Let's sy Bismarck ignores the pressure of the parties and the population and doesn't support colonies because originally he hated colonies. Would that also mean that Germany would probably not invest in the 2nd largest navy? If that means better relations with GB let's say that GB still joines FRance and Russia because lt's be honest, the whole "honor" that GB had to "protect" the poor Belgians from the "evil" Germans was a shitty excuse. They just feared german hegemony of Europe while they controlled 1/3 of the whole world. Anyways, so it's 1914 and WWI starts and goes like IOTL. Austrian Ultimatum, Russian mobilization Schlieffen Plan, GB joins after invasion of Belgium, but without colonies and probably a way smaller Navy would Germany have maybe conquered Paris?
What if the German Empire had no colonies -> Better performance in WWI?
- Thread starter Moctezuma1466
- Start date
All else being the same, Willy's oxygen deprivation-induced brain damaged ass would still become Kaiser.
The German army didn't suffer from Tirpitz's naval bills, rather than reducing army expenditure the German government simply went over budget and took on more debts in order to finance the navy. It also doesn't mean that the army would be larger instead. Tirpitz could justify the need for a larger navy, the army would have had a much harder time convincing the parliament for the need of more army expenditures. So without colonies Germany wouldn't have a stronger army, just somewhat less debt.
Also even if Germany would significantly expand its army it would be met in kind by France and Russia and just lead to another arms race. In fact Germany actually did expand its army in 1913, and that same year France responded by extending conscription (effectively making the French army larger than the German one) followed by Russia's "Great Programme for Strengthening the Army" the nexy year (which would have increased Russia's peacetime army strength to a staggering 2 million by 1917, while simultaniously modernizing its equipment).
Also even if Germany would significantly expand its army it would be met in kind by France and Russia and just lead to another arms race. In fact Germany actually did expand its army in 1913, and that same year France responded by extending conscription (effectively making the French army larger than the German one) followed by Russia's "Great Programme for Strengthening the Army" the nexy year (which would have increased Russia's peacetime army strength to a staggering 2 million by 1917, while simultaniously modernizing its equipment).
Nothing meaningful changes at all, if GB still joins as per OTL. Any additional troops ( which would not be many for reasons others have given ) would just cause France and Russia to increase their armies, Indeed since there is no HSF to defend the coast, more end up guarding the coast. We can also add that if GB is not having to build more dreadnaughts to match the build up of the HSF, the RN is likely to have more escorts available to counter U-boats and/or the BEF can be better equipped. Without the HSF to pin a lot of the RN and eat up a lot of resources to counter ( far more than the HSF cost Germany ), things are a lot grimmer than OTL.
As for Paris, logistics are logistics, the Germans would still be overstretched and running out of supply, all the lack of a HSF would do is give them some more reserves once the front went static not really change were it ended up. This scenario has the problem that things went very well OTL so its hard to improve via simple measures.
I don't see what difference it makes. Aside from some troops still adventuring in Mozambique, the German colonies only lasted untl 1916 and were a minor distraction to the Entente. I mean, this also frees up a small number of Entente colonial troops. If it has any effect at all, it might be slightly larger colonial armies available for use in the fighting in Europe and the Middle East.
I agree that it wouldn't change anything meaningful but
Would Portugal join if there are no German colonies that they could potentially gain after the war?
Would Portugal join if there are no German colonies that they could potentially gain after the war?
nah British empire still feel inferior and do the same as OTL, ze end
Something to note - if Germany has no colonies, there's no incentive for Japan to join in due to no German Micronesia (still part of Spain or sold to another power) nor Qingdao (unless the definition of colonies here excludes concessions). Also, Britain would be able to complete Cape-to-Cairo provided no one else takes Tanganyika.
The same Wilhelm who wanted to avoid a general European war and tried his hardest to do just that?
All else being equal, Germany is defeated slightly, slightly faster [some weeks?] because you don't have Lettow-Vorbeck running around Tanganyika and Mozambique through 1918, German troops still running around Kamerun through 1916, around Sudwest Afrika into 1915, all the British and Dominion troops thus chasing them.
The British and Dominion troops would thus have to get on fully with the main business of slugging it out in Flanders and France earlier, or at a minimum, places that have some relatable knock-on effect on the western front like Italy, Salonika, even the Turkish fronts, by drawing in German support for CP Allies. Since German overseas colonies were practically cut off from Germany the moment the war began, that means they only cost something to Germany before the war began. Once the war started, they cost Germany almost nothing, whereas they cost the Allies all the effort they diverted to taking them.
Also, Germany's acquisition of colonies, all accomplished by 1899, did not seem to spoil Anglo-German relations by that year. The closest the two came to an alliance was that year or shortly after. Even if it didn't have a chance, Joe Chamberlain's soundings in this direction all came after Germany had gathered up its colonies, especially all the big ones in Africa, not before.
The British and Dominion troops would thus have to get on fully with the main business of slugging it out in Flanders and France earlier, or at a minimum, places that have some relatable knock-on effect on the western front like Italy, Salonika, even the Turkish fronts, by drawing in German support for CP Allies. Since German overseas colonies were practically cut off from Germany the moment the war began, that means they only cost something to Germany before the war began. Once the war started, they cost Germany almost nothing, whereas they cost the Allies all the effort they diverted to taking them.
Also, Germany's acquisition of colonies, all accomplished by 1899, did not seem to spoil Anglo-German relations by that year. The closest the two came to an alliance was that year or shortly after. Even if it didn't have a chance, Joe Chamberlain's soundings in this direction all came after Germany had gathered up its colonies, especially all the big ones in Africa, not before.
The same Willy who really, really wanted a navy that could beat the Royal Navy.
For that matter, do protectorates and concessions count as colonies for purposes of this discussion?
Which week was that? Because Kaiser Billy's opinions and plans changed depending on who he was talking to. There are existing details from a meeting in 1912 or 1913, between the Kaiser, the Chancellor, the heads of the army and navy and I believe the foreign secretary, in which he stated Germany must go to war soon in order to dominate the continent, but wanted to wait until the Kiel canal was finished in early 1914. So yeah, Wilhelm's views, plans and opinions were constantly in flux.
Not helped by him bouncing between awkwardly Anglophilic and awkwardly Anglophobic as far as his personal behavior.
Without getting into if which one would be better for Germany past "It depends." that is a great way to ruffle feathers and a poor way to indicate any preference on strategy to - well, anyone.
Dunno but people tend to yes. so we're talking a whole Europe germany, no foreign adventures, no china concessions, like bismarck said, his map of Africa is on europe
Yeah, but what matters is July 1914, where he tried to work with Russia to avoid a general war.
The week when the chips were down and it actually mattered.
So the same time Willy and his government gave Austria-Hungary a blank check and "absolute support" in their dealings with Serbia? Do the mixed messages not seem very..... clashing to either one of you?
I said he didn't want a general European war. He was fine with a limited Balkan war, and the "blank check" was literally just Germany supporting their ally. If they didn't support Austria they would've ended up diplomatically isolated.
Except by the time the the absolute check was sent to Vienna, it was 100% clear the Tsar would not back down. Not after the humiliation from the Bosnian crisis in 1908. If Willy actually wanted to avoid war, he would have told Vienna "yeah, no. You need to accept Serbia's acceptance of all but one of your demands".