WI: WWI Delayed till 1920
- Thread starter iddt3
- Start date
I don't think it does. I honestly don't think there was much if any research going on at the time.
Really? When did they do that? Also international conventions don't mean squat in times of war.
It's not impossible. There was a pro-German faction in Japanese politics, though it was tied up with a pro-Russian faction. It was really pro-authoritarian, and opposed to the pro-parliamentary faction that was pro-British by default. Certainly the pro-German faction in 1914 had pushed the possibility of joining the CP even then, though they were outmaneuvered by the emphatically pro-British Foreign Minister.
- "Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of His Majesty, April 1910".
- "British ratification deposited at The Hague, November 27, 1909".
Well this was before the war and a different world.
Of note is the issue of incendiary bullets, illegal since the mid 1800s. Pilots apparently carried special documentation as dispensation for using illegal weapons.
By the middle of 1916, there were new developments in incendiary/explosive ammunition for .303" machine guns. Initially, there was a reluctance to use them as they contravened the Hague Convention, but Germany's use of gas in April 1915 hardened the resolve to beat the 'Hun' by any means possible. There were three types used together as 'mixed incendiary' the effects of which complemented each other.
The first Zeppelin brought down on British soil descended in flames on the night of 2-3 September, 1916, all 16 crew members died in the conflagration. This victory came at a time when the Zeppelins had bombarded Britain with apparently no loss. The defences seemed inadequate and public opinion was scathing on the forces involved and people were terrified of Zeppelins. Morale was low. The hero was Lieutenant W Leefe-Robinson of 39 (Home Defence) Squadron RFC flying a BE 2c armed with an upward firing Lewis Gun. The drums were loaded with an alternate mix of Pomeroy and Brock and, despite apparently fruitless initial attacks, he succeeded in igniting the hydrogen gas. As it happened, the 'Zeppelin' was a Schütte-Lanz, SL 11, the wreckage of which became a magnet for sightseers. He was awarded the Victoria Cross. Another four were downed before the end of the year.
https://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A912124
More likely it's in the chaos of a multi-sided civil war with significant foreign intervention. In many ways the start of the Great War prevented a Russian Revolution; in 1914 the empire was in the throes of huge social and political unrest.
Given the level of civil unrest in Russia in 1914, with huge numbers of strikes, supported by the progressives, a revolution in 1915/16 is far more likely than the survival of the Tsarist state.
It would not necessarily be a communist revolution, but a major (and probably rather violent) 'readjustment' is (IMO) inevitable. The Russian system, with it's mix of Tsarist absolutism (for example Nicholas's violation of the 1906 constitution to alter the Duma election laws), administrative incompetence and corruption, pan-Slavism (leaving it vulnerable to entanglements in the Balkans), historical problems with Britain (notwithstanding the Anglo-Russian Entente and the agreement around 'spheres of influence'), increasing industrialisation (creating a larger urban working class) and the consequent appalling working conditions, and ethnic and nationalistic tensions (e.g. Poland, Finland), is simply not tenable in the medium-to-long term.
Nicholas's incoherent and incompetent mix of liberalising and repressing was the worst option for the situation. Sooner or later there will be a repeat of the factors[1] that triggered the 1905 revolution (because the causes haven't been addressed), and the second revolution (heaving learned from the Tsar's reneging on his earlier promises) will not be as easily stopped.
Historically the outbreak of the Great War acted to dramatically reduce the level of worker unrest; the wave of strikes that began in April 1912 (with the massacre of miner and workers in the Lena goldfields[2]) were damped down by an upsurge in patriotism and nationalism (and of course
anti-semitism).
In the first seven months of 1914 Russia saw 3,493 strikes involving 1,327,897 participants; in the final five months there were 49 strikes with 9,561 participants.
The mix of additional internal security measure, nationalism and war preparations also heavily disrupted the organising of labour activity.
Indeed, if you delay the Great War by a year or two it becomes vastly less likely as two of the major players, Russian and Britain, will have other problems. Additionally to the Russian problem, there's the possibility of Russia defaulting on their imperial debt to Britain (about equivalent to the UK national debt).
[1] Shooting unarmed marchers, the peasant communes and their petitions to the Tsar, an upsurge in liberal demands for political reform (e.g. the appointment of Sviatopolk-Mirskii) which led to the General Strike of October 1905 and the Moscow Uprising.
[2] An event that led to the first public notice for Kerensky, who reported on the massacre in the Duma.
Can Russia be like the other Industrialized countries, like Germany, Britain, who somehow managed reforms (i.e. Bismarck's disability insurance, unionization) but left the upper classes still rich and largely in charge? It sound like Nicholas wasn't cable of that kind of touch.
Russia in chaos is the ideal for Germany.
Driftless
Donor
If the war is delayed til 1920, aviation, especially military aviation, has a different look. Just prior to the historic war, there were any number of aircraft configurations and aircraft companies and much experimentation with layout. I think you can make the case that while the war boosted aviation, it also channelled development into more narrow paths in some ways. Even during the first couple of years, military aviation had some pusher props in common use and a few monoplanes, before primarily locking in on tractor biplanes for the fighter role. If there are five to six more years of experimentation and development, without the press of needing hundreds of mass-produced aircraft, what might we have seen? More monoplanes? Cantilevered monoplanes? Jumbo (for the era) bombers? Long(er) ranged submarine hunting seaplanes?
Given most of the focus will be on airliners at this stage, bigger, longer-ranged bombers, which are also likely going to be suited as maritime patrol aircraft.
As a small point, the British Army would probably have introduced the P.14 Rifle in .276" calibre. As a Mauser action rifle it would not have the rate of fire of the SMLE, how would this affect the early battles assuming the Germans followed the Schileffen Plan. I know the traditional effect of British rifle fire at Mons, Le Cateau and First Ypres is open to question, but the P.14 is significantly slower to reload, additionally only having a five-round magazine. Also, there would probably be some reservists recalled to the colours who would be unfamiliar with the rifle. How would this affect the British Army's performance.
Aphrodite
Banned
This is why Zuber has so many critics.
The debate in France over the three year law is about whether the money would be better spent building up the reserves. Given that the 3 year law didn't add a single man to the French line (they reduced the number of reservists in each division), its quite likely that the 1,200,000,000 francs that would be saved would have done miracles with the French reservists. That the end of the 3 year law would delay mobilization by 3 days and preclude an early offensive is a bonus. The French were also going to modern uniforms. The French would probably improve quite a lot relative to the German
As for the 12 extra German divisions that might have been raised: Its hard to see how they are going to find any march route given the clogged roads of 1914. The Belgian army was also expanding by about 6 divisions, so the gain isn't great.
Meanwhile, the Russians were going to cut their mobilization down to about 21 days- meaning the end of the gap where Germany could fight France and not Russia. The Russian Baltic fleet would also have been to the point that the Russians would no longer fear a Germany landing- freeing up about 20 divisions
The real problem for the Central Powers is the collapse of Austria's posiiton. Serbia was doubling its army, so that would take up about 10 divisions. Romania was drifting fast into the Entente camp. King Carol was about the only thing left tying them to the Central Powers. In 1914, the Russians deployed six divisions to watch the Romanian border while Austria relied on King Carol's assurances and left their border open. That situation would likely be reversed, tying down another dozen Austrian divisions. Then there's Italy- who hated Franz Ferdinand with a passion and was recovering from the Libyan war. They might join the Entente pretty quick with FF on the throne. Add it all together, and the Austrians might need to raise 30 divisions just to stay even. Not happening
Aphrodite
Banned
this probably belongs in a different thread, but I know of few Russian historians who would agree with you. Given that the main issue in the St. Petersburg strike s was the trolley workers demand for Cossack protection, the strike issue is grossly overblown
Given that even with the war breaking out there was a brief, tense standoff between Austria-Hungary and Italy over Albania in 1914, I suspect the split between Italy and the Triple Alliance would be much more obvious by 1920, and Germany would not count on them.
If anything, I'd wonder if a 1920 war would see an over-confident France and Russia thinking that they've won the day and pushing Germany and Austria-Hungary into a corner that there's no real exit from except war.
Garrison
Donor
Well the good news is that Robert Goddard was indeed engaged in research at the time:
That's the good news, the bad news is he wasn't taken remotely seriously, this gem from a New York Times editorial in 1920 set the tone for the way Goddard's work was treated:
They did however retract that editorial, on July 17th 1969.
So yes there was research being done, no there is no chance of it seeing any practical military application by 1920.
I really don't see them pulling it off. The hidebound aristocracy, the attitude towards trade and commerce, the very active body of revolutionaries, the inefficient government, the dependency on foreign investment capital, the lack of a middle-class and incompetent, corrupt and autocratic Tsar combine to interfere in such progress.
If you delay WW1 until 1920, this will obviously cause many (unforeseen) drastic changes to history. I'm not sure what exactly this would result in, though I don't know if the Central Powers would fare any better or worse (chances are they could still lose). But assuming we get a World War from approximately 1920-1924 (if not longer)... how likely would we get a Second World War that begins c. 1944?