What If the Dutch Received Some of the German Ships Sunk at Scapa Flow

I think the fact that he has failed to address any posts I made today with more than 1 sentance speaks for itself....

Since there doesn't seem to be anything productive or useful being added to this thread, I'd consider this issue "closed".

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great point!
In 1931 Viscount Takahashi arranged massive low cost depression bank backed bonds in London & New York ,then took Imperial Japan off the gold standard.
The refurbishing of the IJN was paid for by his future foes...

Going off the Netherland sgold standard would have allowed a fifteen year mid life face lift for four battlecruisers,etc.

Ahhh- hindsight , Phyto

 

Well thanks to Tiredoldsoldier for reminding me of Derfflinger ! That was one beautiful ship to have been designed in WW1,

G

 

Now you see the problem with this WI....the REAL PODs are

1/ truly huge, international events like the Great Depression...not happening! OR being handled differently by an entire nation and its government;

2/ a change required to the mindset of a large percentage of a national population....and

3/ Both of the above are actually outside the nuts-and-bolts military decisionmaking based on military requirements only you're talking about

Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and realise that many many of the things and events that have given rise over the decades to acres of discussion as "What Ifs" happened the way they did for very good historical reasons, factors and pressures. They happened as they did very often despite what people might have actually wanted to happen...!

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thankyou Phyto!
Going off the goldstandard was a cure for deflationary pressures & allows a Keynsian pump to the economy. Sachs learned this from Takahashi, who 'aced it in 1931'.. In the Netherland's case it was almost immediatly successfull due to the tropical stockpiling boom

 

Sachs who?

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Japan had agreed to limit its interests NORTH of the equator. "Pacifing " Imperial Japan was the Worst mistake Britian ever attempted. After 1918 they were not 'allies'.

Rather than a slap in the face, try wake up call. Realpolitik ordained that Britian & The Netherlands had common interests: a line had been drawn at the Equator, dividing the German colonies. Any defences south of the line were not the care of Imperial Japan- unless she planned an invasion

Do you really see pre WW2 Japan as a 'victim" or are you just pikin'?
(* Pikin'- W cdn slang- ref.to plucking notes at random...)

 

Please DO NOT respond to my posts with pre-suppositions. And where did I say “victim”??? - take note, I DO NOT enjoy having words put in my mouth.


Perhaps you're confused, this is the piece I responded to:


---------------------“At this point , do we have, at least, some agreement that diverting the four New battlecruisers SUNKat Scapa Flow to the NEI in exchange for FOOD for Germany in 1919, Thenupgrading WHEN the NEI was prosperous (1935 on) was feasible?”


And concluded with “No, sorry but this premise is a non-starter.” You were talking 1919, Britain and Japan were indeed still allies.


“… And when war broke out in 1914 that concentration of effort was rendered all the more possible because Japan took over naval responsibilities in the Pacific which Britain would have been hard put to it to bear alone. Little wonder then, that when these problems arose again in a new form after the First World War, there were many in Britain who were convinced that the Anglo-Japanese alliance had served her well, and who preferred to go on building on the assured friendships of the past rather than attempt to discover new and perhaps uncertain ones for the future. 1902 was a date of great significance in the minds of those responsible for Britain’s naval strategy in 1921.

Once the future of the Anglo-Japanese alliance had been raised, Ministers in London, in the latter part of 1920 and the early part of 1921, tended to concentrate more attention upon this as a solution of Pacific and naval problems than upon a broader Pacific agreement or some specific disarmament treaty. …”

Page 16, “Grand Strategy, Volume I”, N.H. Gibbs
“History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series”

As I stated earlier, "after the Imperial Conference decision was made to cozy up to the US to prevent a naval arms race, they became expendable, then limited by the Washington Treaty (which incidentally included clauses preventing the selling off warships), and by the 30’s when a few extra Dutch warships out East might’ve been nice, it was far too late."


You have your interpretation of Realpolitik of perhaps a later period, I have my Grand Strategy for the period in question, and I can tell you that those “four New battlecruisers”, should they not be scuttled, were NOT going to the NEI in 1919, end of discussion.

 

Well I admire your persistence First North but I am afraid that your analysis completely misses the mark as Marmat so eloquently explains.


I presume “pikin” is a typo since I looked the word up an can only find “Nigerian slang for Boy” - should be useful when I visit Lagos.


Rewind to 1918: The Netherlands has remained neutral but fairly helpful to the Germans and is now harbouring the Kaiser. The British public egged on by the Press are clamouring “to hang the Kaiser” - Not a good background for giving them a few ex-German Battleships.


The British Naval Treaty with Japan has performed above expectations. It has enabled Britain to concentrate its Naval Force in the North Sea and hence counter the Kreigsmarin and complete a blockade of the Central Powers. And Japan has behaved very well in all its wars, so far, including WW1 with an enviable record of good treatment to prisoners.


There is absolutely no reason to abandon the Japanese and why help the Dutch, commercial rivals in South East Asia?


In 1918, the British were every bit as powerful (and probably more) than the USA, possessed a large and very effective army (first time ever) and an enormous Navy, GDP as large, five times as many people and an empire that straddled the Globe with first call on assistance from a “first generation white Dominions”.


In fact the worst choice at that time was to abandon the Japanese at the WashingtonConference, 1922. Some historians mark the end of British domination as this conference where Britain agreed to another nation (ie USA) having parity of Navy – even worse since Britain had to scrap ships to meet the agreed target while the US had to build more! (and of course better and more modern ones).


The reason was simply commercially – Britain was broke, could not afford an arms race with the USA and had hoped that the US might forgive some of the British debts (fat chance – we may have been allies on the battlefield but commercially we were deadly rivals).


Actually, the Japanese had been offended by not being treated as equals by the “Whites” at Versailles. The British abandoning them at Washington, fed into their twin paranoia of “Racial Inferiority and Isolation – hemmed in by White Enemies”.


To be honest I believe that Japan would still have gone down the disastrous nationalist road in the 1930's and defeat in 1945 but in the 1920's there was more reason for the British supporting them than the Dutch.

 

I see 'fantasy Japan' has a hold on some of our esteemed memebers lately.
first, Imperial Japan lost a grand total of 300 men in WW1- & gained the entire German Carolines North of the Equator. Their contribution was MINOR MINOR. Their gain was MAJOR MAJOR. This fostered illusions.

Second, the Netherlands & Britian have 'accomodated' each other for centuries. I won't begin to educate- you can start with the Glorious revolution.
Then you can look up the rubber & tin cartel that had America vexed in the 1920's. You may want to visit East Anglia & study the cross Frisian Pollination..

Oh dear. So much history to teach to the "....XXXX"...Where DOES one start?

 

In all honesty, I've only seen one of those in this thread so far

We may wish to start with history that's not lost to the Dark Ages and actually doesn't matter a whit to the 20th century.

Really? You might want to ask Samuel Pepys if that is true...I seem to remember at least ONE occasion when the British accomodated the Dutch...Fleet in the Thames!

Also...

Scipio is quite right; Holland signed up to the Quota System, reducing its export through to Germany of goods and resources imported into Holland from abroad...

...but the Dutch had sold HUGE amounts of domestically-produced (I.E. NOT restricted by the Quota System) animal fodder, agricultural produce, and meat animals both butchered and on the hoof to the Kaiser's Germany for the last five years...

 

As (presumptively) one of the "belligerently untutored", I'd like to point out a few things. You seem to have reached a dead end, or you're just so offended by me I'm being ignored. I asked (rather nicely) for you to respond to my information in detail, not in a cherry-picker/straw-man fashion, many times in this thread and you declined.

Now, here's the brunt of my message: You commonly provide information without sources (you only started to include them when you were told point-blank to do so), you do not listen to what anyone says, you put words in everyone's mouth, and you are an expert at twisting words. When I post a source, you "invalidate" the source if you can't find any other source to support your position. Finally, when I prove that not only my source is valid, but it is 100% correct, you and say "its irrelevant". May I present an abridged definition of cherry-picking? "A method used by a person who can't make a point considering all the information". May I suggest that you enter politics?

Oh, I'd still like to know:
1. Who is "Sachs"? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming he is some Dutch government official, even though the only google results I could find for "Sachs" are for the "Goldman Sachs" co-founder)
2. What does "Sez seven of nine" mean? (A google search turned up a star trek episode....)
3. How is my information irrelevant considering you first brought up the topic?
4. What does 1 million starving German children have to do with the Dutch fleet (even though you're figure is completely wrong, let's just go with it).

I think that's about all I have to say.

 

Dear Phylo:
The topichas become ‘cluttered', & strangely personalised. ‘Belligerently untutored’refers to the practise of attacking the man, rather than the argument

 

To clear some recent objections:
1. ‘Pickin’is Canadian rural slang. derived from ‘Guitar picking’. Nothing to do with Nigerian boys...
2. Alan is looking for a ‘Board Bhisti’. Not my style.
3. The House of Saxe Coburg- Gotha had no great desire to see a Fellow German Emperor hanged- sets a bad precedent!
4. More importantly, Great Britain owed Japan ‘nothing’ in 1919.
Will get back to the POV when the topic is generating more light than heat. Thanks for the peace making.

 

I am looking for you to constructively answer my posts. You obviously have no intention of doing so. And yes, I'm getting just a bit pissed off at your attitude -- I spent many hours researching this topic that I initially knew little about only to have you dance around the issue and ignore me. And now you insult me by calling me "untutored". That is incredibly immature and downright rude.

No. You have reached a dead end and will restart this thread when someone agrees with you. Its hard to argue a point when a dozen members said you're completely wrong and you have nothing left to cherry-pick.

 

No it does not.

Belligerent: "Hostile and aggressive."
Untutored: "Not formally taught or trained."

Put them together and you get: "Hostile and aggressive, not formally taught or trained."

I have not attacked you personally until this message -- cherry-picking tends to severely annoy me. If you found the other messages offensive because they did not agree with you: to quote Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

 

Sage advise for ALL- Alan......

consider merely STATING your facts as you see them....your logic should stand on its own merits..

 

???

I have "STATED" my facts, with the sources to back them up. They do stand on their own merit -- this is evident by the fact that you've refused to respond in detail to anything I have wrote.

 

This thread is going no-where, and is now closed.