If no WWI, what's next major war?

The international situation was very tense in the years leading up to WW1. If it hadn't been the Sarajevo Crisis then another crisis would have com along sooner or later. You could compare the situation to Russian Roulette

That's a fairly popular claim, but I don't think it actually holds up to the way the war really ended up developing, which in a lot of waya happened in spite of the unwillingness of several sides to really commit, and benefitted a lot from leaders in favor of the pro-peace argument who would otherwise have sought a peaceful end not being available. Not least of which is Franz Ferdinand himself, who was essentially a one man Peace Party in Austria Hungary (and just so happened to be best friends with Kaiser Wilhelm, and from what I understand a major moderating influence). But there was also a scandal at the time which made a deep germanophobe the president of France at the time, which helped along the war immensely. (And other examples can be found when I'm not on my phone.
 
Last edited:
Especially as British strategy for any potential conflict would be "hope Canada can hold them back long enough so that the British Navy could try to strangle the US economy and inflict enough decisive defeats that they no longer wish to maintain war." The British knew by that point there was no way they could hold any part of North America if the war dragged on long enough.

That, and the most important thing for the European empires were their ability to maintain their position in Europe. Germany may have had a few colonies in East Asia, but the US merely threatening them would not be due cause by itself to declare war. They'd be a mostly belligerent neutral, at least at the start.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that the various empires survive until this point in time. We have, among the major powers, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottomans, Japan, China, and the US. Assuming that the war begins over access to China, the US and Japan will begin with the hostilities. Assuming continued Japanese forays into Manchuria, China will focus her own actions against Japan. It's doubtful that there will be any alliance between the US and China, at least in the early beginning. They will probably be cobelligerents, more than anything.

Russia, concerned that the Japanese might take this chance to formally acquire all of Manchuria, begins their own forays against the Japanese. They are still keen to avenge their earlier loss, and the current Tsar might try to use it as a rallying cry for Russia. (...might. Details always are picky.) The separate wars continue for a little while, with a more formalized alliance being set later in the war.

Now, turn towards Europe. Russia is more vulnerable in the west with forces shifted East, and old enemies realize now might be the time to strike. The Ottomans approach any interested nation that would join in an offensive against Russia. Germany would probably leap at the chance, but Austria-Hungary might want to sit it out. They (should) know that they could hardly absorb anymore land and foreigners, and that most of the gains would be made by Germany. That, and any action in the East would make them vulnerable to Italy. Austria, here, is our first likely neutral.

Confident enough about their chances, Germany and the Ottomans (and, again, maybe Austria. Maybe.) launch their attack into Russia. Persia might join as well, as I said earlier. Perhaps even Sweden joins in. (not likely, but again, who knows? Just throwing out ideas.) That puts Russia from a good position to a really poor one, and has to rapidly try to shift forces west, draining their contribution against the Japanese in the East. It is a difficult thing to do, but, eventually, the US and China do agree to support Russia under an earlier deal, and the two sides are thus drawn.

US / Russia / China & Friends
Japan / Germany / Ottomans & Friends

Then we get to the interesting portion. France wouldn't be worried about a war half a world away, but they would be worried about a Germany with a potential to own half of Europe, even if only in theory. And, as such, they almost immediately agree to join Russia's side and assist them from the west. The revanchist sentiment may have dwindled by now, but France definitely doesn't want a strong Germany astride central Europe.

US / Russia / China / France & Friends
Japan / Germany / Ottomans & Friends

This puts Italy in an awkward state, as both sides would be interested in its assistance, but Germany makes a case for Italy getting Corsica and French colonies. At the same time, they know Germany wants Austria-Hungary to join. If they do, Italy would probably rather get Trieste, Dalmatia, and other parts of that empire. So they probably sit out for now and glare at Austria, waiting for the other to make a move.

Then, and only then, with the battle in Europe looking (mostly) even, and France stuck in the trenches. They might get this clever idea to swing around Belgium, whether or not the small country likes it. Then, and only then, might Great Britain join with Germany and the others to fight the US, as it feels that it's being pushed into the corner. So, at the very end, you get:

Team US / Russia / China / France & Friends
Team Japan / Germany / Ottomans / Great Britain & Friends
Hostile Neutral Funtime Austria-Hungary / Italy

That should get you a nice WW1.5 set up, assuming everything else is similar. It might even be relatively even, considering the US wouldn't have quite hit full stride as it did in WW2 and China can hardly send many troops west (if they even would). It would definitely make for an interesting timeline, with a reluctant Great Britain finding itself forced into a corner and forced to make an unhappy choice, either way.

Very interesting. Given your final list of combatants, I tend to think Team Japan/Germany/Ottomans/Britain might have the advantage in the long term. France and Russia would be an effective counterbalance to Germany on land in Europe, but combining the large and modern navies of Britain, Germany, and Japan would put the US-led alliance at a disadvantage at sea except in American waters, limiting the US's ability to send men and equipment Europe or Asia. The US has only one developed ally (France) and they will be more concerned with defeating Germany and Britain in Europe. America's other main allies are almost as much a hindrance in this setup as a benefit, since they will need American resources and materiel. China's economy is undeveloped and it would be mainly a source of manpower and land that needs to be conquered. Russia is only slightly better, since its navy is likely to be effectively bottled up in the Baltic and Black Sea.
 
Very interesting. Given your final list of combatants, I tend to think Team Japan/Germany/Ottomans/Britain might have the advantage in the long term. France and Russia would be an effective counterbalance to Germany on land in Europe, but combining the large and modern navies of Britain, Germany, and Japan would put the US-led alliance at a disadvantage at sea except in American waters, limiting the US's ability to send men and equipment Europe or Asia. The US has only one developed ally (France) and they will be more concerned with defeating Germany and Britain in Europe. America's other main allies are almost as much a hindrance in this setup as a benefit, since they will need American resources and materiel. China's economy is undeveloped and it would be mainly a source of manpower and land that needs to be conquered. Russia is only slightly better, since its navy is likely to be effectively bottled up in the Baltic and Black Sea.

The thing is, in this scenario there is the issue of time. Britain has no alliance with Germany, and as such, hardly enters the war from the beginning. Germany wouldn't have one with Japan, either. Germany only enters once Russia sufficiently commits itself to the war in the east. Whether that's one month or three months later, or longer or shorter, is up to the details of a timeline. Furthermore, France may initially do a reverse Schlieffen (arguments aside over the efficiency of such a plan) or they may aim for Alsace-Lorraine from the beginning, only shifting forces through Belgium when it is apparent that they are being bogged down in trench fighting.

There is the question of why France would go through Belgium unless their numbers were dwindling too quickly or another power was to enter the war against them. Again, both are important questions. The only reason to violate Belgium's neutrality would be to attempt to apply a decisive blow before another power could enter the war.

So, in the end, Great Britain may enter the war up to year or more past the initial commencement, and will be doing everything to stay out of it (as Great Britain has the most to lose from such a war compared to Germany). There are, again, the question as to whether the Dominions will follow Great Britain into war, or if they will just commit locally.

And we are speaking about a time ten years or so later than our WW1. We don't know what state the various powers will be in, whether any have grown or shrunk in the interim, the stability of the various regimes, independence movements, etc. What side do the Balkan nations join on? Same as OTL, or do Bulgaria and Greece move against the Ottomans? Does Greece instead wait and join Great Britain? What of Spain or Portugal or the Netherlands? Which side do they join? Does any South American country join in and contribute meaningfully? Do we get a Zimmerman telegraph to Mexico? There are simply too many variables to account for without the accompanying development.

So, inded, such a war could go either way. But, even if Germany ends up winning in Europe, Britain and Japan will probably lose elsewhere.

And, again, there is still the question of the Austrians and the Italians. Do they end up fighting against each other on opposite sides of the war? Austria's interests dislike both a strong Russia and a strong Germany... if the Empire has recovered at all, and managed to solidify (they were the third largest industrial power in Europe in WW1, if I remember correctly) they may act against the one that looks closest to triumphing so they can get a seat at the peace tables to shape post-war Europe.

Oh, and if anyone wants to think of something better than Team USA/Team Japan, please do so. :eek: I was just thinking of a way to differentiate them, but now I feel like I'm talking about a softball game.
 
That's a fairly popular claim, but I don't think it actually holds up to the way the war really ended up developing, which in a lot of waya happened in spite of the unwillingness of several sides to really commit, and benefitted a lot from leaders in favor of the pro-peace argument who would otherwise have sought a peaceful end not being available. Not least of which is Franz Ferdinand himself, who was essentially a one man Peace Party in Austria Hungary (and just so happened to be best friends with Kaiser Wilhelm, and from what I understand a major moderating influence). But there was also a scandal at the time which made a deep germanophobe the president of France at the time, which helped along the war immensely. (And other examples can be found when I'm not on my phone.

WW1 happened the way it did thanks to the nature of the July 1914 crisis, Russia's relationship with Serbia, the alliances between Russia and France on the one hand and Germany and Austria-Hungary on the other. Once one Great Power decided on war and began to mobiliise that activated war plans which were very reliant on planned railway timetables. Once that started the whole thing was an unstoppable train wreck. Once mobilisation started it was impossible to stop it bcause the enemy could decide to attack anyway and catch friendly forces in a bad position. Wth railways that would have been very easy to achieve

The July Crisis could have been stopped at an early stage if Tsar Nicholas had chosen not to get involved in this Balkan dispute. He hadn't become involved in the 1912 and 1913 Balkan Wars. If he had that could hav resulted in general hostilities a year or two sooner.

Te fact is that at the time Europe was a powder keg waiting to go off. My point is that, if the Sarajevo Crisis had not resulted in war aother crisis would have come along that would have resulted in general hostilities. Kind of like playing Russian Roulett. Sooner or later someone is likely to end up dead
 
Top