new take on no German surface fleet

If Germany did not build a fleet would Britain have been as worried about Germany as a threat?

 

If by 'no surface fleet' you mean Germany building lots of U-boats, that would be more alarming to Britain than anything else.

No fleet at all, or a small fleet as envisioned under Versailles, would obviously be less provocative to Britain, but I think there would still be concern about Hitler's escalating acts of aggression. Historically Britain acted as she did without a major naval threat. Hitler was not even approaching the numbers of ships Britain had agreed to allow him under the 1935 treaty (nor would he, with the obvious exception of U-boats). While naval matters were never far from the British mind, they were nothing like the motivator they had been in the runup to WWI.

 

Britain's policy over the previous several centuries was to try and prevent a single power dominating the European continent. An irrational power such as that of Hitler led Germany would have been completely unacceptable.

 

Britain's ideal was to have no power dominate the continent, but for most of her history the application of this policy was linked to the naval threat. Prior to the 1890s, the policy applied to precisely two nations, Spain (as part of the Hapsburg imperium) and France. Each of these in its prime was the principal naval power after Britain and the opponent at sea both in home waters and overseas. Each had access to the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Each plotted or attempted invasion of the British Isles and overthrown of the British crown.

Britain also fought a series of bitter wars with the Netherlands, a naval and maritime rival but no threat of continental domination.

Historically friendly relations with Prussia/Germany only soured with the advent of the German naval program in the 1890s, which Admiral Tirpitz characterized specifically as "a fleet aginst England"; the German Navy Laws at least had the discretion to say that their buildup was aimed at the leading naval power. There was no precedent for British relations with a potential continental hegemon which presented none of the threats outlined above. The ideal would still be to have no dominant power, but Britain would have been unlikely to enter into alliances or other measures against one whose ambitions were strictly continental.

WWI was a traumatic experience for Britain, and that appears to have made a German resurgence so relatively shortly thereafter unacceptable regardless of her naval policy.

 

... the British actually preferred that the Germans build a surface fleet, a fully BALANCED SURFACE FLEET that is! What's usually conveniently forgotten about Versailles is that while Germany was largely disarmed, the intent was that the rest of the world would eventually disarm to Germany's standard - such was the fear of another Great War. But with Regimes falling, Communism, Fascisim and Nationalism rising, and the League of Nations lacking any bite anyway, that wasn't likely to happen. The British in particular felt guilty over Germany's situation, and of course there was that power void in Central Europe. So, when Hitler repudiated Versailles, the British negotiated with him over things that really mattered to them, namely Navies. The result was the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935; Germany was allowed to build warships up to 35% of the Royal Navy in tonnage. Submarines weren't seen as a hugely dangerous threat; they'd been mastered before, convoying trade, ASDIC and relatively cheap and quick to build short term convoy escorts owned them, in a special clause the Germans were allowed 45% here, to parity with the RN and Commonwealth - see Sec 2(f) of the Agreement:



"2 (f) In the matter of submarines, however, Germany, while not exceeding the ratio of 35:100 in respect of total tonnage, shall have the right to possess a submarine tonnage equal to the total submarine tonnage possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government, however, undertake that, except in the circumstances indicated in the immediately following sentence, Germany's submarine tonnage shall not exceed 45% of the total of that possessed by the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The German Government reserve the right, in the event of a situation arising which in their opinion makes it necessary for Germany to avail herself of her right to a percentage of submarine tonnage exceeding the 45% abovementioned, to give notice to this effect to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and agree that the matter shall be the subject of friendly discussion before the German Government exercise that right."

You see, the British felt that they could effectively deal with a balanced Fleet, 1/3rd the size of their own, in Jutlandesque Fleet action. What the British REALLY feared was "guerre de course" by surface threat against trade and links with the Empire - namely cruiser warfare. The Germans were already building heavily armed cruisers i.e. "Pocket-Battleships", tailor made for trade interdiction. The British never, ever, felt that they had enough cruisers for trade protection, what's more on a ship-to-ship basis, only the RN's Battle Cruisers could effectively deal with them, the RN only had 3 of them, and compared to ASW convoy escorts they were hugely expensive to build. A German Battle Fleet, and parity in submarines, was preferred to dozens and dozens of Pocket Battleship type warships loose in the shipping lanes!

 

Historically, the respective governments of Great Britain have considered other nations row-boats as a 'threat to their security'.

Britain has attempted, through diplomacy, to have a continental power do the fighting for them on land. Budgetary considerations have played a large part in this, for Britain could not afford a large standing Army and pay for a navy at the same time.

 

This reminds me of a statement Otto Von Bismarck made. He said that if the British Army ever invaded the continent he would have the police arrest them.

 

Was this not the Kaiser (about a contemptible little army) ?

 

The police quote was Bismarck. I believe the Kaiser did say contemptible little army.

 

a pure aerial assault on britain.

 

The British didn´t fight against Charles. They did against Philip II, when the King of Spain was no longer the emperor of the Holly Empire... and etc ...Another day and in the appropriate thread we can talk about the failed bourgeois revolution in Spain against the ministers of Carlos.

Would GB have taken part in WWI if Germany didn´t have invaded Belgium?

 

Would GB have taken part in WWI if Germany didn´t have invaded Belgium?

Good question....It was the black propoganda of the day...together with the nun massacres....I personally believe yes we would..A way would have been found other than Belgium to get us mired into the thing. Besides...The public at the time were gung ho and ready to beleive and do THEIR PATRIOTIC CHORE...oh we dont want to lose youuuuu but we know youuuuu ought to goooo for your king and your country.....both need you so...as the song says...A different public from 1939.

 

As a newly frocked Trustee, I should gently, yet firmly remind you we are drifting a bit off topic for this thread. Thats what I should do, but this is too tasty a morsel to leave lying on the platter.

Yes Britain would have fought were Belguim invaded or not period. None of the participents have much to say for themselves in this matter. World War I was the most pointless and yet most costly war ever fought.

Serbia provoked the Astro-Hungarians to attack in order to start a general war that they hoped to profit from politicly. The Hapsburgs used the provocation to blatently grab land it coveted in the Balkans.

Russia entered to ensure her 'political interests' were not compramised by a Austro-Hungarian victory. Germany Joined her closest ally the Hapsburgs to prevent Russia from gaining greater 'political interests' in the Balkans.

France Joined Russia to get revenge on Germany for 1870 and to reclaim her lost provence's Alsace and Lorraine.
Britain Joined France to keep Germany in check as the most powerfull continental power. Italy and Japan joined the allies for spoils alone, as Turkey joined the Central powers for the same reason.


The US at least was not interested in land, but would and did happily sell to anyone who had the cash to buy and hulls to transport the munitions of war.


Had everyone butted out of what was a minor diplomatic squabble between the Hapsburgs and Serbs, the world would have been a very different place today. No communism, No Hitler, no Death Camps. Perhaps no Atomic weapons. Yes the Romanov's and Ottoman's would have fallen at some point, and yes Britain and Germany would have fought over something, somewhere, sometime. But the great slaughter and political upheaval of the collapse of four great empires at nearly the same time would not, nor would all that followed that collapse.


Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.......

 

Please, belasar, not that tired old "this thread is off topic, so let's stop it, as soon as I offer my opinion" routine. It's doubly unworthy of a trustee.

 

Are Trustees able to split threads? Why not just split the WWI stuff into another thread?

 

My post as most are, was meant with a light touch. I am not sure this would at this time merit a split. If it does at some point then I am sure someone at a higher pay grade than mine will make that call.

 

Going back to first post...Yes we would...Although a naval nation an island nation. Europe interest not as important as Empire interest...We never wanted any one nation to be a dominant nation within Europe as this would eventually affect our Empire. Thus our confidence in the French to control the landmass. German fleet was seen as a threat as was Italian. As was Japanes and as was American. But our interest in Germany being a threat was not based solely on their naval threat. Europe dominated by Germany would eventually clash with our Empire of the time in some shape of form...Not a good idea for Germany then to be the dominant power...Nor anyone for that matter. Fleets or not.

 

So they (ALL) managed to get two dominant powers in Europe, out of Europe ... These guys were really smart. I must say I have no idea about the alternatives

 

The only alternative perfidious Albion was interested and probably still is, is one that has no nation singly dominating the landmass of western Europe...Done quite well with the perfidiousness over the years. Sounds more complex I know...but uk foreign office have always seen it as a simple idea but not always simple to achieve.