Democracy in Imperial Germany?

Discussions on all aspects of Imperial Germany not covered in the other sections.
User avatar
Otto von Bismarck
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 12 Jun 2003 05:32
Location: Das Deutsche Kaiserreich

Post by Otto von Bismarck » 19 Jul 2003 09:27

Three notes I will mention...

First of all... I like and appreciate Bismarck for his intentions and accomplishments... this is why I praise him. Any idiot knows that he lied plenty of times to the Reichstag, to other nations, etc... but through these lies, he made the country immensely stronger. There is no doubt of his skills or accomplishments and how they helped the German Reich. I don't know where you get your silly notions, but the reason I support Bismarck is blatantly obvious...

Secondly, the only reason that Hitler came to power was because he most essentially used the defeat of the first world war to become popular, had Germany not lost the war, and the Imperial government stayed in power, Hitler would have NEVER come to power.

Third, the British did lose the battle of Jutland. The Germans had only one goal, which was to inflict more casualties on the British than the British did on them. No matter what non-sense anyone attempts to conjur up, the casualties of the battle, along with the anger that Britain showed after this battle are quite proof enough that this was a loss for them. Jutland was in no way a strategic battle, it was merely the anticipated Dreadnaught clash between two super powers that had been aimed at by both sides in hopes of achieving a substantial tactical victory, which the Germans won. Another point, Britain was not jealous of Germany's colonies... that is clearly obvious, but to put it correctly, Britain would seize the opportunity to eliminate ANY colonial competition. It would of course gladly want to gain any territory it could... and it saw the German colonies as a source for this.
Last edited by Otto von Bismarck on 19 Jul 2003 09:50, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Otto von Bismarck
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 12 Jun 2003 05:32
Location: Das Deutsche Kaiserreich

Post by Otto von Bismarck » 19 Jul 2003 09:39

Britain was not the largest nation to blame in the Versailles treaty however, I would lay the blame mostly on France and the United States. France wanted Germany to severely lose territory and pay high reperations, and the United States (namely Wilson) wanted to de-throne the Kaiser.

"Jutland cannot be called a defeat for Great Britain, simply because the Royal Navy did not lose it's hold on the European waters."

Just because the Royal Navy did not lose much due to this defeat, it was still a defeat none the less.

The fact that the Germans had less ships, and that the English had more, yet that the Germans destroyed more English ships, than the English destroyed German ships, does constitute a tactical victory.

Simply because you do not lose all your holdings or abilities from one battle, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a defeat... it would take a series of defeats to eliminate the Royal Navy's hold on the seas. This just simply wasn't a decisive battle... It was only a tactical engagement, that had no strategic effects whatsoever.

User avatar
British Free Corps
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 05 May 2003 22:19
Location: England, Great Britain

Post by British Free Corps » 19 Jul 2003 11:43

Britain was not the largest nation to blame in the Versailles treaty however, I would lay the blame mostly on France and the United States. France wanted Germany to severely lose territory and pay high reperations, and the United States (namely Wilson) wanted to de-throne the Kaiser.


Agreed. The elimination of the Hohenzollern monarchy, and the creation of a weak, bureaucratic coalition paved the way for the rise of extremism in Germany. A forceful British Prime Minister would have contested such harsh measures, but Lloyd-George never seemed to be able to.

Just because the Royal Navy did not lose much due to this defeat, it was still a defeat none the less.


But hadn't that been the overall objective of Grand Admiral von Tirpitz upon the creation of the High Seas Fleet? After Jutland, Germany fought the naval war beneath the ocean waves, and against British merchant convoys. The battleships remained in the ports of Kiel and Wilhemshaven.

The British had seen the poor quality of their battleship armour, and the Germans had witnessed the resolve of the Royal Navy not to relinquish control of the seas. With this deadlock remaining unbroken, the major ships of both navies remained in port from 1916 onwards.

Regards,
Matt
:)

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 19 Jul 2003 16:37

Objective of the German High Seas Fleet - To succesfully challenge British maritime supremacy and defeat the Grand Fleet.



Objective of the Grand Fleet - To prevent the German High Seas fleet from entering the atlantic, and rendering it impotent.




regards,

Jon Sutton
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Apr 2003 18:10
Location: Trier, Germany

Fleet objectives

Post by Jon Sutton » 19 Jul 2003 18:49

The German Navy was built up through Tirpitz' "Risikoflotte" policy which was aimed at no other naval power than Britain. His theory was that if the German Navy was strong enough the British would not dare to enter into combat with it because AFTER ITS VICTORY the Royal Navy would be too weak to face the navies of other powers. The Germans proved unable to outbuild the British and as soon as the British implemented a Distant Blockade rather than a Close Blockade of Germany there was no way that the German Navy AS BUILT could break this blockade. The Grand Fleet won the naval war by cutting Germany off from the outside world and the High Seas Fleet was unable to break this stranglehold on German Trade. Jutland was a victory for the German Navy - and in no way to I wish to take anything away from the achievement of the sailors and ships of the German Navy - only in the very narrow sense that an inferior force managed to inflict heavier casualties on a superior force and successfully disengage. If you leave the human loss out of the equation the loss to the Germans of a new Battlecruiser was far more serious than the loss of two first- generation and one newer Battlecruiser was to the British - and the three British armoured cruisers that were lost should never have been there. The number of Dreadnoughts which joined the Grand Fleet after Jutland was far greater than the number of Dreadnoughts that joined the High Seas Fleet. Despite the submarine construction programme that the Germans implemented after Jutland as they realised that this was the only naval weapon that stood a chance of defeating Britian there was not enough time left to put right the basic mistake of German pre-war naval policy, which was that the Royal Navy could be defeated piecemeal in the southern North Sea as it attempted to impose a classic close blockade on Germany.

User avatar
Beau sabreur
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Mar 2003 20:46
Location: The Americas

Post by Beau sabreur » 19 Jul 2003 23:11

Jutland (or Skagerrak to the germans) was a strategical victory for England and a tactical victory for Germany. However, german ships proved during WWI & WWII their superiority to the british Fleet who mostly always had the numbers advantage, in both world wars actually. They hunted down german ships in disproportionate numbers to achieve victory. They new, that a one-on-one encounter could prove disastrous to british arms.
Cheers!

User avatar
Otto von Bismarck
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 12 Jun 2003 05:32
Location: Das Deutsche Kaiserreich

Post by Otto von Bismarck » 20 Jul 2003 00:57

I am talking about specifically the battle of Jutland. The British did win the war over all, due to their successful blockade, but I am focusing on a specific battle.

Return to “Imperial Germany”