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

BlondieBC

Banned
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.


One incident does not mean an oppressive state. I would rather be a Pole in Imperial Germany than an Irishman in the UK or a Negro in the USA. The Reichstag often frustrated the Kaisers spending desires, so the Reichstag had real power, and by the standards of the day, was democratic. The country was also free. Germany was not perfect, but it was as free or democratic as the UK or the USA or France.
 

BlondieBC

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

Are you joking. How about not engaging in a war of aggression and the committing of mass, systematic war crimes against "Germanic" civilians. Either by the standards back then or the standards of today, the UK committed severe war crimes against the Boer. All the senior Generals of the British Army should have been shot for their actions.

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.

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.


You seem to be missing the point. If you want good relations with another Great Power, you don't publicly DEMAND treaties, you negotiate them in private.

And the existing order always changes. By your logic the USA has a RIGHT to DEMAND that the Chinese not build a larger Navy and the USA has a right to commit war crimes against Ethnic Chinese. I thank god the USA presidents are not as stupid as the UK was in the 25 years leading up to the war. If the USA treated China they way the UK treated Germany the odds of a world war in the next 25 years would be over 90%.

Real simple on the land war. If the Central power win the land war, Germany will be able to do whatever it wants to do with Belgium and the RN could be 3 times the size of the German Navy and be powerless to stop it.
 
What about changing the balance of power outside of the European neighbor states, essentially tying England's hands and meaning the Royal Navy would be needed far, far away and comparatively hard-pressed vs. bottling up the German ports? An alliance with the USA after German unification could have happened, first and second generation Germans were a major share of the U.S. population, eventually outnumbering Americans with British Isles ties, and there are more commonalities with the freshly unified German states and the U.S. than the British empire (which we'd been at war with off and on for a century.) The industries and inputs are compatible while everyone was competing with British industries, technology, and science in the 19th century.

An enlightened Germany noticing that railroads cut into the overwhelming advantage of moving goods and commodities by water and applying that minor insight (clear from the American Civil War) focusing on becoming the railroad hub of Europe and building major multinational railroad companies to build and operate far past Germany's borders into Russia, the Balkans, Turkey, Spain, etc. is barely a POD. Oddly German investors funded much of America's railroad expansion so private capital was certainly available but doing it through companies rather than national railroads would also be less inflammatory...while the capital investment demands of Britain's colonies would make it a hard strategy to match. Rail networks of much greater capacity and reach across Eurasia would make a naval blockade vastly less threatening while also encouraging the Germans not to go too far in antagonizing it's trading partners all around it...probably considerably strengthen the Austro-Hungary Empire and Imperial Russian with better trade and access...transportation improvement always has a lot of unexpected ripples.

Using Krupp's artillery development prowess, taking port defense guns to a level of development seen in the WWI railroad guns, range far beyond line of sight and ship-killing shells would be a much lower cost way of making a blockade problemmatic, and shore batteries were still very popular then. Accelerating Zeppelin development slightly as a bombing platform against blockading ships in the 1880's-1890's before heavier-than-air aircraft are around would also avoid the shipbuilding waste and pressures perhaps.

Building and owning the transcontinental railroad systems of Eurasia with a technology race to build more efficient and reliable locomotives, safer and more enduring rolling stock, steel rail bridges, rail steel metallurgy, illuminated cars and tracks to allow operation past daylight, containerization/freight standardization, etc. all play to particular strengths of German industry and research then (and again is a very minor POD.)
 
Are you joking. How about not engaging in a war of aggression and the committing of mass, systematic war crimes against "Germanic" civilians. Either by the standards back then or the standards of today, the UK committed severe war crimes against the Boer. All the senior Generals of the British Army should have been shot for their actions.

And no one in this thread is arguing with that (war crimes being bad). I'm just pointing out that Britain having an empire is enough to make Germans jealous, they don't need actual bad British behavior and the only British behavior inspiring moar ships is that of the Royal Navy, not the army - certainly there's sentiment that the Boers are being treated badly, but we don't see that just in Germany.

You seem to be missing the point. If you want good relations with another Great Power, you don't publicly DEMAND treaties, you negotiate them in private.
And Britain doesn't want good relations with Germany, it wants to continue Splendid Isolation without needing a continental ally - especially one interested in disrupting the existing order which Britain is quite comfortable with. Germany is the one who has to provide a reason Britain should feel an ally would be a good thing, because Germany is the one wanting/seeking an alliance here.

If Germany wants Britain as an ally, it has to accept this, not complain about how the British are arrogant bastards - everyone in this period is being an arrogant bastard.

And the existing order always changes. By your logic the USA has a RIGHT to DEMAND that the Chinese not build a larger Navy and the USA has a right to commit war crimes against Ethnic Chinese. I thank god the USA presidents are not as stupid as the UK was in the 25 years leading up to the war. If the USA treated China they way the UK treated Germany the odds of a world war in the next 25 years would be over 90%.
No, by my logic, Britain has the right to look to its security first and Germany's feelings last - the atrocities of the Boer War are another problem entirely but not the reason for naval build up.

The USA's existence as an independent power isn't threatened by the Chinese navy, so this is an entirely different scenario than one where Britain has every reason in the world to find Germany a threat and act accordingly.

Seriously, bringing in the Boer War atrocities as if they have anything to do with the argument (ours, that is) is not providing anything that justifies Britain caring one whit for Germany.

Real simple on the land war. If the Central power win the land war, Germany will be able to do whatever it wants to do with Belgium and the RN could be 3 times the size of the German Navy and be powerless to stop it.
And how is Germany winning the land war because of this again? It ran out of steam even before the taxi cabs.
 
Last edited:
Why not simply go a more obvious route and have Russia (somehow) militarily reform to a point where the UK's fear of its menace to India and Germany's fear of a gigantic Eastern horde sharing a land border lead the two into an alliance against big, scary, reforming Russia?
 
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.

Oh agreed, which is exactly why I stated in a later reply to Eurofed that "If Italy joins any side in an European alliance system [...]" - and that if is the key. Honestly I just don't see Italy joining the war in a Franco-Russian(-Turkish) vs Anglo-German(-Austrian) war. She's going to lose either way; however with that said, she'll lose more if she aligns with Germany (& Austria).
 
Germany embarking on a massive naval expansion which could only be aimed at the British position* is reasonable but the British responding with their own expansion in response is somehow threatening?

A German naval effort which could upset the global order is not destabilizing but a British response to uphold the status quo is so?

As for Germany being mortally offended by the Boer wars given Berlin's own behavior in various colonial and Chinese adventures, the sheer hypocrisy of the idea alone...



*Half the High Seas Fleet built by 1914 would have been viable against the French and Russian navies with the Italian and AH fleets thrown in so the British were obviously correct to see themselves as the target.


On a personal scale perhaps if Wilhelm II hadn't left his own mother rolling in agony for her last months...because she had to be 'strong' and out of fear that morphine or other pain killers might hasten her inevitable demise. Her brother, the King of Great Britain, knew all about it and never forgot.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Germany embarking on a massive naval expansion which could only be aimed at the British position* is reasonable but the British responding with their own expansion in response is somehow threatening?

A German naval effort which could upset the global order is not destabilizing but a British response to uphold the status quo is so?

As for Germany being mortally offended by the Boer wars given Berlin's own behavior in various colonial and Chinese adventures, the sheer hypocrisy of the idea alone...



*Half the High Seas Fleet built by 1914 would have been viable against the French and Russian navies with the Italian and AH fleets thrown in so the British were obviously correct to see themselves as the target.


On a personal scale perhaps if Wilhelm II hadn't left his own mother rolling in agony for her last months...because she had to be 'strong' and out of fear that morphine or other pain killers might hasten her inevitable demise. Her brother, the King of Great Britain, knew all about it and never forgot.

Lets just take dreadnoughts in 1913. Germany 14 by the end of the year. France 7 and the Russians 0. So German is just asking for the 2-1 ratio that the UK says is needed. (Note UK 18, but was building to expand lead.)

I guess a lot is ones perspective, but to me it looks like the "Must have 2-1 ratio over next largest navy rule" is destined to lead to an arms race if accepted by multiple countries, and is a ship builders dream. I understand how the UK emotionally wanted such a large margin, but I also see that it is very hard to avoid an arms races with the actions and attitudes of the British, even if one replaces Kaiser Wilhelm II with Prince Henry or the Crown Prince.

Both are destablizing. Things change, always have, always will. The UK insisting on a naval dominance that the world economies justified in the 1880 can lead to war, and can the rise of the power. If I use the German was destablizing therefore bad logic, then China is a huge threat to world peace almost certain to lead to WW3 within 25 years. Germany wanting a better navy is no more bad or destablizing than Russia wanting a better rail system or France going from 2 to 3 years conscription.

Now I am not saying the Kaiser was wise, or that he chose the best path for Germany. I am saying that it takes two to start a arms race, and the UK bears a large share of the blame for the naval arms races.

As to the hypocrisy charge, it does not change what happened. A major event in the naval race was the great offense the German people took with the treatment of the Boers and the people demand for a larger Navy. Without the Boer war, the Kaiser has a much, much harder time getting enough funding to go beyond the 50% ratio between Navies.

Also, why do you focus on German hypocrisy, and ignore the British hypocrisy on demand a Navy twice as large. One of my points is this, using the same "moral principals" or "standards of rightness", the Germany was just as "right" wanting a large Navy as the British people.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
And no one in this thread is arguing with that (war crimes being bad). I'm just pointing out that Britain having an empire is enough to make Germans jealous, they don't need actual bad British behavior and the only British behavior inspiring moar ships is that of the Royal Navy, not the army - certainly there's sentiment that the Boers are being treated badly, but we don't see that just in Germany.

Germany was the only country rich enough to do something about it, that is build a large Navy. If Sweden or Holland would have had the ability to build a Navy as large as the UK they might of done it.

And Britain doesn't want good relations with Germany, it wants to continue Splendid Isolation without needing a continental ally - especially one interested in disrupting the existing order which Britain is quite comfortable with. Germany is the one who has to provide a reason Britain should feel an ally would be a good thing, because Germany is the one wanting/seeking an alliance here.

If Germany wants Britain as an ally, it has to accept this, not complain about how the British are arrogant bastards - everyone in this period is being an arrogant bastard.

Germany also was not formally seeking an alliance. They want the UK to be neutral. The UK need a continental ally, but unfortunately, the UK did not realize it need one and its economy was not big enough to support a continued policy of Splendid isolationism. Because of this, the British empire was lost.

No, by my logic, Britain has the right to look to its security first and Germany's feelings last - the atrocities of the Boer War are another problem entirely but not the reason for naval build up.

Yes it was a part of the reason. You facts are wrong here. How do you explain the first two naval bills passing the Reichstag?

The USA's existence as an independent power isn't threatened by the Chinese navy, so this is an entirely different scenario than one where Britain has every reason in the world to find Germany a threat and act accordingly.

Not yet, but neither was the UK threatened either based on actual analysis. In no year was Germany strong enough to either Blockade the UK or do Sealion without French or American help. It is a very similar situation. China would need another major ally to threaten the USA, and Ally that it has no chance of getting.

Seriously, bringing in the Boer War atrocities as if they have anything to do with the argument (ours, that is) is not providing anything that justifies Britain caring one whit for Germany.

And how is Germany winning the land war because of this again? It ran out of steam even before the taxi cabs.

You understanding of history from the German perspective is incomplete. The Boer wars were huge in internal German politics and the naval build up.

You seem to lack a understanding of WW1 on the ground. Germany almost won WW1. If they win, then Germany controls Belgium and the RN will be useless to stop it. Very simple actually.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What about changing the balance of power outside of the European neighbor states, essentially tying England's hands and meaning the Royal Navy would be needed far, far away and comparatively hard-pressed vs. bottling up the German ports? An alliance with the USA after German unification could have happened, first and second generation Germans were a major share of the U.S. population, eventually outnumbering Americans with British Isles ties, and there are more commonalities with the freshly unified German states and the U.S. than the British empire (which we'd been at war with off and on for a century.) The industries and inputs are compatible while everyone was competing with British industries, technology, and science in the 19th century.

An enlightened Germany noticing that railroads cut into the overwhelming advantage of moving goods and commodities by water and applying that minor insight (clear from the American Civil War) focusing on becoming the railroad hub of Europe and building major multinational railroad companies to build and operate far past Germany's borders into Russia, the Balkans, Turkey, Spain, etc. is barely a POD. Oddly German investors funded much of America's railroad expansion so private capital was certainly available but doing it through companies rather than national railroads would also be less inflammatory...while the capital investment demands of Britain's colonies would make it a hard strategy to match. Rail networks of much greater capacity and reach across Eurasia would make a naval blockade vastly less threatening while also encouraging the Germans not to go too far in antagonizing it's trading partners all around it...probably considerably strengthen the Austro-Hungary Empire and Imperial Russian with better trade and access...transportation improvement always has a lot of unexpected ripples.

Using Krupp's artillery development prowess, taking port defense guns to a level of development seen in the WWI railroad guns, range far beyond line of sight and ship-killing shells would be a much lower cost way of making a blockade problemmatic, and shore batteries were still very popular then. Accelerating Zeppelin development slightly as a bombing platform against blockading ships in the 1880's-1890's before heavier-than-air aircraft are around would also avoid the shipbuilding waste and pressures perhaps.

Building and owning the transcontinental railroad systems of Eurasia with a technology race to build more efficient and reliable locomotives, safer and more enduring rolling stock, steel rail bridges, rail steel metallurgy, illuminated cars and tracks to allow operation past daylight, containerization/freight standardization, etc. all play to particular strengths of German industry and research then (and again is a very minor POD.)

You seem to be asking what types of POD best help Germany win a Naval war with the UK or at least a war with the UK. You can look at my signature for a TL. But to be more general, there are issues with the naval budget/strategy assuming you are not trying to increase the German military budget.

1) No strategy. The German Army had War Plans, as did the Russian Army, British Navy, French Army, etc. It is hard to win without a Plan.

2) Lack of fortified ports outside of Germany and China. Navies need bases to operate out of, or they lose much of their effectiveness. They don't need hugely expensive fortification like the German North Sea Coast or Portsmouth. A singel 30 cm gun, a few guns in the 20-29 cm range, a dozen or two dozen 15 cm guns, a few hundred mines, and a few coastal vessels would have made a world of difference. The British criticized Germany for only having a navy that could be used to attack the UK, and there is some truth to this. Having one fortified and improved port per colony would go a long way.

3) Lack of long range cruisers to protect merchant shipping. One warship in all of Indian Ocean and Atlantic. The German forces were too small for even a Naval war against France. Now to some extent, this could be fixed by moving some pre-dreadnoughts down, but they really are poorly suited for the role. Germany really could have used some long range (oil burning), 15-20cm, dreadnought gun configuration, 30 knot + ships, along with a few tankers. You probably could build at least 6 of these for the cost of a single dreadnought.

4) U-boats/torpedo boats at colonies. When I get into the details they were extremely useful and cheap.

5) Add a regiment of soldiers at each port. Since using native enlisted, NCO and company level officers, this is very cheap.

6) If you do 2-6 above, you know have a much more effect Navy with the same costs. Spee did more to help the war effort than the entire High Seas Fleet, all with older, less valuable ships. If you do this, you either get huge gains in the merchant war or more likely, the UK has to spread out its warships more. While this may seem more alarming to the modern person, it would have seem less alarming to the admirals of the RN because it is what they expected to happen. Also building one less capital ship every 2-4 years will lower tensions with the British and not really harm Germany in any way.

7) Germany would have hard time being an USA ally, but a better foreign policy would go a long way to keep the USA neutral, and some of the changes are easy, such as the Kaiser not making statements on international affairs that have not been edited by the diplomatic service. He often made statements that mad people made with no possible upside besides the Kaiser shooting his mouth off.

8) Germany had good rails, and the big one missing in WW1 was the Baghdad to Berlin railroad which was mainly a international pressure issue. What Germany really needed was to find a way to get Romania and Bulgaria to allow free movement of war materials in a war, but this is more a diplomatic move than a building more rail move.

9) The way to make the blockade less threatening would be to plan for one. Then there are lots of easy choice that help a lot. For example, becoming nitrogen independent through industrial nitrogen plants would have been easy to do. Have a food rationing plan that starts on day one of the war. Meat prices actually declined early in the war due to captured livestock. Something as simple as holding more of this stock overwinter in pastures in Belgium and France will help a lot. While Germany would still have had food issues in 1917 and 1918, the issues could be largely eliminated in 1915 and 1916, and much more moderate in 1917 and 1918. For example, A-H holding more of Galicia provides a much better food situation as would a plan where Poland was attacked first and the urban population was expelled. As would stockpiles of food, stockpiles of fertilizer, plans to convert fallow land to farm land quickly, etc.

10) More shore guns is a decent idea, especially in the colonies, but it does not break the blockade. And in defending ports, more mines would have been the most useful such as the mine system in Portsmouth. Very expensive, but a great system. One on the German coast would have freed up the surface ships to be more of a sword than shield.

11) Zeppelins were well used by the navy. A better use of airplanes was very possible, and likely someone like Prince Henry would have used them if he had not loss the political battle and become Inspector General or the equivalent Navy title.
 
the boerwars were also very important in Dutch politics and there were serious talks about allying with Germany AGAINST the UK over those wars.
 
the boerwars were also very important in Dutch politics and there were serious talks about allying with Germany AGAINST the UK over those wars.

Though it is certainly true, that in the Netherlands there was much more sympathy for the Boer 'cousins'; however militarily, certainly after also having lost the Southern Netherlands/Belgium, the Netherlands weren't a real threat, the Dutch Golden Age had ended at the beginning of the 18th century.
 
Though it is certainly true, that in the Netherlands there was much more sympathy for the Boer 'cousins'; however militarily, certainly after also having lost the Southern Netherlands/Belgium, the Netherlands weren't a real threat, the Dutch Golden Age had ended at the beginning of the 18th century.

I´d say Netherlands fighting a war against Britain would be absolute madness even if they had strong enough allies to win.
 
Though it is certainly true, that in the Netherlands there was much more sympathy for the Boer 'cousins'; however militarily, certainly after also having lost the Southern Netherlands/Belgium, the Netherlands weren't a real threat, the Dutch Golden Age had ended at the beginning of the 18th century.

in theory they could have been one, but with its beloved neutrality they wouldn't: which is why a war didn't start, but the Boerwars were a great source of problems for GB with the mainland. Especially Prussia and the Netherlands, so butterflying that away would decrease tensions and may as such bring Germany and the UK closer together.
 

JJohnson

Banned
For Germany to bring itself closer to the UK, let's say this:

Kaisers:
Wilhelm I
Frederick III
Kaiser Heinrich I

Germany and Britain instead of a naval arms race, agree to:
-2:1 naval ratio between the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine
-Germany will utilize its naval forces solely for defending its colonial trade and shipping, and will build its coastal defenses and ports in Europe and its colonies
-Germany trades Tanganyika for Nigeria, Gold Goast, or some other British colony.
-Germany and the UK will enter an alliance if one or the other is attacked by a third nation, or will not engage in military action against one another if the allies of either attack (partial neutrality, avoids cascade effect)

Does that seem reasonable and give enough benefit to both parties? UK gets its railway in Africa and its naval edge, while Germany still gets to build its navy, and gets at least neutrality from the UK if not alliance.



Are there any colonies that would make sense to trade to Germany? If a treaty such as the above (or something more plausible, if above is not) gets signed, how's that going to be received by France, Italy, Russia, A-H, and the Ottomans?

And would this affect France, drawing it more towards Boulangisme (Revanche, Revision, Restoration)? Where would France seek its alliances?
 
Last edited:
The problem is, what does this offer Britain over not making any such entangling alliance?

It's good for Germany, and it's not a bad offer - but that last bit "Germany and the UK will enter an alliance if one or the other is attacked by a third nation, or will not engage in military action against one another if the allies of either attack (partial neutrality, avoids cascade effect)" is potentially worrisome.

Something that could and would be subject to a lot of talk, I suspect.
 

JJohnson

Banned
The problem is, what does this offer Britain over not making any such entangling alliance?

It's good for Germany, and it's not a bad offer - but that last bit "Germany and the UK will enter an alliance if one or the other is attacked by a third nation, or will not engage in military action against one another if the allies of either attack (partial neutrality, avoids cascade effect)" is potentially worrisome.

Something that could and would be subject to a lot of talk, I suspect.

Exactly. I was stretching for that one. Perhaps Germany can offer Britain use of her railway to move troops to help curb Russian exansion into the Black Sea? They're already giving the UK Tanganyika for their Cape-to-Cairo line. What else is there to give?

Another thought. What about Kaiser Heinrich marrying Princess Victoria instead of Princess Irene having some kind of effect in this timeline? And if Wilhelm II had instead been born a girl, would that automatically have made Heinrich first in line for the throne?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I was stretching for that one. Perhaps Germany can offer Britain use of her railway to move troops to help curb Russian exansion into the Black Sea? They're already giving the UK Tanganyika for their Cape-to-Cairo line. What else is there to give?

Another thought. What about Kaiser Heinrich marrying Princess Victoria instead of Princess Irene having some kind of effect in this timeline? And if Wilhelm II had instead been born a girl, would that automatically have made Heinrich first in line for the throne?

I think it's less what Germany has to give -Germany is giving all I can think of it being able to offer - just what Britain has to pay (which is reasonable on Germany's part, I think). Britain might find even this offer to entail a cost it doesn't want to pay - but I think assuming decent diplomatic relations beforehand, this is easy to work with.

But either way, the question is "Does Britain find this acceptable?" rather than Germany now. Germany has done what it can, now for Britain's statesmen to weigh how much this interferes with what they want.

Not sure on the marriage or birth parts, but there's something to be explored there.
 
Top