Signing of the Treaty of Bucharest.

[Frank Hipper]

Really? Italy's treaty was defensive. Why the fuck do you think they fought on the ALLIED side?

That's funny, the whole Central Alliance idea was, in theory, defensive. Did WW1 never happen?

They only fought for the Allies because Tyrol and Trieste were dangled in front of them, not because they felt a moral obligation, idiot.

You claimed this:

Probably something to do with being a Central Power and all...

And now you're calling me an idiot. I'm real proud of ya, managing to do a little research this late in the game. Perhaps you think no one will notice your bullshit?

That makes no sense.
You said Germany would continue building, I said Britain always outbuilt Germany, meaning that Britain's fleet would always be the stronger.....

Oh, I get it! WWII was caused by Germany's "massive" naval buildup.!

Were you paying attention to Britain as it sucked on America's teat before the US entered WW2? No threat from France and Russia ensures total domination by Germany and Britain can't outproduce the most highly-industrialized continent on the globe.

.
From day 1, Britain outbuilt Germany, I can't believe someone is even hinting that it wouldn't somehow always be the case no matter what conclusion there is in this faux WWI. And please show evidence that Germany was more industrialised than the U.S., Soviet Union, or Britain at the time of WWII. Or the U.S. and Britain in WWI, in consideration of your lack of focus.

You are a fucking liar! A goddamned motherfucking liar! That post exists in it's original form for everyone to see, I copied and pasted it you fucking three year old!

Do you understand what "literacy" means? Only a total imbecile would translate that quote to mean France gives Japan their colonies instead of Japan taking Germany's colonies. Oh, did you just do that?

Are you really this dishonest and stupid? Or is it your literacy that's in doubt?
When someone says "That's also not what I typed", when the text was lifted from your post, that makes out to be a liar. Did you think I edited that?

*sigh* Look, little liar, Japan entered WWI because they had a mutual defense treaty with Britain. Seeing as how you've done nothing but misdirect, fabricate fictional scenarios to suit your argument (France&Japan), and show a misunderstanding of historical linkages, I shouldn't expect you to understand how a mutual defense treaty works. Well, honestly, neither did the Japanese, but they ain't going to war on their own, NOT in this.

Fictional scenarios?!? Last time I checked, Britain wasn't neutral in WW1, ignoramus.

Las time I checked, German ties to Japan were tighter than the ones Japan had with France, why wouldn't Japan want Indochina, through an alliance with Germany? Every bit as plausible.

Stupid lying fuck, just because you don't want it to be, does not mean that a ship AT ANCHOR isn't vulnerable.

Stupid Kaiser-fellator, no matter how much you wank those wank-naughts of your's, they can't defeat a swarm of torpedo boats or submarines. Especially half way around the world from the nearest base to repair at!

You claim that elderly Japanese torpedo boats are going to sink a fleet at sea by citing an example of an anchored battleship being sunk, not only is your analogy nonexistant, but you disregard the complexity of even finding the Germans in the first place.

You dont even see yourself defeating your own pitiful attempt at an arguement here?

You are comedy gold! Tell me, how are deflections from turreted cannons relevant to submarine combat?

Do you even remember what was being dicussed here, pot-head? Again, you somehow come to the magical conclusion that because an Austrian battleship at anchor was sunk by an Italian MTB, that the Japanese will sink the Germans in there entirety with their elderly boats. I countered that by stating how a relatively weaker battlecruiser was able to survive a torpedo, on top of damage by gunfire that would've sunk most ships. Then you said in "defense" of your "point":

My heavens, it stopped one torpedo? Surely it is invincible! Last time I checked, torpedo boats don't pack turrets or displace 16,000 tons, too.

Not only are you misrepresenting ME in this latest attempt, but that's TWICE you've defeated your own TB bullshit analogy. And the confusing submarines into this is funny, if unintentional, further dishonesty, if not.

What submarines did France possess in 1914 that could intercept a fleet at sea.

Please plot out the course in which the German fleet will travel to Japan.

You claim French subs are a threat, you provide evidence for that claim. You do know that's how it works, don't you?

You said High Seas Fleet.

No, you say it's entirely possible.

You have the option of going back and re-reading this thread if you're having trouble remembering what was said. And it is entirely possible, very difficult, very risky, but entirely possible.

I've never said anything about them defending the islands, I'm saying they would occupy Indochina as a conclusion to a European war. When your poor understanding of the political relationships stressed Japan's presence in this, I claimed that Germany was capable of projecting power due to the absence of a British blockade.

If you think mega-expansionistic Japan is going to watch the little Euros duke it out without taking advantage of the situation, you are blind. Oh I know, maybe they'll side with Germany, too!

"Mega-expansionistic" Japan, in 1914? Not like it ws fifteen years later.And with the Japanese army having been built on the German model, industrial ties, not to mention the kind treatment German POWs recieved in Japan during WWI, A German-Japanese alliance is every bit as plausible as a French one. And France has better colonies to take.

Funy how, in spite of everything gowing against it, the Germans were able to keep a few ships supplied at sea during WWI. And what a glaring, unique failure in German troop ships you've mentioned.

And even more funny, those ships were totally ineffective. Glaring, unique failure as in the Imperator? The Vaterland still has to make it home from New York (I do admit it's entirely possible, though) and those are the only two ships that can carry enough troops for such an operation. The Bismark is a rusting hulk at this point and the largest ship other than those two isn't even half the size.

I recomend you examine Imperator's service as a troopship in RL before going too far with this. A serious roll may be a failure in a liner, but in a troopship it's an inconvenience.
And you should look up some of the many objectives of commerce raiding before you claim ineffectiveness.

Luckily, the Germans wouldn't be so stupid as to think a liner could serve as a collier. Small merchantmen are much better suited. They would also plan this to where there would be ships waiting at pre-arranged spots en-route, like they managed to do in RL.

They did this all through the Indian Ocean, eh?

No, they took what they needed in the Indian Ocean from their prizes. They had what little of their supply ships they could get through the blockade in the Atlantic.

Snipping what you wrote in the original post won't cover up your intent with it. Not in this forum. Anyone with the energy to scroll up can see that for themself.

What the hell are you talking about? Anyone with a brain currently not being prodded by the Kaiser's 'Little Prussian' knows that that is a sarcastic statement. Tell me how the German fleet would prevent the Japanese from cleaning house just like they did. Maybe Tinkerbell will sprinkle pixie dust over the ships and coal trains so you can soar over Asia and drop shells on Tokyo!

Well, nice to see you can backpedal. If that was so sarcastic, why did you post it as a link to a site presumably "proving" your assertation?
Childish antics aside, the presence of a German fleet in the Indian Ocean would be enough of a distraction to the Japanese that they wouldn't have time to bother with quasi-inhabited islands thousands of miles away from a serious threat.

[Frank Hipper]

This perception has no bearing on my demands for evidence. Of course it was a threat, it was created as a deterent.

...

So? He claimed that the HSF was designed to invade Britain. No offense to TheDarkling intended, but that's wrong (it would have been impossible for Germany to equal Britain's naval development while still maintaining a solid land effort). But its status as a deterrent was more than enough--the building of a force designed to cripple the Home Fleet is the equivalent of holding a gun to Britain's head.

Then we agree here. Except I stand by the deterrent concept more as a political tool, than as a military force to be used at first opportunity.
During the war, the Kaiser prefered a "fleet in being" to one risked in combat. For possible use as leverage at the bargaining table.

Germany's attempt at sending weapons to the Boers being blocked pissed the Germans off, especially when it was viewed as Germany taking the moral high ground.
International humiliation in that case fueled indignation, and that served to prompt the build up of the navy. Again, the Anglo-German arms race had two players, equally guilty.

What should Britain have done in that case? Allowed the weapons to go through? Debased herself and sacrificed the lives of her soldiers in the name of temporarily sating an aggressive and expansionist nation?

I wasn't saying that. I'm trying to illustrate German public sentiment. The fact that the war should never have been pursued in the first place is the only point I'd have to make in regards to that statement.

Germany was more guilty, because they scheduled the race and fired the opening shot.

True.

Britain wasn't hostile to the Germans until they endeavoured to become a threat in the North Sea and attempted to impede British policies abroad. The British-German arms race sprang from foolish foreign policy decisions made by the Germans.

Sprang from, yes. But talk in the papers about pre-emptive strikes and plans to land on the Baltic coast, while a reaction to Germany, didn't have many equivelants there.

[TheDarkling]

Germany's intention was not one of conquest of Britain, but deterrence in order to achieve their colonial ambitions. Provide evidence for plans of invasion or concede the point.

You beat the RN in the north sea and Britain is defenceless (huge coastline and virtual non existence of ground forces compared to continental powers), not only that but if Britain looses control of the waters around he home island they are effectively cut off from the Empire and that leaves problems against internal uprisings as well as external aggression.

You say it was only meant as deterrence and I never said it wasn't but if France had announced to the world that they wanted an Army capable of marching into the heart of a certain Germanic nation and then gone about a massive military build up to reach this goal (whilst funding any anarchists with that nation) do you think Germany would have been all sweetness and light? if Germany gains the upper hand in the north sea then Britain cannot act politically for fear of loosing a battle there and thus being very vulnerable.

I doubt Germany did intend to launch an invasion of Britain and the Kaiser may have just wanted a cool navy to impress his grandmother but when Britain sees another nation building a navy that could serve t the clear the way for an invasion (or just crippling of communication lines with the rest of the empire) and then that nation acts in a very belligerent fashion Britain would have been remiss not to take those actions as an affront and act accordingly.

That does not redress my point that the vocal press and public sentiment in Britain was as virulently anti-German as anything in Germany was anti-British.

No but it does point out that Britain retaliated to the anti British sentiment in Germany not that Britain "started it" so to speak.

So you agree that the Entente was ground shaking.

Britain showing favour to the French was important but it had been a long time coming and was the result of Germany inflexibility and aggression.

Yes, Germany wouldn't accept the terms proposed, and Britain walked away wondering why they wouldn't accept what they were told to. They both behaved stupidly.

And yet France was very easy to reach an accord with even though we were long time enemies with interests in the same spheres of influence (and had been close to the brink of war only 6 years earlier), it seems to me that German inflexibility was the root cause of no agreement being made, the Kaiser was under the mistaken impression that your can bully a great power into being your ally, his fleet and actions were meant to prove that he was to be respected and listened to (orders followed) Britain took these actions as hostile and sought allies elsewhere, there was a diplomatic breakdown but it was firmly rooted in German (the Kaisers) policy.

Germany was not alone in the world in viewing Britain as the predatory aggressor in the Boer War, you know. Sympathy lay with the Boers, Germany tried to act on it.

Germany was caught acting belligerently no matter what the reason, Britain was not amused.

But, not 1910.

But still before the outbreak of war.

Many people here refuse to do research to back up other's claims, but in my brief scan of some material I found it would appear that was more of an internal problem, with the Ulster Volunteers shipping the guns in themselves.

Well that clashes with what I provided and the several other sites that turned up in the search I outlined, it was the UVF getting the arms but they got them from Germany, there was another arms shipment to the Republicans in June of that year landing at Howarth, again Britain unimpressed.

And war on women and children did little to curry favor in the rest of the world. How could Germany be so foolish as to attempt to assist them, didn't they know their place was to do as others wish?

Oh please, how can you say that with a straight face, if Germany really carried that much about the Boers they should have stood up and done something proper about it, I care not for you endless justifications of German aggression, the aggression was clear to see and was acted upon.

Now while this little dance has been amusing let us remember what started it, I asserted Britain’s hand was forced by Germany because they aided our enemies (which you have admitted), built a fleet for the sole purpose of attacking the RN in the north sea (this you also don't deny but try to justify as being merely a guarantee etc which while true wasn't a certainty from Britain’s position), was clumsy diplomatically (this you denied but have since backed down over and tried to divert to what British tabloids said which is irrelevant considering that the Kaiser made statements of idiocy and Britain refrained from such), now while what I have written above this paragraph is al good stuff the facts of the matter are that Britain did have reasons to be hostile towards Germany and the invasion of Belgium wasn't the sole reason for a war - that was what I asserted and all your bluster has failed to change the fact that I am correct.

[TheDarkling]

This perception has no bearing on my demands for evidence. Of course it was a threat, it was created as a deterent.

...

So? He claimed that the HSF was designed to invade Britain. No offense to TheDarkling intended, but that's wrong (it would have been impossible for Germany to equal Britain's naval development while still maintaining a solid land effort). But its status as a deterrent was more than enough--the building of a force designed to cripple the Home Fleet is the equivalent of holding a gun to Britain's head.

No offence taken, it was impossible for Germany to even match he RN in the North sea full stop if Britain wished to prevent it.

If you go back and view what I said (I think Mr Hipper has also misunderstood me) you will see I said that a RN defeat in the North sea left Britain wide open to invasion since in this case Britain would have very little in the way of ground force, no ability to bring in forces from the Empire (we have lost control of the sea besides which time is a factor) and a large coastline.
The fact that a British defeat wasn't going to happen because Britain was willing to outspend the Germans wasn't really my point my point was that a British defeat in the North Sea left Britain open to ground assault and isolation as such anyone designing a fleet to do just that is going to viewed in a bad light indeed.
.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Sprang from, yes. But talk in the papers about pre-emptive strikes and plans to land on the Baltic coast, while a reaction to Germany, didn't have many equivelants there.

Well, the fact that Germany hadn't the capability to even contemplate such actions may have had something to do with that. The British had the ability, or at least thought they did.

[Typhonis 1]

The Kregsmarine in WW1 was never meant to BEAT the Royal Navy. The intention was to make a fight with it so costly in terms of ships lost that the British would not want to fight it so parity was never its goal.

[Axis Kast]

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

Just a nitpick. Cam Ranh Bay had a long history of use by the French; it was their major port-of-call in the Indian Ocean even before 1900, with anchorages capable of accomodating several armored cruisers at the very least.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Just a nitpick. Cam Ranh Bay had a long history of use by the French; it was their major port-of-call in the Indian Ocean even before 1900, with anchorages capable of accomodating several armored cruisers at the very least.

Not enough to defeat the Japanese in their home waters.

[Axis Kast]

The question was whether Cam Ranh Bay could serve as a port-of-call for a major fleet. The answer is yes - irrespective of whether we're talking about the British, German, or Japanese fleets (none of which would have coaled there during wartime anyway).

[StarshipTitanic]

And now you're calling me an idiot. I'm real proud of ya, managing to do a little research this late in the game. Perhaps you think no one will notice your bullshit?

Whee, yet more of my words being taken far out of Contextland... Now time to destroy your lies:

The "Italy likes it both ways" context-raping

Here is the full responce history (In a slightly messed up quote ziggurat):

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

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.

[/quote][/quote]

Yes Frank, you have managed to prove a grand total of NOTHING. And if taking a tangent of a tangent isn't enough, you resorted to simply pretending everything I say has a meaning that fits like a puzzle piece with what you want me to spew. To summarize what I really said:

In Real Life Italy did not join Germany and Austria because of disputes over the purpose of their alliance but gladly turned on them in exchange for what they thought to be easy targets at the expense of Austria.

In Fake WW1 Italy will similarly not join Germany and Austria but, considering their fickle behavior in the Real World, it is a perfectly understandable assumption that they would join in the carving of France once Germany appears to be winning.

What Frank would like you to believe is that I am constantly changing my story and ignoring my previous comments. You are normally not this stupid, Frank, why are you starting now?

To continue...

From day 1, Britain outbuilt Germany, I can't believe someone is even hinting that it wouldn't somehow always be the case no matter what conclusion there is in this faux WWI. And please show evidence that Germany was more industrialised than the U.S., Soviet Union, or Britain at the time of WWII. Or the U.S. and Britain in WWI, in consideration of your lack of focus.

The post-WW1 US and Britain are irrelevant as they would not form in this scenario, as is the entire existance of the USSR. When the next war comes, barring a French or Russian Hitler, Germany will carry all before it and gain control of the majority of Europe, along with all its resources.

Pre-WW1 US and Britain are also irrelevant as the "next war" would happen *drumroll* AFTER the first!

Are you really this dishonest and stupid? Or is it your literacy that's in doubt?
When someone says "That's also not what I typed", when the text was lifted from your post, that makes out to be a liar. Did you think I edited that?

No, you didn't edit anything, you just made up your own meaning and defended it when I attempted to clarify. Time to destroy this lie:

The "whose cherry does Japan take?" blatant misinterpretation

France: Hey Japan, want to ally with me so you can get even more Chinese and Oceanic territory?
Japan: The consequences?
France: Uh...none?
Japan: Ok then!

(Note: This is what Frank likes to pretend doesn't exist) Japan has no reason to ally against France and have Germany take over former French territory while they can ally with France and keep the German territory they gain.

Niiice. Pass that doobie, it's obviously some good shit.

Concession accepted, twit.

And my summary of what Frank did:

He took the wise-arse half of a comment I typed and then made up his own funky translation of what I meant instead of responding to the serious sentence below (which meant virtually the same thing). I tell him that his "interpretation" is no where near what I typed. He springs a trap worthy of the Acme-patron Coyote on me and "shows" how I'm such a liar. To further destroy Frank's credibility, here's a responce to Frank's first insult, made by Pablo, showing that HE can comprehend what I typed with no problems:

What an enjoyable failure to address his point. The Germans can't stop the Japanese from raping their colonies. If they happen to get Indochina in a peace settlement and somehow remain at war with Japan, they still can't reinforce it.

Now, to continue once more...

Last time I checked, German ties to Japan were tighter than the ones Japan had with France, why wouldn't Japan want Indochina, through an alliance with Germany? Every bit as plausible.

Last time I checked, Germany's territories are far closer and far easier to suppress than France's.

You claim that elderly Japanese torpedo boats are going to sink a fleet at sea by citing an example of an anchored battleship being sunk, not only is your analogy nonexistant, but you disregard the complexity of even finding the Germans in the first place.

More lies, but I have not the paitence of another ziggurat. My claims:

Japan can replace their losses and increase their numbers faster than Germany can hope for.

Japan doesn't need to slug it out to sink the German Navy.

No where did I say:

1) The Japanese will find the Germans at sea.
2) The Japanese will sink this fleet at sea.

And they don't even have to. The Germans will exaust themselves trying to keep their fleet coaled, running around defending the islands, and mounting an attack on Japan.

Do you even remember what was being dicussed here, pot-head? Again, you somehow come to the magical conclusion that because an Austrian battleship at anchor was sunk by an Italian MTB, that the Japanese will sink the Germans in there entirety with their elderly boats.

Lie.

Not only are you misrepresenting ME in this latest attempt, but that's TWICE you've defeated your own TB bullshit analogy. And the confusing submarines into this is funny, if unintentional, further dishonesty, if not.

Lie, and while I did slip up with the delivery system, I did not mistake the weapon, which is what my argument was about. Japanese torpedoes are more numerous and easier to replace than the German fleet.

You claim French subs are a threat, you provide evidence for that claim. You do know that's how it works, don't you?

It depends on the course that they take, which is why I ask you to describe the route. To sink to a level of keeping everything vague so I'm "lured" into a trap shows what a cowardly liar you are.

You have the option of going back and re-reading this thread if you're having trouble remembering what was said. And it is entirely possible, very difficult, very risky, but entirely possible.

You can say that and then expect German success with a straight face?

"Mega-expansionistic" Japan, in 1914? Not like it ws fifteen years later.

BS, WW2 was the culmination of decades of Japanese expansion that had started far earlier.

And with the Japanese army having been built on the German model, industrial ties, not to mention the kind treatment German POWs recieved in Japan during WWI, A German-Japanese alliance is every bit as plausible as a French one. And France has better colonies to take.

The Japanese stand to gain far less in such an alliance. Germany won't allow them to have all of French Indochina and the French sphere of influence in China while they could gain all of Germany's colonial possessions with barely a fight.

I recomend you examine Imperator's service as a troopship in RL before going too far with this. A serious roll may be a failure in a liner, but in a troopship it's an inconvenience.

You mean the ship that had the propensity to ignite its electrical systems (and that was from being laid up, imagine what it would be like ferrying troops from Europe to Asia)? I'd love to see it in a good storm around the Cape of Good Hope (Or the Straits of Magellan, depending on whatever route you feel like blessing me with the knowledge of). Yup, those troops sure will arrive in Indochina in tip-top shape...

And you should look up some of the many objectives of commerce raiding before you claim ineffectiveness.

I hope you don't mean with converted liners, which failed horribly when compared to subs. Long range U-boats are far better and nothing is stopping Japan (or France if it manages to have the time) from using subs on the Germans.

No, they took what they needed in the Indian Ocean from their prizes. They had what little of their supply ships they could get through the blockade in the Atlantic.

And of what nationality were those ships from the Indian Ocean, pray tell?

Well, nice to see you can backpedal. If that was so sarcastic, why did you post it as a link to a site presumably "proving" your assertation?

Ah, another example of keeping your comments vague to lure me into a "trap." I first ask you what you're talking about (You accuse me of nearly the same tactic that you are currently employing) and then went with my best guess (I figured you meant I was switching what I said by posting a link with evidence of the Japanese cleaning German house that was named with a seemingly contradictory statement). So naturally you ignore my request for clarification and go right on to the guess part.

[StarshipTitanic]

To anyone, other than Frank, bothering to read my posts: am I really spouting pure nonsense? Please tell me because if I am, Frank isn't getting through.

[Frank Hipper]

Germany's intention was not one of conquest of Britain, but deterrence in order to achieve their colonial ambitions. Provide evidence for plans of invasion or concede the point.

You beat the RN in the north sea and Britain is defenceless (huge coastline and virtual non existence of ground forces compared to continental powers), not only that but if Britain looses control of the waters around he home island they are effectively cut off from the Empire and that leaves problems against internal uprisings as well as external aggression.

Then, there is no evidence for an invasion, yes? My repeated demand for this evidence may seem unfair, but it was your claim, and your assumptions and casual dismissals did nothing to make me want let up on it.

You say it was only meant as deterrence and I never said it wasn't but if France had announced to the world that they wanted an Army capable of marching into the heart of a certain Germanic nation and then gone about a massive military build up to reach this goal (whilst funding any anarchists with that nation) do you think Germany would have been all sweetness and light? if Germany gains the upper hand in the north sea then Britain cannot act politically for fear of loosing a battle there and thus being very vulnerable.

You have repeatedly claimed Germany's fleet was purely offensive.
The bit about France is a strawman arguement.

I doubt Germany did intend to launch an invasion of Britain...

Well that's new.

...and the Kaiser may have just wanted a cool navy to impress his grandmother but when Britain sees another nation building a navy that could serve t the clear the way for an invasion...

Well, maybe not so new, after all.

... (or just crippling of communication lines with the rest of the empire) and then that nation acts in a very belligerent fashion Britain would have been remiss not to take those actions as an affront and act accordingly.

Yes. It was an arms race.

So you agree that the Entente was ground shaking.

Britain showing favour to the French was important but it had been a long time coming and was the result of Germany inflexibility and aggression.

A long time coming how? And, honestly, unless you're using "long time coming" as a euphemism for a desire for the entente, define "long time coming".

Yes, Germany wouldn't accept the terms proposed, and Britain walked away wondering why they wouldn't accept what they were told to. They both behaved stupidly.

And yet France was very easy to reach an accord with even though we were long time enemies with interests in the same spheres of influence (and had been close to the brink of war only 6 years earlier),

Your last statement about France comes to mind right now for some reason.

... it seems to me that German inflexibility was the root cause of no agreement being made, the Kaiser was under the mistaken impression that your can bully a great power into being your ally, his fleet and actions were meant to prove that he was to be respected and listened to (orders followed) Britain took these actions as hostile and sought allies elsewhere, there was a diplomatic breakdown but it was firmly rooted in German (the Kaisers) policy.

Britain wanted to deal with Germany only. Germany wanted to include Austria-Hungary and Italy. Britain wouldn't go that far. Cry "bully" all you want.

Germany was not alone in the world in viewing Britain as the predatory aggressor in the Boer War, you know. Sympathy lay with the Boers, Germany tried to act on it.

Germany was caught acting belligerently no matter what the reason, Britain was not amused.

Yeah, and events like having your ships seized would almost make someone to want to build a navy.

Many people here refuse to do research to back up other's claims, but in my brief scan of some material I found it would appear that was more of an internal problem, with the Ulster Volunteers shipping the guns in themselves.

Well that clashes with what I provided and the several other sites that turned up in the search I outlined, it was the UVF getting the arms but they got them from Germany, there was another arms shipment to the Republicans in June of that year landing at Howarth, again Britain unimpressed.

Seeing as how you invited me to do the search, instead of backing up your own arguement, I went to the first site Google had listed. And if Britain was so worried about the Irish buying guns in foreign countries as to use it as a reason for going to war with Germany, which is a claim that is unique in my experience, where is the outcry about the U.S. trying to provide them with a submarine 30 years earlier?

And war on women and children did little to curry favor in the rest of the world. How could Germany be so foolish as to attempt to assist them, didn't they know their place was to do as others wish?

Oh please, how can you say that with a straight face, if Germany really carried that much about the Boers they should have stood up and done something proper about it, I care not for you endless justifications of German aggression, the aggression was clear to see and was acted upon.

Well, Germany saw building a fleet as standing up and doing something proper about it.
And your personal cares about justifications display a casual contempt for what is nearly universally held as a criminally directed war of aggression.

Now while this little dance has been amusing let us remember what started it, I asserted Britain’s hand was forced by Germany because they aided our enemies (which you have admitted), built a fleet for the sole purpose of attacking the RN in the north sea (this you also don't deny but try to justify as being merely a guarantee etc which while true wasn't a certainty from Britain’s position)....

A goodly distance from where you started.

was clumsy diplomatically (this you denied but have since backed down over and tried to divert to what British tabloids said which is irrelevant considering that the Kaiser made statements of idiocy and Britain refrained from such)

I denied clumsy diplomacy where? And backed down from it where? Dishonest, much?

...now while what I have written above this paragraph is al good stuff the facts of the matter are that Britain did have reasons to be hostile towards Germany and the invasion of Belgium wasn't the sole reason for a war - that was what I asserted and all your bluster has failed to change the fact that I am correct.

Your belief in your correctness does not make you correct.
Your failure to provide evidence for your claim of an invasion motive or theory does not make you correct.
Glossing over the fact that protecting Belgian neutrality was Britain's only LEGITIMATE reason for going to war does not make you correct.
Accusing me of bluster, while arrogantly dismissing any possibility of a case for supplying arms to the Boers, and relegating Irish Home Rulers as anarchists, does not make you correct.

[Frank Hipper]

I admit to misunderstanding S. Titanic's bit where I accused him of lying. But that does not change the fact that he said "that's not what I typed". That is where I flew off the handle, I do not appreciate accusations of editing material.

And the rest of that last monster of his is going to take me more than hour to respond to, unless I can stay online for any appreciable length of time.

[StarshipTitanic]

I admit to misunderstanding S. Titanic's bit where I accused him of lying. But that does not change the fact that he said "that's not what I typed". That is where I flew off the handle, I do not appreciate accusations of editing material.

About time! And I was correct in telling you what I did and did not type, you quoted half of a comment and assigned your own meaning when mine was right below for all to see. I admit it would have been clearer if I had said "That's not what I meant." I did not intend to accuse you of changing my comment but of misinterpreting a selectively quoted comment of mine.

And the rest of that last monster of his is going to take me more than hour to respond to, unless I can stay online for any appreciable length of time.

It wasn't exactly a pleasure to type up but I hardly had a choice...

[Frank Hipper]

Yes Frank, you have managed to prove a grand total of NOTHING. And if taking a tangent of a tangent isn't enough, you resorted to simply pretending everything I say has a meaning that fits like a puzzle piece with what you want me to spew. To summarize what I really said:

What you really said was Italy would ally itself with Germany, gaining colonies. Italy did not fight with Germany and Austria because neither was attacked, nor would either be attacked in this scenario. One of those three powers would have to be attacked for the conditions of the treaty to come into play. Why they fought on the Allied side is irrelevant, why they did not fight with the Central powers is very relevant. Asking why Italy would have anything to do with this is dead on target.

In Fake WW1 Italy will similarly not join Germany and Austria but, considering their fickle behavior in the Real World, it is a perfectly understandable assumption that they would join in the carving of France once Germany appears to be winning.

Backpedaling. Assumptions like this scream "prove me". Opinions on how "fickle" Italy was is not proof.

What Frank would like you to believe is that I am constantly changing my story and ignoring my previous comments. You are normally not this stupid, Frank, why are you starting now?

Read through this thread again and ask yourself why anyone would think you're changing your story.

From day 1, Britain outbuilt Germany, I can't believe someone is even hinting that it wouldn't somehow always be the case no matter what conclusion there is in this faux WWI. And please show evidence that Germany was more industrialised than the U.S., Soviet Union, or Britain at the time of WWII. Or the U.S. and Britain in WWI, in consideration of your lack of focus.

The post-WW1 US and Britain are irrelevant as they would not form in this scenario, as is the entire existance of the USSR. When the next war comes, barring a French or Russian Hitler, Germany will carry all before it and gain control of the majority of Europe, along with all its resources.

Pre-WW1 US and Britain are also irrelevant as the "next war" would happen *drumroll* AFTER the first!

Answer my question, which was in response to your claim that Germany would be the greatest industrial power.

Are you really this dishonest and stupid? Or is it your literacy that's in doubt?
When someone says "That's also not what I typed", when the text was lifted from your post, that makes out to be a liar. Did you think I edited that?

No, you didn't edit anything, you just made up your own meaning and defended it when I attempted to clarify. Time to destroy this lie:

I admittedly misunderstood you, but when you say "that's not what I typed" I'm fully entitled to call you on lying, or the very least misrepresenting. Why didn't you say "that's not what I meant, read it again!"? Being kicked offline every twenty minutes does nothing for my mood, I saw that and flew off the handle. My apologies.

Last time I checked, German ties to Japan were tighter than the ones Japan had with France, why wouldn't Japan want Indochina, through an alliance with Germany? Every bit as plausible.

Last time I checked, Germany's territories are far closer and far easier to suppress than France's.

And not even a fraction of the value.

You claim that elderly Japanese torpedo boats are going to sink a fleet at sea by citing an example of an anchored battleship being sunk, not only is your analogy nonexistant, but you disregard the complexity of even finding the Germans in the first place.

More lies, but I have not the paitence of another ziggurat.

One thing, real quick.
We have a rule about excessive quoting. Keep it down to three quotes in a bloc.
And claiming I'm a liar, again, does not change the FACT that you evaded proving anything resembling a point. If you can prove that I'm lying, then DO IT! If you can address my point above, then DO IT!

My claims:

Japan can replace their losses and increase their numbers faster than Germany can hope for.

Japan doesn't need to slug it out to sink the German Navy.

No where did I say:

1) The Japanese will find the Germans at sea.
2) The Japanese will sink this fleet at sea.

And they don't even have to. The Germans will exaust themselves trying to keep their fleet coaled, running around defending the islands, and mounting an attack on Japan.

Attack on Japan! Where in the FUCK did that come from?
Are you claiming the Germans will die, sink, whatever( ), from exhaustion?
How is it that torpedoes are a threat, if the Japanese can't find the Germans, idiot!
Why would the Germans defend their island possessions at the cost of Indochina, which IS THE POINT OF THEIR BEING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???????
How many times do I have to say coaling would be extremely difficult, but not impossible?

Do you even remember what was being dicussed here, pot-head? Again, you somehow come to the magical conclusion that because an Austrian battleship at anchor was sunk by an Italian MTB, that the Japanese will sink the Germans in there entirety with their elderly boats.

Lie.

Fucking prove it, then.

Not only are you misrepresenting ME in this latest attempt, but that's TWICE you've defeated your own TB bullshit analogy. And the confusing submarines into this is funny, if unintentional, further dishonesty, if not.

Lie, and while I did slip up with the delivery system, I did not mistake the weapon, which is what my argument was about. Japanese torpedoes are more numerous and easier to replace than the German fleet.

Call me a liar with some way to back it up, next time. And what delivery system is available to the Japanese?

You claim French subs are a threat, you provide evidence for that claim. You do know that's how it works, don't you?

It depends on the course that they take, which is why I ask you to describe the route. To sink to a level of keeping everything vague so I'm "lured" into a trap shows what a cowardly liar you are.

Describing how the French subs would know where to find them would be covered under defining the threat. Just a hint for you, since you're unable to figure that out on your own. After all, who's going to tell the French what route they're going to take? Atlantic or Mediterranean, define this threat.

"Mega-expansionistic" Japan, in 1914? Not like it ws fifteen years later.

BS, WW2 was the culmination of decades of Japanese expansion that had started far earlier.

Japan completely abandoned any pretext at being a member of the international community in the early thirties. Unlike the Japan of the earlier 20th century. Japan of the early thirties was engaged in buttfucking China, in complete disregard of international outrage. That is "Mega-Expansionistic". Engaging in war is not the same. Do you understand?

And with the Japanese army having been built on the German model, industrial ties, not to mention the kind treatment German POWs recieved in Japan during WWI, A German-Japanese alliance is every bit as plausible as a French one. And France has better colonies to take.

The Japanese stand to gain far less in such an alliance. Germany won't allow them to have all of French Indochina and the French sphere of influence in China while they could gain all of Germany's colonial possessions with barely a fight.

Germany's possessions, ALL of them, aren't worth what Japan would gain.

I recomend you examine Imperator's service as a troopship in RL before going too far with this. A serious roll may be a failure in a liner, but in a troopship it's an inconvenience.

You mean the ship that had the propensity to ignite its electrical systems (and that was from being laid up, imagine what it would be like ferrying troops from Europe to Asia)? I'd love to see it in a good storm around the Cape of Good Hope (Or the Straits of Magellan, depending on whatever route you feel like blessing me with the knowledge of). Yup, those troops sure will arrive in Indochina in tip-top shape...

How is being laid up for years comparable to being converted to a troopship sometime during 1914?
Straits of Magellan? They'd take the shortest route available, probably around Africa, unless some wrangling would open up the Suez Canal for them.

And you should look up some of the many objectives of commerce raiding before you claim ineffectiveness.

I hope you don't mean with converted liners, which failed horribly when compared to subs. Long range U-boats are far better and nothing is stopping Japan (or France if it manages to have the time) from using subs on the Germans.

Objective means the point of engaging in an activity, in this sense. An objective to commerce raiding is attacking enemy shipping. Another objective to commerce raiding is tieing up inordinate enemy naval resouces to look for you. Like the number of ships that were looking for the Emden and von Spee's squadron. How you mistook me to mean the ineffectiveness of converted liners escapes me.

No, they took what they needed in the Indian Ocean from their prizes. They had what little of their supply ships they could get through the blockade in the Atlantic.

And of what nationality were those ships from the Indian Ocean, pray tell?

British, of course. Nice change of focus. British neutrality prevents German ships from being holed up in port, remember?

Well, nice to see you can backpedal. If that was so sarcastic, why did you post it as a link to a site presumably "proving" your assertation?

Ah, another example of keeping your comments vague to lure me into a "trap." I first ask you what you're talking about (You accuse me of nearly the same tactic that you are currently employing) and then went with my best guess (I figured you meant I was switching what I said by posting a link with evidence of the Japanese cleaning German house that was named with a seemingly contradictory statement). So naturally you ignore my request for clarification and go right on to the guess part.

Hmmmm. This is the post that prompted the comment above:

What the hell are you talking about? Anyone with a brain currently not being prodded by the Kaiser's 'Little Prussian' knows that that is a sarcastic statement. Tell me how the German fleet would prevent the Japanese from cleaning house just like they did. Maybe Tinkerbell will sprinkle pixie dust over the ships and coal trains so you can soar over Asia and drop shells on Tokyo!

And this:

You must be right, look at their crappy fleet and its crappy performance during the real WW1...no wait.

Was the supposedly sarcastic statement. Now then, to make you happy, why would the Japanese occupy some worthless, quasi-inhabited, undefended, islands when a major threat is in the Indian Ocean. They would not.
You are obviously claiming superior abilities for the Japanese, and when I call you on it, you go on the offensive with your insulting tirade.

[TheDarkling]

Then, there is no evidence for an invasion, yes? My repeated demand for this evidence may seem unfair, but it was your claim, and your assumptions and casual dismissals did nothing to make me want let up on it.

No I don't think the Kaiser was sitting in his office an planning the invasion of Britain (or more accurately cackling with glee as his General staff did it), I said that beating the RN in the north sea leaves Britain very vulnerable thus anyone attempting to contest RN supremacy in the North sea is going to be assumed to be up to no good in Britain.

The important factor here is British perception and what was perceived by them was a hostile nation building a fleet specifically to rip away their only defence and thus they did have other reason to go to war (besides a 70 year old treaty).

You have repeatedly claimed Germany's fleet was purely offensive.
The bit about France is a strawman arguement.

Yes I have claimed that because that is what it was, the fleet had no other purpose than to sail into the North Sea and fight the dominant power there, you say it was only deterrence but its only deterrence up until war is declared then its a fighting weapon, not only that but Germanys actions indicate hostility to Britain so Britain will perceive it as a threat.

As for my French example being a straw man - how so?
Germany announced to the world they were building a fleet with which to rival Britain, they constructed a fleet in an attempt to do this, my example is exactly the same except a) its on land and b) it perfectly demonstrates my case.
So if it is a strawman explain the obvious differences.

I am going to try and get through here.
1. You say Britain had no reason to go to war except Belgian neutrality.
2. I list reasons including the naval build up.
3. It is Britain’s perception of what Germany is up to that matters because we are discussing Britain’s motivations for war.

Now either admit that Britain had reason to think Germany was A)Hostile and B) Trying to build a fleet that would seriously threaten RN naval supremacy in the North Sea and C) I am correct or demonstrate why Britain wasn't concerned over this actions (Hint: Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows they were).

A long time coming how? And, honestly, unless you're using "long time coming" as a euphemism for a desire for the entente, define "long time coming".

Britain had tried to negotiate with Germany for 4 years then witnessed the begins of an arms race for the next 3 years and thus finally was forced to seek an accord with France, Germany drove Britain away.

Your last statement about France comes to mind right now for some reason.

You inability to understand context illustrated in the other conversation in this thread comes to my mind.

Britain wanted to deal with Germany only. Germany wanted to include Austria-Hungary and Italy. Britain wouldn't go that far. Cry "bully" all you want.

I'm not crying bully I am crying idiocy, Germany said "My terms or no term" and as a result they made an enemy of Britain, the fact is nobody in the German leadership could understand the complex alliances Bismarck had created and thus once he was out of the way they screwed them up, Germany had every opportunity to keep Britain neutral but made the wrong choice every time.
Refuse to show diplomatic flexibility? Righto
Supply arms to Britain’s enemies? Sure thing
Be boorish diplomatically and completely dispense with tact? of course
Build fleet to challenge security of British home waters? Gee that sure is a great idea
Violate Belgium neutrality? must be done.

Its almost like Wilhelm wanted Britain against him, although of course it was just his and his underlings sheer stupidity instead of any conscious effort.

Yeah, and events like having your ships seized would almost make someone to want to build a navy.

A navy for colonial duties and convoy defence would not have bothered Britain, a capital ship heavy fleet with a range that only reached into he North Sea did concern her however.

Well, Germany saw building a fleet as standing up and doing something proper about it.
And your personal cares about justifications display a casual contempt for what is nearly universally held as a criminally directed war of aggression.

So then Germany wanted to be a position of dominance over Britain, thank you that make my position clear Britain could not allow that and was thus forced into the war, concession accepted (although I think that line of reasoning is rubbish if you believe you must agree with what I have been saying).

As for lack of care about the Germans justification, cry me a river I don't care because its a red herring if you had come in here and told me your though murder was wrong I would have told that I wasn't interested because it has nothing to do with the debate, your shameless pandering and attempt to score points by showing that Britain was mean and Germany was the moral guardian of the universe is both sad and irrelevant.

A goodly distance from where you started.

Only for those of us who either can’t read of have no memory (possibly both in some cases).

I denied clumsy diplomacy where? And backed down from it where? Dishonest, much?

Ah no memory it is, you said he following (although I am sure you forgot).

The Kaiser's diplomatic ineptness basicly amounted to him promising support of Austria-Hungary,

Which was incorrect his diplomatic ineptness went far beyond just that, you quote here was in response to my assertion of wide scale diplomatic problems, you said it was just this one instance and you were wrong although I am glad you now see this its a shame your selective memory can't remember your initial position.

Your belief in your correctness does not make you correct.

No but the fact that just about everyone else here thinks I am right and most historians you ask, or historical resources you read does indicate that my view is most widely held by experts and borne out by the evidence now if you wish to live in your own personal Reich wonder land that is fine but don't try and impose your distorted view of history on the rest of us.

Your failure to provide evidence for your claim of an invasion motive or theory does not make you correct.

Answer these questions please

1 - Without the RN in charge of the North sea Britain is largely defenceless against an army of Germanys size. Yes/No

2 - Germany was building a fleet to rival Britain in the North sea. Yes/No

3 - Germany had displayed hostility to Britain. Yes/No

You put all of this together and you get a Germany that if its aims are met will be able to threaten the British home island, if the force a surrender once they own the North sea or when they own London is immaterial, as is whether they intended to do such a thing in the near term only Britain’s perception of what they were up to, I am frankly shocked you can't grasp such a simply concept.

Glossing over the fact that protecting Belgian neutrality was Britain's only LEGITIMATE reason for going to war does not make you correct.

If you mean the invasion of Belgium was the legal way for them to enter the war, then yes it was however had they wanted to defend France against German aggression they could have easily done so and they had more than enough reason to do so.

Accusing me of bluster, while arrogantly dismissing any possibility of a case for supplying arms to the Boers, and relegating Irish Home Rulers as anarchists, does not make you correct.

As I and other have pointed out multiple times it doesn't matter if the various causes were justified only that they were enemies of the empire and Germany was supplying them (because Germany really supported them and their cause )

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No I don't think the Kaiser was sitting in his office an planning the invasion of Britain (or more accurately cackling with glee as his General staff did it),

You're right, he was sitting in his office cackling with glee as he ordered his general staff to plan the invasion of New York City and Boston.

[TheDarkling]

You're right, he was sitting in his office cackling with glee as he ordered his general staff to plan the invasion of New York City and Boston.

Hmm perhaps I gave him to much credit..... then again its not like the blasted colonials types didn't have it coming


I know he just wanted to help out the Native Americans right Frank?

[StarshipTitanic]

Just so you know, Frank, I do intend to reply and it'll be out this weekend.

[Sea Skimmer]

Just so you know, Frank, I do intend to reply and it'll be out this weekend.

Learn to fucking snip your quotes if and when you do so.

[StarshipTitanic]

Just so you know, Frank, I do intend to reply and it'll be out this weekend.

Learn to fucking snip your quotes if and when you do so.

I already explained why I did that so fucking pay attention.

[StarshipTitanic]

What you really said was Italy would ally itself with Germany, gaining colonies. Italy did not fight with Germany and Austria because neither was attacked, nor would either be attacked in this scenario. One of those three powers would have to be attacked for the conditions of the treaty to come into play. Why they fought on the Allied side is irrelevant, why they did not fight with the Central powers is very relevant. Asking why Italy would have anything to do with this is dead on target.

I'll drop it.

Backpedaling. Assumptions like this scream "prove me". Opinions on how "fickle" Italy was is not proof.

Yup.

Read through this thread again and ask yourself why anyone would think you're changing your story.

What the hell was that entire history of responces for, then? Did I just make those up? I think reading the thread is required to find those and telling me to "read it and you'll see" is BS.

Answer my question, which was in response to your claim that Germany would be the greatest industrial power.

*sigh*

Germany will carry all before it and gain control of the majority of Europe, along with all its resources.

I admittedly misunderstood you, but when you say "that's not what I typed" I'm fully entitled to call you on lying, or the very least misrepresenting. Why didn't you say "that's not what I meant, read it again!"? Being kicked offline every twenty minutes does nothing for my mood, I saw that and flew off the handle. My apologies.

Ok then.

And not even a fraction of the value.

I'll drop it.

One thing, real quick.
We have a rule about excessive quoting. Keep it down to three quotes in a bloc.

Any mod is free to go in and fix it.

And claiming I'm a liar, again, does not change the FACT that you evaded proving anything resembling a point. If you can prove that I'm lying, then DO IT! If you can address my point above, then DO IT!

Real brilliant, demanding proof right before I provide it.

Attack on Japan! Where in the FUCK did that come from?

One thing, real quick: You totally ignored the first part of the quote which showed all the false claims you've made about me. Ta-da, my proof.

Now, to fight a war with Japan, naturally the Germans will eventually be forced to...attack Japan (Japanese assets, etc). What's so confusing about this? (You don't seriously think I mean the Home Islands, do you?)

Are you claiming the Germans will die, sink, whatever( ), from exhaustion?

Do you know any other meaning for the word "exhaustion" other than "I'm tired."? Their ships will deteriorate because they won't have a nearby port large enough to repair them easily, not to mention not being designed with tropical climates in mind. I believe Sea Skimmer said earlier in this thread that much of the fleet based in Germany wasn't designed to hold enough fuel to make such a long journey practical.

How is it that torpedoes are a threat, if the Japanese can't find the Germans, idiot!

Because the Germans will have to attack Japanese supply convoys presumably guarded by Japanese warships, to do any harm, idiot!

Why would the Germans defend their island possessions at the cost of Indochina, which IS THE POINT OF THEIR BEING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???????

You're right, which makes the defense of Indochina far easier. The Japanese navy will know where the Germans are.

How many times do I have to say coaling would be extremely difficult, but not impossible?

You say that like "extremely difficult" is an acceptable risk factor when the Germans's nearest port is thousands of miles away. Especially since, if what Sea Skimmer said is true, the Germans's ships will constantly be in need of refueling.

Fucking prove it, then.

My point, for the umpteenth time, was to show that torpedoes are just as much as a risk to a ship as another battleship.

Call me a liar with some way to back it up, next time.

Show me where I misrepresented you and defeated my TB analogy twice. Individual hits are meaningless, torpedo boats wouldn't travel alone, that's suicide.

And what delivery system is available to the Japanese?

Torpedo boats and submarines. Germany countered Britain's navy with subs, Japan can counter Germany's navy with subs. I don't think they'd charge their crappy surface fleet into the fray.

Describing how the French subs would know where to find them would be covered under defining the threat. Just a hint for you, since you're unable to figure that out on your own. After all, who's going to tell the French what route they're going to take? Atlantic or Mediterranean, define this threat.

Atlantic: Hopeless.
Mediterranean: French subs could take shots at the props of German ships passing through Gibraltar, immobilizing them or at least causing problems. There would be far worse damage to the German merchant vessels and troop ships, though.
Africa: Extremely difficult, but they might catch a few.

Japan completely abandoned any pretext at being a member of the international community in the early thirties. Unlike the Japan of the earlier 20th century. Japan of the early thirties was engaged in buttfucking China, in complete disregard of international outrage. That is "Mega-Expansionistic". Engaging in war is not the same. Do you understand?

Hmmm, makes sense.

Germany's possessions, ALL of them, aren't worth what Japan would gain.

See above regarding this.

How is being laid up for years comparable to being converted to a troopship sometime during 1914?

It's far less wear on the ship.

Straits of Magellan? They'd take the shortest route available, probably around Africa, unless some wrangling would open up the Suez Canal for them.

I doubt they'd ever get access to the Canal.

Objective means the point of engaging in an activity, in this sense. An objective to commerce raiding is attacking enemy shipping. Another objective to commerce raiding is tieing up inordinate enemy naval resouces to look for you. Like the number of ships that were looking for the Emden and von Spee's squadron. How you mistook me to mean the ineffectiveness of converted liners escapes me.

Against France, it would be effective. However, Japan is well insulated from such attacks by the vast amount of ocean it can use to hide in. I took you to mean liners as those are the only raiding ships I have read about.

British, of course. Nice change of focus. British neutrality prevents German ships from being holed up in port, remember?

It also means the Germans still won't have a large supply base. I forgot about their own merchant fleet, though.

You are obviously claiming superior abilities for the Japanese, and when I call you on it, you go on the offensive with your insulting tirade.

Someone's misunderstanding something. Please explain what you meant by this:

"Snipping what you wrote in the original post won't cover up your intent with it. Not in this forum. Anyone with the energy to scroll up can see that for themself."

[Frank Hipper]

Answer my question, which was in response to your claim that Germany would be the greatest industrial power.

*sigh*

Germany will carry all before it and gain control of the majority of Europe, along with all its resources.

No,this is what I was talking about. Specific text highlighted.

Were you paying attention to Britain as it sucked on America's teat before the US entered WW2? No threat from France and Russia ensures total domination by Germany and Britain can't outproduce the most highly-industrialized continent on the globe.

One thing, real quick.
We have a rule about excessive quoting. Keep it down to three quotes in a bloc.

Any mod is free to go in and fix it.

I doubt anyone can be bothered enough to read that far, other than people posting in this thread.

Attack on Japan! Where in the FUCK did that come from?

One thing, real quick: You totally ignored the first part of the quote which showed all the false claims you've made about me. Ta-da, my proof.

Now, to fight a war with Japan, naturally the Germans will eventually be forced to...attack Japan (Japanese assets, etc). What's so confusing about this? (You don't seriously think I mean the Home Islands, do you?)

Why didn't you say Japanese assets, then? There's a bigdifference.

Are you claiming the Germans will die, sink, whatever( ), from exhaustion?

Do you know any other meaning for the word "exhaustion" other than "I'm tired."? Their ships will deteriorate because they won't have a nearby port large enough to repair them easily, not to mention not being designed with tropical climates in mind. I believe Sea Skimmer said earlier in this thread that much of the fleet based in Germany wasn't designed to hold enough fuel to make such a long journey practical.

The Germans would be operating at extreme dis-advantage, yes. But the Japanese would be operating at extreme range for their ships, even being that much closer to home. Beyond the range of some their ships, even. While the Germans are dealing with a great deal more, this is no walk in the park for the Japanese, either. Dar-es-Salaam may be to far away for a damaged ship to make, and it may be very primitive at the beginning of this, but if the Germans are going to try for Indochina, they would be building it up with every scrap of resource they can. It would be beyond stupid to try this without biulding it up somewhat before the fleet even leaves Germany.

How is it that torpedoes are a threat, if the Japanese can't find the Germans, idiot!

Because the Germans will have to attack Japanese supply convoys presumably guarded by Japanese warships, to do any harm, idiot!

The Japanese would need to provide escorts with a comparable range to the ships they're escorting, don't you think? Escort in this case would more than likely comprise their armored cruisers. You do know that gunnery ranges far exceed torpedo ranges, that any ships the Germans send east would be faster than those armored cruisers, and that torpedo engagement would be next to impossible. The faster ship sets the range of an engagement. If the Japanese escort with their few light cruisers, they're toast.
At the outbreak of war Japan had TWO modern destroyers, the rest were turn of the century anachronisms, with, at best, HALF the range needed. If the Germans attack Japanese convoys, it will be armored cruiser vs battlecruiser, battleship, or armored cruiser. Far beyond torpedo range. Torpedoes are not a threat, unless the ships being targeted are slower, or cannot run, or are surprised.

Why would the Germans defend their island possessions at the cost of Indochina, which IS THE POINT OF THEIR BEING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE???????

You're right, which makes the defense of Indochina far easier. The Japanese navy will know where the Germans are.

Then we have a repeat of Port Arthur with the Japanese being the ones blockaded, possibly.

How many times do I have to say coaling would be extremely difficult, but not impossible?

You say that like "extremely difficult" is an acceptable risk factor when the Germans's nearest port is thousands of miles away. Especially since, if what Sea Skimmer said is true, the Germans's ships will constantly be in need of refueling.

Fuel limited all nation's naval operations at this time, with the possible exception of Britain. Yokosuka is 2400 miles from Saigon. The Japanese will also be burning the fuel stores they have onshore at a prodigious rate, nothing to dismiss.

Fucking prove it, then.

My point, for the umpteenth time, was to show that torpedoes are just as much as a risk to a ship as another battleship.

Getting them on target is the question, though, now isn't it?

Call me a liar with some way to back it up, next time.

Show me where I misrepresented you and defeated my TB analogy twice. Individual hits are meaningless, torpedo boats wouldn't travel alone, that's suicide.

I have shown that. Several posts ago. The British had NINETY modern destroyers at Jutland, modern destroyers. They achieved two torpedo hits on capitol ships. Japan, if they refit and force every TB they have, can get, at MOST, 40 TBs to sea. And that's including antiques from the early-mid 1890s that no one in their right mind would even contemplate using in 1914. The two modern destroyers and various older craft are not a significant threat. Japan had no effective submarines at this time, either.

And what delivery system is available to the Japanese?

Torpedo boats and submarines. Germany countered Britain's navy with subs, Japan can counter Germany's navy with subs. I don't think they'd charge their crappy surface fleet into the fray.

No. See above.
And the Kongos were decent enough ships, but they were the only four that really counted at that time.

Describing how the French subs would know where to find them would be covered under defining the threat. Just a hint for you, since you're unable to figure that out on your own. After all, who's going to tell the French what route they're going to take? Atlantic or Mediterranean, define this threat.

Atlantic: Hopeless.
Mediterranean: French subs could take shots at the props of German ships passing through Gibraltar, immobilizing them or at least causing problems. There would be far worse damage to the German merchant vessels and troop ships, though.
Africa: Extremely difficult, but they might catch a few.

If the Germans could get passage for troopships through the Suez Canal, they might be at danger, yes.
Without the success against British armored cruisers that the U 9 had, it's not impossible that the French wouldn't even try this. Then again, if they're deperate, they could.

How is being laid up for years comparable to being converted to a troopship sometime during 1914?

It's far less wear on the ship.

Leaving a piece of machinery to lie unused, unmaintained, for a couple years, is very destructive.
The Germans would be converting their own ship, fresh, and quite possibly by the same people who built her. Their familiarity with it would quite probably allow them to pinpoint the electronics problem, if it existed before the situation outlined.

Objective means the point of engaging in an activity, in this sense. An objective to commerce raiding is attacking enemy shipping. Another objective to commerce raiding is tieing up inordinate enemy naval resouces to look for you. Like the number of ships that were looking for the Emden and von Spee's squadron. How you mistook me to mean the ineffectiveness of converted liners escapes me.

Against France, it would be effective. However, Japan is well insulated from such attacks by the vast amount of ocean it can use to hide in. I took you to mean liners as those are the only raiding ships I have read about.

Germany's most effective commerce raiders were light cruisers, and a few converted merchantmen achieved moderate success, too. One was a full rigged sailing ship, the Seeadler
As to having more sea to hide in, the Japanese can't go too far out of their way, they have their own fuel stuation to think about, and you can't sail half way around the world just because you might run into an enemy ship. Wildly impractical, compared to the possible risks.

British, of course. Nice change of focus. British neutrality prevents German ships from being holed up in port, remember?

It also means the Germans still won't have a large supply base. I forgot about their own merchant fleet, though.

The German merchant marine being free of the blockade is what I base my ENTIRE argument on.
Without the merchant ships being there for support, I would have no argument.
In the real WWI, even with the blockade, the merchant fleet played a partial role. Without that little contribution, what Germany did achieve at sea would have been impossible. With their entire resouces.....see my point?

You are obviously claiming superior abilities for the Japanese, and when I call you on it, you go on the offensive with your insulting tirade.

Someone's misunderstanding something. Please explain what you meant by this:

"Snipping what you wrote in the original post won't cover up your intent with it. Not in this forum. Anyone with the energy to scroll up can see that for themself."

You dressed a link with a comment.
You were apparently trying to prove that the Japanese, by taking German possessions during WWI, were a major threat and that their performance in WWI supported you in this.
I replied to that, and in your own reply to that, you edited out the comment in the link.
That's where my "snipping" remark came from.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hipper why the fuck do you keep ignoring the fact that Formosa belonged to Japan?

[Frank Hipper]

Hipper why the fuck do you keep ignoring the fact that Formosa belonged to Japan?

If I had some fucking ranges and facilities to throw into this, then I'd have an informed opinion of it. Not having any information, other than it belonged to Japan, doesn't give me a whole fuck of a lot to say, now does it?