Could the Germans have been able to break through the British blockade in WWI...

No. In fact, even if the Germans could wave a magic wand and sink every single RN dreadnought without loss in 1914, they still can't project their fleet widely enough for it to matter, even if they can win any naval engagement. The Royal Navy doesn't need to stop German Dreadnoughts, they need to dtop merchant ships bringing in crap from across the Atlantic. And the British and French control all the coaling ports. There is no plausible way for the Germans to break the WW1 blockade.

why 29

So if the Germans couldn't actually win, why did they start the war?

Because they weren't too comfy with the Russian Army mobilizing on their border.

Germany's plans to win the war did not involve beating the Royal Navy or ending the blockade. They hoped to knock out France ( and in later post war starting plans, Russia) be invincible on the continent, and take their gains. They just needed to win before the economy imploded, which again, does not involve building a fuckhuge fleet to match the British one. If anything, they should have built fewer ships, not more.

Because that puts them at 2/3 of Entente naval strength, which is what Tirpitz believed was the minimum for deterring the British navy.

The Schlieffen Plan. If the war could be won rapidly enough, then the threat of the British blockade would be irrelevant.

>So if the Germans couldn't actually win, why did they start the war?

LITERALLY because they didn't think Britain would actually fight them.

This is where the 'chiffon de papier' remark comes from, as it was given by the German ambassador to Britain in reference to the British guarantee of Belgian neutrality.

Germany actually entered the war under the impression that Britain, who had not fought a serious opponent (Russia included 2bh) since Napoleon, and believed they were invincible (given the overwhelming dominance of their navy, the skill of their small but effective and experienced army, the size of their economy and empire, and the national mood of supreme confidence) would not think of fighting a war against them over something as insignificant as Belgium.

The German strategic planners only ever accounted for France and Russia, which they believed (perhaps correctly) they could defeat. They didn't account for the BEF's ability to rapidly deploy to defend Belgium, and slow the German encirclement of the French army by so much that the bulk of the French forces had time to redeploy. They also never accounted for the desperate strain any potential British blockade would put on their economy, as the KM was, at the time, superior to the French and Russian navies combined, and so they did not consider the potential loss of naval supremacy to the overwhelming might of the RN.

Basically Germans allowed their autism to take control and had no idea how Britain would feel about their friends being violated, and so didn't think they'd actually do it, the absolute madmen.

>If anything, they should have built fewer ships, not more

I remember reading that in 1907, the German navy's funding was approximately 1/5 that of the German army. By 1914, the Navy's funding was approximately 1/2 that of the German army (and the Army's budget had grown considerably between 1907 and 1914). I'm botching the details, but that's the general truth of it.

It had more to do with the idea that if France could be defeated rapidly enough, then Britain would be irrelevant. All of Germany's hopes going into WW1 centered around the idea that France could be defeated in less than two months.

age old question

The German high command knew their situation wasn't great, but they thought it was only going to get worse as Russia was reforming their military dramatically while Austria-Hungary grew increasingly irrelevant as a world power. "Now or never" was the prevailing notion.

It's worth noting that the July Crisis wasn't a new wrinkle in Europe's peace. There had been near-flashpoint incidents for decades that were often barely or incompletely resolved, usually with one or even both sides feeling bitterly slighted.

It's not just the colosssl amount spent on a Navy that wound up not nearly retuning on that investment; building the fleet itself was one of the prime political/diplomatic factors that ensured enmity with the U.K. They probably would have been better off taking all that money and building giant gold toilets with it.

To those saying the Navy was a waste, doesn't the way prove it was strategically essential? More than any other factor, the blockade defeated the Germans. Not having a deterrence would have left the whole country at the complete mercy of the British; any instance of opposing foreign goals ran the risk of turning into an exstistential threat

The fuck was wrong with France, why did they have so few of everything?

They were Britains pocket slut anyway so why would they need their own fleet?

Technically maybe they could have

But those ships were expensive and attempting a break out was risky. As long as they existed they kept the british away from their coast if they lost theur fleet even their harbors would be fair game.

Fleet in being as it were.

The idea that the Germans could win WW1 isn't true. There were multiple points they almost won. If they had pushed a little bit farther in the opening invasion of France, Paris may have fallen and capitulated, leaving Germany victorious in the war. The Schliefen plan was poorly planned, and could have been executed far better in Belgium. If Russia had collapsed a year sooner, they may have been able to win. If Austria-Hungary or the Ottomans knew the meaning of the word 'Competence' in any capacity. If they didn't needlessly antagonize the USA with an ultimately failed strategy with some of the aforementioned points, they could have won through manpower. If they had adopted a more defensive posture in the West rather than wasting resources in a failed big at Verdun.

The war was not set in stone; it only seems inevitable in hindsight because Germany failed to beat the clock in many, many ways, and met death by blockade and attrition. It was merely unlikely they would win.

Russia’s ally was invaded by the same people who annexed Bosnia less than ten years prior. That’s not a valid excuse.

Schliefen plan didn't go nearly as poorly as it could have gone though, imagine if Belgium had managed to actually set up the defenses around Antwerp properly, suddenly any attempt at advancing into france would have held the significant risk of being attacked from behind as troops land fairly safely in a major fortified port

Because the German can't not destroy Europe.

>Russia's ally
There was no formal alliance between Russia and Serbia, Nicky inserted himself into the situation because of Pan-Slavic autism

>So if the Germans couldn't actually win, why did they start the war?

This just simply isn't true. The war realistically could have gone either way all the way up to mid 1918. In fact the start of 1918 was the closest Germany came to victory on the western front in the entire war.

I thought the closest the Germans came was at the start of the war when they were something like 50 miles from Paris

There was no way they could compete in shipbuilding against Britain or Germany so why even bother. What they could tho was compete for control of the Mediterranean(the real lifeline of their empire) against either Italy or AH.

In 1918, Russia was out of the war and France was dangerously close to depleting its manpower pool. Both France and Britain were starting to draft 14-year-olds to fill the ranks. If not for the timely arrival of new soldiers from America, Germany could have easily won.

Why was the naval blockade so effective? Why couldnt germany rely on continental supplies?

They were also completely depressed on Morale. Germans were mad, and muddy, but they were veritably winning on every front. Greece was nothing, and had barely gone anywhere in the Balkans. Russia had capitulated, A-H was actually pushing into Venetia and the battelines were well into French territory.

The only success of The allies was in far off colonies that would not decide the war. Without American soldiers, the French would have stopped fighting and quit the war, most likely, with no hope for victory in sight.

What would happen after is a mystery. Glory on a victory could only last the Germans so long, if Britain had kept up pressure their entire economy would collapse and then Britain would be left with communism spreading down the entire continent. I don't know if they would have liked that.

I think the world would be a very, very different place depending on when and where Germany won WW1. If they won it early, we would be living in a germanic dominated world. Late, as in 1918, just barely skimming by in a war of attrition? I have no idea. The communists would be huge and no one would want to fight them. I imagine the Ottoman empire would easily fall to the reds, A-H probably embroiled later on, Germany moves to assist and convinced Britain to join it, but France erupts later down the line against German domination?

I don't Imagine Italy being too much of a problem, since its centered and agrian enough the successor state probably could have dealt with communistic tendencies. But the world would certainly be fucked, and America/Japan would just be isolationist hotspots only looking out for themselves.

In ww1, most likely.
Modern day, absolutely.
Ww2, kicked fucking ass.

Part of the problem was that German pre-war planning had assumed that Great Britain would have to send its fleet into the North Sea to blockade the German ports. This would bring British warships close to the German coastline, where they could be picked off by coastal defense guns, submarines, torpedo boats, and naval mines. The naval mines could either be dropped from Zeppelins or deployed by special "minelayer" warships designed for the task. Think about what happened when Britain tried to attack the Turkish coast with a fleet of battleships during the war and now envision them trying to do the same thing against a much more heavily fortified Germany-controlled coastline that is defended by torpedo boats, submarines, minelayers, and zeppelins. Doing this, it would be impossible for Britain to maintain the blockade without suffering very heavy losses for their navy.

HOWEVER.......the Royal Navy was well aware that trying to blockade Germany up close would be extremely dangerous, so instead they opted to perform a "distant blockade" which involved heavy naval patrols through the two natural chokepoints created by the British Isles. Take a look at this image; notice the two red lines? Those were the blockade lines. By heavily patrolling these areas, Britain was able to maintain a blockade while still keeping their warships well away from the German coastline. This approach was less secure (more room to slip through) and it required far more active warships to maintain, but it also kept the Royal Navy's prized dreadnoughts out of torpedo boat range.

No. The only plausible path Germany had to victory was Kaiser Bill not antagonizing Britain for the previous three decades by building his autism fleet. If they had invested that money in expanding the army with a couple more corps, and kept the good relations with Britain that Bismarck had painstakingly built, they probably would have won.

Overrated??

Great Britain maintained a premier naval force for centuries. Germany, America... these are but generations of leaves. The Royal Navy is the metaphysical oak tree from which all modern notions of boat warfare spring forth.

1st Marne was the most decisive battle in the war

>Tirpitz
>being right about anything

I like how the battleship that did nothing is somehow more famous than the guy it was named after.

The main problem was food.

All of the European countries were net food importers. Europe depended on the wheat, corn and beef exports of the "Big Four" food exporting countries, USA, Argentina, Canada and Australia, all of which were aligned with the Allies.

This is why food self-sufficiency has been an obsession in Europe after the world wars, leading to the creation of the Common Agricultural Policy of massive agricultural subsidies.

European food self-sufficiency, despite massive efforts since the 1920s, was not achieved until the 1970s when the "Green Revolution" in agricultural technology (fertilizers, pesticides, modern harvesting combines and so on) allowed a massive improvement in European yields that finally led to industrial Europe being able to feed itself.

tl;dr - Britain had control of the Atlantic and massive interest-free loans from Canada, Australia, Argentina and USA to feed itself.
Germany was blockaded and starved.

Simply put, no. The German navy couldn't hope to break the blockade outright, and any victories against the Royal Navy would be Pyrrhic victories at best, as the British/French had many more ships to replace sunken vessels, while the High Seas fleet was mainly stuck with what they had at the start, as building new ships to replace lost ones would take the entire duration of the war.

the Germans sinking twice the amount of tonnage in the Royal Navy didn't mean too much when the RN has over 4 times the amount of tonnage in the water as the Germans.

The thing was that the High Seas Fleet, both the leadership and the seamen, knew that taking the blockade head-on to break it was nothing short of suicide. When the order was given in October of 1918 to take all ships and force open the blockade out of desperation, the sailors chose to mutiny instead, starting the revolution that deposed Wilhelm.

The Schleiffen Plan wasn't even a plan, it was more of a thought experiment for war with France and Russia. Moltke (German Chief of Staff) changed the plan so much that it basically became his but just inspired by Schleiffen.

>drafting 14 year old

But the people in Entene countries weren't starving because of a blockade.

>So if the Germans couldn't actually win, why did they start the war?
Because if the war happened at a later stage things would have looked even worse.

Not to mention that Germans could have won the war.

For example if the Schlieffen-Plan would have worked they could have won. Also if Russia had entered peace talks in 1915, which would have been perfectly reasonable from the Russian perspective as they had suffered horrendous losses, they could have ended the war on favourable terms.

Also it should be considered that the naval blockade worked because the war took longer than expected. All the continental powers had offensive military plans. None of them planned defensively. They all hoped to end the war within months.

look at the losses
now look at what those losses mean in percentage of overall forces
its called pyrrhic victory

Well, in every aspect Britain would not benefit by starting an agressive war against any european power. It would disrupt trade and tarnish it's prestige immensely, something that was very important actually to the maintenance of the Empire, many peoples like the Malays thought it was best to be a colony of Britain than independent because of their prestige, they surely are improving things- they thought. So the Germans didn't need to have a navy to deter the british, the geopolitical situation already served that purpose; and if with a navy, it would've been swept aside just like it was in WW1.

I hope this is just a troll.

Three easily replaceable battlecruisers is worth bottling up the German fleet for the rest of the war

>if they did everything exactly right and had no fuck ups they could have won

I mean the same was true for every side but they all fucked up repeatedly

They didn't need to do everything exactly right, but they needed to key things to go much better.

That is one beautiful hand-drafted chart. Even the slightly droopy British tonnage line gives it more charm. Funny to think that back in those days, you did not have computers in order to make graphics, so a drafter had to draw, hatch, and letter all of that by hand.

besides being a german-dominated world if the germans won quickly in WWI, we'd likely be living in a world where imperialism was never discredited.