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

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Indonesia has huge coal deposits as well as oil,& is a major exporter to Japan.

there are three tragedies here- first- the starvation of Germany in 1919, when they had an asset to sell
Second- the tragedy of the NEI under Japanese occupation, whenthey neglected their defenses
Third: The tragedy of the Indonesian Empire, too large, too soon, which should have become at least four separate healthy nations by 1970

 

Of course Indonesia has coal, the issue is whether the Dutch East Indies had the infrastructure to supply such a large, coal-burning fleet during the 1930s and 1940s:

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22953/WP_93_Lucarelli_revised_Oct_2010.pdf

I'd welcome some figures on this issue -- I've found it very difficult to find detailed information on this.

 

I'm puzzled by the reference to eight heavy cruisers. The German fleet at Scapa comprised eleven battleships, five battle cruisers, and eight 5.9" gunned light cruisers similar to the (German designed) Java class which the Dutch were building themselves; also about fifty destroyers. The 8" gun heavy cruiser didn't exist as a type in 1919; the closest equivalent were the British Hawkins class and the obsolescent armored cruisers in many navies.

As noted, the Dutch on several occasions considered acquiring capital ships but were generally unable to afford them; they did not even complete the third Java class cruiser. Even if the Allies were willing to make a gift of the ex-German ships - to someone who had not been part of their alliance - the manning and operating costs would be vastly more than the Dutch were actually able to sustain in the period. Also as noted, extensive modernization would be necessary if the ships were to serve effectively in WWII, just as the major navies had to do with their WWI-era battleships.

The British, despite their show of outrage at the scuttling, were probably just as happy to have the German ships simply disappear. The best claim on them would have been France's. They had had to stop most naval construction including the five Normandie class dreadnoughts in order to concentrate on artillery and other munitions for the armies, including equipping allies like the Americans.

 

eight cruisers in total. four battlecruisers, Plus Holland's four light cruisers.

I woudl liek to see the posters who claim costs were insurrmountable justify thier position. Holland had in 1914 approved the bond issues for four NEW battleships.

 

NOTE: Thanks to whoever moved this into "alternate history", thanks. It was getting a bit out of hand since it was never feasible for the Dutch to acquire these ships, which makes it complete "alternate history".

1. That was in 1914. By 1918, the Dutch government had an entire country to rebuild and Holland's economy was shattered. The First World War had devastating effects on the Dutch economy:

Source: Holland: 1914-1918 [War over Holland - May 1940: the Dutch struggle]

As my next point will illustrate, Holland barely had the money before WW1 and it certainly didn't have it after.

2. In 1913, the Dutch did indeed approve the construction of new battleships. However, the debate raged for several months over how to pay for it and who should pick up what percentage of the tab (Holland or the East Indies). The mentality in the NEI was that they shouldn't have to pay for their colonial occupier's navy, and that the funds that would go to these ships would be better spent improving the NEI's economy and infrastructure (again, this ties into my "coal" and "logisitics" arguments). After the Dutch parliament finally decided to fund the construction of the ships by raising taxes (with a substantial amount of steel being donated by businesses for one of the ships) in mid 1914, the Navy didn't even have a design finalized. At the outbreak of WW1, they scraped the plan. This degree of uncertain and the lengthy debate showed that the Dutch were very concerned about funding, which means that they did not have a lot of money to spare. And given that cost overruns were common on large military projects, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this would happen with the 1913 Battleship Proposal.

They brought up this idea again in the early 1920s, only to have it finally shot down. No new battleships were recommended -- most likely because they had no money (as my first point illustrates). They decided to focus on smaller (ie: cheaper) vessels, but even this plan was viewed as unaffordable. And, as Carronade said, one of their largest shipbuilding projects (Java Class Cruiser) wasn't even completed. If they couldn't afford smaller ships, they certainly couldn't afford larger ones. IF the Dutch got the German ships, they would have to be extensively modernized, which would be costly. Its not like they would have gotten a fleet of ready-for-battle "turn-key" vessels.

3. Once again, consider the cost of logistics. Refer to my previous messages for that -- I'm not going to repeat it here again.

Just another observation - it seems that whenever the Dutch actually approved funds for a battleship design it was just before one of the world wars (in 1939 they approved the Model 1047 battleship, but construction never began). Although this could be circumstantial, I can't help but think that these are "last ditch" attempts at maintaining sovereignty, not well-thought out strategic and economic moves.

 

The cost differential between used , battle worn vessels at a disposal & brand new construction is at least 50 %. Yes, the war time restrictions had damaged The Netherlands. However, the deprivationof their largest customer cost them much more.

The battlecruisers , used, would have been paid for in NEI commodies- food, oil, rubber, & minerals.

Teh COST of NOT acquirign the fleet in 1942- beyond measure.

 

You really think that those WWI ships would have stopped or even slowed down the Japanese?

 

He seems to think so. I'd say not -- the Japanese would have merely redirected more forces to crush the Dutch. Saying that the Dutch could have won with more surface ships completely ignores the major Japanese advantage in air power. In addition to land-based bombers, the Japanese had large aircraft carriers with skilled aviators. The Dutch had no carriers, nor was there any possible way for them to acquire any at between 1920 and 1941. We all saw what happened with the Repulse and Prince of Wales when they thought aircraft were not a threat.

If you think the ships could have stopped the Japanese, why not just give them to the British? They were undoubtably in a better position to support a large Pacific Fleet, and were more experienced in Dreadnought operations.

I think I'm going to give up - I'm a little frustrated - I'm all for a spirited debate, but a debate with no facts from one side is just a shouting match...

 

First, give a little credit to firstnorth, he suggested the split off, I asked Jeff and he apperntly approved.

I agree as some of my posts would indicate that these ships, even if available and suitably modernized, in them selves would not prevent the collapse of the ABDA position.

But, it does ffer an interesting exercise. Alan you correctly point out that Japanese assets would be redeployed to meet the threat. That offers the interesting part. What assets exactly and how does this redeployment affect the opening months of the Pacific War. If Japan must use her carrier fleet to dispose of a Dutch 'Battleline', does Pearl Harbor happen? Do they go with say the original PH plan with 4 CV's leaving the short legged carrier group to support the NEI operation?

I agree Holland getting these ships is unlikely, but stranger things have happened. A certain central european nation, heavily hit by the depression, with an army little more than a constabulary, no air force and not much of a navy in the span of a decade over running nearly all of western, central and eastern europe did happen largely due to the will of a single person.

 

Thankyou Belasar!
If the Germanfleet is disposed of for 50 /50 splits in 1919 between reparations & raw material for Germany, then you avoid the Great post war famine & start the Weimar republic on a sound footing.
THEN you most likely do not have a Nazi take over in 1932.
THEN you have a French far East Battle fleet,Plus a Britsh fleet, plus the four Dutch battle cruisers, plus an American fleet, boxing in the Japanese southward expansion.

You have to be a real die hard Samarai to banzai through those odds.

Scapa flow let a lot of Genies out of the bottle,& you have to account for them.
Can't pick N choose

 

The Allies would never have gone for it. The French wanted to cripple the Germans, and would have objected to any measure to make it "softer" for them.

Remember, despite rough beginnings in the early 1920s, the Weimar Republic actually was very close to having its economy under control due to the policies of Hjalmar Schacht. Inflation was brought under control, and the mark was stabilized. This happened without the allocation of the German Fleet in the manner that you described. The event that spring-boarded the Nazis to power was the Great Depression. In 1929/1930 Germany was not economically robust, and as such was hit very hard. We all know the rest of the story (Germans turned to the extreme left/right when the central parties couldn't help, and ended up placing Hitler in charge). So, even IF the fleet was allocated in the manner you described, it would do nothing or very little to buffer Germany for the 1929 Stock Market Crash, and as such would not prevented the key event that placed the Nazis in power.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>" What do they do with them? Absolutely nothing. That is only the avarice of old usurers, who possess something and will not give it up; perverted beings who see their neighbour has nothing to eat, while they themselves cannot use what they possess. The mere thought of giving away something makes them ill. Moreover, I have demanded nothing which belonged to the English, I have demanded only what they robbed and stole in the years 1918 and 19l9. In fact, robbed and stole against the solemn assurance of the American President. We have not asked them for anything, not demanded anything, again and again I offered my hand for negotiations. Evermore clearly it became apparent that it is German unification itself, this very State, which they hate-irrespective of its aspect, no matter whether Imperial or National Socialist, whether Democratic or Authoritarian. Most of all they hate the social progress of the Reich, and here, clearly, external hatred has combined with the meanest internal egotism. For they say: "Never shall we be reconciled with this world-it is the world of awakening social conscience . . . (end of sentence drowned in applause). As far as this goes, I can only tell the gentlemen on both shores of the Atlantic: "In the present war that side will achieve victory in the end where the social conscience . . . (several inaudible words). They can wage wars for their capitalist interests, but in the end these wars will open the way for social risings within the nations; for in the long run it is impossible that hundreds of millions of human beings should be aligned according to the interests of a few individuals. In the long run the greater interest of mankind is bound to prevail over the interests of these little plutocratic profiteers. ..."
( A H)....
Text of Speech by Chancellor Adolf Hitler, at Berlin Sports Palace

suggested reading
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p231_Hall.html

 

FirstNorth, you're forgetting something rather basic about Interwar Holland....

The Dutch wouldn't have wanted them!

Holland had the largest (IIRC) percentage of Pacifists in its voting population of any major European nation; a lobby group SO powerful, that when the Dutch did modernise their Colonial fleet in the second half of the decade by laying down three new heavy cruisers....there was a widespread political agitation and campaign against this, SO large that the government had to downgrade their armament as a sop to the huge wave of protests! The Dutch had a fixation - Neutrality had kept them out of WWI, and would again...

Talking of that late 1930s modernisation...that's the point, really What they had had in 1919 was well-due for replacement by the mid-1930s...so any "beute" ships would have been too, of course.

Plus....

COULD Holland have taken those on charge even if they'd wanted to??? How many hulls did the Washington and London Treaties limit them to?

 

Yes, Hitler did blame Versailles. He used it as an excuse, but it had very little to do with his rise to power. Read through the following election results for the NSDAP in the 1920s-1930s:

Election-----------Number of Votes--------Percentage of Vote
May 1924 --------- 1.9M ---------------------6.5%
Dec 1934 --------- 0.9M --------------------- 3.0%
May 1928 ---------0.8M ----------------------2.6%
Sep 1930 ---------6.4M ----------------------18.3%
Jul 1932 ----------13.8M ------------------- 37.3%
Nov 1932 -------- 11.7M--------------------- 33.1%
Mar 1933 ---------17.3M-------------------- 43.9%

As you can see, pre-1930, the election results for the Nazis were poor. Why? People obviously weren't that offended by Versailles. Or at least it was not a major concern. Why? If they were, the Nazis would have had significantly higher numbers. In fact, the most popular parties were the more-central parties (SDP, GNPP) and they were not vehemently against the terms of Versailles and sought to abide by them. Hitler only started the gain votes following the 1929 Stock Market Crash (when the German economy collapsed). Before this, the Nazis were a fringe party with a limited following.

As for using the imagery offered by Versailles in the speech, Hitler knew how to use words to draw people in. In the 1930s German started to regain its pride. Hitler retook the Rhineland and started building a military. In light of this, of course rambling about "injustices" dealt at the hands of the British and French would rally up support. Hitler rambled about a lot more (the Jews, for instance), so Versailles is just one part of his propaganda machine. But although it sounds good, these were clearly not a major concern of the German people in the 1920s. Again, the main reason why people turned to the Nazis and ended up voting Hitler in was that they thought the more-central parties weren't doing enough to solve problems in a difficult economic time. In extreme circumstance (ie: economic collapse), people turn to the extremes in hope of salvation. This phenomenon finally gave Hitler a pulpit to address the German people. As a skilled speech-maker, he had no difficultly sucking in supporters who viewed the radical party as perhaps the only way to have economic salvation. If you doubt this phenomenon, look at some other key events from history (Cuba 1950 or Russia 1917 for instance). This phenomenon is also behind the rise of the German Communist Party in the same time period -- the two extremes sucked votes away from the center. Hence, Hitler's ramblings about Versailles into power.

Furthermore, the speech was given in 1941. He merely used them to drum up support for the invasions of France and England -- nearly 20 years after the events he mentioned occurred. History often becomes skewed when its mixed with politics, and this is especially the case when dealing with Hitler. To summarize: The "injustices" of Versailles were not a major issue on the German people's minds in the 1920s, Hitler only gained widespread support after the 1929 Stock Market Crash (which would not have been effected if the fleet was distributed in the manner you suggested) and Versailles was not the main reason why Hitler came to power. Therefore, the fleet would have had no impact on Hitler's rise.

 

Let's just assume the coal-less, bankrupt Dutch did get a large part of the German fleet (as we all know how the Dutch need reparations for a war they weren't in) and sent it to the Pacific. They would call it back in about three weeks. Why? because running a major, coal-based fleet in a colonial area (surprisingly, those islands do not have a history of large amounts of land-based bio-mass or industry) would cause the Dutch to regress centuries as they would have to utilize the same propulsion of Nelson and Columbus: The wind. Why would the Dutch be so eco-friendly before the term was invented? Well without coal, the only thing that's moving the ships will be the tides and winds. Now unfortunately those ships don't have sails, so they'll be following the sea sponges and probably end up colliding with something. Like India. So now with the Dutch fleet back in AT LEAST the Atlantic, if not Antwerp, we can consider the following:

a) They probably wouldn't expect to be completely over run in 6 days.

b) If anything the fleet would be in the Atlantic, or if the preamble didn't sink in, would be called back to the Atlantic (as Japan wasn't at war with the Netherlands at that point).

c) And then most of the fleet would be, for the most part, in Antwerp. Why not the Atlantic? well seeing as Germany would be the biggest and easiest coal supplier, they probably would just cut off the Netherlands' supply to force their ships to port. Now you might say "why wouldn't their allies provide coal?". Well, Why would two strong naval powers, with war-time economies, give needed material to the Dutch so they can sail a horribly outdated fleet. Yeah. The Dutch fleet would probably stuck at port.
D) Now, thanks to your miraculous Dutch intervention at Versailles, when the Germans inevitably overrun the 41,543 km[SUP]2[/SUP] country , they will probably get most of their fleet back. Mind you it's not an amazing fleet by that point, but anything is better than the Kreigsmarine in the immediate aftermath Norway.

e) Now these ships can assist in the Battle of Britain. Certainly the British navy could handle them. Well, since I've pretty much given the Netherlands the luck of 10 Hitlers I think I can give the Kreigsmarine one idea. They do not use the fleet for its initial design. They strip as much weight as possible from the battleships thus giving them the biggest fleet (numerically and craft-wise) of one-way landing crafts in the history of one-way landing crafts. This would allow the Germans to land several divisions, if not more against a post-Dunkirk British Army.

F) Even if this idea isn't developed, the ships alone may be able to turn the tide of the Battle of Britain in their favour. Ultimately, your Dutch "über alles" opinion could lead, and probably would lead to the conquest of the British Isles and possibly even the subsequent victory of the Axis in World War 2.

G) Way to go, you made us lose WW2 .

 

oh and ... uh... hi

mein Freund the car accid-er.. I mean.. George Patton dragged me into the fray because he found my opinions interesting

 

HI to you too
Coal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia re coal- Indonesia is the worlds eight largest exporter
As to 'forgetting the children'
900,000 out of 89 million equals 3.1 million deaths in the USA .
If that happened due to enemy peacetime blockade, It would not be quickly forgotten.
or 313,000 child deaths in Canada - Alan/ George Patton!
Brak tiem....

 

May I ask what you're talking about? This is about the Dutch acquisition of the German fleet? To be frank: As I've said several times before, I'd appreciate direct responses to the bulk of my points instead of your current "cherry-picking fallacy" type strategy. I assumed this would be a normal debate -- I'm getting quite frustrated by this and am seriously considering not wasting my time posting anything else of substance here.

As for "Beaman", address his points with him, not me. I merely found his comments amusing (and partially valid) and encouraged him to add to this discussion.

 

Indonesia, as displayed by the statistics of the World Energy Council, states that currently Indonesia only has 0.6 percent of the world's coal.
http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/ser_2010_report_1.pdf
ALTHOUGH THIS POINT (which you tried to refute mine with) means nothing, as this is modern day and not relevant. Now onto to relevant statistics.

bracketed numbers shall be used to indicated citations

As can be seen the Dutch East Indies, even if it decided it would be the most selfless colony in the history of colonies (it used most of it locally), it would only be able to provide roughly 500,000 tonnes a year (1)(2). With this in mind, I shall bring up the point that a light cruiser uses roughly 8 tonnes per hour at standard cruising speed(14 knots)(3).The German dreadnought used 1.5 lbs of coal per s.h.p, while having 95,777 s.h.p engines that could produce 49.2 km/h /(5)(6). This means that at its most efficient speed, they had a range of 11,000-12,000 km/h . THE DISTANCE from the Netherlands to the Dutch East Indies is 17000 km through the Suez canal (the fleet better be praying that the French and British aren't using it), so that means to go from the Netherlands from the Dutch East Indies, would be impossible without stops.



Now this creates a great many problems for the Dutch:

The amount of fuel used: The amount of fuel required for 5 dreadnoughts to go from motherland to Colony would be a substantial burden on the Dutch's already limited coal resources. The East Indies already used most of its coal to maintain itself, let alone fueling such a massive voyage. it would need to ration coal and import tonnes of coal from other sources for such a journey and to even consider maintaining it in the Indies. This is without escorts, which they would no doubt need.

The logistics: The fleet would need to make a stop for fuel (even when taking every possible shortcut) almost twice along the journey(7). The Dutch would thus need to get it's already extremely strained coal supplies to different spots along the route traveled.This would require coal to move coal straining the system even further. Even the British with their vast ports and far larger coal supplies found that it was a logistical nightmare for these ships to travel long distances(4). Also, the East Indies wouldn't have the infrastructure to maintain such a large fleet in its ports.

along with problems such as:

The ships not being useful in the pacific theatre of operations due to Japanese superiority in every aspect.
The British and French wouldn't give coal for free to the Dutch, who were already broke, to sail an outdated fleet.


1.
"with a production in 1925 of nearly 500,000 tons. Most of the coal is consumed locally."
"After 1941, when Indonesia‘s coal production peaked at 2 mt"
Dutch East Indies - java, sumatra, native, government, tons, production and guilders
[h=1]2.
Mining in the Netherlands East Indies[/h]

1937: 463,000 metric tonnes
1938: 517,000 metric tonnes
1939: 591,000 metric tonnes
1940: 578,000 metric tonnes
Page 61
Mining in the Netherlands East Indies - Alex L. Ter Braake - Google Books east indies coal production tonnes&f=false
3.
light cruisers about 8 1/4 tons/hour and a cruise speed of 14 knots
Germany's Light Cruisers (1896 - 1914)

4.
Providing the fleet with coal was the greatest logistical headache of the agehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wrf50LuQcaoJ:www.epmag.com/archives/digitalOilField/5911.htm+coal+consumption+german+fleet&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

5.
1.5 lbs of coal per S.H.P (in 1916, as it compares the oil-driven Nevada to their "modern" coal ships)
Page 386
http://books.google.ca/books?id=b7MOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=coal+consumption+battleship&source=bl&ots=WdMVPz4xHr&sig=Q5dI4JbdpCLAgpe3AQENCkiZYHY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_uoEUM2kIark0QGBiejsCA&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=coal consumption&f=false

6.
95,777 shp for the German dreadnought
furthest distance before refueling= 11,000-12,000km based on a distance comparison of three different dreadnoughts
SMS Hindenburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (eek Wikipedia)

 

Let's not be comepletely dismissive on this. First the transfer would take some period of time, perhaps as much as two years to finally complete. Next the ships would have to be refurbished in Holland for the considerable time that they had not gotten full maitenence due to the late war shortages and confinement in Scapa Flow. Then the Dutch would need to train the new crews in home waters to operate these ships effectively. This all could put us in the time frame of 1925 or even later.

The USS Texas, a contemparary vessel, was converted to oil fired bunkers in 1926-27, so it would not be out of place for the Dutch to do this at this time, and perhaps a little sooner. This relieves the coal problem.

I agree the Dutch were anti-war, and this played a critical part in her defence budget's but as Alan point's out the Nazi's message did not have universal appeal at first but over time and with the right propaganda did eventually sway the people. It's not impossible to believe that a similar dynamic leader in Holland might have changed the public's opinionabout Holland's need to take a more direct path in their defence. The Swiss were equally pacifistic, but they were also very defensive minded, and that nightmare helped keep Hitler in check on this front.