No Zeppelins!!!!!

Unlike most other principle transportation innovations of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (automobiles, airplanes, non-rigid airships, etc) which were being actively research and developed by many different people in many different countries, the zeppelin airship (rigid outer frame, separate gas cells, huge size, etc) was the brainchild and obsession of only one man, Ferdinand von Zeppelin. Without von Zeppelin and his obsession, it is arguable that successful large rigid airships might never have been developed, or adopted by the German navy as strategic bombers and naval scouts and later experimented with by the US Navy, or be experimented with or developed by several nations as the main means of long-range commercial air travel in the period after WW1. What effect, if anything, would this have had on early 20th century transportation, military technology, or broader history?

Some possible changes might include:
(1) No early strategic bombing of Britain by zeppelins, which might have delayed by a few years the push to develop of high altitude and well-armed airplanes and effective anti aircraft artillery.
(2) If there were no "babykillers" bombing England in 1914-15 could this have had an impact on neutral and allied attitudes to Germany, perhaps reducing the "hun" image and making a negotiated settlement to WW1 somewhat more possible?
(3) Without the example of strategic bombing of civilian centers by airship in 1914-16, could the later development of heavy airplane strategic bombers in Britain and Germany been delayed?
(4) Without German naval devotion to the zeppelin as its main aerial scout and strategic aerial weapon, could the Germans have developed aircraft carriers in the same way as the Royal Navy did? Is there any possibility both the Royal Navy and High Seas Fleet could have true aircraft carriers deployed by 1917/1918, and could that have significantly affected naval operations?
(5) The US efforts to obtain helium in economically valuable quantities and develop the appropriate extraction/separation technologies was fostered almost solely by the US navy for its airships. Without large military airships and the hopes for commercial airship lines, would an expensive helium industry even be been developed? Could this have had effects on subsequent technologies which use helium today?

Or, was the zeppelin airship completely a blind alley and would the presence or absence of such craft in the period 1902-1940 made essentially no difference in any substantive way?
 
Airships definitely are the transitory means of aerial transportation until the arrival of heavier than air craft. Lighter than air craft has been around for the majority of the 19th century. I don't necessarily believe that von Zeppelin made any great technological leap, but he was tremendously successful on capitalizing on his failures, thereby gaining more financial aid (both public and private), which most of his counterparts did not.

This is very much the same argument about WI no Wright Brothers No flight? History and, by proxy we, only remember those that succeed (or fail gloriously). At least from the 1850s there has been some interest in 'steam aerial navigation' or some such. I don't see necessarily any reason that the countless different designs of semi-rigid airships and predate the zeppelin would not eventually evolve into the full rigid airship.

Regarding your points:

(1) No early strategic bombing of Britain by zeppelins, which might have delayed by a few years the push to develop of high altitude and well-armed airplanes and effective anti aircraft artillery.

A: I think its likely that the strategic bombing of Paris and then Britain by large bombers will develop out of frontline aircraft bombing trenches.

(2) If there were no "babykillers" bombing England in 1914-15 could this have had an impact on neutral and allied attitudes to Germany, perhaps reducing the "hun" image and making a negotiated settlement to WW1 somewhat more possible?

A: No Allied propaganda would pretty much spin the Germans as being Huns no matter what.

(3) Without the example of strategic bombing of civilian centers by airship in 1914-16, could the later development of heavy airplane strategic bombers in Britain and Germany been delayed?

A: No, bombers will be developed to hit military targets further behind the battlelines first, then they will be applied to civilian targets.

(4) Without German naval devotion to the zeppelin as its main aerial scout and strategic aerial weapon, could the Germans have developed aircraft carriers in the same way as the Royal Navy did? Is there any possibility both the Royal Navy and High Seas Fleet could have true aircraft carriers deployed by 1917/1918, and could that have significantly affected naval operations?

A: At least from the beginning of the war the Royal Navy predominately used their aircraft for scouting. There will be no true aircraft carriers deployed by 1917/1918 unless there are developments in engine design.

You are also ignoring the fact that the Royal Navy fielded over 200 airships, mostly blimps, thru out the war to use in anti-submarine warfare.

(5) The US efforts to obtain helium in economically valuable quantities and develop the appropriate extraction/separation technologies was fostered almost solely by the US navy for its airships. Without large military airships and the hopes for commercial airship lines, would an expensive helium industry even be been developed? Could this have had effects on subsequent technologies which use helium today?

A: Given that helium is still a very valuable commodity today and getting rarer, its likely that the Government will still step in to control it. I don't think there will be much to hamper the traditional development of hydrogen inflated airships, but once the leap to helium is made its likely there will be a run on it.
 
Top