Why Is everyone so convinced that France is annoyed with Britain and that Britain is on cloud 9 and ignoring the world. That may have been the case after the war was over but now its 6 years later and the world has evolved.

My opinion? A mix of propaganda and victory disease for the...let's say cloud9 situation; sure they have won the war almost an year earlier and with significant saving in term of blood and treasure but it still the most horrible and costly conflict know to man till now, so for a lot of internal purpose the principal narrative will be the one exposed by brazen: UK had won the war alone and had been saddled by not reliable allies...sure it had very few attachment with reality, more or less like the 'stab in back myth' in Germany and the 'mutilated victory myth' in Italy.
On the other hand there is the old habit of the UK foreign policy to avoid at any cost a continental hegemon and after this war people in the goverment circle will look at the situation and and the sacrifice done and don't want surely give Europe to the Franco-Russian alliance but at the same time they will be a lot wary of another commitment in the continent for the next couple of decade and this clash totally with France desperate need to security.

Even if it 6 years later, people will still be shocked and traumatizated and there will be very little stomach for foreign entanglement, IMHO the only reason the Royal Navy still get the ships ITTL is the fact that she was succefull in sold to the goverment and pubblic that they can end war and project force infinity better than the army or the new thing what's her name...ah yes the airplane, so instead of giving money to them better finance the Navy. Honestly military expediture will not see very well during this period as people will think that there are a lot more of better things to finance.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
My opinion? A mix of propaganda and victory disease for the...let's say cloud9 situation;

What propaganda? Theres been nothing in the TL to suggest it, it’s been posters with an anti-British bent implying it.

sure they have won the war almost an year earlier and with significant saving in term of blood and treasure

Only we know it’s a year earlier, no one ITTL knows that.

but it still the most horrible and costly conflict know to man till now, so for a lot of internal purpose the principal narrative will be the one exposed by brazen: UK had won the war alone and had been saddled by not reliable allies...sure it had very few attachment with reality, more or less like the 'stab in back myth' in Germany and the 'mutilated victory myth' in Italy.

Where are you getting this from? Where in this TL has anyone from Britain proclaimed this?
 
What propaganda? Theres been nothing in the TL to suggest it, it’s been posters with an anti-British bent implying it.

As said is my opinion, plus more than anti-british bent is understanding how great power thing and behave and an extrapolation of the British behaviour ITTL

Only we know it’s a year earlier, no one ITTL knows that.

Yes i know, that was for us, to try to understand the internal situation of the United Kingdom

Where are you getting this from? Where in this TL has anyone from Britain proclaimed this?

Nobody in Britain had said a damned thing. Honestly, this TL concentrate almost totally on the naval matter and the political and internal situation of the various nation are a 10/20% of the TL at max, so there is a lot of void to fill.
Plus criticize what a goverment doesn't mean being anti-British, i'm italian i'm surely not hate the UK but at the same time i don't believe that's this paramount of virtue and perfection either; as any other goverment formed by human being they will do mistake, they will be forged by the previuous trauma and experience and they will have their bias, plus the universal attitude of not admitting to commit mistake ever and do very stupid thing to avoid that.
 

Stenz

Monthly Donor
As said is my opinion, plus more than anti-british bent is understanding how great power thing and behave and an extrapolation of the British behaviour ITTL

What “behaviour”? Contributing massively to winning the War, or securing the naval strength that the security of their home isles or trade-based Empire depends upon?

Nobody in Britain had said a damned thing. Honestly, this TL concentrate almost totally on the naval matter and the political and internal situation of the various nation are a 10/20% of the TL at max, so there is a lot of void to fill.

No need to fill it with diatribes on how evil the British are because they won’t want Schanzer to get a Navy as big as theirs.

Plus criticize what a goverment doesn't mean being anti-British, i'm italian i'm surely not hate the UK but at the same time i don't believe that's this paramount of virtue and perfection either;

That much is totally clear, believe me.

as any other goverment formed by human being they will do mistake, they will be forged by the previuous trauma and experience and they will have their bias, plus the universal attitude of not admitting to commit mistake ever and do very stupid thing to avoid that.

What does this mean? The British are stupid for wanting a Navy big enough to stop another power trying Unrestricted Submarine Warfare against them, or the Italians are stupid for thinking they can dominate the Mediterranean without alienating Britain?
 
British foreign policy is pretty simple.

1, A strong Navy is needed to protect British interests and the links to the Empire.

2, Britain doesn't need allies and entanglements

3, No dominant continental power.

4, countries with strong armies we can be friends with.

5, countries with strong navies need to be watched.


That's the basics of it. The thing is like all things in life it gets complicated. Take UK- USA relations pre WW1 and between the wars. America had a strong navy but Britain didn't mind. All of America's interests were either in areas Britain didnt care about or were mostly aligned with British interests. Then Germany pre WW1, yes they were a strong land power and that is good. The thing is they were too strong and were building a large navy, those were both bad. That prompted the entente with France breaking the no alliances stance becauseit was in Britains interest as it was in France's.
The idea that there may be a perception in Britain of we won the war is something I can understand for the general population. The people in charge however will have a different idea.
Looking at the international situation there are problems on the horizon. Japan is becoming more and more a naval power. This will be a worry to Britain as will the status of Germany. Yes Germany was beaten but it wasn't beaten fully. They are a potential sleeping giant who can quickly rise and are just starting to stir. Add to that all the minor states sailing Battleships round the med and there are reasons to worry.
These problems can be mitigated by friendly actions at this stage. No Britain wint be declaring a multi nation alliance but they will be staying on good terms with as many nations as possible. The big contenders are France, Netherlands, Italy, Belgium, Greece. All offer a potential useful ally should one of the potential problems become a major one and for some of them their interests will likely be aligned. France vs Germany for instance or Netherlands vs Japan.
 
What “behaviour”? Contributing massively to winning the War, or securing the naval strength that the security of their home isles or trade-based Empire depends upon?

More being overtly attached to the notion of 'balance of power' and giving the French a treatment similar at what the american had given to the italians in OTL and being a little too on the face regarding their being the premiere naval power especially regarding her former allies that are great power on their own. Sure the British had contribuiting massively to win the war, a war that even if compared to our WWI has been less destructive...has been the greatest massacre know to man till now and that need to be justified in any manner. Even because the Empire is not in such a great situation, Ireland is still an hotspot, big promise has been made to India, the other dominion want more autonomy, blood and treasure expediture has been high and as everyone, the price has not been really worthy theresult and ITTL even less than OTL as Germany is still on his feet and with a nice empire in the middle of Europe and seem (because honestly we don't have that much insight on what happen in the rest of world that don't really involve ships) that UK or had taken for granted his relations with France as believe that she will be too worried with Germany or simply don't care.
Plus, as any epocal moment of change it's here and in this moment that national myth are born, from the Stab on the back to the mutilated victory or in the next war the miracle of Dunkirk, myth that are needed also to justify political choice and attitude and frankly the idea that the political class with push for the idea that the UK had basically won the war alone with a little help from his allies (that had also needed to support) it's not strange, especially if they also chose to limit the general involvment in the continente because ITTL as OTL there is little stomach for other waste of lives

No need to fill it with diatribes on how evil the British are because they won’t want Schanzer to get a Navy as big as theirs.

Can you please tell me where anyone had said that the British or anyone else is evil? No because frankly i not see it in any place; we have said that the United Kingdom had done some political and strategic choice and that in our opinion don't seem very smart in the middle or long term...but yes, you are right no goverment in the world had looked only on the immediate and not given a damned thought to the long term consequences and we are all rabid anti-british poster for only have the audacity to suggest that maybe His Majesty goverment his composed by human being with their bias, prejudice, interest, belief and not by Vulcans from Star Trek.

What does this mean? The British are stupid for wanting a Navy big enough to stop another power trying Unrestricted Submarine Warfare against them, or the Italians are stupid for thinking they can dominate the Mediterranean without alienating Britain?

No, that goverment made mistake and they admit it only if forced and honestly try a treaty so favorable to them (and the americans) just after having 'clashed' with France during the negotiation with Germany is not a long term good thing, still it's 'reasonable' in their eyes because the British goverment believe that the French will be to occupied with facing the Germans than they don't have the will and resources to react. Plus the British wanting a big navy, especially in a period when military expediture will be frowed up as money is tight (even if less than OTL) and frankly the population is tired need to be justified, for this reason the goverment will push for the 'we have won alone' myth to finance the ships but as any myth and narrative even if the higher up know better, it tend to take a live of his own and have a lot of hold in the pubblic opinion and so force the politician to take certain action; plus i see the navy push for this ITTL as money will not be so much and fight for the budget will be fierce, even because there is a new branch that will want his piece of the cake, the air force...but yeah sure, it's all because i hate the Unite Kingdom with the passion of thousand suns (yeah is sarcasm)


That much is totally clear, believe me.

So anybody that don't proclaim the perfection and absolute right of any action done by the United Kingdom is anti-British?
 
By the early 1900s Britain did need allies - or at least friends - lest everyone gang up on her. Hence the Entente etc.

In the 1920s TTL, it's even more true.
 
I think I can put a few minds at rest re Anglo-European alliances and tensions ... and perhaps open up more what ifs while doing so ... :)

There is no overt Anglo-French hostility, just that the two nations have reverted from being wartime allies to being determined, self-interested powers with a history of pushing others (and each other) around. Naturally, that means they don't entirely trust each other, but there's nothing new there.
France suffered very heavy losses and is still struggling to recover from the war, but that process is certainly underway.

For Britain the post-war 'return to normalcy' (to borrow a 1920 American phrase) means the Empire comes first, and they might want to see themselves as aloof from the rest of the world, only dabbling in continental affairs when it suits them (the classic joke headline from the 60s applies equally well - 'Fog in the Channel, Europe cut off from Britain').
It also reflects the real (and TTL) issue that the Empire stopped being a dynamic, growing institution in the 1890s-1900s, and by the 1920s it was stagnating in all sorts of ways.
British policy therefore became increasingly reactive, rather than proactive.
At present in the story (about early 1923), no-one is really bothering the British, so that is likely to continue for a while yet.

The advantage they have over OTL is that their confidence hasn't been totally shattered by the war, only set back a fair way. The 'myth of British invincibility' still has a few tiny grains of truth about it. That's a fool's paradise in the long term, but it would certainly reflect a decent chunk of British public opinion in the 20s.
In the immediate postwar period, that gave them the confidence to return to imperial isolation, but going forward it might be more usefully employed in forging or reforging alliances.

When Germany and/or Russia rise again, or if something changes in the Ottoman Empire, the situation will become very different to this early postwar tranquility.
At that point, any more astute Brit will see that the country needs a continental ally; including at least one of Russia, France, Germany, Italy.
Russia seems pretty unlikely, and the other three all have their pros and cons.

From a naval perspective, they need to secure the Atlantic (which is also in America's interest) and the Med. The Indian Ocean is a British lake (with a few Dutch ships along its shores). The routes onward to China and Australia bring them closer to Japanese interests, but so far Japan is more of a concern than a threat.
 
At that point, any more astute Brit will see that the country needs a continental ally; including at least one of Russia, France, Germany, Italy.
Russia seems pretty unlikely

I'm not sure about this, in some ways Russia and Britain are a good match, Russia desperately needs foreign investment capital and an ally against Germany, Britain can provide the first while France no longer can and assuming Anglo-German hostility remains it can might be able to provide the later. Russia in this tl is going to be primarily western focused, so you'd see less friction over Persia and Afghanistan than in the 19th century while France as another Empire has competing interests in a number of other places.
 
Good Intentions on the Road to Hell
Good Intentions on the Road to Hell

The Washington Treaty of 1921 stated that a ‘light battleship’ of under 23,000 tons Standard Displacement would only use up 14,000 tons of a nations’ capital ship tonnage allocation. The clause was created to massage the figures in favour of the Royal Navy, by allowing them to keep larger numbers of ships, while having tonnage parity with the US Navy.
The classification also helped to keep the French in the Treaty, as it allowed them to have seven battleships for the same Treaty tonnage as Italy’s six (all existing French ships fell under the ‘light battleship’ classification, while Italy’s 30,500-ton Caracciolo did not).

The clause was hastily added and was used as a negotiating tool, changing several times before reaching its final form. In 1921, it never occurred to negotiators that anyone would want to build new 23,000-ton ships. British, American and Japanese concepts had been heading for 50,000 tons, and designers had devoted their efforts towards what could be built on ‘as little as’ 36,000 tons.

However, following the end of the war, old rivalries and new realities began to surface. Italy and France still needed to secure the sea lanes links to their African Empires, while even a limited force in the Mediterranean gave them influence with the British. The French felt the need to deter any possible Italian adventurism in North Africa. The Italians weren’t going to be pushed around by the French, and they also had near-neighbours in Serbia, Greece and the Ottoman Empire who possessed capital ships.
Neither nation was likely to be in a position to challenge the major powers, and both faced financial constraints. Against that, their fleets only had to be capable of fighting their likely enemies – the older, smaller ships of the various Mediterranean nations. Italy had a single 15” fast battleship, and Greece had a lone 14” vessel, but everything else in the region had either 12” or 13.5” guns. With a treaty allocation of just 12,000 tons/year, each power could only complete one new 16” super-dreadnought every three years.

In 1922, the Italian government had tried to arrange an exchange of territory; in return for parts of Slovenia, the Serb government would give Italy a series of islands in the Adriatic, securing access to the port of Fiume. The issue was muddied by Slovenes who sought full independence and who delayed the matter through attempting to arrange a plebiscite organised by the League of Nations. Afraid of angering other powers and scuppering the deal, Italian forces backed off from confronting these Slovenian dissidents on several occasions that summer. The matter was eventually resolved between Italy and Serbia directly, but it left the Italian government looking weak.
Meanwhile, a series of inconclusive skirmishes between Greek-backed Anatolian separatists and Ottoman forces had been defused by the League, leaving the Greek government looking equally ineffective. To try to regain the initiative and boost their own popularity, the Greek government then demanded the return of the Dodecanese islands from Italy, and sent the Greek Navy to exercise near the islands, in what were nominally Italian waters.
The Regia Marina responded by despatching a fleet, including the battleships Cavour and Duilio, to reinforce the islands. Wary of igniting a conflict, the Italians secured the harbours and patrolled the sea lanes, but out at sea the Greeks proved more agile. The battleship Salamis repeatedly intercepted and evaded the Italian squadron in both national and international waters, seemingly trying to goad the Italians into firing first. Neither the Cavour or the Duilio could keep up with the fast Greek ship, and the Italian Admiral requested reinforcements of torpedo boats.

These were on their way when a Royal Navy squadron arrived in the Aegean, and the Greeks were persuaded the return to their home waters. The islands were secured, but within the Regia Marina, the inability to intercept the Salamis was grave cause for concern. Their only fast battleship, the Caracciolo, had been under refit, and seemed likely that the Navy would need more fast vessels in the future.

By the autumn of 1923, a new Italian government included members of the Fascist party, whose views reinforced the need to make a bold statement about the nation’s future power and prosperity. In addition to the military requirement, nothing said ‘power’ quite like a battleship.
A 36,000-ton vessel was out of the question financially, but Italian designers had a valuable trick available, if they were prepared to go for something smaller. In 1916, the battleship Da Vinci had suffered an internal explosion in harbour and was deemed to be a total loss. However, the wreck had been salvaged, and four of her five turrets (two twins and two triples) and their 12” guns were in good condition and could be re-used.
What really sold the plan was the idea of using the ‘light battleship’ clause to permit the building of two new ships, each with eight 12” guns, for which only two new triple turrets and six guns would be needed. The Italian Navy had already begun a cruiser programme, and high-powered machinery could be adapted from that.

This pair of fast ships could be used to put the slow French fleet off-balance if needs be, while each would be capable of taking on the Serbian, Greek or Turkish vessels.

Italy BC line.png

Etna as completed​

Outline of the Vesuvio class.
LOA: 667’, Beam: 90’
22,500 tons designed Standard Displacement; 27,350 tons Full Load.

8-12” guns (3-2-3), 8-5.3” guns (4x2), 4-3.9” guns (HA).

12” (actually 300mm) Belt, 3” (75mm) Main Deck, 10” Barbettes, 12”-4” Turrets, 10” Conning Tower, 1.5” Torpedo Bulkhead.
Rated power: 120,000shp for 32 knots
Vesuvio on trials: 138,200shp for 33.32 knots at 22,780 tons, real sea speed about 31 knots.
 
Last edited:

Stenz

Monthly Donor
I'm not sure about this, in some ways Russia and Britain are a good match

Whilst I agree geopolitically, wouldn’t Russia’s performance in the last War and propensity for collapse into revolution at a military setback (1905, 1917, 1917) paint them as somewhat of a less than ideal ally if one is planning for world war redux?

Also, Britain supporting Russia and making her strong again is kind of counterproductive when a strong Russia is a threat to the British Empire.
 
Regarding Italy, the agreement will be more on : we permit a referendum about the future of Slovenia (Italy, independent or joining Jugoslavia and the third option will be probably win as Jugoslavism was very strong at the time even if by 1923 it was already clear that Jugoslavia was just another name for Greatest Serbia) in exchange Serb...ehm Jugoslavia will give Italy what promised by the treaty of London of 1915. Givin up Slovenia will be easy, too problematic and too populated and frankly nobody really care, with Italy keeping basically OTL border and all the protest will probably happen between the end of the war and the date of referendum. Serb...again ehm Jugoslavian goverment will be extremely reluctant to give up that territory and the most probably outcome will Fiume as an independent city and direct possession of Zara/Zadar and Spalato/Split and probably a couple more of island of OTL. And yes this will make the goverment look weak, especially if it come out after an agreement similar to OTL with the arabs and senussi in Libya to stop the rebellion (ITTL will be probably less favorable to the locals as Italy have more resources to deal with them, still will not look good on the goverment resumè)
So Greece will have chosen the wrong time to bullying the dragon, the italian goverment surely will not even entertain the idea to give up the dodecanese, especially to a little upstart (from the italian pow) like Greece as if they do they can kiss goodbye to their great power status and while move in Regia Marina in the zone will be the first move, the second phase is to concentrate troops in Albania and send some soldiers and ships to make a prolonged vacation in Corfù, the only thing that had probably stopped this it's the arrival of the RN and the solution of the argument
 
Well that sets the Italian cat among the Mediterranean pigeons, Vesuvio wouldn't last very long against a real first battlecruiser like HMS Rodney but with 12" armour they have an immune zone against the Sultan Osman/ex-Rio de Janeiro/OTL HMS Agincourt and while Reshadeih/OTL HMS Erin would be more of a problem with her 13.5" guns it wouldn't be a forgone conclusion.
 
Top