| Historical Perceptions | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 15 2010, 12:07 PM (447 Views) | |
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 15 2010, 12:07 PM Post #1 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Something that has always struck me has been the differing historical perceptions of events and structures held by some groups. One example is the High Seas Fleet. Many condemn it as a luxury fleet and an unnecessary cause of tension between Britain and Germany. http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7077&start=0 The twelfth post down does really encapsulate the point of view outlined above. Now, to the point: Are there any logical arguments that can be presented in favour of the HSF in particular and the German naval build up in general that do not originate from national chauvanism, a need for a place in the sun, or a desire to challenge for hegemony? This may be of reference in broad technical terms: http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects/viewtopic.php?t=1316&start=0&mforum=warshipprojects Edited by Simon Darkshade, Dec 15 2010, 12:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 15 2010, 01:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
There is one argument I know of, although it cannot provide sufficient justification for throwing all diplomatic caution to the wind. For some, a German navy was seen as a gateway to future national cohesion. I gather this is not quite the national chauvinism you mean, since it was less about prestige and more about remaking domestic politics, about developing a distinctly national culture by giving the various states a stake in something that wouldn't be dominated by Prussian history and traditions, as the army was. (In that sense, it could be compared to Alexander Hamilton's arguments for a national debt in the United States.) It also involved power struggles between old-order conservative agriculturalists and the new industrialists. It is very difficult to separate these from the other considerations and motives, admittedly. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 15 2010, 02:56 PM Post #3 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
There is that point, which is not quite on the level of chauvanism, rather lying in the domain of national awakening and expression as a distinctly German entity. It addresses the notion of a German Navy, but not one built up to the extent that the Kaiser's fleet was. As to whether it turned out to be a Pan-German unifying force is a separate question. In the end, the whole notion of a large, ocean going fleet, for whatever reason of national morale, would need to be weighed against the risks and costs of such an enterprise as to whether the reward would be worth the endeavour. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 17 2010, 10:52 AM Post #4 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Most certainly. It would be a case where the solution's new problems are worse than the original ones it was meant to solve. There might be an argument made that the navy would have to be large to achieve this, since a cruiser-only fleet or one with very limited numbers of capital ships would not require significant expenditures. Thus, no high level commitments from the Reichstag or the individual states. But I doubt this would get very far without resorting the other impulses mentioned. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Jun 17 2011, 12:12 PM Post #5 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 07:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 18 2011, 08:03 AM Post #6 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
That chap isn't the most unbiased of posters regarding Germany. Regardless of the threat of France and Russia, a North Sea battlefleet deliberately crafted to challenge Britain is not the way to address it. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 18 2011, 04:28 PM Post #7 |
|
One thing to keep in mind is that, in many ways, the idea of the Royal Navy was to guard from invasion, this not being something Germany necessarily needed. So there is that. And at any rate, any large naval build up of the size planned would be, without doubt, a shot across the bow of the Royal Navy, so either the German planners knew this and intended it as that, or knew it and did not care, or didn't know. Each way they come out looking rather poorly. And if the fellow there figures the British had reason to feel threatened by a North Sea Fleet, a battlefleet deployed to anywhere overseas could only be worse... Edited by Matthew, Jun 18 2011, 04:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 19 2011, 03:11 AM Post #8 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Going back to the origins of the HSF, Von Tirpitz and others did eschew a trade protection fleet in favour of a battlefleet that was explicitly aimed at Britain. They were not alone in Mahanist ideas at the time, but trying to justify a large building programme and a short range battlefleet as a trade protection instrument is a definite case of working after the fact. A strong coastal artillery force, possession of Heligoland and 8-10 ships at most could provide sufficient back up to a strong armoured cruiser and battlecruiser force for the defence of trade. Instead, the focus was on fleet action against the RN and guerre de course. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Jun 20 2011, 09:06 PM Post #9 |
|
The Royal Navy also was the big stick with which Britain ruled the world. I agree that Germany had no real reason to build a big fleet. The only reason I can find was that it could. It had the heavy industry and the lending power to finance this big fleet. The Kaiser loved Britain and her Royal Navy and thus there was no one who could or had the will to stop this "lets do it because we can" project. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |






2:40 PM Jul 11