major military powers without World War I

[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

[Kome]

Bulgaria will rise again. Kidding

[Grimbald]

British Empire
Imperial Germany
Czarist or Republican Russia
USA
France
Japan

I doubt Austria-Hungary will be around

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Kome

Bulgaria will rise again. Kidding

Again? That would need them to fall at some point wouldn't it?

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by Grimbald

I doubt Austria-Hungary will be around

Austria-Hungary was doing ok pre world war one and it took four years of continuous disaster to break it.

[Catspoke]

Germany is most probable number #1. Large population, advanced industry in the high tech of the day i.e chemicals, electronics, some colonies that are just becoming profitable by the time 1914 rolled around should be well developed here (with regular airship service). Should have an army with some serious firepower and a Navy that has figured out a cost effective role for itself (should have some very big and rangey submarines by then 3000-4000 tons). Potentially could have split Portugese colonies with Britain by this time

Britian is sort of a #1.5 The Navy will be large, but if some understanding has been reached with Germany, may just have to be just have to be a bit bigger than Germany's. Army still small. Empire still huge, may have split Portugese colonies with Germany.

Of course Russia is the elephant standing in the corner of the room, if she can somehow avoid revolution, and transition to a constitutional monarchy and keep her minorities under control, could be a superpower surpassing everyone else, the only thing she woud fear is the efficient German army and then only if she attacked Germany. Rommania, Sweeden, Austria-Hungary, Turkey all would have to seek tight defensive alliances with Germany and each other out of fear of Russia (together their combined military and economic power will be enough to keep the Russians in check).

USA is an economic super power and a naval power to rival England, but minimal land power still and far away from the others.

No one comes close to the above.

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by deathscompanion1

Austria-Hungary was doing ok pre world war one and it took four years of continuous disaster to break it.

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.

[NHBL]

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.

Reform doesn't necessarily mean breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It DOES mean making sure that the nations are not feeling oppressed--which might take some fancy footwork. But--it might be possible, by shifting to a confederation of some sort. The key is to make it seem, to a large percentage of the population, that the Empire is a good thing. The Dual Monarchy would have its work cut out for it, for certain!

[lukedalton]

Originally Posted by NHBL

Reform doesn't necessarily mean breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It DOES mean making sure that the nations are not feeling oppressed--which might take some fancy footwork. But--it might be possible, by shifting to a confederation of some sort. The key is to make it seem, to a large percentage of the population, that the Empire is a good thing. The Dual Monarchy would have its work cut out for it, for certain!

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.

[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.

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!

[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

[Uruk]

If A-H falls apart there is going to be war

[kalamona]

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.

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

[Vault Dweller]

Originally Posted by lukedalton

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

If A-H collapses (without WW1) is it safe to assume we'd see "German Austria" and Bohemia / Moravia being absorbed into Imperial Germany?

[Richter von Manthofen]

No WWI until 1944...

A-H won't break up without a (mayor) war - but thats another discussion - I leave this to another thread and assume AH stil exists.

First rank Powers

UK (empire is huge, but it might not be able to bring all assets to ONE war and it has to protect a large area) - Count dominions in this figure
Germany (large Pop + technology - Tl requires a naval understanding between UK and GE)
Russia (large and assume some modernisation)
US (US can build up a large army from a protected position)

Second Rank Powers
France (declining pop on the start of century - might reverse, but gives problems)
A-H (large Pop - would have to industrialize, but OTLs Czechoslovaki proved it was possible - make it throughout most of Empire)
Japan (large POP, large/modern Navy) - Assume Manchuria is within Japans sphere - no Second Sino Japanese War
Italy - dependance on imports for basic industrial assets (e.g. coal) - but will have potentially better army + equipment than OTL

Third Rank
Modernized Ottoman Empire
China - large but underdeveloped - suffers from Warlordism (though no SSJ -war means KMT can stabilize situation further.

[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.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I agree - no WWI will prevent the losses of human live (all participants), but France suffered most (probably) because most battles on the western front were fought on French soil.

But France will alos NOT have A-L back ITTL.

So France will be better off than OTL, but that is true for ALL nations (except the US maybe). So it will fall back in relative power at compared to Germany (which lost more at the conclusion of WWI) RFrance is first among the seconds, but still no longer among the first in the world..

[Genmotty]

I agree - no WWI will prevent the losses of human live (all participants), but France suffered most (probably) because most battles on the western front were fought on French soil.

But France will alos NOT have A-L back ITTL.

So France will be better off than OTL, but that is true for ALL nations (except the US maybe). So it will fall back in relative power at compared to Germany (which lost more at the conclusion of WWI) RFrance is first among the seconds, but still no longer among the first in the world..

Seconded.


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

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.

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
5. The outlawing of chemical weapons
6. The tactical role that the machingun brings to warfare
7. The strategic notion of a national arsenal
8. The benifits in first aid/medical care from the Great War
9. The notion that modern wars are incredibly distructive and can still be won for great victory.

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.

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.

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.


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.



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.


I'm sure you can reason out for yourself what a lack of a Great War might entail....

[Uruk]

A small nitpick gas warfare was already outlawed by the Haugue convention (as was btw aerial bombardment)

[Richter von Manthofen]

Originally Posted by Uruk

A small nitpick gas warfare was already outlawed by the Haugue convention (as was btw aerial bombardment)

that prevented the use of gas in WWI and Aerial bombardment in WWII?