How do you think the world would have evolved if there had not been the World Wars?

[say1988]

I presume by pointing a lot of guns at them and threaten to blow them up or demand permission to board, as per the rules of war at the time. Submarines didn't really have that option.

I would also note that the Lusitania was not a neutral ship. It was British flagged. A big issue was that the submarines would fire on commercial vessels without warning.

it was obviously known that the US was supplying arms and ammunition to the Brits, hence a
valid target.

Yet, as is with US, they chose to sacrifice the some 1000 people so that the country would be ready for another war ...

Are you suggesting that the sinking of the Lusitania was a deliberate plot by the US government to get into a war with Germany?
The US government didn't really have the authority to tell civilians they couldn't board a single vessel.
As for the sinking, the rules of war (that were outdates and did not consider the nature of submarine warfare) allowed for the sinking of the Lusitania, or any commercial vessel, but required that all crew and passengers be removed to a safe location first, unless the captain refused to allow the raiders to board.
As for supplying arms to the British, they also supplied the Germans, but it was difficult for the Germans to get anything from the US to Europe.

 

[bonefang]

Are you suggesting that the sinking of the Lusitania was a deliberate plot by the US government to get into a war with Germany?

Yes, exactly !!

As for supplying arms to the British, they also supplied the Germans, but it was difficult for the Germans to get anything from the US to Europe.

US supplied Germany with weapons in ww1 ? ww2, i understand, but i do not think US was selling stuff to Germany then,

 

[Dachs]

Now that you mention it, how did the british accomplish their blockade regarding neutral ships?

They had a cruiser squadron up there doing pretty regular patrols, but probably 75% of the grunt work was done by converted merchantmen. Ship would pull up, search for 'contraband', and depending on the results it would either 'escort' the ship to (usually) Rosyth or let you go. Pretty vanilla stuff.

 

[say1988]

US supplied Germany with weapons in ww1 ?

Why wouldn't they? The only thing stopping it was the British blockade making any large scale trade with Germany virtually impossible.

ww2, i understand

No FDR was on the Allied side from day 1 and it was clear any intervention would support them.
Prior to WWII laws forbade trading materiel with any belligerant. In September 1939 Cash and Carry was passed specifically to aid Britain, knowing that the situation would not allow for Germany to take advantage of it.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

Now that you mention it, how did the british accomplish their blockade regarding neutral ships?

by having, contrary to Germany, a good surface fleet. Which allowed for pulling ships over and search, contrary to sinking because you couldn't face them head on.

Germany was flawed; there's an expression over here - "trying to have your arse in two boats at the same time"(~literal translation).

Either they wanted to challenge UK or not. Either you go all in full blast in ship construction(they had one of those rare opportunities of "reset", so, when dreadnoughts emerged, they more or less started on par with UK) or not. They wanted to get some navy, but on the cheap; end result, an airplane that... almost flies. Kinda useless.

 

[G-Max]

Dubious logic is dubious, once more. With every attempt is added personal security on part of the Habsburgs. Doing something a whole lot doesn't guarantee it will eventually happen.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, there were several assassination attempts on the life of various Hohenzollern monarchs, including two separate ones on Wilhelm I in the same year (1878). None resulted in a dead emperor.

Attempts on the lives of the crowned heads of Europe - and of key statesmen - were a fact of life during that time. Almost zero of them were successful. I think that says something about the inevitability of one of these Habsburgs getting assassinated, no?

Meh. It's a Godwin's Law kind of thing. You can only remove so many pieces from the Jenga tower before Nazis show up and knock it over.

 

[Dachs]

Germany was flawed; there's an expression over here - "trying to have your arse in two boats at the same time"(~literal translation).

Either they wanted to challenge UK or not. Either you go all in full blast in ship construction(they had one of those rare opportunities of "reset", so, when dreadnoughts emerged, they more or less started on par with UK) or not. They wanted to get some navy, but on the cheap; end result, an airplane that... almost flies. Kinda useless.

Nah, the Germans constructed a battle fleet pretty close to their maximum capacity to do so, considering political exigencies and the need to construct shipyard facilities to even come close to approaching Britain's naval construction capacity. And the battle fleet that the Germans did create was actually very good. Germany possessed more trained sailors than the British did, and their sailors were furthermore better-trained than those of the Royal Navy. German gunnery was much, much better. German ships were more seaworthy than those of the British, and were infinitely better protected. The Royal Navy's chief advantages were in gun caliber - not actually that relevant - and speed.

Germany had a very good shot at winning the naval war for the North Sea in 1914 if they approached the problem correctly and caught a few breaks. (I actually wrote a nearly book-length alternate history which features the High Seas Fleet catching those breaks and making some correct decisions.) But they did not catch any breaks whatsoever, and German naval planning and strategy was scatterbrained - the men who had the right ideas, like Lens and Wegener and Baudissin, had to share time with men like Pohl. And the kaiser's restrictions on fleet actions made everything even worse.

 

[innonimatu]

Germany had a very good shot at winning the naval war for the North Sea in 1914 if they approached the problem correctly and caught a few breaks. (I actually wrote a nearly book-length alternate history which features the High Seas Fleet catching those breaks and making some correct decisions.)

Link, please! If you have it around here.

 

[Masada]

Yo inno.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

Nah, the Germans constructed a battle fleet pretty close to their maximum capacity to do so, considering political exigencies and the need to construct shipyard facilities to even come close to approaching Britain's naval construction capacity. And the battle fleet that the Germans did create was actually very good. Germany possessed more trained sailors than the British did, and their sailors were furthermore better-trained than those of the Royal Navy. German gunnery was much, much better. German ships were more seaworthy than those of the British, and were infinitely better protected. The Royal Navy's chief advantages were in gun caliber - not actually that relevant - and speed.

Germany had a very good shot at winning the naval war for the North Sea in 1914 if they approached the problem correctly and caught a few breaks. (I actually wrote a nearly book-length alternate history which features the High Seas Fleet catching those breaks and making some correct decisions.) But they did not catch any breaks whatsoever, and German naval planning and strategy was scatterbrained - the men who had the right ideas, like Lens and Wegener and Baudissin, had to share time with men like Pohl. And the kaiser's restrictions on fleet actions made everything even worse.

it's an expensive toy, no doubt. Hence you have to think well before commiting. I agree they did a good job, but, given their capacity, they could've done better(provided they'd commit more resources at it - true, training shipbuilders and building shipyards takes time). And yes, they had a good advantage by not having to bother to much with ocean going ability(beside protection and gunnery, which was more due to British stupidity/overconfidence).
Regarding commanders, if you talk about disadvantages, really, the brits had to cope with Beatty...

while I liked your alt history very much, that was one of the parts I didn't like(beside W front, where germans should've rolled imho) - plus you made the russians help Germany in some sorta Jutland if I remember right(not that that mattered much).

Both Heligoland and Dogger Bank weren't in Germany's favor.The main advantage was British stupidity/disorganization, but that's a random factor(works sometimes, sometimes fails, but you can't make a strategy out of it).

And at Jutland, if Beatty would've done his job and warn Jellicoe, I'd think they could've give the germans a good spanking(being able to decode it's major - especially in a tactic as the one you propose - to try and catch parts of the fleet and destroy them; that won't ever happen if the other side can non stop decode your messages).

plus, yes, you can't win if your main tactic is to "protect" the fleet. Really, you have to use it. As I said - in two boats at the same time. Willy wanted his toy, but also use it... That doesn't work; he ended up having it, but never using it(which makes you wonder why he built it 1st place).

 

[innonimatu]

Yo inno.

Thanks! And uhm.. I think I'll have to save it for another day, book-length indeed!