Sure I read it. And I will ask again, where do you come up with the supposition that Germany would make super amazing battleships just because the Washington treaty wasn’t in place? What evidence leads to this conclusion? Why would German make this investment when there is no indication they had that level of interest in sea power?
Even if they had built an H44 how would they have gotten it to the Pacific intact? And in hypothetical land you might as well assume the Japanese built at A-150 to match it. Know why everyone agreed to Washington? Because few people really wanted to spend that much. Had the treaty not happened who knows what would have been built by who. You can’t assume Germany would make double super dreadnaughts and no one else would. Removing the Washington treaty changes the ‘what if’ so far beyond reasonable speculation that you can’t just assume something like that.
Did you ever read the book “Dreadnought”?
Assuming Germany won WW1 on land it still would have lost the naval war at Jutland. With the continent securely in German hands the German Navy would have been forced to either outcompete the British or else accept British control of German trade on the high seas.
Meaning that the pre-WW1 arms race between the two powers would be back on. Given the German penchant for outlandish designs it makes sense that their naval planners would build a massive submarine and capital ship navy...perhaps even with some aircraft carriers.
The Bismarck and Tirpitz were the result of cheating limitations imposed by treaty. Absent those limitations the Germans would have built bigger. The H class ships (two of which were laid down but never completed) were indicative of the momentum to ignore the treaty limititations but the H class were limited by the size of the shipyards.
Had there been no such limitations there would have been bigger shipyards built like were built in the US, UK, and Japan.
The more important thought to my original post is that with Imperial Germany secure on land and triumphant over France and Russia the Germans would necessarily turn their sights on the sea.
What’s also to be noted is that a Germany that was triumphant in WW1 would not have seen the rise of either communism or National Socialism. Hitler’s whole reason for becoming who who became would have been erased and he’d have been happy that his country had won the war.
Thus his influence on the German Navy would be gone from history. The Bismarck and Tirpitz we know would have never existed.
Everything would be different and the Germans would have built bigger battleships, lots more submarines, they probably would have built four-engine long range bombers, and they would have been using jet engines long before the UK or the US did. Their whole focus would be different if they had won WW1.
Your thinking would assume that Germany would win WW1 and then concede to the same treaties and limitations as if they’d lost. That doesn’t make any sense.
Versaiiles and Washington would have never happened with Germany winning WW1.