WI the Tangier Crisis escalates into war?

WI the First Moroccan Crisis or Tangier Crisis escalated into war?

I've been doing some perusing on older threads concerning the subject and there seems to be something of a consensus that Germany would lose, but I have my doubts.

Germany would indeed be attacking the fortified French borders as the Von Schlieffen Plan hadn't been developed yet (while France is operating on the defensive Plan XV at this time) and would probably suffer serious losses as a result, but I think numbers would eventually win the day. This is all the more likely because Germany can throw its entire weight against France: Russia is still in revolutionary turmoil as a result of the Russo-Japanese War and isn't going to fight lest Nicky wants to see his dynasty overthrown.

The main remaining argument for German defeat would then be the inevitable British naval blockade which the High Seas Fleet is in no position to break, even less so than they were in WW I (no U-boat branch yet). Considering the Haber process hasn't been invented yet and won't be for another few years, this means Germany would run out of nitrates sooner or later.

My main beef with that argument is that it ignores one thing: Germany need not import nitrates by sea. Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and the Balkan countries are all neutrals and can function as economic windpipes. Sure, some might agree to not sell nitrates to Germany, and others could be bullied into complying by threat of blockade if they don't comply (which isn't going to win Britain any brownie points, certainly not after the PR debacle that was the last Boer War) such as Denmark. I could ironically see Belgium not complying because it'd be in violation of its neutral status; the Netherlands also might not because they're quite pro-German in this period of time.

I suppose said small countries can be blockaded. But what of Italy? She's is going to ride out this war as a neutral, probably (I don't see them wanting to risk their economic growth and monetary stability, unless they can make some gains for minimal effort). I don't see Britain blockading them, as they would risk bringing Italy to side with Germany, to the detriment of France. The Balkan states are a toss up (except Serbia) seeing how they have nothing at stake in what is essentially a Franco-German War (with some British assistance).

Thoughts? Suggestions? Opinions?
 
WI the First Moroccan Crisis or Tangier Crisis escalated into war?

I've been doing some perusing on older threads concerning the subject and there seems to be something of a consensus that Germany would lose, but I have my doubts.

Germany would indeed be attacking the fortified French borders as the Von Schlieffen Plan hadn't been developed yet (while France is operating on the defensive Plan XV at this time) and would probably suffer serious losses as a result, but I think numbers would eventually win the day. This is all the more likely because Germany can throw its entire weight against France: Russia is still in revolutionary turmoil as a result of the Russo-Japanese War and isn't going to fight lest Nicky wants to see his dynasty overthrown.

The main remaining argument for German defeat would then be the inevitable British naval blockade which the High Seas Fleet is in no position to break, even less so than they were in WW I (no U-boat branch yet). Considering the Haber process hasn't been invented yet and won't be for another few years, this means Germany would run out of nitrates sooner or later.

My main beef with that argument is that it ignores one thing: Germany need not import nitrates by sea. Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and the Balkan countries are all neutrals and can function as economic windpipes. Sure, some might agree to not sell nitrates to Germany, and others could be bullied into complying by threat of blockade if they don't comply (which isn't going to win Britain any brownie points, certainly not after the PR debacle that was the last Boer War) such as Denmark. I could ironically see Belgium not complying because it'd be in violation of its neutral status; the Netherlands also might not because they're quite pro-German in this period of time.

I suppose said small countries can be blockaded. But what of Italy? She's is going to ride out this war as a neutral, probably (I don't see them wanting to risk their economic growth and monetary stability, unless they can make some gains for minimal effort). I don't see Britain blockading them, as they would risk bringing Italy to side with Germany, to the detriment of France. The Balkan states are a toss up (except Serbia) seeing how they have nothing at stake in what is essentially a Franco-German War (with some British assistance).

Thoughts? Suggestions? Opinions?

Interesting idea.

Britain will not blockade Italy. The French Navy had responsibility for the Mediterranean - the Royal Navy guaranteed France's Channel and Atlantic coasts against the German Fleet, permitting the French to concentrate on the Mediterranean and whichever opponents (Italy, A-H, Ottomans, whoever) were there.

It seems likely that if the Germans are attacking into the teeth of fortifications and respecting Belgian neutrality that Britain will remain neutral also, besides keeping the Hochseeflotte off France's back - I believe this was the agreement at the basis of the Entente Cordiale.
 
Interesting idea.

Britain will not blockade Italy. The French Navy had responsibility for the Mediterranean - the Royal Navy guaranteed France's Channel and Atlantic coasts against the German Fleet, permitting the French to concentrate on the Mediterranean and whichever opponents (Italy, A-H, Ottomans, whoever) were there.

It seems likely that if the Germans are attacking into the teeth of fortifications and respecting Belgian neutrality that Britain will remain neutral also, besides keeping the Hochseeflotte off France's back - I believe this was the agreement at the basis of the Entente Cordiale.

I'm not sure Britain would stay out. Their support for the French during the entire crisis was fairly firm, although the Entente was still very shaky at this time.

As for the French navy, would their Mediterranean fleet (what did it consist of in 1905?) be enough to blockade Italy? Would France go so far considering it could potentially mean another front to fight on?
 
Dat gibt'n Blutbad.

Ralf Möller in Hai-Alarm auf Mallorca

That's gonna be some bloodbath.

Ralf Möller in Shark-Alert on Mallorca


Slightly more defensive French (strategical, but certainly not on the tactical level - BAYONETS!) against the Germans pushing them with full force in fear their window of opportunity closes?

All that in the prepared killing grounds of the Vosges? That short front riddled with fortresses on both sides of the border?

This will be a lesson in manpower management and very costly to them all. If Germany is able to pursue this campaign to the point when the French break, they will "win" at some point due to simply having more reserves to call up. But even if, it will have been no way easier than 14-18.

If Britain fully commits to this war (which I don't see, but cannot fully exclude), the tables turn...
 
No, the Tangier Crisis would not escalate into war. Germany won't move without its allies, and the Austro-Hungarians flatly told the Germans they would not support them over any colonial conflict.
 
No, the Tangier Crisis would not escalate into war. Germany won't move without its allies, and the Austro-Hungarians flatly told the Germans they would not support them over any colonial conflict.

Are you sure? Austria-Hungary did support Germany at the Algeciras Conference.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Russo-Japanese war end in September 1905 and the last naval battle were in May 1905? This should make it happen in the same timeframe as the Tangiers crisis.

I would think Tsar Nicolas would like use the threat of general conflict in Europe as a smoke screen to downplay the poor Russian performance in the Russo-Japanese war. Playing up the threat to Russia if Germany and Austria-Hungary win over France is a god way to distract the people on the street and a successful war against a “proper enemy” like Germany would also sooth some injured pride. What comes out of this is unclear but Russia is not going to risk Germany quickly defeating France.

Austria Hungary is the lynchpin in this as they have to agree to back Germany up in the event of general war. If Italy and the Otomans remain neutral they could be avenues of import of important war materials.

I think the schlieffen plan were sent out in December 1905 so I think this is the plan Germany would use in a war that breaks out in 1905 as it is the newest one that its commanders have.
 
Interesting idea.

Britain will not blockade Italy. The French Navy had responsibility for the Mediterranean - the Royal Navy guaranteed France's Channel and Atlantic coasts against the German Fleet, permitting the French to concentrate on the Mediterranean and whichever opponents (Italy, A-H, Ottomans, whoever) were there.

The Anglo-French agreement regarding the deployment of their navies wasn't made until IIRC 1911 or 1912. In 1905/6, there would definitely have been a substantial RN presence in the Med - indeeded, since the British would have a larger margin over the German High Seas Fleet than in 1914, they could have afforded to put more ships in the Med.

This probably increases the odds of Italy remaining neutral - the last thing they would want would be to expose their lengthy coastline to a powerful RN Med Fleet.

EDIT: According to this, Britain had 8 BBs in the Med in 1905, vs. 17 in Home waters.
 
The Anglo-French agreement regarding the deployment of their navies wasn't made until IIRC 1911 or 1912. In 1905/6, there would definitely have been a substantial RN presence in the Med - indeeded, since the British would have a larger margin over the German High Seas Fleet than in 1914, they could have afforded to put more ships in the Med.

This probably increases the odds of Italy remaining neutral - the last thing they would want would be to expose their lengthy coastline to a powerful RN Med Fleet.

EDIT: According to this, Britain had 8 BBs in the Med in 1905, vs. 17 in Home waters.

I bow to your greater knowledge *bows*
 
Are you sure? Austria-Hungary did support Germany at the Algeciras Conference.


But that is a different thing from actually following them into a major European war...

I think the schlieffen plan were sent out in December 1905 so I think this is the plan Germany would use in a war that breaks out in 1905 as it is the newest one that its commanders have.

I doubt that very much, although the concept is there (Schlieffen himself didn't get much beyond that), the intricate plannings and timetables for the matching mobilisation would have to be adjusted still, and I cannot imagine that to happen with the scope of a few weeks.
Additionally, the immense concentration of forces the plan demanded for the Belgian border was not manageable with the existing infrastructure at that point of time.
And to add the icing to the cake, without the "watering down" by Moltke, Schlieffen's concept demanded to violate the neutrality not only of Luxemburg and Belgium but also the Netherlands. I doubt that this was so quickly swallowed outside the circle of Schlieffen's disciples within the general staff.

So, in a case of war against France, the German armies were still set to assemble in Elsaß-Lothringen. My guess is that the German would remain defensive in Alsace, but mass their forces around Metz, the part of the fortress-chain they would try to break is Verdun. As in 1870, they would try to advance along the key roads and rails towards Paris.

Question: I am not that knowledgeable about that, but how is the state of German heavy artillery in 1905? In 1914, it helped them a lot when taking the Belgian fortresses (but AFAIK also with some helping Austrian hands).
 
I doubt that very much, although the concept is there (Schlieffen himself didn't get much beyond that), the intricate plannings and timetables for the matching mobilisation would have to be adjusted still, and I cannot imagine that to happen with the scope of a few weeks.
Additionally, the immense concentration of forces the plan demanded for the Belgian border was not manageable with the existing infrastructure at that point of time.
And to add the icing to the cake, without the "watering down" by Moltke, Schlieffen's concept demanded to violate the neutrality not only of Luxemburg and Belgium but also the Netherlands. I doubt that this was so quickly swallowed outside the circle of Schlieffen's disciples within the general staff.

So, in a case of war against France, the German armies were still set to assemble in Elsaß-Lothringen. My guess is that the German would remain defensive in Alsace, but mass their forces around Metz, the part of the fortress-chain they would try to break is Verdun. As in 1870, they would try to advance along the key roads and rails towards Paris.

Question: I am not that knowledgeable about that, but how is the state of German heavy artillery in 1905? In 1914, it helped them a lot when taking the Belgian fortresses (but AFAIK also with some helping Austrian hands).

“Inventing the Schlieffen Plan:German War Planning 1871-1914” by Terence Zuber leads me to think that it were the conclusion early on that Germany had to invade Belgium to defeat France quickly and that France were the first target in a two front war.

There are ready timetables in December 1905 according to that source as Schlieffen presents a ready plan by then. If it’s politically possible to implement it or not is another thing. I doubt it’s a successful plan to implement in 1905 but it’s there and it gives a solution to the problem of rushing headlong into French defenses. I could be lead wrong by that book of course.

What I have read the genesis of German and Austrian ww1 heavy artillery came from the lessons learnt in the Russo-Japanese war so there should not be anything big, no big bertas anyway as it was reading about them I learned this.
 
But that is a different thing from actually following them into a major European war...



I doubt that very much, although the concept is there (Schlieffen himself didn't get much beyond that), the intricate plannings and timetables for the matching mobilisation would have to be adjusted still, and I cannot imagine that to happen with the scope of a few weeks.
Additionally, the immense concentration of forces the plan demanded for the Belgian border was not manageable with the existing infrastructure at that point of time.
And to add the icing to the cake, without the "watering down" by Moltke, Schlieffen's concept demanded to violate the neutrality not only of Luxemburg and Belgium but also the Netherlands. I doubt that this was so quickly swallowed outside the circle of Schlieffen's disciples within the general staff.

So, in a case of war against France, the German armies were still set to assemble in Elsaß-Lothringen. My guess is that the German would remain defensive in Alsace, but mass their forces around Metz, the part of the fortress-chain they would try to break is Verdun. As in 1870, they would try to advance along the key roads and rails towards Paris.

Question: I am not that knowledgeable about that, but how is the state of German heavy artillery in 1905? In 1914, it helped them a lot when taking the Belgian fortresses (but AFAIK also with some helping Austrian hands).

From what I read, the plans before the final Von Schlieffen Plan consisted of an angle of attack between Toul and Verdun via Nancy, deemed the weakest part of the five sectors that Von Schlieffen had divided the French defences into.

See Terence Zuber: German War Planning, 1891-1914. Chapter 2
 
Last edited:
Top