Interesting info on the naval blockade

[SMK-at-work]

I've been reading a 1924 book about the naval blockade of Germany written by an American chap who was the US representative on the Allied & Associated Powers blockade committee, and did some tours and studies in Germany and Austria after the war.

I didn't realise that the allies actually allowed the Scandinavian countries to trade with Germany, but they limited them to pre-war quantities per annum - eg in 1918 Denmark was allowed to sell about 25,000 tons of fish and 226,000 cattle to Germany, plus various other goods, and both Sweden and Norway were permitted to sell iron ore, fish, some cattle and various other goods.

Also the allies actually lifted the blockade restrictions by April 1919, well before the blockade itself was officially lifted with the signing of the treaty of Versailles in June, but it took some time for the lifting to have any effect.

When the war ended in 1918 the blockade machinery was still "ramping up" - ie looking for ways to apply the screws even harder. There were no plans for how it might go about lifting it in an orderly manner. As a result the lifting was much affected by allied attempts to ensure the "new" trade and associated profits to the CP would be carried out by allied companies and ships, and not by neutral ones.

Fascinating stuff.

[wargamer123]

Hard to believe that the Entente was already worried about making a buck over even punishing the CP. I recall stories from WW1 Documentaries where the aluminum cans sent by the red cross were taken by the CP to be melted down into Grenades? They were taking everything from the Neutrals that wasn't literally impossible to take... I am not exactly sure how far they went but if that was going on the CP must've been scarce for resources on a massive level..

Anyway, anyone ever hear the story about the U-boat that travelled to the USA on a good will mission traded and headed back home? I found thits quite remarkable... That in WW1 that a U-boat crossed the Atlantic for Trade.. Heh at the time this was probably more for propaganda than anything, imagine the US was sympathetic to Germany soon to be their enemies

[SMK-at-work]

It seems there were massive "one off" profits to be made when the blockade was lifted - the CP was desperate for many staples that were cheap at source, but it was a once only deal.

The author of this book notes that the blockade was as much about economics as actual supply.......a major part of it was attacking the CP exchange rate - devaluing their currency so that they couldn't afford to purchase their requirements even if the commodities were available.

"allowing" neutrals to trade at pre-war levels was a concession to the pre-war ideal that neutrals were supposed to be able to trade in anything except "contraband" without restriction.  This was rapidly ignored by the British who unilaterally expanded the list of what consisted of contraband, and by the end of the war the allies closely controlled the import/export volumes and available stockpiles of all neutrals. 

It seems to me that the exports allowed to the CP from neutrals would probably have been retricted if the war had gone into 1919, as the next logical step.

Continuing the blockade into 1919 was to ensure there was plenty of pressure on the CP to accept the ultimate peace terms, whatever they were going to be.

[wargamer123]

It shows a war of Economics to beat down the CPs insides. Unlike Strategic Bombing of WW2 or U-Boat warfare, highly powerful and quite unrestricted sounding by your statement. Interesting exerts
 
The Germans did not eat Bread as much from what I've heard, they were more meat and dairy. This I also heard again after WW2... Lots of issues with starvation/malnutrition and more so from the civilians within those borders. So this type of warfare is no less cruel than Torpedoing Ships carrying supplies, it's just a little bit more passive warfare.
 
 

[hjaco]

Well Britain's incentive to enter WW1 was as much about the economic perspective and dependence upon French and Russian support in the far east to keep the trade flowing and their Empire intact than concern for violation of Belgian neutrality. So in that retrospect their blockade actions was quite logic as an elimination of Germany as their prime economic opponent on the European continent.

As mentioned in another thread the huge devastation in northern France by Germany during WW1 was done also on a economic strategic level that was (and did) to hurt French long term economic competition against German economic interests.

The SUB actually went to the states several times but was a huge propaganda hit both abroad and at home.

[Disintegration]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

Well Britain's incentive to enter WW1 was as much about the economic perspective and dependence upon French and Russian support in the far east to keep the trade flowing and their Empire intact than concern for violation of Belgian neutrality.

That was a factor, but even more important was Britain's policy from the 16th century on (if not earlier) of keeping a balance of power on the Continent. Secure routes to the colonies don't do you any good if a continental hegemon can extort them away by threatening the homeland. And the most immediate goal was keeping the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel ports.

Economic (including colonial) warfare had been Britain's main way of waging war in Europe since the days of Drake and Hawkins; I'm sure they would have employed it regardless of the strategic situation. The more unusual development in WW1 was the deployment of a large army and the bulk of war-fighting resources in the main theater of operations on the Continent.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Disintegration

That was a factor, but even more important was Britain's policy from the 16th century on (if not earlier) of keeping a balance of power on the Continent. Secure routes to the colonies don't do you any good if a continental hegemon can extort them away by threatening the homeland. And the most immediate goal was keeping the Kriegsmarine out of the Channel ports.

No the economic factor was the dominant factor by WW1 for Britain.

The traditional British policy of "divide and rule" changed with the introduction of the Dreadnought which meant a whole new arms race. That sort of rearmament would have ruined UK. Britain could no longer maintain their traditional 2 to 1 lead fighting the combined navies of the second and third largest fleets of the world which wad been their security to safeguard their Empire.

That meant UK was no longer in a position to secure their Empire by themselves and its trade which was vital for its survival. They tried for a decade to enter an alliance with Germany primarily targeted against their traditional foe France but German arrogance and ignorance spoiled that possibility. So UK had to turn to France and their Russian allies. UK very conveniently disregarded the American and Japanese Fleets as being pro British and changed their ambition for naval superiority as being two to one when combining fleets side by side i.e. including the French fleet.

So it was based on necessity that UK entered cooperation with one of the alliances which they traditionally had shunned to maintain their maneuverability to maintain continental stability.

After Fishers naval reforms the responsibility for guarding the Mediterranean fell upon the French fleet (and some obsolete British squadrons) and the British concentrated on HSF.

With the Entente facing the CP in their big alliances there was very little Britain could do in practice to influence the power balance when they both had to build a whole new fleet from scratch and later prepare for a continental army.

I can highly recommend "Dreadnought" (actually from "Dread not") by Robert Massie to give an detailed insight in the above.

[wargamer123]

I find the topic extremely interesting. In fact, WW1 was decided in a great deal by the DreadNaught, and the HSF vs the RN

Arms races as in the WW3 scenario recently ended in the 80s show that when you build up a lot of Deterrent Weapons you end up sometimes triggering something to happen. The HSF built-up because they didn't want to be second dog to the British. The HSF thus threatened the supremacy of the British, the real truth is that the resources that the Germans acquired however neat an overseas Empire was not neccessary. It was just what every other Imperial Power was doing in Europe at the time. Pretty much like Fascist Italy in the 30s invading Ethiopia, world opinion was quite negative about it. What couldn't of Italy gotten via trade? It's a bare ans tricken place.

Had Germany never constructed a Dreadnaught, or a Navy to Threaten Britian however dangerous this may have been and however it may tied up of the RN.. It may have been more likely to keep Britian neutral. Might... Though allying with AH to me, an obvious loser along with OE was carrying the baggage of two very very weak Allies, however Brave the men of their nations were. They were rotting from years of instability and were going to drag down the stronger Power.

British Foreign Policy was a necessity she has no Manpower to fight on the Continent, she has to have a navy to pick and choose her fights. Plus she made her Empire off the Backs off Spanish Gold and trade. From the battle with Spanish Armada showed that Naval Supremacy was a must, or Catholic England with a Spanish or Dutch Prince would be the Standard now and one of those types of Nations would have taken to the High Seas and been the Empire of the past couple hundred years to see.

To summize I feel that in WW2, YES a navy was important, with the Japanese and the ever increasing U-boat threat, the RN was overstretched and with a Stronger Italian navy if would've been used right could've meant the collapse of the Western Allies... Although in WW1 it seemed like to Titanics struggling against each other, neither superior and neither gaining anything, and honestly the Germans losing out... Fewer ships, fewer resources and thus no Trade...

However in recent years, Germany has repaid England & France. Having created a more economic prosperous nation than either... LOL It's just how it works sometimes

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I find the topic extremely interesting. In fact, WW1 was decided in a great deal by the DreadNaught, and the HSF vs the RN

Strategically the Germans chose a passive approach. Keeping their fleet in harbor relying on their SUBS to crush RN and gain supremacy. Surprisingly the British after having lost a substantial number of more or less obsolete types in the beginning of the war didn't risk their slow cruising Dreadnought in the North Sea [;)]

If Germany had adopted a hit and run strategy against the shores of Britain and in relative close proximity to their bases and with support of their SUBS life would probably have been rather miserable for RN. Excursions into the Atlantic was out of the question because the Germans wouldn't risk loosing their precious heavy ships neither. They were necessary after the war to safeguard German colonial ambitions [8|]

Instead RN were allowed to close up the North Sea with their heavy fleet and largely rely upon the French to close the AH fleet in the Adriatic and use their obsolete pré-Dreadnought Mediterranean fleet in a defensive role to guard Suez.

This allowed them to adopt an offensive global role with large number of CA/BC and other support vessels to hunt down German warships and commerce hunters on the high sea and especially the strong German far east cruiser squadron based in German Tsingtao in China which ended at the battle of the Falklands. The strategic goal was to secure global communication lines and in the long run British trade.

A not so well known high profile target for RN was the radio relaying stations in the German colonies which enabled the German navy to communicate and coordinate their commerce raiders and heavier capital ships on a global scale. The Japanese was lured into taking out Tsingtao while the British and their allies rather fast took out the strategical parts of the coastal regions in German colonies in Africa and the pacific specifically with the main priority to destroy German communications.

Hew Strachans WW1 trilogy is immensely informative if you are into this type of background.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

To summize I feel that in WW2, YES a navy was important, with the Japanese and the ever increasing U-boat threat, the RN was overstretched and with a Stronger Italian navy if would've been used right could've meant the collapse of the Western Allies...

In WWII large battleships were almost obsolete. (Note that I say almost) You could sink an enemy ship by airpower much better and a lot cheaper! (best example: the sinking of Repulse and Price of Wales by the Japanese) And this is especially true for the Med, the Germans planed to invade Malta by air, not by sea. (They only refrained from doing so after the high losses of the invasion of Crete) After WWII coastal bombardment is the last thing you need large vessels for.

[wargamer123]

Somewhat true, Pearl-Taranto was possible due to the fact they were set up like Ducks in a little Pond.. The Mighty Bismark was Disabled by the Mighty Swordfish biplane, but not finished off by it, neither Scharnhorst. Much of the dirty work had to be done at sea by the Navy. They worked in conjuction Air/Naval Power..USNavy AA on BBs did very well in WW2. Naval bombardment is still used today and was highly demoralizing then

[boogada]

But Bismarck and Repulse showed clearly that even the biggest battleships couldn't operate without any support any longer. Although there were some big clashes in the east, the pacific war was dominated by the carriers of both fleets. 

[hjaco]

The half year strategic battle for Guadalcanal showed that cruisers and battleships still were usable in night actions. But woe them if they were in reach of land based air when it became day again.

The relative success or rather sturdiness of BB in Europe on the high seas was largely due to the usage of older carriers and carrier planes on behalf of the British.

[wargamer123]

Hjaco and Boogada, you know it's I think the legend of that Invincible Dreadnaught or BB that we all dream about... The one that is put into our heads. The deadly power of an aircraft to come over top during WW2, drop it's ordinance and run... So fast and so easily, in an ocean that is so massive... Air is fast, with radio it's extremely good at covering lots of Sea... Also it's powerful because 20 Divebombers is like 20 Wasps on a man... can ruin him and 20 Divebombers is rather cheap vs 1 BB
 
However with 50 or 60 Zeros or Hellcats overhead, those BBs are awfully good at pushing the hand. In the Pacific and Atlantic when one side had Air Supremacy Naval ambition was of little consequence. It was expected. A tank is a very vulnerable weapon without SMG foot soldiers and Rifleman protecting it's tiny flanks when a sapper can easily attach ordinance to hit's tail while it sleeps and blow it to bits at the price of some TNT...
 
I'd prefer Air Supremacy to Naval Supremacy, and Sea Lion was forgone now we know due to a lack of the 1.. The Germans didn't think they needed Naval Supremacy at all.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: wargamer123
I'd prefer Air Supremacy to Naval Supremacy, and Sea Lion was forgone now we know due to a lack of the 1.. The Germans didn't think they needed Naval Supremacy at all.

Ah well not the German Army bud definitely the German Navy [:D]

[SMK-at-work]

Everyone grossly over-rates the effects of aircraft on shipping in 1940 IMO - at that stage neither the RAF nor hte LW had significant anti-shipping capability - LW dive bombers hadn't trained vs shipping and had no AP bombs, and AFAIK they had 1 staffel of experimental torpedo bombing He-111's.

The RAF was limited to torpedo carrying Beauforts (which were at least operations), and the FAA could chuck in Swordfish and Skua dive bombers....but only a handful of each.

It wasn't until 1941 that the LW had the training and equipment to effectively attack ships - as they did in the Med.

Sealion would have been crushed by overwhelming RN superiority over the Kriegsmarine - 20 cruisers to half-a-dozen (IIRC), 60 or 70 destroyers to 20-25 (including the torpedo-boats that were effectively small destroyers), and no heavy units for hte KM at all apart from 1 old pre-dreadnought that was used as a gunnery training vessel that they were planning to beach as a battery.

Probably the RN would have taken casualties from mines and U-boats (although there weren't many of the later either amnd many were only type II's with trainng crews!), but whatever losses they took would pale in comparison to the loss of the entire German invasion force of 100,000+ men.  Also all the shipping that would have been sunk would have made a considerable dent in European economy - the large numbers of Rhine barges would have been especially missed.

[wargamer123]

SMK, the Germans were not certain of SeaLion. They were building up for it. They had a level of ingenuity and sneakiness that may be difficult to overlook. Norway-France were to operations no one ever expected they could undertake, but they did. Norway cost Germany half of her Destroyers...They were willing to pay if the victory was achieved. I do not think you should underestimate what they might dream up and put into work.

May not have had to invade England outright to win, but destroy her airforce and you have full recon over the English channel, given time adaptions were the key to German ingenuity in success throughout the early parts of the second world war.

[boogada]

Don't forget another aspect of aircrafts: They have incredible potential for recon and spotting. But the HSF into the North Sea, and you can take a look at a small area. Put one carrier into the North Sea and you can recon the entire sea. Finding out where your enemy is, and what force he has is the most important information you could possibly get, to find out where to go/not to go. During WWI airforce at sea was insignificant, a few planes, some zeppelins, but that was it. Think about the whole Jutland setup, with both cruiser fleets and battle fleets trying to surprise the enemy. Compare that to WWII where some of the biggest battles were almost entirely based on aircraft (Pearl Harbour, Midway). 

[SMK-at-work]

We know what they dreamed up - we do not have to imagine it.  Norway is not a good comparison - they took a neutral country by surprise....and still took heavy casualties.
 
the could never destroy the RAF - the british were out-producing Germany in fighters by almost 2:1, and Germany barely had a trained pilot for every fighter yet the Brits were panicing when they got down to 1 1/2 pilots per fighter.  The RAF was perfectly prepared to withdraw 11 Group behind London and out of range of German 109's from the continent.
 
The British were very cautious and conservative in their assessments of their own forces, which is normally a good thing when your country is at stake. We know better now.
 
And when the German forces were at sea and landed it would have been the LW that had the problem of how to protect them - the RAF didn't do a good job protecting the chanel convoys even with radar and only small numbers of ships to worry about - the LW would have been worse trying to protect the large sealift without even rudimentary radar.
 
Plus the LW would have to protect the beaches and landed troops....again without radar.  They would have captured the small coastal airfields....but they would have been useful only for emergency landings so all their ops would have had to originate in France.
 
Of course no-one knew all this at the time, but that's the advantage of 20/20 hindsight - we do not have to accept the worries of the wartime analysis - we can see what ACTULLAY existed/would have happened.
 
To repeat the concerns of the time as being "the facts" is pretty lame these days IMO.

[wargamer123]

The British were beatable. Where their is a will there is always a way...Casualties didn't mean a lot to the Germans, they have given as much as the Russians to two World Wars in Soldiers about... People underestimate that now because they read what happened and the history books portray things very very onesided. If people just knew how close the world was to becoming a Nazi one, they might not underestimate what determination actually can do. Or the dozens of variables that go into anything, how all the sudden things can change due to the fact there is a reason to change it... Dunkirk, failure of the RAF, and 6months who knows what could go on.. The resources and able Men weren't put to the task at the right time and place, blunder after blunder. So the Free World would live on...for awhile... I just feel that it is so imbedded and so hardcoded in Historians and in Human doctrine-belief they do no open to what is possible. Noone ever dreamt Blitzkrieg was possible nor the capitulation of 75% of Europe in less than 2 years by a Single Medium Size Nations Armed Forces. Just goes to show...

WW2 Era Aircraft was a big jump from WW1, they were testing in WW1 what air could do, I believe it was on a German Dreadnaught or Cruiser. Went superbly, at the end of WW1 they saw the potential of Air against Sea Targets. The Power of Radar is also in WW2 a British Invention helped in the Battle of Britian and hurt the Italians-Japanese, who never embraced it quite the same