WI:No German High Seas Fleet?
- Thread starter Rammer
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
In this case, there might not even be a World War I as we know it. Britain will be less likely to perceive Germany as an enemy and therefore less likely to ally with their traditional enemies, France and Russia.
Germany's decision to build the High Seas Fleet was one of the greatest miscalculations ever made by any nation.
Germany's decision to build the High Seas Fleet was one of the greatest miscalculations ever made by any nation.
No Hochseeflotte means Britain won't be freaking out over Germany rising as a challenge to her power so no you won't get WWI. You might get A WWI but if Britain stays out then Russia and France are going to be in for some rougher sledding than OTL. For one the lack of British blockade is going to make life much simpler for the Germans.
Riain
Banned
Without the HSF there will still be WW1 between the CP and Entente of France and Russia, Britain will most likely do an Italy and join when the danger or opportunity is great enough. In the case the RN will be a nightmare for Germany, it will put into action the adage that the frontier of Britain is the enemy's coastline and operate off the German North and Baltic sea coasts. Without the HSF the RN will be able to keep shipping lanes to Russia through the Baltic open, keeping Russia in the war longer and more effectively.
It would be more battlecruisers fewer BB. The idea being to have a BC force able to destroy anyone's colonial cruisers and a battleline able to defeat probably the French and Russian navies combined.
We'd likely see the fusion of battleships and battlecruisers into fast battleships sooner. For example, there is the famous "X4" proposal of 1905 to build a follow on to Dreadnought that would have had her armor and guns but the 25 knot speed of Invincible One of the reasons it wasn't done was that it would up the ante of the naval arms race even further and be so much more expensive than the existing ships that it couldn't be justified. Without the pressure from the HSF ships in the pattern of fast BBs could be seen as a better investment as they would be able to fulfill the roles of BBs and BCs.
The Hochseeflotte actually triggered the UK to become an adversarry of Germany, while previously it had closer ties with it, as it also was in serious rivalry with France and Russia. Europe was not in the interest of the UK before the HSF was created by the Germans, so it might well have resulted in a more Imperial struggle, where the real adversarries of the Brittish were the French and Russians. It might even have triggered the UK to join the Central Powers, just to tip the ballance against the Entente of primarily France and Russia. (This basically was a classical, as all the time before, up to the pre Revolutionary Period of the late 18th Century, France especailly and Russia to a lesser sence had been seen as main antagonists by the Brittish.)
In case of a Brittish participation of the Central Powers, the Belgium Issue would have been reversed, as such that the guaranteed neutrality of Belgium would be guarded only against France, as that was the traditional agressor against both the Netherlands and UK as well. Germany (or preceding German states) were not so much consdered a threat. A war between the Germany and France could well trigger the UK to join Germany against the French, as the French might invade neutral Belgium, to threaten the Chanal Coast of the UK. (Actually the germans had already made up such plans, but that could have been explained as a preemtive strike against France.)
In case of a Brittish participation of the Central Powers, the Belgium Issue would have been reversed, as such that the guaranteed neutrality of Belgium would be guarded only against France, as that was the traditional agressor against both the Netherlands and UK as well. Germany (or preceding German states) were not so much consdered a threat. A war between the Germany and France could well trigger the UK to join Germany against the French, as the French might invade neutral Belgium, to threaten the Chanal Coast of the UK. (Actually the germans had already made up such plans, but that could have been explained as a preemtive strike against France.)
Britain in the CP and America neutral (or America sympathic to the CP if you want a really crushing war)? France is not going to do well here, if they're lucky they might get to keep some of their North African colonies. Similarly, Russia is going to get a rough time, and the Tsar will definitely not make it, though it's up for debate which group is going to inherit, it may not be the bolsheviks this time around, which could improve matters in the long-term. I wonder if the Japanese will take the opportunity to finally grab Vladivostok.
Agreed totally here.
if you remove the desire of KW2 to have a large and powerful fleet (the Franco Prussian war not going so well so needing a larger standing army?) and have a couple of the Naval Bill's fail due to more focus on the Army. Germany would want to keep its Trade routes open and aside from constructing battleships for prestige reason instead focuses on mid sized cruisers for trade defence. This would have prob seen a slower development/construction of battleships with rather than having 19 battleships by 1906 have only 9 then Britain would not perceive a threat from Germany.
Although with Dreadnought who knows what will happen she really did change the world.
High Seas Fleet
I can't imagine any great power having no dreadnoughts--they were status symbols of great importance--and Germany did need to worry about the Baltic. However, a fleet big enough for accomplishing that mission wouldn't seem like a threat to Britain, so the effects on Anglo-German relations would be similar to no German battleships.
Without an Anglo-German naval race, HMS Dreadnought might have been built later, without the major rush on her completion. It's even remotely possible that USS South Carolina would have been the first all big gun battleship afloat...
I can't imagine any great power having no dreadnoughts--they were status symbols of great importance--and Germany did need to worry about the Baltic. However, a fleet big enough for accomplishing that mission wouldn't seem like a threat to Britain, so the effects on Anglo-German relations would be similar to no German battleships.
Without an Anglo-German naval race, HMS Dreadnought might have been built later, without the major rush on her completion. It's even remotely possible that USS South Carolina would have been the first all big gun battleship afloat...
I think the CPs would win such an ATL WWI.
Resources devoted to the HSF can be diverted to the land forces, producing for example more artillery or mechanizing infantry.
Without an effective naval blockade the CP have less trouble getting the stuff they need. Perhaps Germany keeps some of its colonies intact too?
Resources devoted to the HSF can be diverted to the land forces, producing for example more artillery or mechanizing infantry.
Without an effective naval blockade the CP have less trouble getting the stuff they need. Perhaps Germany keeps some of its colonies intact too?
I still think it's a shame that the Japanese changed their minds and went for a more mixed armament on their could-have-been: The idea of measuring a navy's strength in Satsumas...
The development of HMS Dreadnought was not bound on Germany, but on the implractical mixed gun calliber on the preceding latest battleships. Both Japan, USA and UK already had such single large calliber designs underway, which culmulated in HMS Dreadnought eventually. Dreadnought also was the only real dreadnought desing incorporating true Dreadnought developments on other fields, such as turbines and speedincrease, besides better placement of protection. (USS South Carolina lacked speed, due to her old fashioned tripple Expansion engines, besides being more or less a predreadnought in basical design, while the IJN produced a dreadnought with two different callibers (length) of 12 inch guns, meaing it had the same difficulties as other mixed calliber ships.)
After HMS Dreadnought was commissioned, the armsrace might not have been so severe, meaning the UK would likely still; build Dreadnoughts, both for hersel and foreign clients, but at a slower pace, sicne the prime reason for such an armamentsrace would not be there. (Franceand Russia lacked the needed industrial backing and the USA was not yet considered a serious naval power yet.) Germany would also start building a few true Dreadnoughts, simply because she could do so. The difference with the OTL would have been that their numbers would be less.
After HMS Dreadnought was commissioned, the armsrace might not have been so severe, meaning the UK would likely still; build Dreadnoughts, both for hersel and foreign clients, but at a slower pace, sicne the prime reason for such an armamentsrace would not be there. (Franceand Russia lacked the needed industrial backing and the USA was not yet considered a serious naval power yet.) Germany would also start building a few true Dreadnoughts, simply because she could do so. The difference with the OTL would have been that their numbers would be less.
David S Poepoe
Banned
No, the situation would have played out the same. The British Admiralty habitually created 'naval scares' thru out the late 19th century, usually casting the French and the Russians as the boogey man. These scares were used to bolster budgets before parliament.
A larger cruiser fleet would have proven Admiral Fisher right in building battlecruisers. However, the rank and file of the Royal Navy were completely battleship-centric, so the Dreadnought was the bone he tossed to them while he introduced the battlecruiser.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Absolutely right - at least about a Great Power having dreadnoughts. The expansion of the Imperial German Navy is, at first, primarily driven to counter the possibility of a war with the Dual Entente. Until the completion of the Kiel Canal a German force would have had to be large enough to counter either the French or Russian navies. The German nation learned from the Franco-Prussian War that a navy was important in order to keep your ports open, both to food stuffs and material.
The naval balance of power really doesn't change until the Russians are completely wiped out at Tsushima. The British, who first considered the Dual Entente to be problem, were now happy to sign with them.
David S Poepoe
Banned
No. For the first few years of its existence HMS Invincible was known as an armoured cruiser. The first British cruisers to be termed 'battlecruiser' were the sisterships Powerful and Terrible by in the late 1800s.
Since 1900 the armoured cruiser has been slowed changing into a second class battleship or fast battleship. The Japanese deployed them in the battleline at Tsushima.
As noted by others, any nation with even minor power pretentions had to have at least a few dreadoughts. Germany will build dreadoughts. However, combined with properly managed diplomacy, the establishment of a smaller German battlefleet could have been done without unnecessarily alarming Britain. A fleet of, say 6-8 dreadought battleships and supporting light units could be presented as a largely defensive measure to balance the combined French and Russian naval threats to Gemany in the Baltic, North Sea, and Channel, especially if the German buildup did not include many long-range cruisers and battlecruisers (which are a threat to British Imperial sea trade). In this case, I don't see why Britain would single Germany out as the big Naval rival and eventual foe.
I believe this could limit WW1 (if it occured) to a conflict involving only continental European powers - even if Germany still violated Belgian neutrality to get at France.
I believe this could limit WW1 (if it occured) to a conflict involving only continental European powers - even if Germany still violated Belgian neutrality to get at France.
Last edited:
for no HSF you need a radically different germany.
it's dependant on imports of resources/food and export of its chemicals and machinery. leaving the protection of your lifeline to someone else is just asking for trouble.
how about a germany with 20 million less people, reducing the need for imports and the amount of exports?
it's dependant on imports of resources/food and export of its chemicals and machinery. leaving the protection of your lifeline to someone else is just asking for trouble.
how about a germany with 20 million less people, reducing the need for imports and the amount of exports?