major military powers without World War I

[jlckansas]

Things come to mind.

First is the fact that the US and Japan were basically rivals in the Pacific. Unlike in Europe the US had interests in the Pacific by this time and the US had decided to protect them. Between the China lobby and the Phillipine Islands the US had a distinct Asia looking policy. The US might not build to beat the UK but it would build to beat Japan in a naval arms race.

Second is if there was a Russian Revolution without WWI. The interventions would be by UK, Germany, Japan, Austro Hungry (or its succeeding power/s) and probally the US in the Far East to help China. I don't know who would support who or even if anyone could agree on what to do. I can see the UK and Germany supporting the Royal family in some way, but other than that I have no idea. If the Bolsheviks are a player they would be one who had everyone against them good or bad.

Third is little wars. The US and UK would be dealing with interventions, insurrections and such all over their spheres of influence with the French and Germans dealing with lessor types. This would lead to better small arms, communications, Air Ground support, and armored cars would evolve into tanks to help in the rough terrain they would be working in.
You would see better close air support, small unit tactics, and support by armored units.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

First is the fact that the US and Japan were basically rivals in the Pacific. Unlike in Europe the US had interests in the Pacific by this time and the US had decided to protect them. Between the China lobby and the Phillipine Islands the US had a distinct Asia looking policy. The US might not build to beat the UK but it would build to beat Japan in a naval arms race.

Depending on how much it felt threatened by the UK-Japanese alliance, the US could easily outbuild both and probably would if the Japanese became too aggressive in the Pacific. This was before the 'Special Relationship' with Britain that resulted from two world wars. Britain, though not a major threat to the US, was not an ally and if the UK's ally Japan was getting too involved in China and threatening US interests, the USN is going to be built up in the Pacifican AND Atlantic, as the US was at this time primarily interested in protecting her shores, which was accomplished by her immense naval strength/potential, not her army, which was pitifully small simply because of the lack of potential threats (try getting through the USN!).

Second is if there was a Russian Revolution without WWI. The interventions would be by UK, Germany, Japan, Austro Hungry (or its succeeding power/s) and probally the US in the Far East to help China. I don't know who would support who or even if anyone could agree on what to do. I can see the UK and Germany supporting the Royal family in some way, but other than that I have no idea. If the Bolsheviks are a player they would be one who had everyone against them good or bad.

The Russian revolution with WW1 would not see intervention by anyone, because it is not a communist revolution, but rather a reformist, bourgeois one. Germany and AH benefit from Russia fighting itself. France isn't going to stick its head into the bear trap for the Czar, because the French people hated the autocratic Czar. Britain was not friendly with the Russians, who have been a threat to Britain only just recently in Asia. Plus they run the risk of pissing off labor, which is not something they were really interested in doing for the Czar. The Bolsheviks were irrelevant until Kerensky discredited his government by continuing the war, a dynamic which would not be possible without the war, as would German support for Lenin, who would not be allowed out of Switzerland without the war either.

Just as in 1905 Europe has too many reasons not to get involved in Russian internal revolutions.

Third is little wars. The US and UK would be dealing with interventions, insurrections and such all over their spheres of influence with the French and Germans dealing with lessor types. This would lead to better small arms, communications, Air Ground support, and armored cars would evolve into tanks to help in the rough terrain they would be working in.
You would see better close air support, small unit tactics, and support by armored units.

Colonial, small war tactics. If a general war doesn't happen by a certain time, there is just not going to be a European war, though the European states are going to still have some planning for one 'just in case'. Nukes will invalidate the concept of European war by the 1940's though anyway. As it is all powers will likely have to deal with colonial problems and we will see a transition to 'little war' doctrine and TOE much like what the US been pushing into since the 1990's and Britain has had since 1914.

 

[Catspoke]

Nukes will invalidate the concept of European war by the 1940's though anyway. As it is all powers will likely have to deal with colonial problems and we will see a transition to 'little war' doctrine and TOE much like what the US been pushing into since the 1990's and Britain has had since 1914.

Thats a pretty scary TL. You have a Germany as the only country in the world with an atomic bomb. Hopefully that Germany doesn't decide with this, before everyone else gets one, this is our one chance to defeat the Russian superpower, explode one over Scapa Flow, etc...

Hopefully that Germany is run by a bunch of socialists and not a bunch of miltarists.

It would be interesting if the Germans would use nuclear power to pursue peaceful purposes, electric power, ship propulsion.

 

[zoomar]

No Great War until 1944? By this we mean no major wars invovolving the major powers against each other - just assymetrical colonial wars or small conflicts between minor powers?

Without WW1 I suspect the general development of military and technology will have been slightly retarded from OTL, or at least redirected in ways not taken OTL because specific WW1 situations wouldn't have occurred. I suspect military aviation will be slightly retarded and be oriented almost entirely toward army cooperation and local air superiority, not strategic bombing. There might still be horse calvary, supplemented by motorized scouts and self-propelled artillery, but absent the historical need to break through massive trenchworks, the true tank might not have been developed. Battleships/battlecuisers will not have been supplanted by the aircraft carrier. Conversely, since the only wars in this TL would be ones fought by minor powers, it is possible that some relatively "cheap" weapon systems like airplanes, submarines, torpedo boats, etc., as well as radio communication and radar might have developed significant useful doctrine in their use, perhaps equalling what existed in OTL. Nuclear weapons would be at least a decade away. All that said, here are my Top Ten Military Powers in 1944 and my reasons why:

1. The British Empire/Commonwealth. Absent WW1 I believe the empire will still be a going concern, providing Britain with global resources and a huge population to draw from. Britain would remain the predominant naval power, Possiblly be the most advanced aviation power with the largest and most sophisticated airlift capability, and have acces to huge manpower reserves for its army, which would likely be optimized for quick reaction and mobility.

2. The German Empire. The most balanced global military power, one which economically dominates Europe, or at least central Europe. Since WW1was avoided, Germany at some point must have given up its attempt to rival or exceed Britain at sea, but it would still have a large and modern navy to support its colonial roles. Its army would be the largest and most modern in the world, and its air arm would be large, modern, and but focused mostly on army cooperation and tactical naval scouting. Given German fascination with Zeppelins prior to WW2, it is quite possible airlift and naval scouting would be airship-centered.

Russia. If one assumes a bolshevik Revolution does not occur in Russia and it does not go through the resultant Civil War, Russia's army will rival Germany's in size, but it may not be as technologically or doctrinally advanced. Also, because of Russia's size, it will need to spread its military assets over a huge area, meaning it would effectively cede military dominance in Europe to Germany. Since historically Russia was a pioneer in large airplanes even before WW1, it is posssible that Russia might be one of the few powers with a "modern" airlift capacity and strategic air arm. Russia will maintain a large and modern fleet based in the Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific, but because the fleet is scattered it will not be as powerful as it could be.

France. France will have the only standing army in Europe that matches Germany's in numbers and technology. France will continue to have its large colonial empire and hence a large fleet. Continued mistrust of Germany will keep the navy large and modern. France will also have a large and effective airforce - possibly the most modern in the world.

The United States. Absent WW1 it is very likely the USA will still be somewhat isolationist, especially with respect to "European entanglements". However, the US navy will be virtually equal in size and strength to Britain's, and the USA may well have invested research and development into a large and modern air arm. The standing army will be small - designed less to fight other major powers than to intervene in latin America - which the US will still see as its sphere of action.

Japan. Absent WW1, Japan may be less powerful, relatively speaking, than in OTL. It won't have its WW1 mandates, and it is unlikely to have fought (or more importantly, won) wars with poweful neighbors. The Japanese Navy may be the numerical and technological equal of the US Pacfic Fleet, and possibly in naval aviation, but Japan will be extremely dependent of overseas trade. It's army may be large but less advanced than its main global rivals (likely to be France, Germany, and the USA)

Austria-Hungary and Italy A virtual tie. Both would be regional European powers dependent on alliances with larger and more powerful nations for real protection in the event of a general war.

The Ottoman Empire and China. Another virtual tie at a somewhat lower level than Italy and A-H, and although a bit speculative. I suspect China might be buttressed by Germany and or France to counterbalance Japan and the Ottomans would have massive oil reserves.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Thats a pretty scary TL. You have a Germany as the only country in the world with an atomic bomb. Hopefully that Germany doesn't decide with this, before everyone else gets one, this is our one chance to defeat the Russian superpower, explode one over Scapa Flow, etc...

Hopefully that Germany is run by a bunch of socialists and not a bunch of miltarists.

It would be interesting if the Germans would use nuclear power to pursue peaceful purposes, electric power, ship propulsion.

Historically they had the most advanced nuclear research to at least 1936 and the world's best physicists before Hitler forced may/most to emigrate. ITTL Einstein (who IOTL really didn't have much to do with nuclear power) and most of the Germans that worked on the US project, plus Szilárd and perhaps Bohr without the Nazis and a socialist majority in the Reichstag, would all be working on the German project.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmanhattan.htm

http://www.mrdowling.com/706-manhattanproject.html

Many of the scientists working at Los Alamos were Jewish refugees from Germany. Edward Teller left Germany for America in 1933. Otto Frisch and Felix Bloch were also German Jews who were instrumental in creating the bomb.

If anything the bomb would be a deterrent to potential Entente aggression in the minds of German military planners. There was serious fear of what the bomb would do, especial as radiation poisoning was discovered, which meant that it, in the 1940's varieties, would not be a tactic or operational weapon, and the consequences for strategic use would mean chemical or biological retaliation.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Plus with 2 million more German men and 6-800,000 civilians alive without WW1 (and probably no/much less widespread Spanish flu without WW1), including large numbers of university students, Germany, and also the rest of Europe, would have lots more workers/scientists/entrepreneurs/children that were never born that would introduce major butterflies into technological, cultural, economic, political, and social development.
Pure science and economic growth would be much more developed over OTL by the 1920's, but would be behind in applied sciences and probably heavy industry. Interesting trade off.

 

[BlondieBC]

Plus with 2 million more German men and 6-800,000 civilians alive without WW1 (and probably no/much less widespread Spanish flu without WW1), including large numbers of university students, Germany, and also the rest of Europe, would have lots more workers/scientists/entrepreneurs/children that were never born that would introduce major butterflies into technological, cultural, economic, political, and social development.
Pure science and economic growth would be much more developed over OTL by the 1920's, but would be behind in applied sciences and probably heavy industry. Interesting trade off.

Take about 2.5 deaths per wiki (ballpark) plus 3.1 never born (lower birth rate), and we are pushing 6 million missing Germans plus probably another 2 million crippled for life. And 10's of millions who wasted 4+ years of their life on the war. While some research was done, most of the economy was focus on war.

So we lose say 20 million man year per year from 1914 to 1919, so call that 100 million man years of work plus 4-5 million man years for the next 20 years or so for another 90 million man years of work. It is a staggering amount of labor lost.

 

[BlondieBC]

Manhattan Project

IMO, the basic research for the project would be about 5 years ahead of OTL, the question is more when it would be funded. By 1933 or so, a nation could make the decision to go down the nuclear path. If it is not a rush project, it will be much cheaper. So lets layout what it took the USA in a crash program.

- Cost: 2 Billion USD (1940), so this is about 1.5 billion USD (1914) or about 6 billion marks. Now it will not be a rush job, so it will not be near as expensive. If we assume the maximum cost savings will by 2/3, it gives us a cost range of 2 billion to 6 billion marks.

-Labor: Wiki says 130K people at max. Project lasted 6 years. So a figure of 65K X 6 years seems reasonable for total man years. 390K years. Using the cost savings from above, it gives us 130K to 390K man years.


Now lets look at say a 10 year project from 1933 to 1943 to weaponize. First on manpower, it is some small fraction of the lost labor from the war, and probably has an average project size of 26,000 people. Easily within the means of Germany or any other Great power with a good education system. While many men are skilled nuclear engineers, many have more humble trades. Cost wise will be more difficult, we are looking at 400 million marks per year in a defense budget of 2 billion marks (1912), so it is a huge commitment. And this show how the decision to go nuclear will be made. It will be made when a country feels threatened enough to decide to have a strategic deterrence weapon. It could easily be Germany, UK, USA or one of the lesser Great Powers. I suspect a lot of the underlying research will be publicly known before the decision to weaponize is made. It will be driven by medical research for a radium replacement. Somewhere along the way in trying to make radioactive elements for cancer treatment, plutonium will be discovered.

It is only the crippling effect of the Great War that makes such projects look expensive. Many promising lines of technology lie largely dormant from WW1 to WW2 due to lack of funding and crippled economies. I added this amount to show how massive the labor labor losses were from WW1. Germany lost hundred of millions of man year of labor. Developing atomic energy might be 0.4 million, and is probably a lot less. The greatest project of WW2 was a rounding error in the losses of WW1.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Perhaps even radar or computing for research will be moved up? In Germany the principles for radar were known in 1904, but not followed up on IOTL until 1934 when it was independently rediscovered.

 

[BlondieBC]

Perhaps even radar or computing for research will be moved up? In Germany the principles for radar were known in 1904, but not followed up on IOTL until 1934 when it was independently rediscovered.

It was being tested as a harbor control for foggy nights around the start of the war. IMO without WW1, it would continue in this role and be slowly developed. At some point in the early 1920's, it will be picked up for military development and get a large funding boost. It is just too obvious a technology. I can spot a ship at 2 miles on a foggy night, lets us boost the power and turn it into a way to spot ships in battle. I think we gain a good 10 years faster development than OTL.

I am not so sure on computers, I have not researched it. It would likely move up by a half decade or more. Basically every technology I have looked at, the interwar funding issues mean the technology had very slow development for 10-20 years.

People view war as something that speeds up technology, and this may be true on very small technological area, but it slows down so many others. A good way to look at is to think of adding a major war to OTL, say between 1988-1992. The war kills 1/6 of the working age population, and worse yet, maims 1/6 of the population. To me, OTL clearly has more technology than TTL. We can basically go through the tech breakthrough of the last 20 years and throw out over 1/3 of them. We could have easily not yet entered the PC age and still be using mainframes, but only at larger companies and organizations. Most of the minds that went into building the internet would have been used in the war effort and about 1/3 would have been killed. Many that lived would have been focused on rebuilding our shattered cities, not starting internet companies.

 

[Paradosi]

Most people seem to think technology will be severely undeveloped without two huge wars, and frankly, I don't see how.

While war technologies would be less developed for obvious reasons, the resources and funds invested into war technologies would instead be invested into the civilian/scientific sectors, causing tech butterflies the size of 747s(perhaps literally).

Technology as a whole will not be at a disadvantage to OTL, we'd probably see civilian technologies that were developed later in our world, develop far more quickly in this scenario. An earlier spread of computers and the internet? Earlier infrastructure enhancements? And just as military technologies do at times affect civilian technologies, the same is true vice versa.

 

[kalamona]

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.

Bit OFF-topic, but could you elaborate, how do you see the "magyar situation"? I disagree with your conclusions, but i really want to know your reasons (since this conclusion is pretty common on these boards and i dont understand, why).

 

[lukedalton]

Bit OFF-topic, but could you elaborate, how do you see the "magyar situation"? I disagree with your conclusions, but i really want to know your reasons (since this conclusion is pretty common on these boards and i dont understand, why).

I see that the Magyar nobility was on a direction of basically want a de facto independce or so much authonomy that the entire structure of the Empire will be changed and by this the equilibrium that basically keep the nation go will be gone. There is the possibility of military put down any rebellion, sure but it can be a double edged sword as can ignite trouble in other parts of the empire; augment the franchise is a risky move too as well the Nobility even if they are just the little part of Hungary they had much traditional and economic power...so there is the high probability that people vote the way they said they must vote.

 

[kalamona]

I see that the Magyar nobility was on a direction of basically want a de facto independce or so much authonomy that the entire structure of the Empire will be changed and by this the equilibrium that basically keep the nation go will be gone. There is the possibility of military put down any rebellion, sure but it can be a double edged sword as can ignite trouble in other parts of the empire; augment the franchise is a risky move too as well the Nobility even if they are just the little part of Hungary they had much traditional and economic power...so there is the high probability that people vote the way they said they must vote.

I see.

Well, its not that simple. First of all, the hungarian politics were pretty much fractured at those times. If you mean under the "nobility" the Tisza and co. group, you are wrong. Their opposition (well, elements of the opposition) wanted to loosen the ties to the dual monarchy (personal union). The "nobility" did not wanted independece, they wanted power within the monarchy - and they had the means to aquire more power through political means.

Franchise: it seems, that any change in franchise would have weakened both the "nobles" and the "opposition" (those elements of the opposition etcetct...), since paralell to this political crisis (wich have been solved quite quickly), there were an economical crisis, meaning the people (would be voters) had different problems than the ruling elite (expect the strenghtening of the SD and similar parties).

Putting down any rebellion by military means: well, in a manner of speaking, it happened - except there were no rebellion of masses, but the (kind of) rebellion of MoPs. There were not much support for any (political) rebellion at those times.
However, strikes were quite frequent and they used military force to dissolve them.
(Again, different motives!).

Well, Clinton got it right:
"Its the economy, stupid!'

 

[Catspoke]

All these extra productive richer people are going to want lots of consumer goods and more mobility and more leisure activities.Since were talking 1914-1950:

Cars, Radios, Refrigerators, Air Conditioning, Vacuum Cleaners, Phones, etc.. people are going to want these things, these kind of things are going to be cheaper and more capable earlier.

Since before WW1 big ocean liners are in their heyday, there will be more of that here, rich people, and there will be more of them will want to travel, and travel well.

Some of the colonial powers will have more money for ambitious colonial infastructure, a French cross Saharan railway, A German Cameroon railway all the way to Lake Chad and airship service from there to Germany. And of course the Baghdad railway will be completed ultimately to Basra. And following the commerce will be tourism.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

All these extra productive richer people are going to want lots of consumer goods and more mobility and more leisure activities.Since were talking 1914-1950:

Cars, Radios, Refrigerators, Air Conditioning, Vacuum Cleaners, Phones, etc.. people are going to want these things, these kind of things are going to be cheaper and more capable earlier.

Since before WW1 big ocean liners are in their heyday, there will be more of that here, rich people, and there will be more of them will want to travel, and travel well.

Some of the colonial powers will have more money for ambitious colonial infastructure, a French cross Saharan railway, A German Cameroon railway all the way to Lake Chad and airship service from there to Germany. And of course the Baghdad railway will be completed ultimately to Basra. And following the commerce will be tourism.

What about civilian investment in aircraft without a war? The military is already pouring money into research pre-war to build up their reconnaissance assets, so the research was there. By the 1920's perhaps civilian air travel is plausible without the boost the war gave research IMHO.

 

[Petike]

What about civilian investment in aircraft without a war? The military is already pouring money into research pre-war to build up their reconnaissance assets, so the research was there. By the 1920's perhaps civilian air travel is plausible without the boost the war gave research IMHO.

I concur. It might take a bit longer to set up big passenger planes (bare in mind that most of these were converted large bombers), but airlines using smaller airplanes wouldn't be very delayed and they'd serve as a transitional phase. Outside of that, don't forget how tricky early air travel was. Even the bigger planes were small compared to modern day ones and an average 1920s airline often carried only 12-25 at best.

And, despite this sounding a bit like a cliché in the AH community, I could see zeppelins doing pretty well as airliners, particularly since there was no WWI to help outdating them sooner (well, the military ones, at least). In general, airship airliners and airplane airliners will be more balanced in marketability and influence in a no WWI world. Of course, I'm talking only about the early years of their coexistence. Give it 20-30 years and zeppelins will be already marginalized by heavier than air vehicles. I'm not sure whether blimp airships could receive a greater passenger carrier role than they did in OTL (where there was virtually none during the zeppelin era, relegating blimps almost purely to military and scientific or economic roles).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I concur. It might take a bit longer to set up big passenger planes (bare in mind that most of these were converted large bombers), but airlines using smaller airplanes wouldn't be very delayed and they'd serve as a transitional phase. Outside of that, don't forget how tricky early air travel was. Even the bigger planes were small compared to modern day ones and an average 1920s airline often carried only 12-25 at best.

And, despite this sounding a bit like a cliché in the AH community, I could see zeppelins doing pretty well as airliners, particularly since there was no WWI to help outdating them sooner (well, the military ones, at least). In general, airship airliners and airplane airliners will be more balanced in marketability and influence in a no WWI world. Of course, I'm talking only about the early years of their coexistence. Give it 20-30 years and zeppelins will be already marginalized by heavier than air vehicles. I'm not sure whether blimp airships could receive a greater passenger carrier role than they did in OTL (where there was virtually none during the zeppelin era, relegating blimps almost purely to military and scientific or economic roles).

The only thing I'll add is that the 1918 German R.VI bomber had a wing span nearly as large as the B29's, and a wing area more than double. So there were some large wing aircraft in WW1 that will bigger fuselages could have been adapted to large cargo (with better engines of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_.28B-29.29

Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.18 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.06 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 sq ft (161.3 m²)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin-Staaken_R.VI#Specifications_.28Zeppelin-Staaen_R.VI.2C_.29

Length: 22.1 m (72 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 42.2 m (138 ft 5 in)
Height: 6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 332 m2 (3,570 sq ft)

Oh and the Zeppelins would likely not be very much in demand before aircraft took over, as controlling Zeppelins in the air before the 1920's was very difficult, as both weather and wind easily pushed them around. Not only that, but they could be dangerous early on, despite being more stable. So I think that by the 1920s they might have a short window of use, but their huge expense, both in construction, maintenance, and storage (they needed massive hangars that were solidly constructed) would make them a niche product, as better engines would give aircraft more utility than the Zeppelins (better speed/range) while the Zeppelins lacked the comfort for long travels that ocean liners offered (the Hindenburg was extremely spartan).

 

[Viriato]

I was looking up the state of the world's air forces in 1914 before the war and found some interesting statistics.

Below is the allocation for aviation before the war. Germany, Russia and France seemed to be spending the most on their air forces.

1914 Military Aviation Expenditures
Germany $45,000,000
Russia $22,500,000
France $12,800,000
Austria $3,000,000
Great Britain $1,080,000
Italy $800,000
USA $250,000

Military Aviation Budgets 1912
France $7,400,000
Germany $2,250,000
Russia $5,000,000
Great Britain $2,100,000
Italy $2,100,000
Japan $600,000
USA $140,000

Also, the size of the air forces greatly differed. Dirigibles were assumed to be important and below is the number various militaries possessed in 1914.

Military Dirigibles
Germany 23 (+5 on order)
France 20 (+7 on order)
Russia 19 (+10 on order)
Italy 10 (+2 on order)
Austria-Hungary 8 (+3 on order)
Great Britain 8 (+4 on order)
Japan 3 (+2 on order)
Belgium 2
Bulgaria 1
USA 0

The number of planes available at the beginning of the war also varied

Military Planes in 1914
France 611
Germany 428
Russia 200
Italy 153
Great Britain 168
Austria-Hungary 136
Greece 52
Belgium 40
Bulgaria 28
Japan 23
United States 17

What is interesting to note is that the United States paid little attention to its air force. The navy seemed to get the priority in spending and equipment. Possibly because of the limited range of airplanes at the time, the War Department did not see them as good investment. It would have been interesting to see how the air forces would have developed without the war.

 

[phx1138]

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.

To which I'd add:

1. The vulnerability of armies to observation
2. The chance of armies becoming bogged down in trenches (because of air observation)
3. The impact of increased lethality without increased mobility (which led to the tank)
4. The threat of submarines to modern steamer-carried trade
5. The futility of Mahaninan "decisive battle" doctrine (which would not be fully realized until WW2 anyhow...)
6. The desire for naval arms control
7. The rise of aircraft carriers (in part thanks to the limits on other types)
8. The continuing dominance of the battleship (to the point Yamato-like ships with 20" or 21" guns arise?)
9. The continuing construction of small numbers of large submarines for fleet scouting, per Mahan
10. Slower development of SMGs & assault rifles, without the lesson most firefights took place at 300-500m
11. Slow development of "shock troop" & fire-&-movement tactics?
12. Persistence of "walking fire" & increased development of LMGs (per BAR)? (This seems likely to me.)
13. Slow/no development of blitzkrieg
14. No or much delayed Pacific War, when Japan doesn't feel slighted over the 60% deal & walk out & give the militarist lunatics an opening...
15. The biggie: no Great Depression &, very likely, no rise of the Nazis.

1940s armed forces migh more resemble modern caverly forces with 'Striker-esque' vehicles.

That seems very likely to me.

I also think it's likely the Bomb gets built in time to actually be used in Europe.

Fluid battle already existed... So without WW1 we never abandon maneuver warfare concepts!

And the doctrine runs bang into air recon making secret movement impossible...

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.

Fund it, but could she build the infrastructure to support it? I'm thinking about the enormous electricity requirements, for a start. Could Germany manage that?

If she does, I see the power grid being a more attractive bombing target, & interruptions of the power making bombing factories unneccesary, as well as (maybe) interfering with Bomb development. Providing the Bomb isn't already done, in which case interfering with production of more...