Resolved, the 2nd German Empire’s actual mistake is the opposite of what you’ve been told

[sillygoose]

Your entire post is extremely one-sided, to the point of becoming almost satirical. I understand that there is a correction underway regarding the "Germany wanted WAR!!!" narrative that has dominated for too long. Indeed, I was never a fan of putting the blame for the war altogether on Germany (either explicitly or explicitly). To make a point, one may even credibly compile a whole thesis serving exclusively to give evidence of Anglo-French war guilt.

This does not mean, however, that blithely leaning towards the "evil Anglo" narrative is any more reasonable than uncritically believing that Germany was evil.

Unfortunately, your post is precisely an example of that lamentable over-correction. You consequently cherry-pick examples, ascribe the wort motives to every British decision, but the most noble ones to every German decision, and utterly drop the context when it comes to many events and issues. The result is an utterly warped picture. A falsehood, woven together of highly selective truths mixed with extremely dubious interpretations.

So specifically what did I post that makes the German moves only sound noble? They were the newcomers and trying to react to a hostile reaction from the existing powers who were relatively falling off. All I'm seeing you post is sophistry because you don't like the conclusion that the evidence points towards.

To you, what Britain claims is, by default, "largely the excuse that British propaganda used to justify their increasingly hostile behavior". But what Germany says must be the truth. So when Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg ended the naval arms race, we must uncritically accept that this was an overture of peace. The fact that the German economy was stalling and Germany simply realised it couldn't afford to keep up the arms race is happily ignored. German claims must just be taken at face value, while British claims are always suspect. hat's a double standard, my friend.

Britain built a super battleship first and planned to blockade Germany before it was even ready. They also threatened blockade and a 'copenhagen' attack in the Boer War for Germany even daring to bring up their desire to have their commercial interests protected as Britain was conquering yet another part of the globe. See Clark's "Sleepwalkers" for the details on that. Funny how British historiography leaves things like that out of the narrative.

B-H specifically offered to end naval construction, which is what Britain had been afraid of and only asked in return that Britain pledge not to stab Germany in the back in the event of a war that Germany did not provoke. How is that not a peace offer???

Also the entire concept of a 'race' was a British invention to wring money out of parliament, which was going to cut the naval budget to fund social programs after the Liberal party was elected. They even doctored intel (which is mentioned in the linked article on the naval arms race) to claim that the Germans were secretly building more ships when in fact just accelerated part of the construction of a single ship in Danzig to prevent a layoff of workers at the construction facility.

The German economy wasn't stalling, it had to shift funding to the army because of the Russian and French military buildups. Again mentioned in the article. And they did so anyway even without Britain agreeing; instead all Grey did was intensify the already hostile policy toward Germany despite the supposed antagonizing naval race being over.

The German claims are dissected in the article, same with the British ones. It is fair you just don't like the obvious conclusion was that Britain was pursuing conflict with Germany rather than the other way around.

Similarly, you happily take Wilhelm's words on the relative size of the navies as gospel truth, but ignore that on several other occasions, Wilhelm had explicitly said -- to Edward's face -- that he would one day have a navy to rival that of Britain.

Look at the force ratios between the CPs and Entente in 1914. 3:1 tonnage advantage of the Entente over the CPs. The numbers don't lie. All you have is a one off remark by Wilhelm taken out of context. Who is holding the double standard now, especially when you ignore documented British naval threats against Germany that preceded said remark?

In the same vein, you suggest that Britain was somehow disproportionally worrried about German naval ambitions, but the fact is: only Wilhelm explicitly made it a point that his navy was intended to rival the Royal Navy. France and Russia never gave such indications. The British worry wasn't unreasonable. Wilhelm clearly had designs, and they could well be dangerous ones. Nor was Britain somehow alone in reaching this conclusion.

When? In an offhanded comment to his uncle? Germany was actively threatened by Britain before that with blockade and naval attack on her coasts, they had justification to build up a defensive fleet to fight against such.

You appear to absurdly blame Britain for being worried and angry about Germany making a play of being the protectors of the Boers. That's not an unreasonable response. Moreover, German interests in Southern Africa were quite recent, and were also purely a result of Wilhelm seeking his "place in the sun".

You're basing that off a single remark. Who is biased here?
Germany was interested in keeping the Boers around because of commercial reasons, the British are the fuckers that started 2 wars to conquer the Boers for profit. Again how is that Germany acting badly? That is Britain that was the aggressors and how only got pissed off because another country dared challenge their warmongering. You think the British empire came about because the British were simply the most virtuous?

Regardless of when German interests came to the region, why does that give Britain the right to conquer a country because they felt like dominating the economic interests there and dispossessing everyone else?

Which brings us to the centre point of this whole debate. @Scottty argued that Britain targeted Germany because Britain didn't want to allow a contental hegemon. I have disputed this. You... actually prove my point for me, albeit unintentionally. Because nothing you talk about is remotely related to continental hegemony.

Get your narcissism under control. Nothing of that sort happened. Hegemony can happen different ways, Germany was becoming the industrial heart of Europe and with it the economic hegemon on the continent and THAT is what Britain wanted to prevent. You're only assuming a Nazi-like continental hegemon rather than an early 20th century one who gained influence through economic power.

Germany agressively sought to expand its naval power, with the (uniquely) explicit aim of rivaling Britain in particular. Germany sought colonies, where it had previously been a power aloof of that game, and in fact a respected mediator. Germany involved itself in the foreign affairs of other powers, with no excuse.

Again what was aggressive about building up a navy that would allow them to defend against a British blockade, which was threatened in the 1890s, or naval first strike? For all your claims about how you don't adhere to the standard British narrative about the conflict you sure are pushing it very hard.

How did Germany involve itself aggressively in other country's foreign affairs? Germany was competing exactly the same as everyone else, they just were doing so more effectively than certain British interests were willing to tolerate. If anything Britain was the one interfering in everyone else's business, as they colonized 25% of the entire friggin' planet and started wars constantly!

Were there Francophile elements in Britain? Certainly. Were there British politicians who were overly eager for war against Germany? Certainly. But were they fated to be a majority? Certainly not. Germany needlessly turned Britain into an enemy by a senseless sequence of poorly considered actions. Because did the British worry about the German army? No. Did they worry about Germany's continental ambitions? No.

Those Francophile warmongers were the ones in charge from 1905 onwards when the relationship between Germany and Britain fell apart. Britain could have chosen to tolerate German actions if they were willing to avoid war and in fact ally with them, they were at a minimum equally part of the problem. There were numerous opportunities for Britain to check Germany by actually negotiating deals with her like they did with the French and Russians, but every time the Germans tried to initiate that Britain is the one that backed out and took an increasingly aggressive stance against Germany. Also Germany didn't really have continental ambitions other than to avoid being encircled and having trade partners. Like all the rest of the Euros they were looking abroad for markets, just like Britain, and were being edged out constantly because Britain and France didn't like competition.

Therefore, the thesis that I dispute -- that Britain was fated to be Germany's foe because Germany was looking for continental hegemony -- is simply false. Britain became Germany's foe because Germany took step after bloody step to make it so. All Germany would have to do to gain permanent peace was to spend all the OTL naval investments on the army; seek no colonies; and don't oppose British war aims in far-flung corners of the Earth that Germany shouldn't give a damn about anyway.

For all your claims about being a neutral you sure are pushing the exact standard British narrative over and over and totally ignoring Britain's aggression and her foreign minister's stated goal to be aggressive against Germany rather than finding a way to accommodate German market ambitions globally, as you'd expect any growing economy to seek out.

You call this, I suppose, "completely submitting their foreign policy to British demands". But what does this leave Germany free to do? Well... become continental hegemon. Which what Britain supposedly wouldn't ever allow. But clearly, that was never the reason for enmity at all.

What else would you call it? You're specifically stating the only way that Germany could have maintained semi-friendly relations with the British was to remain a mid-sized workshop nation confined to Europe with a stunted economy by shutting itself off from global trade to avoid irritating British interests. AKA totally submitting to Britain's vision of the world and being totally at the mercy of the British fleet and goodwill. You're seriously going to tell us that Britain would tolerate the German army dominating Europe? They wouldn't even accept Germany peaceably trading with the Ottomans!

Britain and Germany could easily be allies. One rules the waves, the other rules the land. One has the strongest army on the planet, the other has the strongest navy. They have their own spheres, and no conflicting interests at all. It makes perfect sense. The fundamental reason why it didn't happen isn't that Britain is exclusively dominated by scheming psychopaths. It's that Wilhelm II was obsessed with goals that did directly conflict with British interests. How foolish. How pointless. What did some stupid colonies ever provide for Germany? What did those damn ships ever gain the Kaiser? And what the fuck did the Boers ever do for the Germans?

Then why did Britain rebuff that exact effort in 1901? Germany tried and that only after they were rebuffed was there any hit of naval expansion, but even then Britain didn't consider that threatening until the 1908s naval law that was created to deal with Britain making every battleship in the world obsolete with the Dreadnought. Even then that law was crafted to avoid antagonizing the British, but since the British navy had already decided before the Dreadnought was launched that Germany was public enemy number 1 and they needed funding to upgrade the entire fleet with Dreadnought class BBs then spun German actions as 'threatening' and diverted money away from social spending so they could get the fleet of their dreams.

The size and scope of the British empire would challenge your claims about the lack of scheming psychopaths in charge; hell the Boer Wars would also challenge that. Read about Churchill and the lovely things he had to say privately and tell me he was mentally balanced. No one would care what Wilhelm blabbed about if they weren't trying to gin up a war scare to get funding for more weapons.

Again you're just locked into British historiography in which they 'dindu nuffin' and it was all the other baddies out there that were responsible.

In a world where Wilhelm was born stable and competent, the Germans and the English could have shaken hands, like Blücher and Wellington, while celebrating in a conquered Paris.

First of all you don't understand how German government actually worked if you think Wilhelm was actually in charge of anything in the constitutional monarchy of the 2nd Reich and you certainly don't understand how media manipulation works if you think anything Wilhelm said was actually enough to cause the conflict. Only media spin and active efforts to gin up a war scare in Britain caused anything Wilhelm said to appear to be any sort of threat.

I hate to break it to you, but the Napoleonic wars only saw a good relationship with Prussia and Britain to defeat France, it was not the basis of a lasting alliance, especially once Germany eclipsed France.
In fact the conflict between Britain and France shows that Britain was more interested in attacking the largest power in Europe rather than accommodating it.

 

[Aldarion]

Your entire post is extremely one-sided, to the point of becoming almost satirical. I understand that there is a correction underway regarding the "Germany wanted WAR!!!" narrative that has dominated for too long. Indeed, I was never a fan of putting the blame for the war altogether on Germany (either explicitly or explicitly). To make a point, one may even credibly compile a whole thesis serving exclusively to give evidence of Anglo-French war guilt.

This does not mean, however, that blithely leaning towards the "evil Anglo" narrative is any more reasonable than uncritically believing that Germany was evil.

Unfortunately, your post is precisely an example of that lamentable over-correction. You consequently cherry-pick examples, ascribe the wort motives to every British decision, but the most noble ones to every German decision, and utterly drop the context when it comes to many events and issues. The result is an utterly warped picture. A falsehood, woven together of highly selective truths mixed with extremely dubious interpretations.

To you, what Britain claims is, by default, "largely the excuse that British propaganda used to justify their increasingly hostile behavior". But what Germany says must be the truth. So when Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg ended the naval arms race, we must uncritically accept that this was an overture of peace. The fact that the German economy was stalling and Germany simply realised it couldn't afford to keep up the arms race is happily ignored. German claims must just be taken at face value, while British claims are always suspect. hat's a double standard, my friend.

Similarly, you happily take Wilhelm's words on the relative size of the navies as gospel truth, but ignore that on several other occasions, Wilhelm had explicitly said -- to Edward's face -- that he would one day have a navy to rival that of Britain.

In the same vein, you suggest that Britain was somehow disproportionally worrried about German naval ambitions, but the fact is: only Wilhelm explicitly made it a point that his navy was intended to rival the Royal Navy. France and Russia never gave such indications. The British worry wasn't unreasonable. Wilhelm clearly had designs, and they could well be dangerous ones. Nor was Britain somehow alone in reaching this conclusion.

You appear to absurdly blame Britain for being worried and angry about Germany making a play of being the protectors of the Boers. That's not an unreasonable response. Moreover, German interests in Southern Africa were quite recent, and were also purely a result of Wilhelm seeking his "place in the sun".

Which brings us to the centre point of this whole debate. @Scottty argued that Britain targeted Germany because Britain didn't want to allow a contental hegemon. I have disputed this. You... actually prove my point for me, albeit unintentionally. Because nothing you talk about is remotely related to continental hegemony.

Germany agressively sought to expand its naval power, with the (uniquely) explicit aim of rivaling Britain in particular. Germany sought colonies, where it had previously been a power aloof of that game, and in fact a respected mediator. Germany involved itself in the foreign affairs of other powers, with no excuse.

Were there Francophile elements in Britain? Certainly. Were there British politicians who were overly eager for war against Germany? Certainly. But were they fated to be a majority? Certainly not. Germany needlessly turned Britain into an enemy by a senseless sequence of poorly considered actions. Because did the British worry about the German army? No. Did they worry about Germany's continental ambitions? No.

Therefore, the thesis that I dispute -- that Britain was fated to be Germany's foe because Germany was looking for continental hegemony -- is simply false. Britain became Germany's foe because Germany took step after bloody step to make it so. All Germany would have to do to gain permanent peace was to spend all the OTL naval investments on the army; seek no colonies; and don't oppose British war aims in far-flung corners of the Earth that Germany shouldn't give a damn about anyway.

You call this, I suppose, "completely submitting their foreign policy to British demands". But what does this leave Germany free to do? Well... become continental hegemon. Which what Britain supposedly wouldn't ever allow. But clearly, that was never the reason for enmity at all.

Britain and Germany could easily be allies. One rules the waves, the other rules the land. One has the strongest army on the planet, the other has the strongest navy. They have their own spheres, and no conflicting interests at all. It makes perfect sense. The fundamental reason why it didn't happen isn't that Britain is exclusively dominated by scheming psychopaths. It's that Wilhelm II was obsessed with goals that did directly conflict with British interests. How foolish. How pointless. What did some stupid colonies ever provide for Germany? What did those damn ships ever gain the Kaiser? And what the fuck did the Boers ever do for the Germans?

In a world where Wilhelm was born stable and competent, the Germans and the English could have shaken hands, like Blücher and Wellington, while celebrating in a conquered Paris.

To answer all your questions of "What... German navy", watch this:

 

[Skallagrim]

To answer all your questions of "What... German navy", watch this:

The irony here is that Wilhelm apparently did subscribe to that theory, when he should have subscribed to Mackinder's heartland model. To be fair, though, Mahan published in 1890, and Mackinder in 1904. The fact remains that the German destiny was best served through Mitteleuropa, not by attempting senseless naval ambitions.

Of course, there were Germans who had intuited the exact same thing Mackinder had noticed, and who correspondingly advocated war against the ascendant Russian danger. Britain could likewise have realised that Russia was ultimately a greater potential threat than Germany. And many in Britain did! Look at the 20th century, and see that view proven right. Who was the more persistent existential threat? Germany, or the USSR? And we must fully realise that communism is essentially a poison to any nation that adopts it. A non-communist Russian Empire would have been a far greater danger still.

Therefore, I repeat my assertion that Britain could -- and should -- have allied with Germany to counter Russia, and its ally, the French Republic (itself deeply poisoned by socialism already). Contrary to what @sillygoose still claims, there were many in Britain who carried no hate for Germany at all. Conversely, distrust of Russia and France ran deep. It was not Germany's destiny to antagonise Britain. It was Wilhelm II who exercised enormous influence on the course of events. He favoured the colonial lobby. He favoured the naval lobby. And he had a twisted psychological complex about all things British.

This man insanely sought to turn a land power, a continental power, into a naval and colonial power -- thereby alienating Britain, which became a competitor when it could have been a collaborator.

 

[WolfBear]

The irony here is that Wilhelm apparently did subscribe to that theory, when he should have subscribed to Mackinder's heartland model. To be fair, though, Mahan published in 1890, and Mackinder in 1904. The fact remains that the German destiny was best served through Mitteleuropa, not by attempting senseless naval ambitions.

Of course, there were Germans who had intuited the exact same thing Mackinder had noticed, and who correspondingly advocated war against the ascendant Russian danger. Britain could likewise have realised that Russia was ultimately a greater potential threat than Germany. And many in Britain did! Look at the 20th century, and see that view proven right. Who was the more persistent existential threat? Germany, or the USSR? And we must fully realise that communism is essentially a poison to any nation that adopts it. A non-communist Russian Empire would have been a far greater danger still.

Therefore, I repeat my assertion that Britain could -- and should -- have allied with Germany to counter Russia, and its ally, the French Republic (itself deeply poisoned by socialism already). Contrary to what @sillygoose still claims, there were many in Britain who carried no hate for Germany at all. Conversely, distrust of Russia and France ran deep. It was not Germany's destiny to antagonise Britain. It was Wilhelm II who exercised enormous influence on the course of events. He favoured the colonial lobby. He favoured the naval lobby. And he had a twisted psychological complex about all things British.

This man insanely sought to turn a land power, a continental power, into a naval and colonial power -- thereby alienating Britain, which became a competitor when it could have been a collaborator.

Excellent analysis and it's also worth noting that any German satellite states in Eastern Europe might have been worth more than any German colonial expansion.

 

[sillygoose]

Therefore, I repeat my assertion that Britain could -- and should -- have allied with Germany to counter Russia, and its ally, the French Republic (itself deeply poisoned by socialism already). Contrary to what @sillygoose still claims, there were many in Britain who carried no hate for Germany at all. Conversely, distrust of Russia and France ran deep. It was not Germany's destiny to antagonise Britain. It was Wilhelm II who exercised enormous influence on the course of events. He favoured the colonial lobby. He favoured the naval lobby. And he had a twisted psychological complex about all things British.

Again Britain's fuck up, not Germany's. Of course there were people in Britain, the majority in fact, who had no hate for Germany. The power brokers though did and they decide what happens, so there was war. Again Germany offered an alliance Britain refused and OTL was because of the policies of the British power elite.

This man insanely sought to turn a land power, a continental power, into a naval and colonial power -- thereby alienating Britain, which became a competitor when it could have been a collaborator.

Ok you really have zero understanding of how Germany worked in this period. Wilhelm was a friggin' constitutional monarch, not a dictator. The naval construction plan was a policy of the Reichstag, middle class, and industrialists. Even if Wilhelm opposed it he wouldn't have been able to stop it.

 

[WolfBear]

Ok you really have zero understanding of how Germany worked in this period. Wilhelm was a friggin' constitutional monarch, not a dictator. The naval construction plan was a policy of the Reichstag, middle class, and industrialists. Even if Wilhelm opposed it he wouldn't have been able to stop it.

He could have proposed an alternative project to win over hearts and minds, such as a truck construction program for the German military, no?

 

[Skallagrim]

Ok you really have zero understanding of how Germany worked in this period. Wilhelm was a friggin' constitutional monarch, not a dictator. The naval construction plan was a policy of the Reichstag, middle class, and industrialists. Even if Wilhelm opposed it he wouldn't have been able to stop it.

You dramatically under-estimate the influence the Kaiser had on policy. There were various factions that supported all sorts of schemes and policies, and had he lent his support to alternative cliques, things would have ended up very differently. The major industrialists just flocked to the naval programme because Wilhelm was so enthousiastic about that, so that was their obvious 'in'; the way to get huge investments, which is what they wanted. If he'd been super into railways, the whole industrialist clique would have gone whole hog on that. The middle class, meanwhile, wanted those sweet, sweet jobs to become available. But just the same, there's dozens of ways other than ship-building to get that done.

You say I have zero understanding, but you seem fixed on a determined track of events, and don't see the possibilities for alternative tracks that would support the same fundamental interests in different ways.

 

[sillygoose]

You dramatically under-estimate the influence the Kaiser had on policy. There were various factions that supported all sorts of schemes and policies, and had he lent his support to alternative cliques, things would have ended up very differently. The major industrialists just flocked to the naval programme because Wilhelm was so enthousiastic about that, so that was their obvious 'in'; the way to get huge investments, which is what they wanted. If he'd been super into railways, the whole industrialist clique would have gone whole hog on that. The middle class, meanwhile, wanted those sweet, sweet jobs to become available. But just the same, there's dozens of ways other than ship-building to get that done.

You say I have zero understanding, but you seem fixed on a determined track of events, and don't see the possibilities for alternative tracks that would support the same fundamental interests in different ways.

You literally have yet to cite a source, I have several. Until you do you don't get taken seriously with your accusations.
Especially considering you don't understand that only the Reichstag could vote funds for the navy, so Wilhelm couldn't force anything through.
Take a read:

Navy League (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wilhelm had some influence, but the Reichstag made the decision.

 

[sillygoose]

He could have proposed an alternative project to win over hearts and minds, such as a truck construction program for the German military, no?

He could, doesn't mean it would work.

 

[WolfBear]

You literally have yet to cite a source, I have several. Until you do you don't get taken seriously with your accusations.
Especially considering you don't understand that only the Reichstag could vote funds for the navy, so Wilhelm couldn't force anything through.
Take a read:

Navy League (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wilhelm had some influence, but the Reichstag made the decision.

He could talk to the Reichstag members and try changing their midns and influencing their views, no?

 

[Skallagrim]

You literally have yet to cite a source, I have several. Until you do you don't get taken seriously with your accusations.
Especially considering you don't understand that only the Reichstag could vote funds for the navy, so Wilhelm couldn't force anything through.
Take a read:

Navy League (Germany) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wilhelm had some influence, but the Reichstag made the decision.

Literally in the article you link: "The German naval policy changed decisively upon the accession of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 and the resignation of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck two years later."

...I wonder if there's a causal link there.

Meanwhile, the whole Deutscher Flottenverein was only founded ten years later. Hmmm. Seems like the thing you point to as being the great big influence is actually the result of the thing I pointed to. Seems like, just as I said, the naval advocates specifically embraced that particular topic because it was so near and dear to the Kaiser's heart. Path of least resistance, and all.

I tell you, had the Kaiser been obsessed with the army, they'd all have been into funding railways, land vehicles, artillery, et cetera. Doubly so if the Kaiser had also been adamantly against colonialism (as Bismarck was, so not sacking Bismarck is a great first move), in which case there'd be even less reason/excuse to focus on a fleet.

 

[WolfBear]

Literally in the article you link: "The German naval policy changed decisively upon the accession of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 and the resignation of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck two years later."

...I wonder if there's a causal link there.

Meanwhile, the whole Deutscher Flottenverein was only founded ten years later. Hmmm. Seems like the thing you point to as being the great big influence is actually the result of the thing I pointed to. Seems like, just as I said, the naval advocates specifically embraced that particular topic because it was so near and dear to the Kaiser's heart. Path of least resistance, and all.

I tell you, had the Kaiser been obsessed with the army, they'd all have been into funding railways, land vehicles, artillery, et cetera. Doubly so if the Kaiser had also been adamantly against colonialism (as Bismarck was, so not sacking Bismarck is a great first move), in which case there'd be even less reason/excuse to focus on a fleet.

Bismarck was sacked because he wanted to aggressively crack down on German socialists, if I recall correctly.

But otherwise, your analysis here makes perfect sense.

Investing in trucks might have also subsequently helped with the Schlieffen Plan:

H-Net Discussion Networks - Reply: German thinking about trucks before 1914? (2)

lists.h-net.org

 

[Skallagrim]

Bismarck was sacked because he wanted to aggressively crack down on German socialists, if I recall correctly.

I don't mean to imply that Bismarck was fired over colonialism. Just that keeping him on, in general, would have been smart. He opposed the many stupid policies that Wilhelm II embraced.

A smarter, mentally stable Wilhelm II could just have backed Bismarck. (About the anti-socialist laws, too. The Kaiser's support would assuredly have kept the Kartell in line.)

 

[WolfBear]

I don't mean to imply that Bismarck was fired over colonialism. Just that keeping him on, in general, would have been smart. He opposed the many stupid policies that Wilhelm II embraced.

A smarter, mentally stable Wilhelm II could just have backed Bismarck. (About the anti-socialist laws, too. The Kaiser's support would assuredly have kept the Kartell in line.)

FWIW, I think that, other than his anti-socialist views, Bismarck's extreme Polonophobia was also rather irrational. But otherwise, he was a relatively decent politician for his time, Yes.

 

[Skallagrim]

FWIW, I think that, other than his anti-socialist views, Bismarck's extreme Polonophobia was also rather irrational. But otherwise, he was a relatively decent politician for his time, Yes.

I think that ties into the Kulturkampf and his obsession with a German-and-Protestant nation. It was his weaker point, certainly. Of course, by the time Wilhelm II ascended the thron, that was actually all done already, so it's not like it matters much at this stage.

 

[WolfBear]

I think that ties into the Kulturkampf and his obsession with a German-and-Protestant nation. It was his weaker point, certainly. Of course, by the time Wilhelm II ascended the thron, that was actually all done already, so it's not like it matters much at this stage.

Well, AFAIK, the Germanization policies in places such as Posen continued under Kaiser Bill:

Prussian Settlement Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sillygoose]

Literally in the article you link: "The German naval policy changed decisively upon the accession of Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1888 and the resignation of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck two years later."

...I wonder if there's a causal link there.

Yet Britain didn't have a problem with it until 1908. Or really 1905 when the RN formulated the blockade policy.

Meanwhile, the whole Deutscher Flottenverein was only founded ten years later. Hmmm. Seems like the thing you point to as being the great big influence is actually the result of the thing I pointed to. Seems like, just as I said, the naval advocates specifically embraced that particular topic because it was so near and dear to the Kaiser's heart. Path of least resistance, and all.

So what decisive changes actually happened in the 1890s? Or is it a hollow phrase?
Seems is one of those dangerous words if not supported by actual data.

I tell you, had the Kaiser been obsessed with the army, they'd all have been into funding railways, land vehicles, artillery, et cetera. Doubly so if the Kaiser had also been adamantly against colonialism (as Bismarck was, so not sacking Bismarck is a great first move), in which case there'd be even less reason/excuse to focus on a fleet.

How could they be when all the biggest economies in the world were colonialists and Germany would have been economically limited by refraining from a global trade network when globalism was the word of the day? Seems like you think Germany should have had to play by different rules than Britain.

 

[Chiron]

You dramatically under-estimate the influence the Kaiser had on policy.

Wilhelm's time saw the King of Bavaria removed and murdered in a palace coup shortly before he became Emperor.

He lived at the mercy of the German State Bureaucracy. One false move and he would be deposed. As it was, he was essentially usurped by Hindenburg and then forced to Abdicate when shit went down in 18.

 

[Aldarion]

The irony here is that Wilhelm apparently did subscribe to that theory, when he should have subscribed to Mackinder's heartland model. To be fair, though, Mahan published in 1890, and Mackinder in 1904. The fact remains that the German destiny was best served through Mitteleuropa, not by attempting senseless naval ambitions.

Of course, there were Germans who had intuited the exact same thing Mackinder had noticed, and who correspondingly advocated war against the ascendant Russian danger. Britain could likewise have realised that Russia was ultimately a greater potential threat than Germany. And many in Britain did! Look at the 20th century, and see that view proven right. Who was the more persistent existential threat? Germany, or the USSR? And we must fully realise that communism is essentially a poison to any nation that adopts it. A non-communist Russian Empire would have been a far greater danger still.

Therefore, I repeat my assertion that Britain could -- and should -- have allied with Germany to counter Russia, and its ally, the French Republic (itself deeply poisoned by socialism already). Contrary to what @sillygoose still claims, there were many in Britain who carried no hate for Germany at all. Conversely, distrust of Russia and France ran deep. It was not Germany's destiny to antagonise Britain. It was Wilhelm II who exercised enormous influence on the course of events. He favoured the colonial lobby. He favoured the naval lobby. And he had a twisted psychological complex about all things British.

This man insanely sought to turn a land power, a continental power, into a naval and colonial power -- thereby alienating Britain, which became a competitor when it could have been a collaborator.

That was kinda my point. Wilhelm - and so many during that time - subscribed to Mahan's idea that control of the sea was a key aspect for any power - even those on the continent. So I have to wonder whether Wilhelm's project of building a navy really was just vanity, as often suggested - rather, I would argue that it was a serious project based on the fundamental misreading of strategic realities. You already covered the rest of it, and I agree with your points, so I'll stop here.

EDIT: To add here however, the time before World War I was insanely globalistic, and rush for colonies was an aspect of that. So while it may have been possible for Germany to avoid colonial craze, it would have been incredibly difficult - especially with German industry rapidly developing post-unification.

 

[WolfBear]

EDIT: To add here however, the time before World War I was insanely globalistic, and rush for colonies was an aspect of that. So while it may have been possible for Germany to avoid colonial craze, it would have been incredibly difficult - especially with German industry rapidly developing post-unification.

The US mostly avoided the rush for colonies, and it turned out excellent.