Anglo-German Alliance and Belgian Neutrality

[Fellatio Nelson]

Hello All

Just joined after having read a number of posts over the last week or so.
Just wondering as to the viability of the following scenarios:


1 - Kaiser Wilhelm II is out of the frame; Germany is ruled into 1890s/1900s either by Freidrich III or his younger son, Heinrich.

The Kaiser agrees to parliamentary reform: this is limited to the extent that the Kaiser no longer has the power to appoint the Chancellor, this matter is left to the Reichstag; and, through a reluctance to engage directly in party politics, modelling the role of the monarch to one very much like that enjoyed by the British. Presumably the socialist SPD would be the majority and be able to vote for a sympathetic chancellor. They pursue an anti-colonial policy in order to pursue welfare reforms and consolidate their economic rise.

This necessarily limits the powers of the Prussian Junkers and officer class, leading to an earlier 'Germanisation' of the Army. This, coupled with the knowledge that any vast increase in its numbers would be counterproductive and a threat to GB, leads to less pressure for a large Navy.

The Boer War 1899-1902 naturally increases tensions with the British, although one can argue that without Wilhelm II German denunciation would be no more pronounced than that displayed by other Great Powers.

British realisation of weakness during this war (and following Fashoda) and perceived potential for an anti-British COntinental ALliance leads Britain to realise that a strong alliance would be preferable. Similarly, Germay wants to bolster its strength against the Franco-Russian Alliance.

An Anglo-German Alliance -able to be far more wideranging than an Entente with France, because of lack of historical animosity and colonial competition - is signed.


2 - If the balloon goes up with GB and CP against France and Russia, would the British conceivably allow Germany to go through Belgium, irrespective of former guarantees, in order to bring a swift end to the war. Would the Belgians agree to allow the Germans (under British guarantee) through or fight the planned incursion into their territory?

I would argue that Britain would renage on its supposed commitment out of necessity. The main reason behind this was to prevent hostile occupation of the Belgian coast; the Schlieffen Plan could have been recognised as the surest way to avert a German two-front defeat and therefore imperative.
The Belgians could be bribed through a financial indemnity and promise of French African colonies and a future defensive alliance with GB and Germany.
Would Albert still decide to resist, with the knowledge that his nation would otherwise be defeated and ruined (or the French could simply invade)?

Any ideas, comment or criticism would be welcome.

 

[Dave Bender]

No Kaiser Wilhelm II

Point of Departure:
Wilhelm IIs birth is even more difficult, and he dies. Heinrich is Crown Prinz, and assumes the throne in 1888.

Historically Prinz Heinrich was pro British. When Britain seeks an alliance during 1898 - 1901 Germany will almost certainly accept. Without Britain as an ally, France will be stymied in her attempt to build a coalition against Germany. Consequently WWI is averted. France is too diplomatically savvy to risk a major conflict unless the balance of power is on her side. Unlike her neighbors, WWI era Germany is not imperialistic. She will not start a war for territorial gain.

Unlike his older brother, Heinrich actually understands seapower. Their will be no naval arms race with Britain. Instead, the German navy will be capable of defeating France and Russia. It will also be balanced, with an adequate quantity of torpedo boats and cruisers.

Historically Germany already had her African colonies by 1888 (when Heinrich becomes Kaiser). The Pacific colonies acquired during 1898 - 1899 were economically worthless. With a smarter Kaiser on the throne, I expect Germany will remain out of the Pacific entirely. Instead, the 100 million marks historically wasted on Tsingtao will go towards development of Kamerun and Ost Afrika. Many of the German emmigrants that historically moved to the U.S. will instead go to these colonies.

Britain, France, Russia, and Italy will channel their imperialistic ambitions towards picking apart the Ottoman Empire. A process well underway by 1900. The U.S. remains isolationist.

The Germanization of the Prussian army was historically underway by WWI. This process would continue. Over time, I would expect to see the central German government grow in power. Similiar to many other nations, a strong central government would be an evolutionary process.

Even without WWI, Russia and / or Austria-Hungary may not survive. If that happens Germany will probably acquire territory when her neighbors break apart. France will diplomatically oppose Germany every step of the way. But she will not not have the military muscle to enforce her will on central Europe.

 

[blysas]

well

i think in that scemraio, what could happen is, germany is victourius on all fronts.

 

[blysas]

also

what if during the first world war, including the british german alliance, we have A-H and turkey, joining in the war versus france and russia. Would russia and france be crushed quicker?

 

[MrP]

I can definitely be sure that France's Navy would be stronger in this TL. OTL she agreed to let GB protect her Channel coast, but several important personnel (IIRC) were opposed to this. OTL France actually spent MORE than Germany did, but ended up with a worse navy. In this ATL France either has to form a navy to counter Britain's channel and high seas superiority, or spend her money more wisely. The increased spending could be very bad for France's economy.

Also, as I've posted in a similar thread, France had better be getting large shipments of raw materials and the like in from outside, or she's in a lot of trouble. America is her best hope for this. France is already out-numbered by Germany in population, and with Britain added to the mix, there's a significant problem for the French.

I still see Dreadnought being produced if there's a Franco-British Naval race. Oddly enough, though, it could be Italy who produces a scaled down Dreadnought first. The other alternative is Russia, in an attempt to outclass Germany in the Baltic. Historically Russia was in dire straits without German materials and expertise to finish her large warships during WWI.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I'm not sure about claims of the 'Germanization of the Prussian Army' by the Great War. I know that certainly wasn't the case for the officer corps by 1900 and, much to the dislike of the middle class, there was a Prussianization of the Navy occuring by the time of Tirpitz.

I think Germany would still build a great navy. Historians looking for quick and simple answers (or a way to point fingers) also cite Wilhelm II, when that wasn't the case. Even Tirpitz only became a convert to battleships after many years - some of them spent as being the champion of torpedo boats. The German Navy is an outgrowth of German nationalism and as a way to create an armed forces branch that wasn't (at least initially) Prussian dominated. Its also supported by German heavy industry. Tirpitz tapped into a pro-large navy sentiment that preexisted him.

The problem that France has with its navy is more due to its industrial capability. French shipyards were (and probably today also) notoriously slow building ships.

Regarding the dreadnought. The likes of Italy and Russia producing the first all big gun battleship is a pretty sound idea. The Russians, in my opinion, could lay one down first, but the British react and build one faster (as with the USS Michigan). It wouldn't be too hard to see a repeat of the Gloire/Warrior one upsmanship.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Thanks for the replies. It does make one wonder about how far one individual could affect change (or at least create the right environment in which it could prosper).

Yes, I thought the economic consequences would be particularly dire for France, having to continually split her resources between both a strong army and navy - to deter both GB and Germany - and, doubtless, still channel huge sums of money to Russia to allow her to progress to become a military superpower.

I could forsee a smaller Royal Navy, in terms of battleships, without the Anglo-German arms race. The dreadnought issue would be interesting.
The Germans would doubtless increase their Fleet to match the French and Russians', if they had to fight alone and to protect their burgeoning overseas trade.



Okay, so how would the USA view this Anglo-/German & Triple Alliance combination? Could she remain isolated with two of her closest economic competitors dominating Europe and working together (perhaps with a free trade area as both countries' economies benefitted from the other) and with the ability to threaten her seaborne trade.

Would she lean marginally towards France and Russia? Offering loans etc. as a counterweight to possible tension with GB and Germany? Any chance whatsover of a peacetime alliance/entente with these two nations?

All interesting stuff.

PS: What about the Belgian issue in the first post? Any thoughts? Esp. with regard to Niall Ferguson's contention that the commitment was rather fluid and used to spin a 'yes' for war.

 

[MrP]

If there's an early enough ATL Anglo-German Naval treaty, the Germans won't build the Kiel Canal, and need only concentrate on the Baltic. Let Britain take care of most of the North Sea and Channel. Germany certainly only needs coastal defence battleships and monitors for this. The RN would certainly be smaller than OTL unless France builds proportionate to her expenditure. Increase the efficiency of her money:results ratio to German standards and she could have 1.5 times the HSF.

If America gets very shirty about it she can probably put a counterweight fleet into the Atlantic against Britain and Germany. This will probably force Germany into putting more money into big ships. I doubt that America would be willing to outproduce Anglo-German naval produtcion without a war. IRL her shipping production didn't really explode till '17 or so. However, since in the event of war her trade would go to Britain and France, it's ok. You need to give her a very good reason not either to side with them or to ally with France. IRL there were pro-German sympathies in the USA and pro-Allied.

 

[Dave Bender]

WWI German Officer Corps

Here is the best article I have found on the subject:
http://www.coljs.com/articles/CadetArticle.htm

According to this source, by 1913, 70% of the German army officers were middle class. So were 48% of the German generals. Germanization of the officer corps was well underway prior to WWI, even with the inept Kaiser Wilhelm II in charge. With the more capable Heinrich in charge this process will probably proceed a bit faster.

---------------------------------------------

I doubt the U.S. will feel economically threatened by Germany. By 1914 the U.S. economy was the largest and most efficient in the world.

---------------------------------------------

If Germany is allied with Britain then she will not be invading Belgium. Belgium is closely aligned with Britain. You do not go invading the friend of your major ally. There is an outside chance that Britain may lean on her Belgium friends, to allow the uncontested passage of German troops. However this is mostly a moot point, as a Franco - German war is unlikely with this scenerio.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Thanks for the replies. Again, all most interesting stuff.

If GB was also allied with Japan - to protect her Pacific possessions and allow for more modern vessels to go into the Mediterranean against the French - that would produce three strong (and growing) navies encircling the USA coastline and posing a grave threat to her commerce in China. Whether benign or malignant, this would surely provoke unease amongst Americans?

Do you think GB would ditch (or if pre-1902, ally with) the Japanese because it could lead to tension with the USA over her territorial aspirations in the Far East following the defeat of Russia?

The Belgian issue seems to be the most contentious, however.

 

[MrP]

Interesting. Without an Anglo-French rapport over imperial defence the Pacific would be an interesting place. French Indo-China v. local British and possibly Japanese forces. Now America is only just in the Phils, so she has a vested interest in who controls this area.

This does seem like a good way to drag in America - via the East. There's no way Japan will oppose America at this point. She simply doesn't have the capacity. That said, if America loses the Phils then a great many of her WWII resupply bases are WWI German territories. Potentially very promising.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

And, of course, American foreign policy was bound up with economic interests in China and the wider Pacific region.

Could (or would) America afford a 3 Power Standard vis-a-vis the GB, German and Japanese fleets in both the Atlantic and the Pacific? (The UK's productivity was in decline, but she was still the richest in terms of gold and investments and more than willing to divert this money to ship-building.)

The Panama Canal had not yet been completed, so geography would place their ship dispositions at a significant disadvantage.

Perhaps a US understanding would have to be reached with either of the European Alliance blocs. If she did so with the Anglo-Germans - with whom they were rivals only in trade - the French and Russians would be fooked.

 

[benedict XVII]

The Belgian issue seems to be the most contentious, however.

Agree. A war between France and the CP would seem unlikely in this setting unless the French leadership is really mad.

Now, let's assume for the sake of the argument that this happens anyway and the Germans request free passage through Belgium. I'll assume that Britain, though very sympathetic to the Germans, has not joined the fight yet, as per OTL

OTL, King Albert and the Belgian Government did check with London and Paris that they would abide to their obligations as guaranteeing powers, which they did. However, this does not seem to have played a big role in the decision to resist Germany. The reaction was more driven by hurt national pride at the sight of the broken promise. Belgian opinion had a bit more sympathies for Germany and AH than for the French until the German ultimatum, and public opinion turned overnight from the outrage.

Now, in the TL, Albert has to play it more finely. He is a man of rather high moral standards and a real patriotism. He does not want his country to be perceived as lame and coward the first time its neutrality gets tested. On the other hand, contacts with the Brits teach him that in spite of comforting words, he won't get much help form that side. They advise him to lodge a strong protest, but to yield, and they guarantee full restoration and indemnification of Belgium after the war. The French are extremely nervous, promise full assistance to Belgium if they resist, but warn of extreme retaliation if they yield. What a dilemma!

Outcome Albert is likely to play would be the following:
1. Protest German ultimatum and announce intent to fight, complete mobilization and prepare for defence of Liège
2. Do not invite the French to come to Belgium's rescue, and warn them they will be treated like the Germans if they also violate Belgian neutrality
3. Ask for British intervention to protect Belgium against violations of Belgian neutrality from any side, making it pretty clear that Britain would not want to see the Belgian harbors fall in French hands, or not even in German hands for that matter.

What could develop is then the following:

1. Britain, under pressure from its public opinion and fearing a French intervention, cannot do anything but send the RN and an Expeditionary Force to guarantee the neutrality and integrity of Belgium, without declaring war to either France or Germany. However, that expedionary force is deployed mostly in Western Belgium, along the French border, and stays west of the Meuse.
2. The French enter Belgium to defend themselves, but stay East of the Meuse to avoid clashes with the BEF. They don't need one more enemy. Belgians protest French violation of neutrality but don't do much about it. Neither side declares war on the other.
3. The Belgians make an honorable show of resistance in Liège, which ultimately falls to the Germans.
4. The Brits are now putting pressure on the Belgians to accept an armistice with Germany. With their honor now saved in Liège, and the French having violated their neutrality as well, Albert feels he's done what he could and wants to avoid further bloodshed. A North-South demarcation line is set, somewhat 15 miles East of the axis Antwerp-Brussels-Charleroi. Germany promises a full indemnification and restoration of Belgium. The UK leaves its troops in Belgium as a guarantee of non-violation of the demarcation line, future restoration of Belgium, and defence against the French. Proposals to grab parts of the French Empire in Africa are rejected flatly by Albert.
6. Fighting goes on between the French and the Germans in the Ardennes and in the Meuse valley. I'll let other people develop what happens then on the Western front.

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Historically Germany already had her African colonies by 1888 (when Heinrich becomes Kaiser). The Pacific colonies acquired during 1898 - 1899 were economically worthless. With a smarter Kaiser on the throne, I expect Germany will remain out of the Pacific entirely. Instead, the 100 million marks historically wasted on Tsingtao will go towards development of Kamerun and Ost Afrika. Many of the German emmigrants that historically moved to the U.S. will instead go to these colonies.

I thought the Shantung penninsula was one of the few German colonies that actually turned a profit. Am I mistaken?

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

Thanks for the informative response, Benedict. I kinda like the idea of Belgium saving face before becoming neutral.


Ivan - I believe Tsingtao was a financial burden for the Germans; they picked up scraps of land left by France and GB and spend millions (unsuccessfully) attempting to cultivate and populate them.

Thanks chaps.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Ivan - I believe Tsingtao was a financial burden for the Germans; they picked up scraps of land left by France and GB and spend millions (unsuccessfully) attempting to cultivate and populate them.

Thanks chaps.

The German colony of Tsingtao had an important lasting impact in the Far East. It was the 'birth site' of modern Chinese and Japanese beer brewing.

 

[MarkA]

In OTL in 1880 on the Potsdam Lakes William was being taught to scull by Lady Ampthill. He fell into the lake and was rescued by some Bitish diplomats who just happened to be on the pier near the site of the accident. William was a poor swimmer because of his withered arm and was only saved from certain death (according to himself, Lady Ampthill and the German sailors at the Naval Station on the lake who picked up the Prince and the others as they floated on the upturned boat) by the intervention of the Brits. If he had drowned that day would things have turned out differently?

William was pro-British he just wanted Germany to be as powerful as his cousin's kingdom. Heinrich may just as easily have wanted to build a powerful navy as well. After all it was the prevailing wisdom around the world that for a state to be recognised as a Great Power it had to possess a blue water navy capable of expressing its power anywhere on the globe.

Bismark may have hung around for a while longer if Heinrich was Kaiser but that may have further strengthened Prussian influence in the armed forces. It would not necessarily stop Germany's naval program. Why would Heinrich be more susceptible to democratic reforms than William? Certainly Bismark would not be pushing for such reforms.

Britain would not enter a formal alliance with Germany if it meant upsetting the balance of power on the continent. France was in dire straights vis-a-vis the Germans and would do almost anything to keep Britain and Germany from formalizing an alliance.

America was a net debtor state before the outbreak of war in 1914. By the time it entered it in 1917 it was a net creditor state because of the profits its industries made from suppling others during the war. No war and American industry goes into serious decline as debts mount and markets dry up with competition from German industry and a revived French heavy industry sector. Britain recovered from its pre-1900 slump because it could finance long-term recovery programs for its industries and guarantee Imperial preference for the Empire's products if it did not have to take part in a cripplingly expensive naval race.

 

[David S Poepoe]

The Belgian issue seems to be the most contentious, however.

I have a very strong feeling that historically Belgium only mattered for the British in regards to Germany. With the signing of the Anglo-Franco Entente I think that had France wanted to advance thru Belgium London would have pressured Brussels to allow them to pass. The British are not guilt free about having had a hand in the outbreak of the war and they were going to be involved in it. They couldn't afford to be neutral.

 

[Wendell]

Does this mean that the islands which Germany acquired from Spain will be given to the U.S. instead?

 

[Dave Bender]

Islands Germany acquired from Spain

Historically Germany purchased the Caroline, Marianna, and Palau Islands from Spain for 25,000,000 pesetas in 1899. If Germany does not purchase them someone else may. Or Spain may simply keep them. These islands are economically worthless. They are only valuable as a naval base.

If these islands did have economic value I suspect the U.S. would have demanded them in the aftermath of the 1898 war with Spain. The U.S. already has Guam and the Philippines for a naval base in that region. Perhaps Japan, France, or Britain would be interested.

---------------------------------------------------

If Australia is on the ball they will acquire Rabaul. A naval base here by a hostile power could seriously threaten the shipping lanes to Australia. If Germany had actually intended to fight Britain I expect their Pacific fleet would have been here, ILO Tsingtao.

---------------------------------------------------

I like the scenerio with Wilhelm II drowning on Potsdam Lake. First I've heard of this event.