If WWI was in the 1930's then WWI was in the 1950's

[Ward]

So we have WWI in the 1930's and we have WWII in the 1950's how would this war look like.
Let Us say the Bomb was not devlped until the same amount of time after the start of the war as it was . So how is this WWII going to looki like.

[David S Poepoe]

So we have WWI in the 1930's and we have WWII in the 1950's how would this war look like.
Let Us say the Bomb was not devlped until the same amount of time after the start of the war as it was . So how is this WWII going to looki like.

Most likely one could have developed the Atomic Bomb to end WWI.

[M79]

Technology would be a bit behind, probably 10-15 years. If the players remain the same, I expect Germany to have enough industrial capacity to take the East and the Western Front to look much worse. It will be a battle of attrition but this time Germany should be able to synthesize what it can't make. Look for a 6-7 year war that leaves Europe a graveyard with 100 million+ dead possible and the loser being BOHICAed in the peace settlement a la Versailles or worse.

[Prinz Richard Eugen]

WWI would begin with aircraft at the level of the early 1920's in OTL. Civilian successes would give the industry some push, but there would be no "Lindberg flying the Atlantic" type sucesses as long-range aircraft would not be as advanced (no market). Larger armies, more machine guns and artillery, would lead to another stalemate. Larger populations would mean more food shortages and a quicker end to the war. The battleship would be supreme, but the increased number of submarines would mean Britian would suffer the largest food shortages. By the end, tanks and aircraft would be equal to OTL. Despite a 3 year war, lossed will be 50% greater than in OTL due to the sise of the armies. Basically, it will end in a draw.

WWII begins with jet aircraft at about pre-Korea levels. No A-bomb yet, but it will be developed during the war. Armies will be smaller than in OTL because the losses in WWI were greater and birthrates are lower. Aircraft carriers were introduced btween the wars and will have jets by the end. Both sides are ready for war after a 15 year truce. Unlike OTL, more lives will be lost in WWI than WWII because it will be shorter by 2 years. The bomb will defeat the central powers.

I have assumed the sides will be the same as in OTL.

[Albidoom]

Sorry, got confused with the threads.

Ignore this.

[ljofa]

1. London remains the major global financial centre. This means the British Empire still has the might to squeeze any nation in it's usual, insidious ways.

2. No war deaths and a more contained Spanish Flu epidemic mean that Europe have a few million more people around. I expect that there is more migration to the various colonies of empires which would make those theatres more interesting.

3. Without WW1, I think that TR would be able to win the 1916 US election as the leader of the Progressive Party and change the face of US politics forever into a three-way system.

4. Russia undergoes a further revolution in the 1920s but the Tsar becomes a constitutional monarch with Kerensky in charge as Prime Minister. Lenin dies in exile in Switzerland, Stalin is shot during a bank raid, Trotsky is quietly liquidated by the secret police. The French don't lose all their investments in Russia and the country undergoes significant modernisation.

5. Nationalist movements in the Balkans continue to simmer away nicely with the Entente nations supplying money and weapons to various groups keeping Austria-Hungary unstable. Hungary gains more autonomy and will not follow Austria into any general European war.

With these five points to bear in mind, let's say Gavrilo Princip (or son for argument's sake) shoots dead the heir to the AH throne on June 28th 1934. The same events happen but 20 years later.

This time around, Hungary refuses to participate and the nationalists in AH rise up against Vienna and that empire just falls apart. Germany activates the Schlieffen Plan but the Russians mobilise faster than expected, crush the Germans at Tannenberg and are 40 miles from Berlin by the end of September. The Germans don't experience the "Miracle of the Elbe", run against ferocious French opposition and sue for an armistics - the war is over by Christmas.

The British and French are quick to seize German African colonies.

[FlyingDutchman]

Larger armies, more machine guns and artillery, would lead to another stalemate.
Don't think so. IRL the Brits were preparing a large tank-offensive to take place spring '19. So a WWI in 1930s would still have heaps of tanks, so as long as at least one side more or less get's his tank doctrines sorted out a stalemate isn't going to happen.
From late '20s onwards everybody is going to have the Christie's suspension so fast tanks aren't going to be a problem.

Perhaps light tanks get their 15 minutes of fame? I could see some problems with medium armor like Shermans, T34's, Pz IV's and the likes not getting developed in time for action in the '30s.

[Wozza]

1. London remains the major global financial centre. This means the British Empire still has the might to squeeze any nation in it's usual, insidious ways.

2. No war deaths and a more contained Spanish Flu epidemic mean that Europe have a few million more people around. I expect that there is more migration to the various colonies of empires which would make those theatres more interesting.

3. Without WW1, I think that TR would be able to win the 1916 US election as the leader of the Progressive Party and change the face of US politics forever into a three-way system.

4. Russia undergoes a further revolution in the 1920s but the Tsar becomes a constitutional monarch with Kerensky in charge as Prime Minister. Lenin dies in exile in Switzerland, Stalin is shot during a bank raid, Trotsky is quietly liquidated by the secret police. The French don't lose all their investments in Russia and the country undergoes significant modernisation.

5. Nationalist movements in the Balkans continue to simmer away nicely with the Entente nations supplying money and weapons to various groups keeping Austria-Hungary unstable. Hungary gains more autonomy and will not follow Austria into any general European war.

With these five points to bear in mind, let's say Gavrilo Princip (or son for argument's sake) shoots dead the heir to the AH throne on June 28th 1934. The same events happen but 20 years later.

This time around, Hungary refuses to participate and the nationalists in AH rise up against Vienna and that empire just falls apart. Germany activates the Schlieffen Plan but the Russians mobilise faster than expected, crush the Germans at Tannenberg and are 40 miles from Berlin by the end of September. The Germans don't experience the "Miracle of the Elbe", run against ferocious French opposition and sue for an armistics - the war is over by Christmas.

The British and French are quick to seize German African colonies.


I think the important point you raise is about Russian development. Without war and revolution we are talking about a power in the 30s that is comparable to the Soviet Union in 1945 vis a vis the rest of Europe.

Under such circumstances it is highly unlikely that Britain will still be in the Entente, and maybe not even France. The Germans will have missed their window for challenging Russia and will need radically different diplomacy with the other powers.

[Alratan]

Technology would be a bit behind, probably 10-15 years.

This is something that keeps being mentioned, but if you look at the subject in greater detail, it's simply not true. Large scale war severely retards technological and particualrly scientific development. It accelerates the development of some limited technology, although at a cost of overall development being retarded, and naturally accelerates the weaponisation of existing systems.

Without the annihilation of a generation of Europe's scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, and with vastly more money in the system, but with continuing tension to motivate weapons development, I'd say technology could be more than five years ahead of OTL by 1930, and weapons technology even more so.

Note that the colonial powers were very interested in the possibilities of armoured cars and aircraft as means to reduce the cost of colonial operations, so I'd expect that with colonisation still alive and well, and lots more money to spend, both of these would be ahead of OTL, particulalry France and Britain. As mentioned above sea planes might well be particularly advanced, but the British were pionners of naval aviation in general, so we may see more aircraft carriers from them.

I'd be unsurprised by another Russo-Japanese War, which could well prove to be where aircraft carriers come into their own.

Nationalist movements in the Balkans continue to simmer away nicely with the Entente nations supplying money and weapons to various groups keeping Austria-Hungary unstable. Hungary gains more autonomy and will not follow Austria into any general European war.

Doubt it. All the Great Powers have an interest in the Balkans being stable. They just want it stable on their terms.

[Calgacus]

I think the important point you raise is about Russian development. Without war and revolution we are talking about a power in the 30s that is comparable to the Soviet Union in 1945 vis a vis the rest of Europe.

Under such circumstances it is highly unlikely that Britain will still be in the Entente, and maybe not even France. The Germans will have missed their window for challenging Russia and will need radically different diplomacy with the other powers.

Possibly more of a Europe v Russia situation? Although of course if Russia progresses politically as well as economically, we could be looking at a largely constitutional morachy Russia, which would have a lot of interesting results. The USA would still be largely isolationist, and perhaps much more hostile to Britain.

What about China and Japan?

[Calgacus]

This is something that keeps being mentioned, but if you look at the subject in greater detail, it's simply not true. Large scale war severely retards technological and particualrly scientific development. It accelerates the development of some limited technology, although at a cost of overall development being retarded, and naturally accelerates the weaponisation of existing systems.

Without the annihilation of a generation of Europe's scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, and with vastly more money in the system, but with continuing tension to motivate weapons development, I'd say technology could be more than five years ahead of OTL by 1930, and weapons technology even more so.

Note that the colonial powers were very interested in the possibilities of armoured cars and aircraft as means to reduce the cost of colonial operations, so I'd expect that with colonisation still alive and well, and lots more money to spend, both of these would be ahead of OTL, particulalry France and Britain. As mentioned above sea planes might well be particularly advanced, but the British were pionners of naval aviation in general, so we may see more aircraft carriers from them.

I'd be unsurprised by another Russo-Japanese War, which could well prove to be where aircraft carriers come into their own.



Doubt it. All the Great Powers have an interest in the Balkans being stable. They just want it stable on their terms.

I don't see how we can know whether or not technology would be further ahead or not. I would presume armaments tech would be further behind (tension would not replicate the conditions of total war, where social developments are put on hold to enable military advances), but perhaps with more peaceful technology slightly more advanced than in OTL? Political development as I said in the last post would almost certainly be more advanced.