WesWorld

Questions have been asked informally for some background information on the decision-making process of the current German Government, and what is driving its policies. I thought it best to address the larger issues here rather that put bits and pieces of the ‘big picture’ in the various folders on specifics of land, naval or air. I have also chosen to divide my comments between those “In Character” and those “Out of Character” – or at least that is my intent. Sometimes it is hard to define the difference.

There will probably be several posts from me on this theme aside from responses to specific comments any of you might make or questions you might ask. Not all of those posts will be made today, but I will attempt to complete them in a few days, so I might ask your indulgence to hold off on specific questions a while, as I may address them in due course.

When asked to take charge of Germany following my predecessor’s departure I was faced with the immediate problem of not knowing what policies general policies Germany had in place – that is, what did my predecessor see as Germany’s role in the world? I could only infer these from what I could glean from prior posts and what I might learn from other players. Unfortunately, that did not amount to much; there was more on specific plans for procurement and development of weapons systems, but nothing on the bigger issues. Therefore it seemed to me that whatever path I chose it would be a break from that of my predecessor. For that reason I postulated the rather radical shakeup in the German Government that unfolded in my first set of news.

My view was, and remains, that my predecessor was perhaps over-generous with German technology – licensing it abroad for small return or gratis, or acquiescing in the unasked for copying of German designs. Since I have no access to private messages sent or received by my predecessor I cannot know his reason, rationale or policy for such. I see such as a major contributor to the rounds of ‘one-up-man-ship’ we have seen; I have chosen to take a much stronger line on that issue.

The fact that one of Germany’s neighbors, France, is so far behind the general timeline has caused me, as the German player, much concern. I do not know what France intends to do between mid-1937 and late 1940; much can happen in such a time span – and one can read only so much into the naval simulation reports. The specifics of the settlement in Lithuania are unknown at this time – and while I am assured that order has been restored, there are no details upon which to base cogent responses or plans. This has stimulated the maintenance of a defensive posture in greater depth than might otherwise be required, and such a posture might change if the gap in knowledge was made good.

I could also find little evidence in the material left by my predecessor of positive policies for Germany. Others who may have had the benefit of private correspondence with my predecessor might differ on this conclusion. In any event I was my desire to chart a set of policies for Germany which might be summed up in the phrase, “Germany is a force for peace in the world; disturb our peace and you will discover our force.”

Since it does not have a large colonial empire to draw resources from Germany has to make investments abroad – and hence the actions of German firms to seek resources and markets in South American and Southeastern Europe, and the widening of horizons toward Asia. Germany has sought to ‘get in on the ground’ with some of the smaller nations of the Near East against the day that their resources and markets can be exploited. With the exception of its non-aggression pacts Germany is not a part of the large security blocks (FAR, AEGIS, NATO etc) though it share interests with several of them. I do not know the reason for this state of affairs, I merely acknowledge it. This isolation gives Germany some freedom of action but carries with it security concerns.

I do not know how my predecessor viewed the growth of the major Asian states – Bharat and China. While I intend to address German concerns more from an in-character perspective from the out-of-character perspective it seems to me that Germany gave away far too much for the return it received. There is, perhaps, some compensation – without the distraction caused by the rise of the SATSUMA states it is probably that more attention would have been given to German rearmament. As a student of history I find it surprising that Germany was allowed to build up an army the size it had without much outcry – but this is a game of alternate history; so be it.

These then have been some of my out-of-character thoughts behind Germany’s actions and policies thus far. I hope in the next installment to give a more in-character perspective to some of the same issues.

This seems like an excellent idea, and I'm interested by what I've read so far.

Great idea !! I'm also very interested, what's coming ! Your thread make some things clearer for me, above all, how/why you/Germany acted in the way you did.

like the previous posters I think this is a great idea and I hope we will see somthing similair from more players

I realize that before moving on to “in-character” statements, I need to consider a few more “out-of-character” issues that drive the decision-making process. One of these is my background, which may help someone understand why I look at issues as I do. I just went back and re-read by bio in the “Player Info” thread – and maybe a few additional words are required.

I took my degree in economics and then went to work for the US Department of Defense in the procurement field for thirty years. It conditioned me to think long term and how procurement chains and development cycles have to mesh together. It explains much of the detail I have put in documenting the countries I play, and it is a factor in how I look at what other nations seek to do. I have also been interested in history – in general, as military history and as alternate history – for more than forty years now. My book collection tends to run more towards technical studies of armed forces of the world rather than accounts of famous battles or campaigns – the nuts and bolts of how the militaries of the world were put together more than what they accomplished. That may explain for some how I have conducted some of the research work I have posted for my countries.

This said, one of the challenges facing me, when I took over playing Germany at the end of last September, was framing the parameters of the German economy – that is – what is it capable of accomplishing, and what is it part in the overall economy of Wesworld?

For some here, Wesworld is first and foremost a naval simulation, and the other aspects of the world – land forces, air forces, diplomacy etc – have merely been grafted on to the stem. I can understand that – but playing in a game that has grown beyond a simple naval simulation – and we have a number of players who look at the game that way – calls on me to do likewise. Besides, I find that aspect of the game as appealing as the rest. So I sought to take stock of what I found when taking charge of Germany, and to make inferences from that.

I have seen the rather sweeping statement that in Wesworld “the Great Depression didn’t happen”; with the implication being that explains why everyone is flush with cash and can build all the ships, tanks and planes they wish. From my studies I know that the “Great Depression” was different for the nations of the world – some would have been in distress throughout the 1930s had it not occurred. The “Great Depression” was the result of a combination of factors – not merely the crash of the American stock market – and it is worthwhile to consider what the absence of the ‘perfect storm’ that brought about the “Great Depression” would mean for Germany. It is likewise worthwhile to consider other economic aspects that seem to have been avoided in Germany’s recent history.

In Wesworld, the Great War ended in 1917 without American intervention – Atlantis having been instrumental in bringing about the earlier conclusion. It has been suggested to me that this resulted in fewer casualties, less destruction of property and less lasting hatred – though there is enough of that. When, from a Yugoslav perspective I inquired about Germany’s reparation liabilities I was quickly informed that they were much smaller and ended much sooner than in the OTL. This combined with the fact that Germany was able to resume rearmament much sooner than in the OTL, led me to infer the following:

• The peace imposed on Germany in 1917 was far less Carthaginian than the OTL
  
• Germany was able to avoid the hyperinflation of the mark in the immediate postwar period
  
• Germany was capable of coping with the reparations payments imposed upon it
  
• Germany escaped from the reparations burden early and was therefore able to invest in growth
  

These assumptions are borne out by the steady growth in the strength of the German armed forces recorded by my predecessor, and his success in doing so without the need for threat of war. That he was able to arrange the peaceful annexation of Austria, reacquire Memel and to reach an accord with Poland on transit through the Polish Corridor speaks to his sagacity.

The speed with which Germany was able to reconstitute the Luftwaffe – together with the number of advanced designs and impressive development in aero engine technology I saw as one indication that the German economy had weathered the stress of the immediate postwar period. A similar growth in the strength of Germany’s army and navy also implied great economic strength. As Germany is not endowed with all the resources required for such economic growth I assumed that Germany was able to maintain its trading links with the rest of the world and was a major competitor in the economic arena with the other major European powers. Some private correspondence I have received from other players has confirmed this view.

Wesworld Germany, at the point I took over playing that nation, seemed to have a thriving economy, with a lead in several major areas of technology. This economy supported a strong military and underpinned a successful diplomatic agenda. The issue facing me was, “What next”?

I will try to lay out my response to that question in the next installment.

From somebody who had a little insight into Hrolfs plans, Id would say that you have summed up the situation fairly well. What has helped Germany significantly in Wesworld versus the real world is the failure of the Nazi party to gain power, removing that additional alienation. Nordmark would not have allied herself with Germany if there had been a risk of the Nazi party gaining power, King Carl Phillip & Herre Berg are too shrewd for that!
Hrolf saw that a strong and stable Germany reduced the chance of a major war in Europe. He also said the following back in 2008:-

Quoted

Right now, Germany sees its sphere of influence as Germany and the areas of eastern Europe between the German and Russian borders. So, Germany's sphere of influence is pretty small. Germany has interests that are much more widely spread (commercial interests in China, the Phillipines, India, Argentina, the US, etc, plus interest in what happens in Nordmark, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Italy, etc), but the area that Germany would see as it's sphere of influence it pretty small at the moment.

I know this was sometime ago, but it may help somewhat.

Thank you for the comments and especially the reference to Hrolf's views. One of the difficulties I have had is attempting to pull together the bits and pieces of information that are spread in various places and to form a coherent picture. You have provided me with a fixed point which retains much of its truth.

The fall of 1939, game-wise, could be considered an interesting time to take charge of Germany. As Earl822 noted my predecessor had banished from WW history Hitler himself, but the memories of OTL history run strong with many of our players, and my predecessor had not entirely banished the specter of the National Socialists – the party still existed, some of its OTL personalities were still major players on the Wesworld German scene. The OTL Weimer constitution had weaknesses that – in so far as I was able to discern – had not been addressed; chief of which was the fact that the President was not obliged to ask the leader of the largest voting block in the Reichstag to form a government. This left open the possibility of the backdoor rise of a Nationalist government. I was also dissatisfied with the rather list-less run of elections seen under my predecessor, with no clear majority; while this reflects actual history, I wished to make a change and furnish a clear mandate for change.

So I expropriated the name of the Free Conservatives and fashioned them as a union of several center parties and put at their head Konrad Adenauer – who in the OTL was West Germany’s first postwar chancellor – to send a clear message that Germany’s future policies would not follow the Nazi model. I gave them a clear electoral mandate against a background of venality, which have grown to encompass the doom of the remaining figures of the OTL Nazi party – Göring, Milch and Udet. I will freely admit that I have used, and will probably continue to use, Göring and company as the whipping boys for some of what I consider regrettable decisions from the past – technological proliferation, support for expansionist regimes, overly-powerful Air Ministries etc. Much of this has come out in the German news over the last several cycles.

So much for my desire for change and who I was going to blame. What does Germany see as its role and the stage upon which things will be played out?

First and foremost Germany wants peace and security in Europe. It sees itself sandwiched between France and Russia – members of the FAR alliance to the west and east, and Denmark, the Netherlands and Italy – members of the AEGIS alliance to the north and south. Fortunately my predecessor had managed to achieve reasonable relations with all of these countries, together with establishing a loose entente with Nordmark and the United Kingdom. I do not see it in Germany’s interest to change these fundamentals in any negative way.

As Earl822 also noted, my predecessor had seen southeastern Europe as Germany’s sphere of influence. The creation of the Warsaw Pact alliance has an impact on Germany’s security interests in the region, but my predecessor apparently did not see the Warsaw Pact as a threat – and neither do I. While I do not know how my predecessor defined “sphere of influence” I look upon southeastern Europe as a primary area for investment, for the marketing of German industrial products and as a source of resources that might not be cut off from Germany in the event of war elsewhere in the world. In my view, German interests in the region extend to Turkey – which has had long-standing ties of friendship with Germany not only in game but in OTL.

But I do not see these interests as being political. I recall reading in back message traffic the set of circumstances that arose when my predecessor raised the issue of minorities in Czechoslovakia. The response of the player nations was swift and concerted, and I have no desire to raise that issue again unless Czechoslovakia suddenly became a player nation – a circumstance that I hold highly unlikely. At one point my predecessor seemed to support making Hungary a player country in so that Hungarian irredentism might play itself out at the expense of Czechoslovakia; I would not support such for obvious reasons. German policy towards the central European neutrals – Czechoslovakia and Hungary – is basically to bind them to the German economy with ties of mutual benefit and investment. How this plays out in game remains to be seen.

Germany’s current policy towards the nations of the Warsaw Pact is similar. They have agreed to economic ties between them that would expand their markets – yet their industrial capacity is limited and their ability to produce capital goods from their own resources small. As a source of raw materials, as an outlet for manufactured goods, as areas for investment the nations of southeastern Europe are vital for Germany; Germany would look askance at any power casting a covetous eye upon them, and what they see as their security concerns are of great interest for Germany.

There are concerns among some of the nations of southeastern Europe regarding the westward expansion of Bharat and its Persian satrapy. Germany is aware of this, and sees the threat to Turkey in particular. Bharati expansion also threatens the Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula – a major source of oil. At the same time the present German government feels a sense of responsibility for having facilitated the growth of Bharati military and economic power without regard to the consequences. Therefore it has decided to take a strong position: it has reversed German policy and has cut technical exchange ties with Bharat; it is considering its ability to respond to potential continued Bharati expansion; it has opposed Bharati intrigues within the League of Nations. It has, perhaps, reacted more strongly than those powers closer to the situation. This is how that sense of responsibility felt by the present German government is playing itself out.

The German Government is also quite interested in improving its relations with the United Kingdom. While economic competitors the German Government believes that Germany and the UK share far more in common from the security perspective; whether the British Government sees this the same way is another matter. Therefore Germany is puzzled by the apparent willingness of the British Government to acquiesce in the most recent confrontations with China. Britain seems to willing to accommodate Chinese expansion; Germany is not. Germany has cut technical exchange ties with China, but has held out the possibility of resumption should the level of tension in the Far East ease. They have not as of the present moment, but Germany is monitoring the situation on a continuing basis.

My predecessor was also able to establish excellent relations with the United States. This has proved to be of great benefit to both nations, but to Germany in particular. It means that American capital markets are open to Germany, that the United States is open to German exports and can supply German import needs as required. Technical exchanges were arranged long ago and have continued despite the changes of players for both nations. It is therefore in Germany’s interests to continue to cultivate this ‘special relationship’.

One area of growing importance is Germany’s relations with the nations of South America – Argentina and Brazil in particular. When I succeeded in playing Germany I found that I was building four capital ships for these nations, as well as warships for other nations in South America. South America represents a large potential market for consumer and industrial goods, and the nations there have resources that Germany can benefit from. So far both the Argentine and Brazilian governments have proven responsive to proposals for investment by German firms. Chile and Peru, rivals though they are, are also on friendly terms with Germany and they too are seen as areas in which Germany can expand its commercial ties, investment and economic influence.

The current policy goals for the current German Government might then be summarized as:

• Maintain peace and stability in Europe
  
• Foster trade ties with southeastern Europe
  
• Cooperate more closely with the United Kingdom
  
• Oppose expansionist tendencies of the Far Eastern powers
  
• Maintain and expand friendly relations with the United States
  
• See to widen markets in South America
  

As I said earlier very interesting read although the German foreign policy doesnt really seem to be pro-Peace as much as ant-SATSUM/Bharat in that Bharats rather peaceful (the Persian civil war was away to have an armed conflict and an interesting sortie for me) is punished by Germany while the violent landgrabs and attempts at landgrabs by the ABC powers are rewarded with German investments.

I guess Persian officers arent trained in Germany anymore

The Netherlands has long been cautious about her large and fairly friendly neighbor. Not being involved in a war with the really big nation to the immediate east is desirable. Also, not being caught between France and Germany if they for some reason brawl is desirable.

Overall this makes an interesting read.

The Dutch have their own views on the UK re: Bahrat/China, and other subjects. However,

I would like to point out that there has not been an attempt at least by Brazil to make any sort of landgrabs since 1936, which was 4 game years ago. And its unlikely that there will be any such attempts for the forseeable future.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
As I said earlier very interesting read although the German foreign policy doesnt really seem to be pro-Peace as much as ant-SATSUM/Bharat in that Bharats rather peaceful (the Persian civil war was away to have an armed conflict and an interesting sortie for me) is punished by Germany while the violent landgrabs and attempts at landgrabs by the ABC powers are rewarded with German investments.

From an out of game perspective, I suppose that the Peruvian War and the South American War were, for their participants, a way to have an armed conflict and an interesting set of stories too. To say the one was 'peaceful' and the other 'a land grab' seems a form of double-dealing.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
As I said earlier very interesting read although the German foreign policy doesnt really seem to be pro-Peace as much as ant-SATSUM/Bharat in that Bharats rather peaceful (the Persian civil war was away to have an armed conflict and an interesting sortie for me) is punished by Germany while the violent landgrabs and attempts at landgrabs by the ABC powers are rewarded with German investments.

Thats an interesting, if not confusing, point of view. Chile wasn't held in high reguard by Germany (under Hrolf) when they participated in the war in Peru and both that war and the SAE vs Argentina/Brazil conflict were long over before Bruce took over and started the shift in thinking. I also note that the war with Peru was also more for storyline purposes and no land, other than the tiny parcel near Leticia, was ever gained and even that is not a done deal yet.

I have no issues with your perspective. It seems logical and reasonable according to the past and current circumstances.

I kinda of agree slightly with Vuck in regard to the comparison between the South American War (Paraguay is for all purposes a Argentine puppet) but they get German help while India gets punish for the Persian thingy that happened in the Persian Civil War. But I have made India an antagonist on purpose so I guess have to reap the rewards of my own script.

But again, good insight into Germany's state of mind.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
As I said earlier very interesting read although the German foreign policy doesnt really seem to be pro-Peace as much as ant-SATSUM/Bharat in that Bharats rather peaceful (the Persian civil war was away to have an armed conflict and an interesting sortie for me) is punished by Germany while the violent landgrabs and attempts at landgrabs by the ABC powers are rewarded with German investments.

From an out of game perspective, I suppose that the Peruvian War and the South American War were, for their participants, a way to have an armed conflict and an interesting set of stories too. To say the one was 'peaceful' and the other 'a land grab' seems a form of double-dealing.

I dont really see any double dealing, Persia elected the Bharat emperor as their new emperor (not all Persians agreed and civil war followed), the ABC powers used force to chang/attempt to change international borders and install compliant goverments in neighbouring countries.

This is ofcourse my POV and has no claims of being the absolute truth.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
I dont really see any double dealing, Persia elected the Bharat emperor as their new emperor (not all Persians agreed and civil war followed), the ABC powers used force to change/attempt to change international borders and install compliant goverments in neighbouring countries.

From my perspective, India used force to install a compliant government in neighboring countries. As recent Persian news makes all too clear, India says "jump" and Persia must say "How high, master?" And Perdy's news visibly portrays that even the Loyalists aren't particularly pleased about the way things have worked out for Persia...

As for South America, it seemed to me following a recent re-reading that both the Argentines and Brazilians on the one side and South Africa on the other got their dander up and neither side was willing to back down. In the Peruvian Civil War, no territory changed hands, though there's a demilitarized zone in Peru near the Colombian border.

Having recounted all these concerns, observations and thoughts, it is reasonable to ask how all this translates into the game. Since Wesworld is a primarily a naval simulation recounting my view on the Kriegsmarine would be the logical place to start.

When assuming the role of Germany I saw the Kriegsmarine as badly balanced. Too much of its strength was committed to a battle force of doubtful usefulness and its scouting forces were weak. Construction of small craft had proliferated to an unnecessary extent, with torpedo boats and fleet escorts crowding each other for the same function. The service force had languished and the auxiliaries that a fleet needs to function on a realistic basis – tugs, netlayers and the like – were non-existent.

Frankly, while some might consider the Sachsen class battleships to be formidable weapons at sea but in my view that are far too large and at a minimum require more than six years to construct. They are a quartet of albatrosses, and the resources committed to their construction are far more than I would have chosen. Yet there were launched and all too far advanced to scrap or convert; I have therefore continued building them, though the construction tempo is slowing in order to free tonnage for other purposes.

My predecessor had chosen to build a very large number of heavy destroyers armed with 15cm main guns; while the design is historical I do not believe that they were the best choice for the tonnage expended – but they are a part of the hand I was dealt. I am uncertain but I believe that my predecessor intended these heavy destroyers to substitute for light cruisers – a function that I hold is beyond them. That is why they are concentrated in their own flotillas to act as heavy screening units. My doubtfulness of the heavy destroyer concept is the reason that the Kriegsmarine has abandoned construction of the type.

Germany has a small aircraft carrier force – two ships of the Peter Strasser class. As built they are of excellent design but my predecessor chose not to expand the Kriegsmarine air element and proceeded to build the Sachsen class. The paucity of aircraft carriers is something I have not been able to address yet, but it remains high on my priority.

The German cruiser force is composed of well balanced designs, yet was quite small in size – which is the reason for the continued cruiser construction program that will see eight vessels of the Karlsruhe class completed by 1942. However I also found when taking charge that I was committed to the sale of two cruisers in 1941 – and while I might have been able to void the agreement I chose not to. The need to quickly replace numbers is the reason that the latest round of German cruisers is smaller in size and with a shorter construction time.

I was roundly chided for casting the Ersatz Emden class so much smaller than their predecessors. I do not look at ship design as the means to produce grandiose and impressive ships but rather to produce vessels capable fulfilling the requirements expected of them. This philosophy has led to the generally smaller designs of the latest round of vessels being laid down for the Kriegsmarine – the Paderborn class destroyers and the Arendsee class minesweepers - but I believe that they will prove to be better return for the money.

Deployment of the Kriegsmarine for any purpose beyond the North Sea was, and remains, constrained by the lack of an adequate service force. Upon close review I found that my predecessor had acquired a number of fast tankers from the civilian fleet but had only paid the cost of placing a few guns on them. The Dithmarschen class had never been properly configured for underway replenishment (which explains some of the items found in the ‘Unternehmen Herbstreise’ thread). This lack of a proper fleet train is something that I will seek to address through new construction and conversion as the means become available.

What role do I see for the Kriegsmarine given the policies stated above?

I have a two-fold answer for that question. The first is to establish and maintain a fleet that has alliance value – though the political question of who might be the partner in such circumstance is far less clear. The second is to transform into a force that can project sea power to meet threats to German security wherever they may be. The two are not mutually exclusive.

How do I view the Kriegsmarine’s future construction program?

As mentioned, the building tempo for battleships is slowing and not likely to change in the near term. Construction of additional aircraft carriers will likely be undertaken at some point. Cruiser construction is likely to continue at a reduced pace. The service forces are likely to see more of the new multi-role Donau class ships. Provision will be made for necessary harbor craft and auxiliaries. Construction of submarines is likely to resume in the not-far-distant future.

Do I have all the details worked out?

No, not yet. And circumstances may change.

Thanks Bruce, there's a lot in there to digest.

You are quite welcome.

And I will admit that I am not quite finished. There are things to note on both air and land forces too. I will likely get to them tomorrow.