Signing of the Treaty of Bucharest.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I thought it might be interesting to observe that today is the 90th anniversary of the signing of the treaty of Bucharest, which concluded the Second Balkan War on 10 August 1913, and thus set the stage in that region for the beginning of the Great War. A rather distant historical event, now, indeed. The treaty served to reduce the territory of Bulgaria in punishment for her effort at further gains after the coalition war of the First Balkan War, which had largely eliminated Ottoman possessions in the Balkans, and established Servia as a regional, if small, power--one that had, in the two wars, gained a rather overinflated view of itself.

[Frank Hipper]

It was Russia's humiliation in this event that led them to think "we can't let happen again", giving them the balls to mobilize against Austria and igniting WWI.

[Typhonis 1]

Out of Curiosity what would WW1 look like if England had stayed neutral ?

[StarshipTitanic]

Out of Curiosity what would WW1 look like if England had stayed neutral ?

The Central Powers win, France and Russia lose some territory, Lenin isn't sent back to Russia so possibly no revolution, Italy might join Germany and Austria in exchange for French African territory, but who knows about that last one (I'm pulling it out of my arse).

[Sea Skimmer]

The Central Powers win, France and Russia lose some territory, Lenin isn't sent back to Russia so possibly no revolution, Italy might join Germany and Austria in exchange for French African territory, but who knows about that last one (I'm pulling it out of my arse).

I think its unlikely Germany and Austria could secure a victory within 1914, but they'd would be winning and Italy is very likely to jump in hoping for a territory grab. They where allied with the two nations after all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Germany and Austria would have won. Hitler never would have risen to power, and Germany would be a superpower...

[Sea Skimmer]

No Germany would fall before the term superpower comes into existence and it wouldn't be one in any case.

[Frank Hipper]

No Germany would fall before the term superpower comes into existence...

Why?

...and it wouldn't be one in any case.

And, why?

[StarshipTitanic]

The Central Powers win, France and Russia lose some territory, Lenin isn't sent back to Russia so possibly no revolution, Italy might join Germany and Austria in exchange for French African territory, but who knows about that last one (I'm pulling it out of my arse).

I think its unlikely Germany and Austria could secure a victory within 1914, but they'd would be winning and Italy is very likely to jump in hoping for a territory grab. They where allied with the two nations after all.

Well of course not immediately, but they'd win in the end. Italy might even get Nice and Piedmont back.

[StarshipTitanic]

Why?

Because in the next European War, England's going to support France against the Central Power bloc. They won't stand by and watch France be torn limb from limb.

And, why?

No ability to project power beyond Germany. Japan's going to seize their Far Eastern lands with France's support. Though France will surrender, Japan has no reason to listen to Germany screaming at them thousands of miles away. Germany is left with whatever they can pick of off France in Africa and Italy will also want a share. In Europe, they get a big slice of Poland.

Austria was always a regional power after the days of the Spanish Habsburgs passed. They annex portions of Serbia, Poland (Russia), and possibly some of Montenegro and Romania.

The Ottoman Empire would profit immensely from a war with no Britain to screw up Arabia and Mesopotamia. They get a gaggle of Greek islands and more of Armenia.

[Frank Hipper]

Why?

Because in the next European War, England's going to support France against the Central Power bloc. They won't stand by and watch France be torn limb from limb.

What next European war?
You're basing this on what, precisely? The long history of friendship and cooperation between Britain and France?

And, why?

No ability to project power beyond Germany. Japan's going to seize their Far Eastern lands with France's support. Though France will surrender, Japan has no reason to listen to Germany screaming at them thousands of miles away. Germany is left with whatever they can pick of off France in Africa and Italy will also want a share. In Europe, they get a big slice of Poland.

BTW, Germany already had a huge slice of Poland.
First:
If Britain is staying out of the war, why would their ally Japan unilaterally declare war on Germany?

Second:
French-Indochina. France falls, Germany seizes this colony. The Japanese navy was no match for the German, they have no way to prevent this.

I'm curious what makes you think Germany would have no projection of power, if Britain is staying out.....

Austria was always a regional power after the days of the Spanish Habsburgs passed. They annex portions of Serbia, Poland (Russia), and possibly some of Montenegro and Romania.

If Germany and the Austro-Hungarians win, you think the Austrians would accept anything less than complete control of Serbia? Do you know what action it was that sent the Russians to mobilise?

The Ottoman Empire would profit immensely from a war with no Britain to screw up Arabia and Mesopotamia. They get a gaggle of Greek islands and more of Armenia.

Without Turkish anger at Britain, they'd never get involved. Do you know why Turkey was enraged at Britain? And what actions Germany took to cajole them into joining the Central Powers?

[Howedar]

Second:
French-Indochina. France falls, Germany seizes this colony. The Japanese navy was no match for the German, they have no way to prevent this.

Haha!! You think Germany can project power that far away? No chance.

[Frank Hipper]

Second:
French-Indochina. France falls, Germany seizes this colony. The Japanese navy was no match for the German, they have no way to prevent this.

Haha!! You think Germany can project power that far away? No chance.

You're backing that up with what, precisely?
Historical precedent? Germany had no problem in sending a squadron of battleships and thousands of troops to China during the Boxer Rebellion, why would they not have superior capabilities 14-18 years later?

[Sea Skimmer]

Second:
French-Indochina. France falls, Germany seizes this colony. The Japanese navy was no match for the German, they have no way to prevent this.

The Japanese navy is no match for the Germans if it's polite enough to steam to the North Sea first. Beyond a few cruisers the German fleet was ill suited to any form of long-range mission and lacks the necessary support structure. It could all be built, but at great cost both monetary and time wise. Meanwhile a good chunk of the HSF needs replacing in addition to normal expansion as the British can keep churning out dreadnoughts with 15 inch guns.

[Howedar]

They weren't under attack from the Japanese during that deployment, nor were they fighting French troops (laughable as they may be).

You're talking about an expedition mounted from the Baltic to fight the Japanese on their home turf. Ask the Russians how that worked out.

[Sea Skimmer]

You're backing that up with what, precisely?
Historical precedent? Germany had no problem in sending a squadron of battleships and thousands of troops to China during the Boxer Rebellion, why would they not have superior capabilities 14-18 years later?

The German battleships of the time where intended for overseas services and designed and equipped for such. There later dreadnoughts where not because they where to be for countering the British battlefleet.

Not to mention that German force had to fight no sea battles and had the unrestricted use the regions ports.

[Frank Hipper]

Second:
French-Indochina. France falls, Germany seizes this colony. The Japanese navy was no match for the German, they have no way to prevent this.

The Japanese navy is no match for the Germans if it's polite enough to steam to the North Sea first. Beyond a few cruisers the German fleet was ill suited to any form of long-range mission and lacks the necessary support structure. It could all be built, but at great cost both monetary and time wise. Meanwhile a good chunk of the HSF needs replacing in addition to normal expansion as the British can keep churning out dreadnoughts with 15 inch guns.

This scenario puts Britain out of the picture.
Germany had the second largest mercantile fleet in the world at the time, and the port of Dar-es-Salaam.
Germany achieved more than it should have with commerce raiders in actual events, without the British blockade, you're saying there would be a repeat?

And that good chunk of the HSF that "needs replacing" outclassed what the Japanese could put to sea in 1914, which presumably would be when this takes place.

[Frank Hipper]

Ask the Russians how that worked out.

Give the Russians decent equipment and leadership, it could've turned out very differently.

[Sea Skimmer]

This scenario puts Britain out of the picture.

Germany must still match its fleet and that is counter weight to any major expenditure for an attack on the IJN.

Germany had the second largest mercantile fleet in the world at the time, and the port of Dar-es-Salaam.

Dar-es-Salaam has squat to support a fleet. Its very small both in piers, has no dry docks, few provisions for storing let alone loading coal and has no naval workshops or ammunition storage. It doesn't even have that much anchorage space and was on the shallow side. Once again it can be built up but that would take years. Its also over five thousand miles from Saigon.

Germany achieved more than it should have with commerce raiders in actual events, without the British blockade, you're saying there would be a repeat?

And that good chunk of the HSF that "needs replacing" outclassed what the Japanese could put to sea in 1914, which presumably would be when this takes place.

If the German fleet steams to fight the Japanese in 1914 it will be lucky if a single gun sight works when it runs into the IJN torpedo boat hoard without escort. German heavy ships often had decent range, but there actual endurance was quite poor, their ability and stores low and in generally they where not equipped nor designed to travel outside of Northern Europe. It would indeed be Tushimia

[TheDarkling]

Germany forced Britain’s hand, we really had no reason to ally with out to main colonial rivals (Russia in Asia and France in Africa) except that the High Seas fleet was built with the express purpose to engage and defeat the RN in the North sea and thus open the door to an invasion of the home islands and if that wasn't enough they violated Belgian neutrality thus pushing another one of the Empire's War buttons, it was long standing British strategy to prevent that stretch of coast from falling into the hands of any great power and we had gone to war over it before.

Essentially good old Kaiser Bill forced Britain’s hand, his sheer diplomatic tom foolery caused Britain to ally with our two main rivals (one whose throat we have been at for a millennia) instead of with Germany who the British people had natural affinity for (our monarchs beings Hanoverians and all), the only way for Britain and Germany not to go to war is for the ghost of Bismarck to come along and kick the Kaiser in the head and hope that he sees sense.

So if Britain is to stay neutral Germany must not build a fleet for the purpose of attacking Britain and be somewhat more flexible diplomatically and if that happens Britain may sign an alliance with Germany in which case I doubt the war would happen at that time because it would be too costly especially for France who would loose all colonial positions while Germany handled France and Russia, Russia may loose some Asian real estate if Britain cares enough to take it.

[Frank Hipper]

This scenario puts Britain out of the picture.

Germany must still match its fleet and that is counter weight to any major expenditure for an attack on the IJN.

A defeat for France and Russia would change the diplomatic scene in Europe in ways that are inderterminable. Maybe in favor of bleeding off strength, maybe not.

Germany had the second largest mercantile fleet in the world at the time, and the port of Dar-es-Salaam.

Dar-es-Salaam has squat to support a fleet. Its very small both in piers, has no dry docks, few provisions for storing let alone loading coal and has no naval workshops or ammunition storage. It doesn't even have that much anchorage space and was on the shallow side. Once again it can be built up but that would take years. Its also over five thousand miles from Saigon.

It's a German port to refuel in, assuming the Germans take some time to plan this, it's possible they could tow one of their floating drydocks there. After all, the U.S. towed one across the Pacific at approximately this time.

Germany achieved more than it should have with commerce raiders in actual events, without the British blockade, you're saying there would be a repeat?

Insulin+no food=garble.....
With the German mercantile fleet free from blockade, it would be able to support the HSF in ways that were unrealistic in actual events.

And that good chunk of the HSF that "needs replacing" outclassed what the Japanese could put to sea in 1914, which presumably would be when this takes place.

If the German fleet steams to fight the Japanese in 1914 it will be lucky if a single gun sight works when it runs into the IJN torpedo boat hoard without escort. German heavy ships often had decent range, but there actual endurance was quite poor, their ability and stores low and in generally they where not equipped nor designed to travel outside of Northern Europe. It would indeed be Tushimia

Well, it would be a Tsushima in that the bulk of the Japanese "torpedo boat hoard" for the most part dated from the time of Tsushima. Saigon is 2400 miles from Yokosuka, the Japanese would have supply problems of their own, major ones, and they'd have to keep those relatively elderly TBs in shape somehow to get there. And what do you think all those 5.9" guns German heavy ships mounted were there for?
And this is also disregarding the possibility of the Germans actually sending light craft of their own to counter this. We all know the German reputation for poor planning.

Where have you gotten the idea German gunsights fall apart? Bismarck? How many malfunctions of that sort were reported at Jutland?

[Sea Skimmer]

A defeat for France and Russia would change the diplomatic scene in Europe in ways that are inderterminable. Maybe in favor of bleeding off strength, maybe not.

We can safely assume the British would not stop mass producing dreadnoughts.

Well, it would be a Tsushima in that the bulk of the Japanese "torpedo boat hoard" for the most part dated from the time of Tsushima. Saigon is 2400 miles from Yokosuka, the Japanese would have supply problems of their own, major ones, and they'd have to keep those relatively elderly TBs in shape somehow to get there.

Japan had facilities on Formosa and would have the benefit of anchorages along the coast of Vietnam, which can actually hold a fleet, Cam Ranh Bay is among the best in the world, and Saigon also held naval facilities. Supporting the Japanese battle fleet would be hard, but torpedo craft are easy enough. And it all beats what the Germans have.

And what do you think all those 5.9" guns German heavy ships mounted were there for?

Getting washed out on the open sea. Secondary fire is useful in defence against torpedo attack but what you really need are your own escorts and Germany's destroyers and torpedo boats could not be deployed in any signficant number, most would sink along the way anyway.

And this is also disregarding the possibility of the Germans actually sending light craft of their own to counter this. We all know the German reputation for poor planning.

We all know how well 800-1000 ton warships designed for short rnage work in the North Sea like the open oceans. Even the best German destroyers would be at extreme range sailing from Singapore to Saigon and back, assuming they need never increase speed to do battle. None can cross the Indian ocean without refueling.

Where have you gotten the idea German gunsights fall apart? Bismarck? How many malfunctions of that sort were reported at Jutland?

Whenever a ship takes on coal the gun sights and other optical equipment are always fucked over, even when covered with perposed designed and made coal dust proof covers it still would get in. A dedicated naval collier actually had an optics shop to assist in fixing and cleaning them all. Germany however didn't have any such vessels, much research was done into the matter for some fiction over on warships1.

[Frank Hipper]

Germany forced Britain’s hand, we really had no reason to ally with out to main colonial rivals (Russia in Asia and France in Africa) except that the High Seas fleet was built with the express purpose to engage and defeat the RN in the North sea and thus open the door to an invasion of the home islands and if that wasn't enough they violated Belgian neutrality thus pushing another one of the Empire's War buttons, it was long standing British strategy to prevent that stretch of coast from falling into the hands of any great power and we had gone to war over it before.

The HSF was built as a political tool to allow Germany the freedom to expand colonially. It was never designed to defeat the RN, merely maul to the point that Britain would be forced to a diplomatic solution in event of war. Defending Belgian neutrality is the only legitimate reason Britain had for going to war in 1914.

The only plan Germany had for invasion existed in The Riddle of the Sands, BTW.

Essentially good old Kaiser Bill forced Britain’s hand, his sheer diplomatic tom foolery caused Britain to ally with our two main rivals (one whose throat we have been at for a millennia) instead of with Germany who the British people had natural affinity for (our monarchs beings Hanoverians and all), the only way for Britain and Germany not to go to war is for the ghost of Bismarck to come along and kick the Kaiser in the head and hope that he sees sense.

Ever hear of the Entente Cordiale?
The Kaiser's diplomatic ineptness basicly amounted to him promising support of Austria-Hungary, when he saw the ultimatum they issued to Serbia, he was horrified, knowing what it would lead to....

So if Britain is to stay neutral Germany must not build a fleet for the purpose of attacking Britain and be somewhat more flexible diplomatically and if that happens Britain may sign an alliance with Germany in which case....

Do your research from period tabloids much? This "if only Germany would be reasonable" argument was the cause of German antagonism towards Britain, nice to see people can still, after nearly 90 years, disregard that the path to war was more than a black and white situation.

[Frank Hipper]

A defeat for France and Russia would change the diplomatic scene in Europe in ways that are inderterminable. Maybe in favor of bleeding off strength, maybe not.

We can safely assume the British would not stop mass producing dreadnoughts.

Not the point. With a change in the diplomatic landscape, they could be built for an entirely different purpose.

Well, it would be a Tsushima in that the bulk of the Japanese "torpedo boat hoard" for the most part dated from the time of Tsushima. Saigon is 2400 miles from Yokosuka, the Japanese would have supply problems of their own, major ones, and they'd have to keep those relatively elderly TBs in shape somehow to get there.

Japan had facilities on Formosa and would have the benefit of anchorages along the coast of Vietnam, which can actually hold a fleet, Cam Ranh Bay is among the best in the world, and Saigon also held naval facilities. Supporting the Japanese battle fleet would be hard, but torpedo craft are easy enough. And it all beats what the Germans have.

Cam Ranh Bay had exactly what facilities in 1914? And why would neutral Britain allow the Japanese to operate out of Formosa?

And what do you think all those 5.9" guns German heavy ships mounted were there for?

Getting washed out on the open sea. Secondary fire is useful in defence against torpedo attack but what you really need are your own escorts and Germany's destroyers and torpedo boats could not be deployed in any signficant number, most would sink along the way anyway.

Getting washed out on the open sea? We're not talking American ships here. From the Helgolands on, there was little to no interferance with German secondaries. The worst were von der Tann and the Moltkes.
Japan could sortie at most 34 TBs in 1914, many of which dated from the turn of the century, or older. And that number's really stretching it.
Make me a believer as to how, and why, German TBs would "sink along the way". How many of their much smaller boats did the Russians lose to foundering in 1904?

And this is also disregarding the possibility of the Germans actually sending light craft of their own to counter this. We all know the German reputation for poor planning.

We all know how well 800-1000 ton warships designed for short rnage work in the North Sea like the open oceans. Even the best German destroyers would be at extreme range sailing from Singapore to Saigon and back, assuming they need never increase speed to do battle. None can cross the Indian ocean without refueling.

Again, the Japnese would be suffering from the same problems, with older equipment.

[TheDarkling]

The HSF was built as a political tool to allow Germany the freedom to expand colonially. It was never designed to defeat the RN, merely maul to the point that Britain would be forced to a diplomatic solution in event of war. Defending Belgian neutrality is the only legitimate reason Britain had for going to war in 1914.

Rubbish, the HSF was designed to do battle with the RN in the North Sea and defeat it opening the way for Germany to attack the home islands, whether Germany simply wanted this as a possible threat to get the Empire to look the other way whilst they attacked others is immaterial the HSF was built for one purpose alone and that was to enable the Germanys to threaten invasion of the UK.

This led to a naval armaments race because Germany was being belligerent, you build a fleet for the sole purpose of attacking a particular nation and that nation is going to take offence and seek to forge other alliances.

The Kaiser's diplomatic ineptness basicly amounted to him promising support of Austria-Hungary, when he saw the ultimatum they issued to Serbia, he was horrified, knowing what it would lead to....

I was talking way before when the UK sought an alliance with Germany but because of the Kaisers idiocy we sought an accord with France instead.

Do your research from period tabloids much? This "if only Germany would be reasonable" argument was the cause of German antagonism towards Britain, nice to see people can still, after nearly 90 years, disregard that the path to war was more than a black and white situation

Again you misunderstood me (and then attacked my creditability), Britain tried to ally with out "natural ally" as they were called but Germany was intent on building a fleet to attack Britain with, rebuffing alliance proposals, supplying our enemies with arms and general being arrogant fools and thus Britain needed to seek an ally with strong abilities on the continent (although we had to settle for France ).