.

In 1880, the UK had dominated the world for over 60 years unchallenged, largely built on maintaining a large navy, and having Prussia as an ally. 25 years later, the UK is in an naval race with Germany (Greater Prussia) over mostly small issues such as money losing colonies in central Africa and statement/actions that inflamed the German people.

If you want to avoid this, Germany and its ideas of world power have accommodate the reality that other powers have a problem with a Germany threatening their interests.

 

[JJohnson]

Except for the fact Germany does not need a navy anywhere near as powerful as Britain's, and Germany's position was (largely) not "Your offer is not good enough" but "we refuse to accept any limitations".

The bias of the contenders should not get in the way of seeing, as someone who is a supporter of neither, which one has the better case to be worried and the greater need.



For it to appear reasonable to Germany, and fuck Britain. Yes, I do mean that - for Germany to have the navy it wants unless Germany compromises is essentially having a navy that Britain has very good reason to find too strong for comfort.

If Germany is concerned with "reasonable", Britain offering a 1.8 or even 2.0 to 1 ratio is more than Germany needs - keeping in mind that the Royal Navy is trying to be ahead of those powers too.

I mean, I'm sure that the only way Germany with its OTL leadership would have found nothing short of what you said acceptable. But that's them being unreasonable and demanding - Germany does not need to have a powerful navy to deal with France and Russia, it will win or lose those wars on land and it ignores that the Russian and French navies are not all in a position to concentrate everything against Germany anyway.

And of course all of this ignores statements that the German Navy is being built up to face Britain - either in so many words or not.



Agreed on the colonial stuff.

Again, I'm not saying Germany is being bad and evol - but it has ambitions and desires directly contrary to Britain's security concerns, and so long as those are the case, it will earn British unfriendship.

Not sure how an A-H win makes Fisher a fool.

Looking at the border situation around 1871, I agree that Germany needs an army much more than it needs a navy. Where's the 2:1 ratio come from? Do you have a source we can check out? It sounds pretty reasonable, as the Germans would likely need a navy mostly to secure its colonial trade and that's about it.

If you want to avoid this, Germany and its ideas of world power have accommodate the reality that other powers have a problem with a Germany threatening their interests.

Let's say we have Wilhelm, Frederick, and then Kaiser Heinrich I. Henry was from what I've read a pretty reasonable person, and well liked. Perhaps he can come up with some kind of compromise that would be palatable to the UK and the Germans, such as a 2:1 naval size ratio, swap Tanganyika for some other colony on Africa (ideas?), and a formal or informal alliance between the two. Would that be favorable to both parties? What would that do to France, Italy, A-H, Russia, et al?

 

[Janprimus]

I agree with BlondieBC about the face saving portion in negotiations, both parties need that. However the longer a conflict lasts and negotiations take, the harder this gets; this is what also happened between the United Kingdom and the German Empire IOTL, eventually a solution, which both could sell to their publics became very hard (it would never have been easy).

Though the navy is vital for the UK, the German Empire did need and deserved a decent navy; I agree with Detlef's reply of the naval blockade by France and Denmark in 1864 and 1870/1871.
The problem is that the German navy seemed, especially in British eyes, increasingly focused on the Royal Navy. In way that's obvious, since the RN was the most powerful navy, so it may very well have been an example.

Diplomatically and politically both sides were very good at making remarks, which were not really acceptable for the other side.
A in many ways the German Empire did make mistakes as a clumsy eager ambitious newcomer, but the UK sometimes acted with the arrogance and hypocrisy of an established great power (or so it was felt by others); in many ways it also is about how your actions are perceived by the other. Both things do not help in staying able to save face.

 

[Elfwine]

Looking at the border situation around 1871, I agree that Germany needs an army much more than it needs a navy. Where's the 2:1 ratio come from? Do you have a source we can check out? It sounds pretty reasonable, as the Germans would likely need a navy mostly to secure its colonial trade and that's about it.

Not me, unfortunately. The only one I can recall reading is a late-in-the-race offer of 1.6 to 1.

Let's say we have Wilhelm, Frederick, and then Kaiser Heinrich I. Henry was from what I've read a pretty reasonable person, and well liked. Perhaps he can come up with some kind of compromise that would be palatable to the UK and the Germans, such as a 2:1 naval size ratio, swap Tanganyika for some other colony on Africa (ideas?), and a formal or informal alliance between the two. Would that be favorable to both parties? What would that do to France, Italy, A-H, Russia, et al?

The problem is that Britain has less reason to want Germany as an ally than vice-versa.

I think this could go places under the right circumstances, but I think you'd need something encouraging Britain to see someone else as a threat, not just a more reasonable/diplomatic Kaiser (referring to Wilhelm as a human being, not just policy).

Though the navy is vital for the UK, the German Empire did need and deserved a decent navy; I agree with Detlef's reply of the naval blockade by France and Denmark in 1864 and 1870/1871.
The problem is that the German navy seemed, especially in British eyes, increasingly focused on the Royal Navy. In way that's obvious, since the RN was the most powerful navy, so it may very well have been an example.

"A decent navy" and "a navy in any position to be a concern for Great Britain" are leagues apart.

And it went beyond being an example into the Royal Navy being used as an excuse for why Germany needed a powerful navy (Tripitz's argument mostly, I believe).

 

[Detlef]

I'm sorry, but no. There's no way in hell that Rome is going to be a staunch ally for Vienna when the latter still holds Italia irredenta. Doing so would be political, and possible literal, suicide for any Italian politician.

The Triple Alliance was worth less than the paper it was signed on as far as Rome was concerned. When the shooting actually started Italy swiftly backed out feigning neutrality, and then switched to the other side.

You forget one thing. Coal.
It´s something mentioned in older threads. I wasn´t so sure myself about it so I tried to look it up. For example, search for "Italian coal imports 1913".

If the results are true, Italy was extremely dependent on imported coal for its industry. Roughly 11 million tons in 1913. 10 million from Britain, 1 million from Germany. And transported per ship since it´s the cheapest and easiest way.

This fact might be one of the (main) reasons why Italy couldn´t and wouldn´t have joined the Central Powers in WW1 even if the politicians had been willing (as in the unlikely case of Austria-Hungary agreeing to pretty much every Italian demand). They would have lost their main supplier and the Royal Navy easily (Gibraltar) could have blocked coal supply from neutral countries.

Germany couldn´t supply so much coal even if they somehow had a surplus of coal large enough for Italy. The infrastructure just wasn´t there.
Before WW1 just 4 (maybe 5) railway lines connected Germany with Italy. One through Switzerland (not sure if they would have allowed it) and three (maybe four, it´s unclear if the fourth one was finished) through Austria-Hungary. They would have needed so many steam engines and railway cars that their own domestic transport would have broken down. Trying to supply Italy would have ensured a swift Central Power defeat.

In case of a French-Italian alliance the problem is different. Theoretically one could use coastal ships from France to Italy to avoid British warships. However French coal production before WW1 wasn´t large enough - especially in wartimes - to export millions of tons to Italy. France simply couldn´t export 25-30% of its coal.

Quite simply put, in any reasonable WW1 TL Italy either joins the alliance with the British Empire in it or alternatively stays neutral. There´s no way they risk a British blockade.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Germany was free, rich, and democratic before WW1

Germany was wealthy, but it wasn't "free" or "democratic."

You had a Military that existed outside of the Law and was basically a state within the State, wielding so much arbitrary power that charlatans could shake down entire towns by posing as an officer. The press became a bit freer after 1874, but the State retained the right to be informed of publication date and distributor, and decency censors were still on the prowl until WW1. And this ignores how public venues (theaters, cinemas, cabarets, music halls, etc.) were open to censorship. Political freedoms were prone to being curtailed.

Was the Reichstag elected? Yes. Trouble is, the Reichskanzler was not beholden to its authority, and in fact was in cringing submission to the Emperor. Too, Willy was pretty keen on vaunting "constitutional monarch" norms and exercising his power. Also, the Head of State refused to recognize the largest goddman party in parliament. Apart from the Tsar, Wilhelm II was probably the most powerful ruler in Europe when it came to sheer Authority.

So again, was Germany "rich" before WW1? I'd say so. Was it "free" and "democratic"? Hells to the no.

 

[BlondieBC]

Except for the fact Germany does not need a navy anywhere near as powerful as Britain's, and Germany's position was (largely) not "Your offer is not good enough" but "we refuse to accept any limitations".

The bias of the contenders should not get in the way of seeing, as someone who is a supporter of neither, which one has the better case to be worried and the greater need.

The biases are important in understanding what happened.

If I was trying to find a way for the British to ensure the hostility of the German public, I can think of few betters ways than concentration camps for the Boer, combined with stating that no one could help because their Navy is too small, and then publicly stating that the UK has the unilateral right to limit the size of other nations navies. And this is not unique to German and this time frame.

For it to appear reasonable to Germany, and fuck Britain. Yes, I do mean that - for Germany to have the navy it wants unless Germany compromises is essentially having a navy that Britain has very good reason to find too strong for comfort.

If Germany is concerned with "reasonable", Britain offering a 1.8 or even 2.0 to 1 ratio is more than Germany needs - keeping in mind that the Royal Navy is trying to be ahead of those powers too.

I mean, I'm sure that the only way Germany with its OTL leadership would have found nothing short of what you said acceptable. But that's them being unreasonable and demanding - Germany does not need to have a powerful navy to deal with France and Russia, it will win or lose those wars on land and it ignores that the Russian and French navies are not all in a position to concentrate everything against Germany anyway.

And of course all of this ignores statements that the German Navy is being built up to face Britain - either in so many words or not.

The attitude you are show is similar to the attitude that the British had that so inflamed the Germans. For some reason, you seem to believe that the British had the "right" to tell a foreign country its military size could be, and to do this in a public, humiliating way, and without providing any concessions in exchange. Treaties provide give and take, so if Germany agrees to a 1.8 to 1 ration in 1900, what does the UK give Germany in exchange? Limitations of the size of its army, including the colonial armies? Extra colonies in Africa? In many respects, the UK treated Germany like the USA treated South America, and both policies cause issues. It is not what you are saying about the Kaiser or his ministers is wrong, it just seems one sided.

Agreed on the colonial stuff.

Again, I'm not saying Germany is being bad and evol - but it has ambitions and desires directly contrary to Britain's security concerns, and so long as those are the case, it will earn British unfriendship.

Not sure how an A-H win makes Fisher a fool.

Simple. A-H use Plan Russia. Central powers have a marginal win, and Belgium is permanently garrisoned by the Germans and France is crippled. Russia goes communist still. If these events would have happened, and these events almost happened, then there would be hundreds of books of how Fisher naval ambitions resulted in a hostile Germany, German forts on the channel coast, and an isolated, nearly bankrupt UK. Only Conrad's incompetence allowed the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet to claim victory.

Or to put another way, people tend to ridicule the Kaiser (and his advisers) and praise Fisher (and other British leaders), but both groups started a naval arms race that led to war between two natural allies, that had generally been allies for the previous 200 years. WW1 was little more than a coin flip on who won, it was that close. And to be fair, even the winners lost WW1.

 

[BlondieBC]

That is not the issue (the calm or lack thereof of the British public or British leaders making stupid statements), though.

Show me the German (official) effort to tone things down instead of demand more ships, more compromises favoring Germany, more giving in by Britain.

Then we can talk about the British public being at a fever pitch of tension as responsible.

I'm not saying the British are innocent - but in their position, Germany is more than a rival but an actual threat - and the reason for the Royal Navy's dominance is precisely that the British Empire hasn't let the navy slide behind its rivals.

If you want to avoid this, Germany and its ideas of world power have accommodate the reality that other powers have a problem with a Germany threatening their interests.

Again, this is what made the Germans so mad. The Germans have to prove they are behaving well to the satisfaction of the UK, and then we can talk about the UK actions. This is not how great powers who want to remain on non hostile terms relate to each other. Almost all the time, at least 99/100, taking this attitude into a negotiation will insure that it fails.

How about you first show me how the UK was trying to make things better? You are missing what I was saying. It takes two to fight, and both sides contributed to it. Or put another way, it is like a messy divorce, normally both sides contributed.

You also ignored what I said earlier. Germany has as much NEED, not want, for a Navy twice as large as the combined French and Russian Navy as the UK has a NEED for a Navy twice as large as Germany. France could blockade Germany the same way the UK did and Germany needed a way to break the blockade while not leaving its Baltic coast vulnerable to attack by the Russians.

 

[Elfwine]

The biases are important in understanding what happened.

If I was trying to find a way for the British to ensure the hostility of the German public, I can think of few betters ways than concentration camps for the Boer, combined with stating that no one could help because their Navy is too small, and then publicly stating that the UK has the unilateral right to limit the size of other nations navies. And this is not unique to German and this time frame.

Sure. But given Germany's ambitions and ideas, I cannot see any feasible British behavior not pissing off German nationalists.

The attitude you are show is similar to the attitude that the British had that so inflamed the Germans. For some reason, you seem to believe that the British had the "right" to tell a foreign country its military size could be, and to do this in a public, humiliating way, and without providing any concessions in exchange. Treaties provide give and take, so if Germany agrees to a 1.8 to 1 ration in 1900, what does the UK give Germany in exchange? Limitations of the size of its army, including the colonial armies? Extra colonies in Africa? In many respects, the UK treated Germany like the USA treated South America, and both policies cause issues. It is not what you are saying about the Kaiser or his ministers is wrong, it just seems one sided.

Because Germany is the one pushing the situation. Germany is the one trying to upset the situation, to disturb the situation, to change the situation.

I don't think Britain has the "right" to tell Germany what size its navy will be - but if Germany wants to have British friendship, it has to be on terms acceptable to Britain. And those aren't "Germany can have what it wants", because Britain doesn't want German friendship nearly as badly as Anglophilic Germans want British friendship.

And when Germany doesn't need a navy able to match the Royal Navy, the response to Britain being unilateral is to propose some way of dealing with this, not to act like a teenager who feels insulted that Britain would dare propose such a treaty at all.


My biases, if towards anyone in this era, are towards Austria-Hungary, I should note. But in general, I tend to stand with the old balance of things over new powers trying to alter it for their benefit. It's a choice between evils, but it's the lesser problem.

Simple. A-H use Plan Russia. Central powers have a marginal win, and Belgium is permanently garrisoned by the Germans and France is crippled. Russia goes communist still. If these events would have happened, and these events almost happened, then there would be hundreds of books of how Fisher naval ambitions resulted in a hostile Germany, German forts on the channel coast, and an isolated, nearly bankrupt UK. Only Conrad's incompetence allowed the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet to claim victory.

How does that equal Belgium being permanently garrisoned or France being crippled again? I don't know much on Plan Russia, I must admit.

Or to put another way, people tend to ridicule the Kaiser (and his advisers) and praise Fisher (and other British leaders), but both groups started a naval arms race that led to war between two natural allies, that had generally been allies for the previous 200 years. WW1 was little more than a coin flip on who won, it was that close. And to be fair, even the winners lost WW1.

No, the group that started a naval arms race was the group loudly demanding that it be allowed to change the existing order for its benefit, and had no problems (a matter of diplomatic incompetence rather than malice) trampling over everyone's toes.

Fisher was trying to secure what already existed. Willy was picking a fight.

 

[Elfwine]

Again, this is what made the Germans so mad. The Germans have to prove they are behaving well to the satisfaction of the UK, and then we can talk about the UK actions. This is not how great powers who want to remain on non hostile terms relate to each other. Almost all the time, at least 99/100, taking this attitude into a negotiation will insure that it fails.

Because if they want British friendship, they have to act in way Britain wants them as a friend. Britain would prefer Splendid Isolation to friendship with Germany OR France. Why should it give a penny to someone whose ambitions by their very nature upset a very comfortable situation, whether the Germans intend to be hostile or no?

How about you first show me how the UK was trying to make things better? You are missing what I was saying. It takes two to fight, and both sides contributed to it. Or put another way, it is like a messy divorce, normally both sides contributed.

You also ignored what I said earlier. Germany has as much NEED, not want, for a Navy twice as large as the combined French and Russian Navy as the UK has a NEED for a Navy twice as large as Germany. France could blockade Germany the same way the UK did and Germany needed a way to break the blockade while not leaving its Baltic coast vulnerable to attack by the Russians.

No, it doesn't. Germany is not dependent on imports anywhere near as much as Britain. Germany is not dependent on overseas trade nearly as much as Britain.

The UK needs a navy capable of handling the fact the navy is a vital instrument of Britain's defense, Germany at most needs it capable of ensuring that invading Germany from the sea is impractical in the sense of a very stupid idea.

 

[BlondieBC]

Looking at the border situation around 1871, I agree that Germany needs an army much more than it needs a navy. Where's the 2:1 ratio come from? Do you have a source we can check out? It sounds pretty reasonable, as the Germans would likely need a navy mostly to secure its colonial trade and that's about it.



Let's say we have Wilhelm, Frederick, and then Kaiser Heinrich I. Henry was from what I've read a pretty reasonable person, and well liked. Perhaps he can come up with some kind of compromise that would be palatable to the UK and the Germans, such as a 2:1 naval size ratio, swap Tanganyika for some other colony on Africa (ideas?), and a formal or informal alliance between the two. Would that be favorable to both parties? What would that do to France, Italy, A-H, Russia, et al?

The 2-1 ratio came from two different sources. First, the UK wanted a Navy that could handle the next two most powerful Navies in the world. Since the UK assumed it would win any fight with equal numbers, it needs the sum of the two largest Navies, which happens to be near the 2-1 ratio.

The second comes from the concept of the close blockade. While there are books clearly predicting it would not be followed, the most important naval authorities generally agreed it would be. And this detail matter a lot, you did not blockade nations, but ports. So what was supposed to happen if Hamburg was closely blockaded and Danzig was not, would be if a British Cruiser intercepted a German ship heading to Danzig, it would allow it to pass, even if it had goods from the always contraband list. So to blockade Germany and follow the laws of war you have to have one fleet in the Baltic, one in the High Seas. The Germans will be able to shut the Baltic with mines, and Germany will then be able to use Kiel canal, so you will need twice as many ships. A British Baltic Fleet the size of the High Seas Fleet, and a British North Seas Fleet the size of the High Seas Fleet. When Britain publicly demanded this ratio, they were saying the British Navy must be able to blockade and defeat Germany in all cases, not that these numbers were need to prevent a blockade of England or an invasion for England.

By the end, the UK was at the 1.6 ratio, and the Germans were at the 1.5 ratio. Either ratio, based on prewar theory, would have assure that the British could not blockade Germany, and Germany could not harm the UK directly. In fact, a 1.1 ratio would have also assured this outcome based on prewar beliefs.

Now lets think in terms of negotiations. The UK was demanding a ridiculous ratio that guarantee a win. So Germany came back with a ratio (bigger German Navy) that guarantees a German win. After a decade or so of this bluster, they were near the real position of 1.55 where a treaty could have been done with some concessions by the UK, probably more of the symbolic sort like some colonial border adjustment or small trade concession.

Now imagine if in the cold war either the USA or USSR had proposed such one side terms in a conventional arms treaty, terms that made the other side largely defenseless. It would almost certainly have resulted in failed negotiations and public hostility on the other side. Now combine say the USSR DEMANDING such terms, and 100,000's of English speaking civilians (I am adjusting for population size) dying in USSR concentration camps after a USSR war of aggression only a few years earlier where the USA was unable to help because it military was too small. As I said in some earlier posts, if I wanted to cause Germany to be hostile to the UK without actually attacking Germany, I could not come up with a much better plan.

And I am not defending the Kaiser, he was almost the ideal man for inflaming British public opinion.




Reading the works of Mahan is the best source for this, he did a nice book a few years before the war on this subject.