Based on recent and not so recent history France was a much bigger threat than the UK. The US was hardly any threat at all during the 30's. What's more building a bunch of subs was likely to turn the British into an enemy as I suggested. Take a look at the the Treaty of Versailes and then the British German naval treaty of the 30's. Note that the former denied Germany the right to build anyting bigger than 10,000 ton "armored" ships and the right to build submarines. The British German naval treaty essentially overturned the treaty of Versailes as it allowed for Germany to build not only battleships but submarines all be it in restricted numbers. If the Germans start building massive numbers of u boats prior to the treaty (which was likely not possible in any case) they are likely to get both the British and the French upset with them and remember the French during this period were willing to take action vs Germany. If they build up a large force after the treaty then it becomes apparent even earlier that Hitler can't be trusted and is almost guaranteed to get the British to start rebuilding their military considerably earlier.RJ55 wrote: ... I disagree. Submarines made sense to Germany because as a continental nation the most obvious threat apart from the USSR was the UK & USA.
I was implying no such thing. I meant what I said the merchant raiders were much more cost effective than the uboats. Compare either the tonnage of the merchant raiders to the tonnage sunk or the costs of the merchant raiders to the tonnage sunk then do the same for uboats and you'll see what I mean. In any case this is OT in this thread and has been dealt with a number of times. The search engine can be your friend. I suggest you learn how to use it.Are you implying here that expensive surface raiders sunk more allied shipping than U-boats? Can I see some data on this?