major military powers without World War I

[euromellows]

Does this scenario envisage any smaller wars happening between this time?

My own opinion largely follows everyone else, except I think Russia will slowly emerge as the premier power of the day provided it adopts sensible reforms.

I'd be very interested to see what the alliances would be in this world. Would Italy formally jump ship? Does Britain begin to fear Russia too much as well, particularly if they start exerting more pressure on a modernising Ottoman Empire.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

On the opposite, I wonder if no WWI can possibly lead to a strenghtened France.

Sure, no hard lessons from it, but none of the issues who lasted perhaps to WWII, and if a world war does happens, maybe France would be at least stabler and harder and ready for a fight then, more than WWII OTL at least.

France was fighting above its weight class (40 million French versus 70+ million Germans), and the gap was growing every year. A-H was 50 million and Italy was nearer 30 million. France from potential power was somewhere between Italy and A-H. And worse for France, the colonial empire was a net drag on the economy, requiring a large % of the active army. France was largely maxed out on potential IOTL (87% of 3 classes drafted, compared to Germany at about 50% of two).



France was curbed stomped in WW2 and not in WW1 for one and only one reason: Russia. If Germany alone with an open trade market with Russia had attacked in 1914, France loses. There is no gap on the Marne River, so the Germans likely hold this line. And while this battle is developing, another additional army is likely doing the race to the sea. By winter, France would be fortunate if she held the Marne in the South and the Somme to the Sea. And to complete the picture, we would need to give Germany a good percentage of the Austrian Army from WW1, call it two army groups.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

We also have to remember that from 1895 - 1920 the french were leading the world in artillery development and modern battle doctrine, while the UK was still struggling to understand the implication of the machingun, and Imperial Germany was more intested in large calibre railguns as siege artillery and raw firepower, then developing mobile support assets.

Most of what you have here is misguided. Sure the French 75mm was a very good artillery piece, but the Germans had good guns also. Germany had a lot more machine guns per regiment than France. Germany probably had more artillery pieces per corp. Germany had better heavy artillery. The German focus on large guns was driven by battlefield needs (i.e. to Break Belgium fortress quickly.) As to doctrine, this is the French army who wore the bright red/blue uniforms and thought bayonets won battles. All side had serious doctrinal issues from the 1920 perspective.

Without the Great War, many lessons will simply not be learnt.

Chief among these are;
1. The Tank (in the form we are fammilar with)
2. The development of metal skinned aircraft
3. The development of road-towed artillery
4. The development of road-worthy gun carriages

The tank will be eventually discovered, but it will be through a different process. No large wars does not mean no small wars. Battles will still be fought around the war, and lessons learned. Now you are right that Armored Cars/APC will go first, but eventually the need for mobile APC killers (turret tanks and tank destroyers) will be found. The same for tracks. Tracks handle mud much better than wheels, I have seen tracked vehicles handle mud where wheeled vehicles sank to the axle. And it is exist tech designed for tractors. Once the more powerful engines are available and a couple decades have passed, we will see what is clearly a tracked, armored, turret vehicle with one main gun (ie tank)

Likewise metal skin aircraft will be developed driven by either the eventual discovery of the jet engine or the need to mass produce. Even in WW2, wood was competitive for front line combat planes (mosquito).

Road towed artillery will also be invented. By 1908, the Germans were adding trucking Battalions to the TOE. There is a pretty clear progression here on how it would handled and developed. Germans need faster corps, so we add trucks to move infantry. Armored cars will be developed to both provide security for the trucks moving infantry but as scouts. As the speed of corp movement starts to pick up, we will need APC like vehicles and motorized/towed artillery. The Germans clearly saw the need for faster units, the lacking technology was not what you list but something simpler. Communications. A Cavalry Unit could move over 65 miles per day, but you lost contact. There are screaming tactical use for cavalry at the start of WW1, if on the communication existed. So we a progression like this one.

Walking Infantry.
Truck transported Infantry Corp (early 1920's)
Truck transported Infantry Corp with mechanized elements (late 1920's)
Mechanized Infantry Corp (Early 1930's)
Tank Corps (Late 1930's to late 1950's)

This changes the total notion of landwarfare, because it would still be infantry armies slugging it out, because mechanised units in that sense would have likely never been developed for direct attack roles, as the support element is the obvious development role. Hence forget blitzkrieg. Forget your 'landships', the 1940s armed forces migh more resemble modern caverly forces with 'Striker-esque' vehicles.

The concept of fast warfare of encirclement existed deep in German doctrine pre-WW1. As the technology develops, it will be added to the ToE and look a lot like blitzkrieg. Now you are right that cavalry doctrine will be more powerful in the doctrinal issues, and striker-esque divisions can easily exist.

Without the Great War, artillery development will be greatly hampered, particularly in respect to developing carriages designed to move mobile guns. Thus the artillery may stay as an infantry hauled weapon. With that line of thoiught, you won't be able to get the 'fluid battlefield' doctrines developing. Armies still thinking that they will meet the enemy on the field and deploy, then attack. Still a very static way of thinking. These two notions would greatly increase that any European war would be a trench war still.

Again, you misstate history here. Mobile doctrine was everyone doctrine here. WW1 brought trench doctrine to the French. WW2 brought mobile back. Without WW1, the doctrine remains mobile over static without interruption.

[Catspoke]

I wonder if in this no war TL a "maginot mentality" creeps in. France fearing Germany's large population builds, improves and fills in her fortress system.

Germany fearing Russia's trasformation into a superpower, tries to build a fortified line in the east.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by 33k7

No World War I and no major wars at least until 1944 in Europe

who are the major military powers in the world in 1943 without World War I basically the top 10

A lot will depend on funding levels and international relations. The funding levels by 1913 were causing issues in all democracies, and economic strains in less democratic nations. We may like to say where we know international relationships would have been in 1963, but that is not really true. Just look back at 1873 information and try to project the 1913 situation. France/UK Entente is very unlikely to be predicted. A-H/Germany with strongest alliance bonds is hard to predict. Also, how does one predict that France drafts 261% of one effective class and Germany drafts 100%. And I would have to check dates, but I think the Race for Africa is still in the Future. How does one predict the USA fights Spain and ends up with a permanent hostile relationship with Japan?

So lets look at capabilities. Ranking Economies in 1963

1) British Empire (Assumes survives, otherwise about A-H level)
2) USA
3) Germany
4) Russia
5) A-H
6) France
7) Japan
8) Ottomans (assumes no Arabian oil production yet)
9) Italy


Now for Navies

1) British Empire (may overstate effective power if Dominions are moving towards independent foreign policies)
2) USA (able to build larger since does not need large army, but likely will not)
3) Germany (Even if not in arms race with UK, will want bigger Navy than France or Russia. Now it might drop down to second tier on many scenarios.
4) Japan - Second tier alone
5) Rest will be 3rd tier due to funding needs. For example, France can have better Navy than Japan, but only with good German relationships.


Now for Armies.

1) Russia - Quantity has quality of its own.
2) Germany - Large with Quality.

Now to Second tier armies, each no more than half as powerful as the Russian/German average.

3 & 4) France or A-H

5/6/7) Japan, Ottomans, or Italy

8) USA - Huge potential, but no real need unless we have a war with someone. Probably under 400K active and 1,200K reserves. Maybe way under. The USA will first build a huge professional navy, then only build army/air if forced.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Catspoke

I wonder if in this no war TL a "maginot mentality" creeps in. France fearing Germany's large population builds, improves and fills in her fortress system.

Germany fearing Russia's trasformation into a superpower, tries to build a fortified line in the east.

I believe Germany did have some fortifications on the Vistula, but they also had an attack first doctrine.

While I can write you a TL with your requirements, it would be difficult to write. And there is a lot of WW1 propaganda which still fills the history books and it is misleading. So lets fill in the next few years of peace.

1914: Number from memory.

France does 87% of 3 class on draftees for an army of about 850K with a good 1/3 overseas to control colonies. It goes to 2 year draft in 1917 with army near 600K. Germany does two classes for 50% for about 800K men with much heavier ToE. Russia has large army, but it can't get to battlefield fast, so France is building railroads and other improvements for Russia, to be finished in 1917. A-H is also rapidly modernizing their army. The UK/Germany is settling into about a 0.6 naval ratio on capital ships.



1916:

Germany has to make a choice. Become stronger or find an way to lower tensions with the Entente. Both have compromises the Germans will not like. The make peace will involve formalizing the naval ratios with the UK and reaching an arrangement on land with the various powers. Think in terms of the Washington Naval and Army Limitation Treaty of 1917. While it may seem strange in hindsight, it is driven by money. Germany was spending 2 billion marks (500 million USD) on its military, and probably would need to go to closer to 3 billion marks (750 million USD). Compared to USA total budget of 1 Billion USD (4 billion marks). France, Russia, A-H, and UK have similar issues with their economies. It would have made a lot of sense, but it is a very, very difficult to treaty to negotiate. If you go this way, there is no need to build a line.


1917:

Ok, lets say German goes to 3 billion marks. This means 10-12 armies and possibly a larger navy. Germany has abandoned the attack France first plan, and it is now running an east first plan. A-H has a modernized army. The likely plan is to use 4-5 armies to hold the west and use the 5-7 armies to attack east with the A-H armies. It will be a multi-year war plan. Here again, I am not sure fortresses make sense. Russia will be calling for France to attack to relieve pressure. Reverse of OTL. If the UK is more formally in the alliance, it will be asked to attack. Don't see big line of fortresses making sense. Sure, all sides will have fortifications to slow attacks, but no side will be thinking about just defending. The mostly likely places to approach this idea are the Germans defending against France, A-H against Italy, and the Belgians.

[lukedalton]

Good analysis but i think you greatly overstimate A-H; let alone survive, let alone if by some miracle reform herself in some functional mode it will probably transform in a C.S.A or EU plus NATO confederation than a true unitary state.

[Catspoke]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

1916:

Germany has to make a choice. Become stronger or find an way to lower tensions with the Entente. Both have compromises the Germans will not like. The make peace will involve formalizing the naval ratios with the UK and reaching an arrangement on land with the various powers.

I think the Portugese colony division agreeement is a big deal. Supposedly it was close in 1914, (unsure about the reality of that though). It does give Germany an outlet for her excess energies and a face saving way to drop out of the Naval race with Britain (Tirpitz can convince himself the risk fleet theory worked in getting these colonies, and without a 1911 style diplomatic defeat, and Britain guaranteeing the new colonial boundries there wont be any real reason to push new Naval bills).

With air conditionining and refrigeration just becoming largely available and medical advances against tropical diseases allowing Europeans to live in such places, along with the addition of a large chunk of colonial territory, and regular airship service to these places not to far away, this could keep the Germans occupied with their colonies for a long time and not willing to not pick fights with her neighbors over some dumb thing in the Balkans.

[tallthinkev]

If Russian does get very big would it be possible for Germany to side with Britian and France? Willie could be dead and a nice German princess for Edward?

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Catspoke

I wonder if in this no war TL a "maginot mentality" creeps in. France fearing Germany's large population builds, improves and fills in her fortress system.

Germany fearing Russia's trasformation into a superpower, tries to build a fortified line in the east.

I strongly doubt it. Everything having to do with the Maginot Line is tied into the Great War, the huge loss of life and the penetration of the German army so far into French territory.

[Catspoke]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Good analysis but i think you greatly overstimate A-H; let alone survive, let alone if by some miracle reform herself in some functional mode it will probably transform in a C.S.A or EU plus NATO confederation than a true unitary state.

If Austria transforms into some sort of confederation and Russia transforms into a military superpower, most of these people, the Germans and Hungarians and Poles at least would still want strong defensive alliances with Germany against the Russian threat. A loose collection of states will be even more dependent on Germany for protection.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

It took four years of WWI to accelerate the process, but the Hasburg empire was on the way of the Dodo in the age of nationalism, the Magyar were the most vocal but all the nationalities want more autonomies and reform.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

By 1914 is a little too late, expecially till the old FJ live, with Serbia, Italy, Romania and Russia at the border just waiting a sign of weakness and the 1917 new treaty with the Magyar things don't look much good.

Inertia carried the Habsburgs into the 20th century and would last through the reign of Franz Josef II. The rise of Franz Ferdinand would shake things up enough to carry the Empire on even deeper into the century, as it would be the cause that would settle the Hungarian problem, but at the expense of opening up the political discourse and settling up class politics in the 1920s and beyond, which to a degree would trump ethnic nationalism without the war. Serbia was taking a new course in relations with AH in 1914 with a new government just elected, which is why the Black Hand was serious about assassinating FF; they realized that Serbia was going to start to reopen diplomatic and economic ties with AH, because AH was such a huge market and was their former biggest trading partner until the Serbs took a belligerent course in the Balkans. The new government was interested in reopening ties and reducing tensions, because they realized in the event of war they would be squashed by AH and Bulgaria and they had just gained territory from the Ottomans that was not at all friendly to Belgrade, so they needed decades to absorb and 'Serbize' the locals, which would require their army to occupy it...plus they were kind of broke and needed to rebuild their finances and military after the Balkan wars. The Black Hand was afraid that opening economic ties with AH would blunt the nationalist push to acquire Bosnia, which was, to the extremists, unacceptable. They were probably right that once Serbia started to enjoy the benefits of trade with AH they would change their policy toward the Habsburgs.

Serbia wasn't likely to be a long term threat. Romania and Russia on the other hand could be, as was Italy. But AH was still economically growing, faster than any European nation, and needed to upgrade her infrastructure to take advantage of cheap Russian natural resources. Once that trade connection is opened, then Russia has economic reasons not to fight AH. Romania on the other hand was a direct economic competitor for AH, so would likely become hostile to AH once her German monarch dies in October 1914.
Italy is another power that will likely be hostile to AH, as her ruling class wants an Empire from AH territory. Not a good basis for rapprochement. Italy though is way to weak to go after AH without Russia and Romania, even if they find Libyan oil in the 1950s.
The big foreign threats can be managed by Germany and AH not wanting a war. No one is going to be strong enough to start a war in Eastern Europe before Germany develops nuclear weapons in the 1940's to challenge the Central Powers to start a war, nor would the West (France, Britain) support such a war, as it is bad for business and really neither population wants war, France especially (they were really pretty anti-militarism pre-war).

Originally Posted by kalamona

Nope, thats not true in this context, you simplify things too much...

I have to agree with Kalamona.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

I will say the big powers will be

UK and Germany (the first naval and the second land)

close second: France, USA (great untapped potential but no incentive to go past her historical zone of influence), Russia (the future see a lot of political trouble but without the war and Lenin, things will assest...after awhile)

Third tier:

Italy, Japan and the Ottoman Empire

A-H ceased to exist by the 20's the division of the empire was the last serious war scare for at least two decades

AH is very likely to exist well into the 20th century without a war. The 1920's are very unlikely to be the death of AH, especially with FF dealing with the Hungarians in 1917 when he would rise to the throne. Germany wouldn't let it break up, Britain is a traditional enemy of France and Russia, plus loves the balance of power, so wouldn't want to see it break up either, nor support any war over its division, nor would France go to war over AH being broken up, so Russia and her allies would not be strong enough on their own to cause the break up externally. Internal issues can be suppressed for decades with international non-involvement, which won't be a problem before the 1940s when Germany would have a nuclear umbrella.

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

The premier 1st rank land powers would be Germany and Russia (in whatever form). Even though Russia had serious deficiencies in modernizing, quantity has a quality all of its own. It needed good leadership to extract the best possible performance. A reformed Empire or Republic without the war would have allowed the Russian Army to correct its inherent issues.
A bit behind would be France but much more powerful then the below.
Somewhere between France and the top of the second tier would be the UK (mostly due to quality, not size)
2nd rank would be everyone else. The U.S. wouldn't have the stimulus to be a major land power outside of its hemisphere. A shout out to Bulgaria. AH would be strongest of the 2nd tier.

Russia has massive structural problems that would prevent it from achieve more than 60% of its potential with the Czar. A revolution would not be a communist one and even then it would end up being Putin-lite, which would still be little better (if at all) than Nationalist China was in the 1930s-40s. Very corrupt and only a slight improvement on what came before, especially as it would only rise after a lot of violence and destruction. Russia is not going to be that much of a serious threat because economic problems, some of which from serious political issues. Germany would have the strongest army/air force, thanks to a combination of population, economic strength/development, and technological advancement that would leave all others behind. Russia would have a large army, but will be seriously behind technically, developmentally, and educationally. France is stagnating population-wise, economically (it had serious industrial structural issues), and likely soon colonially.

Britain will not be a major player at all army-wise, though they will likely have a decent air force. They will rely on their navy, which will be the best in Europe, because Germany had pretty much given up on naval matters by 1912 and was focusing on bring up her army to compensate for Russia's recovery from 1904-5.

AH would likely get subsidized by Germany militarily in their spending and technology, so would be pretty strong, but with enough problems of their own that they would be Russia-lite, but with a lot less corruption and probably less revolutionary tendencies. Economic growth, which AH was really poised to get in 1914 and beyond would blunt a lot of political dissatisfaction, just like it did in China and Iran until recently.

Originally Posted by Herzen's love-child

Naval Powers in the 1st rank: UK then Germany.
2nd rank US, France, Russia (in that order)
3rd rank AH then Italy


edit: ack forgot about UK as a land power!

The US would have the best navy in the world by the 1920's. The UK would be close behind, but I think a naval treaty would be in the offing to control costs. Germany would likely start falling out of the 1st tier by the 1930's because of the need to spend on their air force and army, plus no real need to have a major battle fleet after the 1912 end of the naval race and rapprochement with Britain. Other than that France would be stronger than Russia navally, Italy much stronger than AH, which will quickly decide it needs a stronger army after the Hungarians are removed as a political problem.

[lukedalton]

snip

Sorry but this is much of wishfull thinking. Inertia is powerfull but everything has is limit and A-H was a creature of the 18th century in the 20th so she need some miracle to survive FF must deal with the Magyar without that the other nationalities become upset or decided that they want the same deal, plus there is the fact that more time pass more people will want a more rappresentative form of goverment. Regarding the economic grown, well the problem is when that will stop, when the crash will come (because there is always a crash after the boom), how strong the A_H goverment and society will be?
Plus there is Germany that must decide to be the eternal protector and big brother of AH, an very hard work but can be done but not expect that she will help to prop her up much; being protector is one thing...help another nation to stand on her feet and having the capacity to an autonomous policy is a big no no aka everything have a price, basically the Hasburg will become a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire.
Regarding economic reason and tie for not mess or starting war, well in OTL had not stopped WWI so i doubt that here will done the miracle so i don't really put much faith in them.
The UK love the balance of power but hate more Germany being the hegemon nation in Europe, so more time pass and more the alliance with France and Russia will become solid and more permanent.
Regarding nuclear umbrella, well without WWI and a late WWII, don't expect much fund on exotic things like this.
Regarding Italy, well the CP treaty, after the past decade diplomatic unpleastness, was dead, expecially the moment FF is on the throne, so is more probable that Rome will sign a pact with the entente.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Without the 'lost generation' France will have a substainally larger population, and a lot more economic clout to boot.

Higher population yes, but economically no. France gained large amounts of industry from WW1 thanks to massive building projects to support their artillery modernization program. France was actually lagging pretty bad with their industrialization before WW1, as they had not really approached the subject in a concerted way and were still stuck with a fair amount of handicraft manufacturing, as they focused their economy in large part on luxury goods, tourism, and niche products. That's not to say they wouldn't have industrialized without WW1, as they had led the way in aircraft and automotive development prior to 1914, but they were losing ground rapidly to Germany and the US, because of their weak industrial base and were economically stagnating. France had pretty much peaked and though they had a number of advantages, the nation was treading water and losing ground to the rise of Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary, all of whom were actually show real GDP growth, which France was not really.

France gained massively from WW1 in that she developed huge modern heavy industries, got modern equipment, which was a large advantage over her economic rivals, and tore down her largest economic competitor for two decades, Germany. Without WW1 France is slowly slipping into regional power status economically and politically. Yes they will have more people, but Germany will have more and has a much higher birthrate, as France's had stagnated and was IIRC below replacement birthrates.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

We also have to remember that from 1895 - 1920 the french were leading the world in artillery development and modern battle doctrine, while the UK was still struggling to understand the implication of the machingun, and Imperial Germany was more intested in large calibre railguns as siege artillery and raw firepower, then developing mobile support assets.

No, no they weren't. France was behind in modern battle doctrine, while also was stuck with weak artillery thanks to that doctrine and lacked howitzers, except from old 19th century pieces. They had just started to buy a handful of new pieces for their army, but weren't planning on having more than a few dozen per army, which would have still left they behind the plans Austria (!) had for modernizing her artillery. Yes, Austria was leapfrogging France in artillery.
Both Britain and Germany had more modern artillery and doctrine than France. Germany had just as mobile artillery and howitzers that were also mobile, while being able to take on trenches, which the British had as well, plus also more combat experience than the entire French army put together. No the French were behind in army matters, as 1914 showed when they lost 400,000 dead in the first month of the war, while Germany lost 800,000 casualties on all fronts in the first 6 months of the war!
Britain also did not have problems with her machine gun doctrine or artillery.

I seriously suggest you read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Stud...ref=pd_sim_b_2

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Without the Great War, many lessons will simply not be learnt.

Chief among these are;
1. The Tank (in the form we are fammilar with)

It was already developed by the Austrians in 1906.
http://www.landships.freeservers.com/burstyn_tank.htm
It would have taken longer to get built and introduced, but the idea was out there and IOTL the technical development was being worked on before it would be considered a viable military project.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

2. The development of metal skinned aircraft

Why did WW1 require that? It would come in time, but would obviously take maybe 5-10 more years than IOTL.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

3. The development of road-towed artillery

Already existed prior to WW1. I assume you mean truck towed artillery? Armies were already motorizing and would very quickly adopt this once they had enough reliable trucks.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

4. The development of road-worthy gun carriages

Again, once they had enough trucks to tow them then this would come. IOTL horse towed artillery used roads.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

5. The outlawing of chemical weapons

Already illegal before WW1. Germany used a bullshit legal excuse to introduce them, but it was already illegal without WW1.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

6. The tactical role that the machingun brings to warfare

Already developed during the Russo-Japanese war. The introduction of a light machine gun was more necessary to this than having another war and all major armies were working on a reliable light machine gun pre-war.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

7. The strategic notion of a national arsenal

Not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean a state-owned weapons factory? Because those existed pre-war.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

8. The benifits in first aid/medical care from the Great War

This is a solid point. The techniques would be delayed for sure, but is the cost of 20 million lives worth it (counting civilians all over the world that died as a result of the war...before the Spanish Flu).

Originally Posted by Genmotty

9. The notion that modern wars are incredibly distructive and can still be won for great victory.

Not sure about this. The Napoleonic Wars taught that lesson too. Also few of the generals leading the war in WW1 actually thought it would be quick and bloodless. Even the Schlieffen Plan, not that their really was one per se, expected the war to last at least 1-2 years. The public was told something different, but behind the scenes most militaries planned for a longer war, as the Franco-Prussia, Russo-Japanese, Balkan wars showed that they could take very long times even with major defeats/victories in the field.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

These lessons greatly altered the events during the interbellium, and without the Great War would have led to a totally different millitary development throughout the 1910s and 1920s.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean the developments would have been worthless.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

A key aspect is the tank, while it is arguable the idea would exsit without the Great War, of an armoured vehicle, the concept of tracked mobility for the broken terrain of no-mans-land wouldn't. Thus we would more likely see Armoured Car development turn into APC development, and by the 1940s we might be seeing small elements within armed forces sporting mechanized support.

No, the tank concept existed prior to the war, but contractors were waiting to develop better motors and drive trains before they thought it would be a feasible concept, while military leadership was wary about the reliability of the tank and waited to purchase it until a reliable unit could be developed. That means they don't appear until the 1920's. IOTL they were rushed into service because of the need for anything that might help, but without the glut of funding, it is just delayed, not prevented. Catapillar tracked, turreted AFVs were already thought of, just delayed for development. There were limits to pre-war military budgets and what they were willing to spend money on.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

This changes the total notion of landwarfare, because it would still be infantry armies slugging it out, because mechanised units in that sense would have likely never been developed for direct attack roles, as the support element is the obvious development role. Hence forget blitzkrieg. Forget your 'landships', the 1940s armed forces migh more resemble modern caverly forces with 'Striker-esque' vehicles.

There was no concept caused Blitzkrieg anyway. It was just movement warfare! In German manuals there was 'positional' and 'maneuver' warfare in 1939. With infantry armies and the tank delayed due to lack of funding for its technical challenges, the truck and motorization will be the main thing. Wheeled mobility was coming and already planned for pre-war. Just like IOTL the majority of forces would be foot infantry, with some motorized.
The tank was coming, but there would likely not be breakthrough, heavy tanks without WW1, meaning that we would seem small, mobile, reliable tanks grouped into their own units like cavalry. I expect something like the French 1940 versions of armored/cavalry divisions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_.28DLC.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_.28DLM.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ions_.28DCR.29

Plus seriously, no fast maneuver warfare without WW1??? What was the French offensive a outrance but an infantry version of what you think Blitzkrieg means? Without WW1 the foolishness of the offensive a outrance doctrine is not exposed, so by the 1930's the French had motorized infantry corps, AFVs both tracked and wheeled, which gives them a highly offensive maneuver doctrine and lots of maneuver firepower that they lacked IOTL. That's actually somewhat close to German doctrine IOTL 1939, though clumsier. Add in modernized aircraft ITTL and the approximation is actually workable.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Without the Great War, artillery development will be greatly hampered, particularly in respect to developing carriages designed to move mobile guns.

Doubt it for all the reasons I've already given.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Thus the artillery may stay as an infantry hauled weapon. With that line of thoiught, you won't be able to get the 'fluid battlefield' doctrines developing.

What the hell are you talking about?
It was already a horse hauled weapons since its inception!
Mobile carriages already existed for road hauling for over a century. Modern road-mobile carriages already existed for horse hauling and they would be easily adapted to truck hauling as soon as enough trucks were available to motorize artillery AS WAS ALREADY PLANNED PREWAR.
Fluid battle already existed as a concept, which is pretty much offensive a outrance and whatever German doctrine was called in 1914. Lines only started mattering when positional warfare set in after the Marne. So without WW1 we never abandon maneuver warfare concepts!

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Armies still thinking that they will meet the enemy on the field and deploy, then attack. Still a very static way of thinking. These two notions would greatly increase that any European war would be a trench war still.

What? Have you never seriously studied WW1 battles? They didn't met and deploy Napoleon style. They marched into encounter battles and started maneuvering for each other's flank immediately at the platoon level without formally setting up engagements. It was brutal and confused series of engagements in 1914 all over the place. Look at the Battle of the Ardennes! Maneuver and chaos was the mode of the day because there was no such think as a mobile radio until the 1920's, which meant that local commanders could not direct maneuver battles like they could before when battles were so small they could watch from a distance, or later when they could use radio to plot and plan. The Germans had Auftragstaktik for generations before WW1, which meant they had mission orders to achieve and it was up to the commander (down to the platoon level) to figure out how to do it. The French offensive a outrance was all about immediately attacking the enemy immediately once encountered without deploying or waiting for orders.

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Chemical weapons, not being outlawed, could be of the very deadly types to be found exsiting during the 1940s, with nerve agendts wars could get messy fast.

They were outlawed pre-war, but the law was broken by the Germans using a loophole. I agree that the psychological constraints and better laws wouldn't exist without WW1, but the concept of honor took nearly 10 months before Germany was willing to develop/field chemical weapons. And the allies didn't even bother developing them before Germany used them IOTL, so perhaps without WW1 no one would try and set back chemical weapons development by decades....

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Catspoke

I think the Portugese colony division agreeement is a big deal. Supposedly it was close in 1914, (unsure about the reality of that though). It does give Germany an outlet for her excess energies and a face saving way to drop out of the Naval race with Britain (Tirpitz can convince himself the risk fleet theory worked in getting these colonies, and without a 1911 style diplomatic defeat, and Britain guaranteeing the new colonial boundries there wont be any real reason to push new Naval bills).

With air conditionining and refrigeration just becoming largely available and medical advances against tropical diseases allowing Europeans to live in such places, along with the addition of a large chunk of colonial territory, and regular airship service to these places not to far away, this could keep the Germans occupied with their colonies for a long time and not willing to not pick fights with her neighbors over some dumb thing in the Balkans.

Sure, it would have been a huge deal, especially if it allows the UK/Germany to reach the 0.55 naval ratio or there abouts. They were not that far apart on many deals. We spend a lot of time talking about how German diplomacy failed, but the UK also largely failed too. If say Conrad does a bit better, we would be talking about how the naval race destroyed England. WW1 made the the fall of the British Empire much, much more likely. If one thinks about the Morocco crisis where France had no real rights to Morocco, a lot of tension could have been avoid if France actually gave serious compensation to Germany along the lines of the French Congo or what is now Central African Republic.

As to the Balkans, Serbia deserves a lot more credit for picking a fight that Germany. So does A-H and Russia. After all, when we boil down to the root cause, the Entente was defending the right of spy agencies to assassinate Monarchs.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Sorry but this is much of wishfull thinking. Inertia is powerfull but everything has is limit and A-H was a creature of the 18th century in the 20th so she need some miracle to survive FF must deal with the Magyar without that the other nationalities become upset or decided that they want the same deal, plus there is the fact that more time pass more people will want a more rappresentative form of goverment. Regarding the economic grown, well the problem is when that will stop, when the crash will come (because there is always a crash after the boom), how strong the A_H goverment and society will be?

Inertia alone will not carry AH forward, we agree on that, which is why I mentioned that above. It will carry it into 1917 when FF would settle his score with the Hungarians (he hated the Magyar ruling class and made it his goal on accension to deal with them), by re-writing the constitution by force and holding a universal suffrage election that would change the Ausgleich in 1917. After than a more representative government would be in place in Hungary, which would mean it would likely appear in Austria by 1920, as they had universal suffrage, but weighted it on tax contributions, so the majority of the population only elected 1/5th of the Reichsrat. After true universal suffrage expect class issues to really dominate Austrian politics, because the ethnic issues were in many ways a concern of the various ethnic moneyed classes, but not the poor (as much). So the 1920s will be very interesting an result in serious modernization in AH political life, as economic issues won't be taking a back seat to ethnic distractions (much of which were formented by the upper classes to distract from economic inequality and prevent the rise of the Socialists, who were gaining traction electorally).

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Plus there is Germany that must decide to be the eternal protector and big brother of AH, an very hard work but can be done but not expect that she will help to prop her up much; being protector is one thing...help another nation to stand on her feet and having the capacity to an autonomous policy is a big no no aka everything have a price, basically the Hasburg will become a whole owned subsidiary of the German Empire.

I expect Germany will, because Germany needs her only remaining ally to survive. Otherwise she is alone against France, Russia, and Britain. The trend was already in that direction anyway pre-war. As time goes on and AH partially modernizes, Germany will make sure she sticks around and getting help economically and militarily to continue to provide Germany will some support in case of war. And also because the Hohenzollern's don't want the Catholic Austrians joining Germany, which they would do if AH broke up. And Germany would have to probably take the Czechs too because of their industrial base and potentially have to deal with a major war on her own if AH collapsed and Russia swoops in to get payday. Better to have all of those Slavs in the Empire on your side than Russia coming in and picking them up, turning them against you.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Regarding economic reason and tie for not mess or starting war, well in OTL had not stopped WWI so i doubt that here will done the miracle so i don't really put much faith in them.

1914 saw an economic slump, so there. But the only reason there was a war was because Germany pushed for it and AH tried to solve her internal political problems via war. Plus the heir to the AH throne was assassinated, which really screwed up AH politics (FF was the peacenik of the government).

Originally Posted by lukedalton

The UK love the balance of power but hate more Germany being the hegemon nation in Europe, so more time pass and more the alliance with France and Russia will become solid and more permanent.
Regarding nuclear umbrella, well without WWI and a late WWII, don't expect much fund on exotic things like this.

The problem is that with AH gone, Germany isn't a hegemon in Europe, but rather weaker than France and Russia, Britain's traditional enemies. Germany is effectively hemmed in by France and Russia, preventing her from focusing on colonies and naval matters, which she stopped in 1912 anyway. Britain and Germany were sort of in a period of detente immediately prior to WW1. That would continue especially if Germany was suddenly alone in Europe There was no alliance with Britain France and Russia IOTL nor would there be. Britain wanted to be free to support whomever was weaker against the stronger, not get tied down. Plus Russia would likely restart the 'Great Game' again in Asia before long. Another war with Japan was coming, who was a British ally at the time.

Nuclear weapons were on the way, especially with military tensions in Europe. Germany was terrified on Russian development and would look for something to offset her strength, especially after the 1916 rail window would close and make Schlieffen's plan obsolete. Germany could not win a war at that point in her own estimation and with AH as a weaker ally, could not stand up to the rising strength of Russia, plus the still strong France, or likely Italy and Romania equaling/tying down AH in the event of war. Nuclear power was not 'exotic', it was the natural progression of technology which Germany was leading in thanks to her world class physicists and it would be weaponized before long, especially if it would give Germany a trump over Russian numbers. Plus don't forget that IOTL the V1 and V2 projects cost as much as the Manhattan project, so over a long enough time period, Germany could fund her own nuclear project.

Originally Posted by lukedalton

Regarding Italy, well the CP treaty, after the past decade diplomatic unpleastness, was dead, expecially the moment FF is on the throne, so is more probable that Rome will sign a pact with the entente.

Probably eventually, though a ten year extension was signed in 1912. It basically ensured that Italy would not be attacked by AH, so it has value as a defensive treaty, which is all it was anyway IOTL. Italy would likely keep it going just to keep AH docile.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I believe Germany did have some fortifications on the Vistula, but they also had an attack first doctrine.

Yep, they already had an 'Eastern Wall' since 1900. It was formidable and didn't really need expansion.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

1916:

Germany has to make a choice. Become stronger or find an way to lower tensions with the Entente. Both have compromises the Germans will not like. The make peace will involve formalizing the naval ratios with the UK and reaching an arrangement on land with the various powers.

Germany tried to get a naval treaty in 1912, because they didn't want to spend more, but Britain rebuffed Germany and just declared they would continue to outspend them, which led to Germany just quietly dropping further naval expansion. The naval race was over in OTL in 1912, no thanks to the British.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Think in terms of the Washington Naval and Army Limitation Treaty of 1917. While it may seem strange in hindsight, it is driven by money. Germany was spending 2 billion marks (500 million USD) on its military, and probably would need to go to closer to 3 billion marks (750 million USD). Compared to USA total budget of 1 Billion USD (4 billion marks). France, Russia, A-H, and UK have similar issues with their economies. It would have made a lot of sense, but it is a very, very difficult to treaty to negotiate. If you go this way, there is no need to build a line.

Germany was now focused on spending on its army to match Russian expansion. I doubt anything would happen for land armament limitations, but a de facto naval limit had been established by spending limits and army needs. The British would not have a strong army, but would continue to dominate the oceans. Russian military expansion is going to hit a wall when domestic unrest gets to be too much, which by 1920 at the latest means there will be another revolution. Russian spending reduction would probably mean a German one, but when the German socialists rise to power in German government, there is going to be a major reorientation in spending, probably a progressive income tax, and general modernization of political structures, so that Germany can pay for social spending and would be able to afford greater military spending later. Air Force spending is coming by the 1920s-30s, so that will eat up a major portion of military spending an probably force greater spending overall without an arms reduction treaty.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

1917:

Ok, lets say German goes to 3 billion marks. This means 10-12 armies and possibly a larger navy. Germany has abandoned the attack France first plan, and it is now running an east first plan. A-H has a modernized army. The likely plan is to use 4-5 armies to hold the west and use the 5-7 armies to attack east with the A-H armies. It will be a multi-year war plan. Here again, I am not sure fortresses make sense. Russia will be calling for France to attack to relieve pressure. Reverse of OTL. If the UK is more formally in the alliance, it will be asked to attack. Don't see big line of fortresses making sense. Sure, all sides will have fortifications to slow attacks, but no side will be thinking about just defending. The mostly likely places to approach this idea are the Germans defending against France, A-H against Italy, and the Belgians.

Naval spending is pretty much over. No expansion there after 1912, just modernizing the fleet and probably shrinking it once air force spending starts. I do see a German fortification line in the West once Schlieffen is obsolete in 1916. Germany could afford it though and won't have to worry once it's up. Then they can focus on their army and air force. The UK will be aloof from continental conflict without German sabre rattling and no more naval race after 1912 (and not Belgian invasion). forts in the West make sense, as then Germany can focus on Russia and know that France is blocked on their short border. In the east though, they already have forts and wouldn't worry about more. The Germans can focus on motorization and how to deal with the distances.

[lukedalton]

[QUOTE=wiking;6772376]Inertia alone will not carry AH forward, we agree on that, which is why I mentioned that above. It will carry it into 1917 when FF would settle his score with the Hungarians (he hated the Magyar ruling class and made it his goal on accension to deal with them), by re-writing the constitution by force and holding a universal suffrage election that would change the Ausgleich in 1917. After than a more representative government would be in place in Hungary, which would mean it would likely appear in Austria by 1920, as they had universal suffrage, but weighted it on tax contributions, so the majority of the population only elected 1/5th of the Reichsrat. After true universal suffrage expect class issues to really dominate Austrian politics, because the ethnic issues were in many ways a concern of the various ethnic moneyed classes, but not the poor (as much). So the 1920s will be very interesting an result in serious modernization in AH political life, as economic issues won't be taking a back seat to ethnic distractions (much of which were formented by the upper classes to distract from economic inequality and prevent the rise of the Socialists, who were gaining traction electorally).

[QUOTE]

A lot of if, honestly the Magyar situation can easily go on the toilet and even if not, well A-H will probably have the same political stability of post-wwI France (if lucky and the interest that clash are only of class, but is more probable that the line will be more grey), but the risk is a post-wwi Italy with socialist and fascist-like type battling each others and undermining the goverment.

I expect Germany will, because Germany needs her only remaining ally to survive. Otherwise she is alone against France, Russia, and Britain. The trend was already in that direction anyway pre-war. As time goes on and AH partially modernizes, Germany will make sure she sticks around and getting help economically and militarily to continue to provide Germany will some support in case of war. And also because the Hohenzollern's don't want the Catholic Austrians joining Germany, which they would do if AH broke up. And Germany would have to probably take the Czechs too because of their industrial base and potentially have to deal with a major war on her own if AH collapsed and Russia swoops in to get payday. Better to have all of those Slavs in the Empire on your side than Russia coming in and picking them up, turning them against you.

Much depend of the cost for Germany, after a while they can think that enough is enough and is more maneageable a serie of satellites (and be coerced in absorbing the catholic south...yes i know that this will make Berlin happy like a shot in the gut, but they can initially try with a separate austrian state) and use the occasion to patch up things with Russia, Italy and Romania so to gain another ally.
And frankly i don't think become a German puppet (because this will be the trend) will make a great help to the image of the Hasburg internally.

1914 saw an economic slump, so there. But the only reason there was a war was because Germany pushed for it and AH tried to solve her internal political problems via war. Plus the heir to the AH throne was assassinated, which really screwed up AH politics (FF was the peacenik of the government).

Sure no war in 1914 no economic slump, but 1916 or 1918, an economic boom is always followed by a downturn, and is in this moment that the strengh of a state is needed and demonstrated, ironically a war help (at least initially) in create a mood of unity and a slump in peacetime can be more felted.

The problem is that with AH gone, Germany isn't a hegemon in Europe, but rather weaker than France and Russia, Britain's traditional enemies. Germany is effectively hemmed in by France and Russia, preventing her from focusing on colonies and naval matters, which she stopped in 1912 anyway. Britain and Germany were sort of in a period of detente immediately prior to WW1. That would continue especially if Germany was suddenly alone in Europe There was no alliance with Britain France and Russia IOTL nor would there be. Britain wanted to be free to support whomever was weaker against the stronger, not get tied down. Plus Russia would likely restart the 'Great Game' again in Asia before long. Another war with Japan was coming, who was a British ally at the time.

It's more probable that the UK will continue to support France and Russia to keep Germany alone and occupied, and without A-H can still get some allies like the Ottoman and Italy (difficult to put together but at least one can be rectruited) plus whatever succesor nation of the A-H, and as i said before he can find them more easily manageable

Nuclear weapons were on the way, especially with military tensions in Europe. Germany was terrified on Russian development and would look for something to offset her strength, especially after the 1916 rail window would close and make Schlieffen's plan obsolete. Germany could not win a war at that point in her own estimation and with AH as a weaker ally, could not stand up to the rising strength of Russia, plus the still strong France, or likely Italy and Romania equaling/tying down AH in the event of war. Nuclear power was not 'exotic', it was the natural progression of technology which Germany was leading in thanks to her world class physicists and it would be weaponized before long, especially if it would give Germany a trump over Russian numbers. Plus don't forget that IOTL the V1 and V2 projects cost as much as the Manhattan project, so over a long enough time period, Germany could fund her own nuclear project.

V1 and V2 have more immediate effect and frankly are more understable, an atomic project is an hard sell at any goverment and frankly without a war budget, expect that project last a couple of decades (not counting budget slashing and political problem).

Probably eventually, though a ten year extension was signed in 1912. It basically ensured that Italy would not be attacked by AH, so it has value as a defensive treaty, which is all it was anyway IOTL. Italy would likely keep it going just to keep AH docile.

After Bosnia, Albania, the war with the Ottoman, Conrad who proposed a couple of times a pre-empetive invasion of Italy and FF on the throne (he really don't like Italy) i doubt that the treaty will be extended again...and both party know it. Sure there is the possibility of a diplomatic miracle as 'Only Nixon can go in China' but i don't hold my breath.
It's more probable that a short time before the expiration, London and Paris give or receive an offer of alliance.

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

I don’t think anyone has discussed Polish nationalism. I agree that nationalism would have led to a reconfiguration, and in my opinion breakup, of AH. Independence for Czechs, Slovaks etc would have fueled similar Polish aspirations. I don’t see either Germany or Russia voluntarily surrendering Polish soil so this would have been a major issue.

At some point you would have seen a socialist/communist upraising somewhere. The Russian and Ottoman Empires were morbid. With or without WW I there would have been changes. Would these have lead to outside intervention or a general war?

The ethnic tension in the Balkans would have continued. If the Triple Alliance and Triple Entante did not exist I would foresee a 3rd Balkan War, maybe a series.

I would expect militarism to grow in Japan and would predict a naval arms race. The result would I believe have been the United States becoming the # 1 naval power by the late 1920s.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

If Russian does get very big would it be possible for Germany to side with Britian and France? Willie could be dead and a nice German princess for Edward?

Maybe not with Britain and France but quite likely with Britain. After all no WWI means that there's nothing stopping them going back to a warmer relationship, and a rising Russia would quite likely be seen as a threat to both.