Talk:German Naval Laws

Untitled

Should be coordinated with article High Seas Fleet... AnonMoos 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And Tirpitz_Plan. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to German Naval Laws. JPG-GR (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Acts → Naval Laws — All sources I've seen refer to them as either Naval Laws or Navy Laws, I've never once seen Fleet Acts to refer to the series of funding bills passed in Imperial Germany to fund the building of the navy.Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC) — Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

• Jutland: the German Perspective, by V.E. Tarrant
• Building the Kaiser's Navy, by Gary Weir
• Conway's 1906-1922
• The Battle of Jutland, by Geoffrey Bennett (uses Navy Laws)
• Google.books search turns up numerous works from the period referring to the Naval Laws (1)
• Similar GB search for German "Fleet Acts" turns up 8 results, 7 of which refer to different countries' fleet acts.

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• how about "(Imperial) German Naval Laws" - though even then it would be easy to confuse it with the subject of other german legislation or rules and regualtions of the Navies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd be fine with that, as long as it's a variation on Naval Laws. As long as the intro explain s clearly what the actual laws are, I think it'll be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anglocentric view

The whole aspect of this page is hugely Anglocentric and fails to mention the 2 main provocations spurring German naval construction. Britain's response to the Kruger telegram, where the Kaiser offers his support to the Boer republics against British colonial aggression, was to form the Flying Squadron of warships to demonstrate German impotence in the face of British threats to its merchant shipping. The follow year Germany draws up the 1st Naval Law for 19 battleships (The RN has 60+). In January 1900 during further British colonial aggression against the Boer republics the RN boards German merchant ships, later the same year German decides to double it's battle fleet. Note the fleet size is fixed, big enough to matter even to the RN, big enough to menace Germany's allied enemies France (who blockaded German ports in 1870) and Russia. The fleet size is not dependent on any rival response, such as a two power standard.

The Risk Theory is not a challenge to the Royal Navy it does not signal a direct attempt to rival it. It specifically says that the German fleet will be sufficiently large that it can inflict enough damage on any rival to weaken that rival. Note that the initial British response (see Lord Selbourne's briefing to the government) is that the German navy will be used to push German TRADE: i.e. Britain will find it harder to menace German trade and find German industry and commerce a bigger rival. Only later does the situation develop into a direct challenge on both sides.

The Kruger telegram, the Flying Squadron, the Boer War all need to be referenced in this article and spurious references to Boxer uprising deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.3.242 (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a fleet which was powerful enough to directly protect the Boers from the British would also be powerful enough to threaten Britain with starvation (since the island was not self-sufficient in basic food production). The German effort might not have started out as an attempt to directly challenge overall British naval domination, but within five years that's what it developed into, with very serious diplomatic repercussions. AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos - your comment is quite correct but does not address the main issue: it was not a German fleet threatening Britain at the time of the First and Second Naval Laws but a British fleet threatening German trade and a British army attacking republics that Germany considered kindred people. The Wikipedia page as written does not mention any of this at all: The Kruger telegram and Britain's naval response, the Boer war and boarding German ships.

Lord Selbourne does not seek to scare the Government of the day with the possibilities of starvation or Britain losing command of the sea, he does warn very clearly that a German navy will enhance German trade, implicitly at the expense of Britain (the quote is in Tarrant's book). The reference to the Boxer uprising is quite spurious and should be deleted. Revisionist99 (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone in the German government should have had a very clear idea what they were building a navy for (based on coldly-considered realities, not vaguely grandiose daydreams). If they wanted to be able to show the German flag with pride around the world, and feel that they couldn't easily be pushed around by the British, then they could have gotten by with a fleet much less than the one Germany eventually built. If they wanted to seriously challenge British naval domination, then they should have thought long and hard about exactly what that meant. It seems to me that Germany partially stumbled into its fleet-building program based on vague jingoistic sentiments and/or Kaiser Wilhelm II's semi-childlike glee at shiny new military hardware and gold braid on his shoulders, without fully counting the costs or considering all the consequences. As I said on the talk page of the other article, if Germany not building a major battleship fleet would have meant that Britain would have stayed neutral in WW1, then Germany would have been much better off without the fleet... AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again AnonMoos what you write is correct. However the article does not express the views you write here. Given the RN had some 60 battleships when the 2nd Naval Law was passed increasing the German fleet to 38 ships, I suggest we start by adding that the article. I would repeat again the article is written in a one sided manner and should be revised accordingly. The historical events are quite clear and need to referenced. The British response, as per Lord Selbourne, is also clear - it is German Trade and German objections to British actions in South Africa that are the issue, not a German battlefleet somewhere around half the size of the RN. Revisionist99 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the exact statements given by various British officials in reply to various diplomatic incidents, so I can't help there. However, important segments of the British public were growing quite concerned about German naval activities (see The Riddle of the Sands etc.), and there were corresponding political pressures on the government. AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed the British public were concerned, but because they were incited to be concerned. I will research how many battleships France launched circa 1895 to 1906 and compare that with Germany. The article uses the word "challenge" to describe the 2nd Naval Law, "it was a challenge to the RN". The position of the proposed German battlefleet vis the RN was clearly written down in the legislation and the key word is IF: if the RN attacked the PROPOSED German fleet the RN would suffer damage that would render it vulnerable to its enemies of 1902, France & Russia. That is not a challenge it is a warning. The German fleet could be seen as a rival to the RN yes, but building it was not a challenge per say if we are using the Oxford English dictionary. Do we have any names of the government officials who met to discuss this "challenge"? maybe some records of the meetings exist? Revisionist99 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)