WI: Willhelm II without his fleet obsession?

What if he just never developed an obsession with fleet that he had IOTL?

He either has no fascination at all or with something else. Like with aircraft or artillery.
 

Driftless

Donor
Have Adm. Hollman have enough success with shepherding the Kaiser's naval bills, so he stays in charge for longer, thus delaying the appearance of Adm. Tirpitz chirping in the Kaiser's ear.

Instead, perhaps Count von Zeppelin gets a chance to lead the Kaiser along aviation as the way to gain an advantage over the British, French, and Russians. There would be limitations there too, but it's a different path. Maybe even get heavier-than-air studies done on a large scale, so there's also a transition path. ;)
 

Deleted member 160141

Anglo-German Naval Arms Race never happens. The English are still concerned over German ascendancy in Europe, but they aren't actually mortally threatened by his bombastic anti-British attitude. Thus, the English still use the French as the main benchmark of maintaining naval supremacy in Europe, and they keep the idea of having twice as many ships as their nearest counterpart (ie. France). Whether this lowers or raises naval budget, I don't actually know.
 

Aphrodite

Banned
The Franco-Russian alliance was outbuilding the British hard in 1914- with 15 dreadnoughts and 4 Battle cruisers building, so the British will need to open their wallets or firm the Entente. They'll probably make s deal with France and Russia leaving Wilhelm holding the bag.

If Germany spends the money on her army, she will alarm the French and Russians. Russia is likely to turn from the Far East and concentrate on Europe.

If that happens, Germany is totally screwed. France and Russia are outspending Germany
35 million to 22 million pounds per year from 1910-14 on their navies. Even worse for Germany, Russia avoids the Manchurian War. If the Russians spend the money spent on double tracking the Trans-Siberean railroad on Polish lines instead, the Germans are helpless
 
Last edited:
The Franco-Russian alliance was outbuilding the British hard in 1914- with 15 dreadnoughts and 4 Battle cruisers building, so the British will need to open their wallets or firm the Entente. They'll probably make s deal with France and Russia leaving Wilhelm holding the bag.

If Germany spends the money on her army, she will alarm the French and Russians. Russia is likely to turn from the Far East and concentrate on Europe.

If that happens, Germany is totally screwed. France and Russia are outspending Germany
35 million to 22 million pounds per year from 1910-14. Even worse for Germany, Russia avoids the Manchurian War. If the Russians spend the money spent on double tracking the Trans-Siberean railroad on Polish lines instead, the Germans are helpless
How much faster could Russia mobilize with that additional amount of track?
 

Aphrodite

Banned
Double tracking the Trans Siberian would be about 7500 kilometers. The Russians planned about 4000 in Poland by 1917. This would increase their capacity from 360 to 560 trains a day.

It would also leave enough money to increase the rolling stock by 6000 locomotives and 150,000 cars. That's the amount of rolling stock the Army used in 1914.

The 18 far Eastern divisions could be moved to Europe speeding things up even more.

Take it all together and Germany is done for if she doesn't build a fleet in 1898.

The Russians spend 3 billion rubles on The Manchurian War so their weapon stocks could be enormous.
 

Deleted member 160141

Would that not lead to them being even worse than OTL without any lessons from RJW?
The loss was deeply humiliating for the monarchy at home and abroad, and meant that the Russians had to take on British loans in order to rebuild their fleet.
This political debt in turn meant they had to play along with the British in whatever problems they got into, meaning they would be unable to avoid WW1 regardless of German plans or the fact that they knew their army was shit.

At home, the loss of face was one in a long line of humiliations ever since Nicholas II's coronation, and would reinforce the growing sense of disillusionment with the monarchy, which the defeat at Tannenberg would solidify. It caused great unrest and led directly to the events of 1905, and thereafter to 1917.

The main problem with Russian army of 1914 was terminal lack of supply, just as in 1853: most units had outdated equipment and were lucky if they had bullets to fill their rifles with. This came about because the army was humongous, which made reforms and installing new equipment of any kind costly, so they had a policy of keeping supplies low during peacetime. The supplies would only be increased if war looked imminent, but it was still a slow process.
The other big problem was mobilization and railroads: the vast size of Russia was underscored by the fact that railroads were always in short supply, meaning mobilization was slow and units had to move into the front piecemeal. This meant deploying into battle was slow and redeploying in case of a new front opening would be very slow.
One of the Russian army's main problems IOTL was redeploying units once it became clear that their position was no longer tenable.

With a more Europe-focused Russia, mobilization would be much quicker, supply would be easier and overall performance would soar. Combine this with much higher morale if there's no Russo-Japanese War, and the Russian army is going to look very scary indeed. While I don't agree with @Aphrodite's categorical statement that Germany would be fucked if it focused on its army, the part about Russia is not far from the truth.

Britain, on the other hand, would not feel as threatened by Germany because they wouldn't be making moves (building up navy) which, when combined with anti-British rhetoric coming from everyone including Wilhelm himself, would turn Germany from a threat to British interests on the continent into a threat to British existence.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Germany could spend money on fortifications, a west wall and or east wall which wouldn't be threatening to anyone, or just cut taxes, or spend money on colonial development.
 
The British German Naval Rivalry might be overblown a bit. If Germany agrees to the British idea of a peace conference over Serbia in July 1914, no war happens, and the British/German naval race is a little history footnote no one cares about.

OR

The war happens, Germany decides the mine and submarine war war on trade just isn't worth it and doesn't do it at all, ultimately British blockade tightening measures all get pushed down the road a couple of months from when they happened OTL (accelerated OTL by German actions), German supply situation helped, USA never enters the war, Germany wins a favorable compromise peace, and everyone looks at the navy favorably due to the fact it kept open the Baltic supply holes with Scandinavia, and the Goeben was able to influence The Ottomans and block the straits to Russian trade.
 
B
Anglo-German Naval Arms Race never happens. The English are still concerned over German ascendancy in Europe, but they aren't actually mortally threatened by his bombastic anti-British attitude. Thus, the English still use the French as the main benchmark of maintaining naval supremacy in Europe, and they keep the idea of having twice as many ships as their nearest counterpart (ie. France). Whether this lowers or raises naval budget, I don't actually know.
'British' if you please. England is a nation in it's own right and not a synonym for Britain.
 

Deleted member 160141

'British' if you please. England is a nation in it's own right and not a synonym for Britain.
Why, what's it to ya?

Besides, England is the main piece of Britain, both its governing part and the most populous. Calling Britain Scotland would be presumptuous, but not England.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Franco-Russian alliance was outbuilding the British hard in 1914- with 15 dreadnoughts and 4 Battle cruisers building, so the British will need to open their wallets or firm the Entente. They'll probably make s deal with France and Russia leaving Wilhelm holding the bag.

If Germany spends the money on her army, she will alarm the French and Russians. Russia is likely to turn from the Far East and concentrate on Europe.

If that happens, Germany is totally screwed. France and Russia are outspending Germany
35 million to 22 million pounds per year from 1910-14 on their navies. Even worse for Germany, Russia avoids the Manchurian War. If the Russians spend the money spent on double tracking the Trans-Siberean railroad on Polish lines instead, the Germans are helpless
All those threads are moving in separate directions at separate paces - as they would, depending on each countries finances and willpower.

The question here is what the Germans should have done, that might have worked better, than plugging so much treasure and political will into creating the HSF, which backfired on a couple of levels. It really didn't achieve its desired strategic or tactical goals, and it increased British animosity. That should have been avoided - two very powerful adversaries is plenty. Acquiring a third, that can strangle your international trade was disaster. Of course, Britain wasn't likely to become Germany's ally, but don't actively poke the Lion....

The Germans should have been as adept at counting "beans" as well as anyone, so the combined might of France and Russia, especially with Russia's growth potential should have been their first, second, and third strategic priorities. The British empire should have been after that.

One monetary diversion of the funds spent on the HSF, and it wouldn't have amounted to the cost of a battleship or two, would have been to fund any destabilizing elements in Russia. i.e. Fund the Reds, fund the Right-wingers, fund Ukrainian separatists, fund the Finn separtists. Do whatever you could to promote dissension and rioting - that kind of thing. Do the same thing for France. It's a useful step from the German perspective that's short of a ruinous war.

What to do with the rest of the cash not spent on the HSF?

I don't know what they could do about the shaky A-H Empire. It's not in German interest for it to fail, as the Russians lever their way in.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 160141

One monetary diversion of the funds spent on the HSF, and it wouldn't have amounted to the cost of a battleship or two, would have been to fund any destabilizing elements in Russia. i.e. Fund the Reds, fund the Right-wingers, fund Ukrainian separatists, fund the Finn separatists. Do whatever you could to promote dissension and rioting - that kind of thing. Do the same thing for France. It's a useful step from the German perspective that's short of a ruinous war.
That's a slippery slope you really don't wanna go down. IOTL, the Germans only funded the Reds after it became a question of "if we don't, we die next year; if we do, we'll die later but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it".
If you start funding Reds or separatists, you show yourself to have no ideological standards whatsoever and show your willingness to strike low blows in peacetime, which marks you out as dishonorable in a time when honor means something. Two can play at that game, and there's nobody more motivated to play hard than somebody who's just been low-blowed and a.) wants revenge, and b.) is outraged that you would stoop so low.

And considering the politics of Imperial Russia, you really, really don't want to touch the Reds around them, because that's guaranteed to end badly for you. Not just because they hate the Reds' guts, but because the Okhrana are elbow-deep into all the revolutionary movements in Europe (the fear of subversion by Okhrana IOTL motivated a lot of the early Leninist purges) (^1). To precede the inevitable "but why didn't they destroy the Reds then?" comment: simple, the country was completely fractured by that point and the Okhrana couldn't exercise that level of active power anymore even if they still had all their observatory power.
Given that the Okhrana are the guys whose instruction manuals the KGB followed without modification well into the 70s (ie. back in the glory days of Russian counterintelligence culture), you ought to be very afraid of them if you start playing around in their pen. After all, if they have their hands in the revolutionary and terrorist movements of Europe, they can easily do things to you with them that you wouldn't want done to you (assassinations, bombings, etc).​

Germany funding Reds? Well, Russia can fund Reds too, and plenty. Funding Ukrainian separatists? Well, how about fund crazies like the Black Hand or any other thorn in Austria's side? It's all the sort of stuff that can very easily escalate into a no-holds-barred war, because by the end of the escalation nobody will give a shit about being honorable or holding themselves back.

People didn't play around like this back then for a reason, and it wasn't because they didn't know this sort of shit existed.
Destabilizing elements are like torpedos: once they're out of the tube, they're not your (or anyone else's) friend.
^1: Look up Roman Malinovsky and Yezno Azef. Just goes to show how deep the Okhrana had infiltrated the revolutionary movements, and what they could do with them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With a more Europe-focused Russia, mobilization would be much quicker, supply would be easier and overall performance would soar. Combine this with much higher morale if there's no Russo-Japanese War, and the Russian army is going to look very scary indeed. While I don't agree with @Aphrodite's categorical statement that Germany would be fucked if it focused on its army, the part about Russia is not far from the truth.
Without the Russo-Japanese War, the last war Russia has actually mobilized is the Turkish War of 1878. Russian OTL mobilization of 1914 was possible because of the lessons of RJW, and without it, the problems they encountered for the first time during the mobilization of RJW would only become apparent in a case of the next major mobilization.
 

Fletch

Kicked
Why, what's it to ya?

Besides, England is the main piece of Britain, both its governing part and the most populous. Calling Britain Scotland would be presumptuous, but not England.
Because it betrays ignorance. Its akin to calling the USA California or Germany Prussia.

Especially as the man who led the UK for half of the Great War wasn't English but Welsh.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 160141

Kick
Because it betrays ignorance. Its akin to calling the USA California or Germany Prussia.
What if I just don't give a shit about maintaining propriety 100% of the time? Maybe, just maybe, it's a shorthand and not a mark of ignorance?

Also, please read the second line! It does rather fix the issue for you, doesn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top