WI no dreadnought race between Britain and Germany?

[Deleted member 94680]

Unfortunately no, but I didn't pick it up here but when I was at University years ago.

Umm, ok. So quite possibly hearsay or rumour or conjecture based on a certain reading or events?

Well ... there isn't any "true" source esp. of citation, that could be used for ... if taken as a whole and not 'cut-to-fit' alleged oh-so-baad prussian-german militarism propaganda.

So, no sources then? Just a feeling based on how things went OTL rather than actual laws or regulations?

...Josias von Heeringen was confronted with such questions during his fight for yet another increase of the army (army laws-"Heeresvorlagen" 1912 and 1913) with not having enough officers. He as well as his successor Falkenhayn both 'only' argued that the complement of higher educated pupils was - statistically - higher within the nobility. But both were open to non-noble officers as long as they brought proper preeducation (higher school teaching, numerus clausus).
However the resistances that really counted against further increases of the armed forces were in every case either the Reichstag or the Prussian diet for financial reasons. ... or other political meddlings. ... or other contenders for the money (Tirpitz).

But at that times the arguement that only nobles were able to become officers was well off the table even with Kaiser Bill who simply and happily made numerous officers of burguois descendancy into nobles.

So, if the money had been available - say if the Navy was being kept smaller and correspondingly the Army could be larger due to more recruits - there would be no bar to it happening?

As I understand it there were plenty of bourgeois line officers, those who would do their 25 years and become Majors and Lt Colonels and then retire, maybe 2/3-3/4. However beyond those ranks and in the General Staff the bourgois thinned out while the nobles got promoted.

That’s what I was saying.

 

[Karelian]

Lundendorff rose through the ranks quite nicely and so did Tirpitz, didin't they? In general the early 1900s were marked by new generation of bourgeouis-background technocrats clawing their way towards the top in Wilhelmine society and armed forces - a change von Hülsen-Haeseler was dead-set to prevent.

 

[Riain]

So quite possibly hearsay or rumour or conjecture based on a certain reading or events?

I went to university just long enough ago that courses were based on facts rather than hearsay and rumour, which I'm given to understand is how university works these days.

 

[NoMommsen]

As I understand it there were plenty of bourgeois line officers, those who would do their 25 years and become Majors and Lt Colonels and then retire, maybe 2/3-3/4. However beyond those ranks and in the General Staff the bourgois thinned out while the nobles got promoted.

Without a doubts, but numbers were rather quickly rising.
A few better known examples :

Wilhelm Groener​

Hermann (v.) Kuhl​

August (v.) Mackensen​

Alexander (v.) Kluck​

All born non-nobles with Kuhl, Kluck and Mackensen made nobles by Kaiser Bill before WW 1 already.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
So, if the money had been available - say if the Navy was being kept smaller and correspondingly the Army could be larger due to more recruits - there would be no bar to it happening?
...

well : almost no bar, very likely some politicians might come up with something else they would rather like to see ... some new library, public swimming pool, public garden, free food for everyone ... but regarding the military budget : YES 😁
... as well as more and better equipped pioneers (including their education) as well as earlier more wireless for the troops (including their education)

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Also didn't help that the doctor who delivered Willy was British... he never quite forgave 'em for that

Also didn't help that the medical expert who treated his father & denied for some time that there was throat cancer was also British.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I went to university just long enough ago that courses were based on facts rather than hearsay and rumour, which I'm given to understand is how university works these days.

So everything that was taught in relation to the outbreak of WWI, was entirely and purely based in fact and truth and always has been? The educational doctrine over the events hasn’t at all evolved over the years as new documentary evidence and interpretations have come to light?

well : almost no bar, very likely some politicians might come up with something else they would rather like to see ... some new library, public swimming pool, public garden, free food for everyone ... but regarding the military budget

Well yes, but I was meaning more in a way that if the overall defence budget (one of the few things the politicians controlled when it came to the military in Wilhelmine Germany) remained the same, just that more of it would be spent on the Heer rather than the Navy, it would be possible to do. There was no constitutional or legal reason the Army wasn’t increased, it was more of a ideological thing on behalf of the Kaiser.

 

[larpsidekick]

Or the RN has to eat crow and acknowlage that the times have changed and they have to live with many more powerful navies world round... like the Russians, still a credible force prior to the Russo-Japanese War, the Germans, French, USA and Japan.

I am not saying that one side was right or wrong, but the focus of "Germany has to change" is Imo a product of the two lost wars. So maybe a RN and British public that is more accepting of the change in power the world over may be a factor in reducing the tensions.

Or the RN has to eat crow and acknowlage that the times have changed and they have to live with many more powerful navies world round... like the Russians, still a credible force prior to the Russo-Japanese War, the Germans, French, USA and Japan.

I am not saying that one side was right or wrong, but the focus of "Germany has to change" is Imo a product of the two lost wars. So maybe a RN and British public that is more accepting of the change in power the world over may be a factor in reducing the tensions.

I don’t think you can get that without a major change to the status of Britain and the RN - the No1 Naval power, upon whom the country depends to defend it and in which the public see the continuation of ancient liberties does not just allow challenge without a fight. Because it and the political structures around it believe to accept challenge is to accept a threat to their very existence (hence “we want eight!”)

So, you need to work back, maybe to the Camperdown sinking, maybe to the Crimea, possibly to Trafalgar itself to prevent the RN becoming so ingrained in the British psyche and its public perception of safety. Find a way to separate these and you can get a British willingness to accept peer competition at sea - but I think any change which separates the RN from the public perception of safety also prevents the RN from becoming the world leading Navy and so probably prevents Britain becoming the world superpower

 

[matzeskatze]

I don’t think you can get that without a major change to the status of Britain and the RN - the No1 Naval power, upon whom the country depends to defend it and in which the public see the continuation of ancient liberties does not just allow challenge without a fight. Because it and the political structures around it believe to accept challenge is to accept a threat to their very existence (hence “we want eight!”)

So, you need to work back, maybe to the Camperdown sinking, maybe to the Crimea, possibly to Trafalgar itself to prevent the RN becoming so ingrained in the British psyche and its public perception of safety. Find a way to separate these and you can get a British willingness to accept peer competition at sea - but I think any change which separates the RN from the public perception of safety also prevents the RN from becoming the world leading Navy and so probably prevents Britain becoming the world superpower

On that I agree. And think that it is near impossible to do with a world reaching the 20th century in a fashion we recognize.

But I think that the British are given a free pass a bit too easiely here. They had grown very comfortable with their position navaly. And I can understand that. But to ignore the needs of others, here Germany, and react "hurt" when the Germans build a fleet, that is something that Imo should get some new historical insights.
For me, as a German, the blaming of this on Germany is like the blaming of WWI on them, it ignores so many factors that it gets hillarious sometimes.

For an rising power to be "bullied" on the seas, like the Germans were by the RN in the Boer Wars, is simply not acceptable. So Germany set out to build a fleet. But what did Britain do? Maybe have a look at why the Germans suddenly were willing to aggressively build an expansive fleet. But no, that would be like looking into their own house and change. So they blamed it on the Germans... Another point was, that they threatend blockade if Germany took sides in the Boer war, so threatening the economic life of them.

But because of the two World Wars, I get the feeling that the naration of the "good" British / RN and "bad" Germans is so ingrained that it is hard to accept that maybe the RN and British were not the paragorns they portraied themself as.

 

[Aghasverov]

I went to university just long enough ago that courses were based on facts rather than hearsay and rumour, which I'm given to understand is how university works these days.

You must have been at school longer ago than I was then, and I'm old... University for me was 30 years ago. What I remember from general history textbooks was a tendency to blame the outbreak of The War on vague movements and supposedly deterministic social tendencies of the Era - nationalism, militarism (usually defined as Prussian or German militarism), the complex network of treaties (secret and not-secret), pan-isms of every variety, social Darwinism... little emphasis was put on the specific actions of certain key individuals in high places, some of whom were working to advance their own political and military agendas which may or may not have coincided with the best interests of their own nations, or been beneficent to the peace of the world in general.

 

[Aghasverov]

On that I agree. And think that it is near impossible to do with a world reaching the 20th century in a fashion we recognize.

But I think that the British are given a free pass a bit too easiely here. They had grown very comfortable with their position navaly. And I can understand that. But to ignore the needs of others, here Germany, and react "hurt" when the Germans build a fleet, that is something that Imo should get some new historical insights.
For me, as a German, the blaming of this on Germany is like the blaming of WWI on them, it ignores so many factors that it gets hillarious sometimes.

For an rising power to be "bullied" on the seas, like the Germans were by the RN in the Boer Wars, is simply not acceptable. So Germany set out to build a fleet. But what did Britain do? Maybe have a look at why the Germans suddenly were willing to aggressively build an expansive fleet. But no, that would be like looking into their own house and change. So they blamed it on the Germans... Another point was, that they threatend blockade if Germany took sides in the Boer war, so threatening the economic life of them.

But because of the two World Wars, I get the feeling that the naration of the "good" British / RN and "bad" Germans is so ingrained that it is hard to accept that maybe the RN and British were not the paragorns they portraied themself as.

As the saying goes, it's good to be king. The British had become accustomed to being the undisputed masters of the world's trade routes, the unquestioned Sovereign of the Seas as far as naval power, the global monetary hegemon of the day, etc etc... a threat to that, ANY threat no matter how greatly exaggerated (as I believe was the case with the German HSF), needed to be dealt with. Jackie Fisher was probably not the only one in the UK who believed a good "Copenhagening" was in order (though he was among the earlier ones).
The UK was unique among nations in considering virtually the entire globe as its "sphere of influence"... and few nations dared to question that assertion. I'd call that "getting a pass" as well...

 

[naraic]

Do you have a source for that? I know it’s a widely held belief, but is it actually German policy?

It wasn't a rule per se but rather a strongly pushed policy. Officers should be children of nobles, large land owners, business owners or officers. Towards the 1900s the children of civil servants were accepted more and more.

The salary for an officer wasn't enough to support an officer and there was an expectation that family money would make up the difference. That said there was need based scholarship in the cadet colleges but you were only eligible if your father was an officer.

It fed into promotions as well.

It's important to note that some states were separate to the imperial army in Germany at this time. This was less of an issue in the bavarian army than the german army.

In 1902 there was a report from the army to the imperial cabinet that the army could not expand further as half of all new officers were children of father's from occupational circles that the officer corp only occasionally recruited from.

The war minister Karl Von Einen stressed in 1908 that the army couldn't expand further in 1908 as children from old officer families didn't want to serve as officers.

Recruitment of officers was limited to prevent the infiltraction of the officer corp by socialists,

 

[matzeskatze]

It's important to note that some states were separate to the imperial army in Germany at this time. This was less of an issue in the bavarian army than the german army.

One correction, there was no German or Imperial Army at the time. It was the Prussian, Bavarian or Saxon Army and so on.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

In 1902 there was a report from the army to the imperial cabinet that the army could not expand further as half of all new officers were children of father's from occupational circles that the officer corp only occasionally recruited from.

The war minister Karl Von Einen stressed in 1908 that the army couldn't expand further in 1908 as children from old officer families didn't want to serve as officers.

Recruitment of officers was limited to prevent the infiltraction of the officer corp by socialists,

Do you have a source for this? I’m not doubting it, just interested to read about it some more.

 

[naraic]

One correction, there was no German or Imperial Army at the time. It was the Prussian, Bavarian or Saxon Army and so on.

Point taken. To be specific there was 4 armies Prussia Saxony Wurtemburg and Bavaria. If you were from somewhere else you joined the Prussian army.

Many sources consider the prussian army as the peace time "German Army" at this time because of this.

Do you have a source for this? I’m not doubting it, just interested to read about it some more.

I had 4 or 5 articles on jstor regarding this open earlier. I'll post some links when I'm next at my pc.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I had 4 or 5 articles on jstor regarding this open earlier. I'll post some links when I'm next at my pc.

Thank you, most appreciated.

 

[Riain]

So everything that was taught in relation to the outbreak of WWI, was entirely and purely based in fact and truth and always has been? The educational doctrine over the events hasn’t at all evolved over the years as new documentary evidence and interpretations have come to light?

Interpretations of the material evolves over time, however there didn't seem to be the evidence that the buildup of the Navy took money from the Army so that it couldn't increase in size. If you have evidence that Army manpower caps were a result of not enough money, and that was a result of the buildup of the Navy, I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Riain]

You must have been at school longer ago than I was then, and I'm old... University for me was 30 years ago.

I finished my Masters in 2007, I was 33 at the time.

 

[Riain]

Point taken. To be specific there was 4 armies Prussia Saxony Wurtemburg and Bavaria. If you were from somewhere else you joined the Prussian army.

Many sources consider the prussian army as the peace time "German Army" at this time because of this.

The Navy was a Federal institution, without these state based institutions. It looks like an alignment of factors; the Federal nature of the Navy meant it was popular with the Reichstag, but this didn't really come at the expense of the Army because the state based traditions and prejudices kept it smaller than it could have been.

 

[naraic]

Thank you, most appreciated.

Occupational Origins of Prussia's Generals, 1871-1914 (this is an awesome source on this and there are some good tables)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545884?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

German history in documents and images (very short)

GHDI - Document

Pdf download. Relevant portion is rather small but there's still value in it (search for the word class or just read the whole thing).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAZegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Wt-aBLDrTsUiS7FwrVRxl

[/URL]

THE PRUSSIAN ARMY.—HOW RECRUITED AND OFFICERED (XVII) - Berlin under the New Empire

Berlin under the New Empire - September 2013

www.cambridge.org

Kaiser Wilhelm II and German Politics briefly discusses how the military expansion from 1912 risks the cohesion of the army as a royalist force.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/260734?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Acc7e5a2a22f8ceeb8f51561954e294f0&seq=10#page_scan_tab_contents

Interpretations of the material evolves over time, however there didn't seem to be the evidence that the buildup of the Navy took money from the Army so that it couldn't increase in size. If you have evidence that Army manpower caps were a result of not enough money, and that was a result of the buildup of the Navy, I'd be interested to see it.

It's a lot easier to prove that the navy seemed to suffer in 1912 when the army got additional money than to prove that the army manpower caps was a result of the buildup of the Navy. My strong opinion is that Army would have gotten some money that the Navy got historically if it asked for it. It didn't seem to because of trying to keep the officer corp pure (not pure aristocracy but pure upper middle class, children of officers and landowners etc).

By the way here is a good book (portions available on Google books) on the German army league. A lobby group that can claim some credit for the army expansions in 1913 and 1913.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAZegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Wt-aBLDrTsUiS7FwrVRxl

[/URL]