The Great War is delayed by ten years?

[Drunkrobot]

The First World War was the crucible in which the modern system of conventional warfare was forged, yet many of its elements - from tanks fast enough to gain a true breakthrough by outpacing the trains the defender could use to mobilise for a counterattack, to aircraft large and fast enough to drop sufficient ordinance to materially support ground forces directly while avoiding most of the threat from the ground, to radio systems portable and reliable enough to work for small units on the offensive - simply were not in a mature enough state to be integrated into the system that would finally emerge in World War II and leave the doctrines of the trench stalemate fully behind. Thus, the victory of the Entente in 1918 was still predominantly an attritional one, even if they were pushing the Germany Army back across the whole front - unlike the German leadership of the following war, the generals in 1918 knew their window of opportunity was missed and that they were better off surrendering than delaying the inevitable.

That said, was it possible for a major European war to be delayed for another ten years, to allow for the underlying technologies (like radio and IC engines) to advance substantially to cause a difference to how warfare evolves during the war itself?

 

[Fehérvári]

Possible? Ofcourse it is. However it must be noted that ten years is a long time in geopolitics. The preceived evergrowing might of Russia and the German abandonment of naval ambitions could very easily lead to Britain drinfting away from the Entente. Meanwhile, Italy could leave the Triple Alliance and officially align with the Franco-Russian alliance. The new customs union between A-H and Serbia might cool the hostility between the two. Serbia might readopt a more pro-Austrian stance.

So not only the conduct of warfare would be different, but the war itself too.

 

[David Flin]

Far more significant than the technological changes would be the social changes and the geopolitical changes.

 

[raharris1973]

That said, was it possible for a major European war to be delayed for another ten years, to allow for the underlying technologies (like radio and IC engines) to advance substantially to cause a difference to how warfare evolves during the war itself?

Yes and yes.

It seems to me that fruitful areas of further tech development include radio, telephony, film (sound and color), civilian automotive industry, aircraft (some aspects more than others), medicine, agricultural mechanization, etc.

However it must be noted that ten years is a long time in geopolitics.

Undeniably true

The preceived evergrowing might of Russia and the German abandonment of naval ambitions could very easily lead to Britain drinfting away from the Entente.

Certainly a possibility, especially if Britain sees Russia as a bad actor in Persia. And if Britain is waking up on the side of the bed saying, "I feel like prioritizing balance of power in my foreign policy this year". The alternative is the British could see Russian power rising and decide "we must dig in even further on our strategy of staying on Russia's good side, for the empire's sake".

The new customs union between A-H and Serbia might cool the hostility between the two. Serbia might readopt a more pro-Austrian stance.

Calling it "the" new customs union makes it sound like it was a real thing. But I don't think it was. You're just mentioning it as something that could be a random future possibility, correct?

 

[Fehérvári]

Calling it "the" new customs union makes it sound like it was a real thing. But I don't think it was. You're just mentioning it as something that could be a random future possibility, correct?

Someone here on the forum mentioned it in one of these threads. Apparently there were some talks going on about a customs union between the Serbian and A-H governments.

 

[Fehérvári]

Found it in the "Crises in a no ww1 world" thread

Gancio The Ranter said:

David Flin said:
And changes don't always happen without causing sparks.

Sure, Russia might go from no allies in the Balkans but Serbia to three, including Romania and Greece. Or perhaps the only ally would be Romania, depending on Serbian and Greek political changes. Serbia was discussing a customs Union with Austria after all and Greece had its eyes on Constantinople, while an alliance between Russia and the ottoman empire wasn't out of the question.

David Flin said:
An agreement that involved an awful lot of Great Game style activities in Persia. There's a whole slew of possible flash points in Persia alone in the 1914-1925 period

That's a given, but afaik France, the UK and Germany were on the same page by 1914 as far as the Middle East and colonial matters were concerned. Persia was a relatively minor issue between the UK and Germany, who had agreed on far more pressing issues in the Bagdad-berlin railway project.

David Flin said:
Raises eyebrow. Regardless of what solution is found, there's going to be bloodshed. The history of Ireland is one that involves any attempts at compromise and equitable solutions for all concerned failing

That's true but a lot of the most violent events in the irish question were influenced by ww1, prohibition and limits on immigration in the US, which provided damaged the irish economy, and the general climate of instability and militancy of the war period. By 1914 home rule was coming no matter what, and the protestants would probably agree to an agreement that let's them keep the 4 Protestant majority countries+whatever else they can keep, depending on the negotiations

@raharris1973 Yeah, and now I see that you actually asked a source for that in that thread


@Gancio The Ranter

 

[EWHM]

Russia in the early 1920s without a WWI or a civil war is going to be a serious power, quite a bit stronger than WWI Russia. Russia's exponential growth was seriously on the mind of Germany. By 1918 or so, I think the dance partners of the various alliances would change. The UK's old algorithm---prevent any single power from dominating Europe---would probably ensure the change.

 

[Nivek]

Russia in the early 1920s without a WWI or a civil war is going to be a serious power, quite a bit stronger than WWI Russia. Russia's exponential growth was seriously on the mind of Germany. By 1918 or so, I think the dance partners of the various alliances would change. The UK's old algorithm---prevent any single power from dominating Europe---would probably ensure the change.

Civil war is coming to russia, that one already barely avoided one in 1905 and might come later on...just need the proper spark

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Far more significant than the technological changes would be the social changes and the geopolitical changes.

For example there could very well have been a 2nd Mexican-American War. It was quite a feat that diplomats managed to prevent the Pancho Villa Raid and the resulting punitive expedition from escalating into that, and that was when America was concerned about the possibility of fighting a war against Germany. If there's no concern about dedicating military resources towards possibly fighting Germany, and as a result Mexico and the United States go to war, then there's a good chance the US would annex Baja California and northern Mexico. Since this was a time when the Monroe Doctrine was a major concern for American foreign policy and Manifest Destiny was still in living memory, it would definitely reshape American geopolitical interests. Also without the spike in anti-German sentiment, prohibition might be butterflied away or delayed because most brewers were German-American, and they commanded a powerful political lobby.

Also within the UK there would be a lot of potential butterflies vis a vis the status of Ireland.

Russia in the early 1920s without a WWI or a civil war is going to be a serious power, quite a bit stronger than WWI Russia. Russia's exponential growth was seriously on the mind of Germany. By 1918 or so, I think the dance partners of the various alliances would change. The UK's old algorithm---prevent any single power from dominating Europe---would probably ensure the change.

Russia could go a number of ways. I don't think the Bolsheviks would be in power but I doubt the czar could remain a de facto absolute monarch for that long either. So, would Russia be a (real) constitutional monarchy? Would it be a republic? How democratic and how liberal would it be? I would think that a seriously reformed constitutional monarchy would probably prevent a Russian civil war, but Nicholas might or might not make those reforms without one, and if a civil war/revolution does break out, the longer it drags on, the less likely it is that his opponents would be willing to compromise.

 

[Sanderford]

For example there could very well have been a 2nd Mexican-American War...

I could honestly see that. It riled a lot of Americans up when Villa and his band raided into U.S. territory, even if the expedition went poorly for him and his guerillas. I could also see it being President Charles Hughes who issues the orders for Funston and his men to enter Mexico and run Villa down. Wilson very nearly lost to him, essentially winning because he just held California, and if he doesn't have "He kept us out of the war!" to ride home on, that might not be possible.

IOTL, the U.S. forces sent into Mexico used automobiles and airplanes, albeit in what would today be a limited scale, and very quickly came to appreciate their utility. ITTL the A.E.F. sent to Europe, if it still happens could have a much more heavily motorized look compared to historical reality. This could be especially true if instead of a Punitive Expedition, Wilson or Hughes just straight-up asks Congress to make it official.

 

[mattep74]

If you thought the great war of 1914 was deadly, now imagine a war ten years later. Same type of military thinking as in 1914 but airplanes a bit more robust, tanks like in 1916 from the start. It will be a bigger slaugther from the start

 

[David Flin]

Also within the UK there would be a lot of potential butterflies vis a vis the status of Ireland.

Potential butterflies in the UK include:

Irish Home Rule. That's almost certain to go ahead, and almost certain to upset at least one faction. Solving that is going to be an interesting task.
Women Suffrage. That was going through, but what will be interesting will be on what terms the franchise is extended, and whether the suffragettes or the suffragists win the day. It will make a difference. One will probably benefit the Conservative party, the other the Liberal party. Dealing with that will be entertaining, and will change political discourse.
What happens to the Labour Party in this situation? WWI radicalised a lot of working-class men, and absent that, things will be different, but damned if I know how.
The loss of social mixing. Reading the journals of many of the sons of the ruling class while they were in the trenches, it's clear that a lot of them (for example, Harold MacMillan) came to appreciate that working class people were actually people like they were. MacMillan freely admits that his political views were changed sharply by his time in the trenches.
Political reform of the House of Lords had just gone through, and resistance to the change from the Lords had been gathering pace when War broke out. Expect a political crisis here.
Airships. The Imperial Airship Scheme had started just before the war, and received a change of direction as a result of seeing the Zeppelins. Absent WWI, the scheme, intended to speed communications between the far-flung Empire, would be different. God alone knows how. Maybe speeded, maybe slowed, it's difficult to say. It's possible that by 1922 (the intended due date), it would be possible to fly from London to Sydney in 7 days (cf 7 weeks by ship) via Malta, Cairo, Bombay, Singapore, and Perth.

That's just the obvious ones off the top of my head.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Vehicle production of all types surely would continue to grow strongly in all of W Europe, which would make a big difference for all sorts of reasons. Presumably there would also be a *lot* more motor vehicle capable local or inter city roads built too, which would make a big difference for mobility.

I do recall listening to a radio documentary a few years back about the first car journey between Auckland and Wellington in NZ (about 645km /8 hours drive) by modern highway), which was organised by some car dealers (Ford?). Anyway, there were no direct roads between the two and quite often there would be no connecting roads between the various local networks. The quality of the roads was also often not up to motor vehicles. Obviously NZ in 1914 was in a very different situation from anywhere in Europe, but it does illustrate just how much work had to go into building the local/national road networks

 

[Opo]

Russia in the early 1920s without a WWI or a civil war is going to be a serious power, quite a bit stronger than WWI Russia. Russia's exponential growth was seriously on the mind of Germany. By 1918 or so, I think the dance partners of the various alliances would change. The UK's old algorithm---prevent any single power from dominating Europe---would probably ensure the change.

I would agree with other posters who have said that revolution in Russia is pretty much unavoidable (even if you remove Tsar Nicholas II early). When King Edward VII met with Nicholas on the Standart in Tallinn in 1908, he warned his nephew-in-law of what may come if he didn't change his approach. Nicholas supposedly replied that he had the courage to face any opposing forces to his rule to which Edward VII replied; "I don't doubt you have the courage. I only hope you have the time".

 

[RandomChance]

A number of thoughts…

• I think the tank (or some analogue) would evolve - the prospect of a ‘land battleship’ of some form as engines develop is inevitable. Would they be an army asset, or be pushed as ‘land battleships’ of the Navy?
• Similarly, I suspect submarines will continue to develop, albeit at a slower pace as they’ve yet to prove themselves. Though perhaps German supplied U-boats used by the Mexicans in the Gulf of Mexico in an American-Mexican war might be interesting.
• Chemical weapons were seen as a viable battlefield weapon IOTL. Without the lessons learned and the moral scruples that followed, a war in 1924 (putting aside the geopolitical changes raised above) with potentially substantial aircraft to carry them might see gas used on cities. Horrifying.
• Is the UK/Japanese relationship still likely to sour due to Japanese nationalism? Without a 1914 war, they may not have as strong a demand for a seat at the post war table as OTL, so less resentment from being largely sidelined. Flip side is I doubt the Europeans/Americans will change their somewhat racist view of them so I think things will still deteriorate, albeit slower.

 

[Slime_blob]

Civil war is coming to russia, that one already barely avoided one in 1905 and might come later on...just need the proper spark

Russia is already reforming, improving and regime is technically doing a good job pre ww1, ww1 is the main reason why they fell to civil war. With the reforms continuing Its also possible that it is avoided

 

[Hood]

Potential butterflies in the UK include:

Irish Home Rule. That's almost certain to go ahead, and almost certain to upset at least one faction. Solving that is going to be an interesting task.
Women Suffrage. That was going through, but what will be interesting will be on what terms the franchise is extended, and whether the suffragettes or the suffragists win the day. It will make a difference. One will probably benefit the Conservative party, the other the Liberal party. Dealing with that will be entertaining, and will change political discourse.
What happens to the Labour Party in this situation? WWI radicalised a lot of working-class men, and absent that, things will be different, but damned if I know how.
The loss of social mixing. Reading the journals of many of the sons of the ruling class while they were in the trenches, it's clear that a lot of them (for example, Harold MacMillan) came to appreciate that working class people were actually people like they were. MacMillan freely admits that his political views were changed sharply by his time in the trenches.
Political reform of the House of Lords had just gone through, and resistance to the change from the Lords had been gathering pace when War broke out. Expect a political crisis here.
Airships. The Imperial Airship Scheme had started just before the war, and received a change of direction as a result of seeing the Zeppelins. Absent WWI, the scheme, intended to speed communications between the far-flung Empire, would be different. God alone knows how. Maybe speeded, maybe slowed, it's difficult to say. It's possible that by 1922 (the intended due date), it would be possible to fly from London to Sydney in 7 days (cf 7 weeks by ship) via Malta, Cairo, Bombay, Singapore, and Perth.

That's just the obvious ones off the top of my head.

1. Partition will happen, likely 4 county NI instead of 6, negotiations prewar re home rule included partition, at least temporarily and this was doubled down on in 1916 when trying to get home rule passed after the rising.
2. Don't know enough about it to comment.
3. Likely slower growth, but would remain a prevalent party. The effects of the Victorian 'moral order' were wearing off on the working classes slowly. The Liberals had placed themselves very well prewar to take in a good portion of the working class vote, so likely Labour will be less 'catch all' for the left.
4. Longer lasting Victorian ideals, there was increasing awareness and understanding of the working class and their conditions prior to the war (likes of Booth going from an idea that poverty in London was exagerrated and going to disprove its extent to realising through his work at least 30% of Londons population lived in extreme poverty by his definition at the turn of the century). Much slower change, likely a kind of paternal thing towards improving conditions for the working classes, still a lot of separation at the end of the day.
5. Don't know enough there, but is less likely if partition goes through without too much uproar imo.
6. How feasible is it longterm? How profitable? Imo you'd likely see flying boats taking over the routes by the late 20s at least.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Women Suffrage. That was going through, but what will be interesting will be on what terms the franchise is extended, and whether the suffragettes or the suffragists win the day. It will make a difference. One will probably benefit the Conservative party, the other the Liberal party. Dealing with that will be entertaining, and will change political discourse.

I'm not convinced of this. As long as Pankhurst and her little gang of thugs were active (and escalating) I can't see women's suffrage going through - it would effectively be surrendering to violent blackmail.

 

[Fehérvári]

What about German and Italian politics? From what I understand, the German SocDems were the strongest of their kind in Europe and their popularity was on the rise before the war. Could this translate into an eventual SocDem-led government in Germany? I know it was the Kaiser's right to appoint the Chancellor, would he go along with this? Alternatively, could the Kaiser refusing to do so trigger a political crisis in Germany?

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Potential butterflies in the UK include:

Irish Home Rule. That's almost certain to go ahead, and almost certain to upset at least one faction. Solving that is going to be an interesting task.
Women Suffrage. That was going through, but what will be interesting will be on what terms the franchise is extended, and whether the suffragettes or the suffragists win the day. It will make a difference. One will probably benefit the Conservative party, the other the Liberal party. Dealing with that will be entertaining, and will change political discourse.
What happens to the Labour Party in this situation? WWI radicalised a lot of working-class men, and absent that, things will be different, but damned if I know how.
The loss of social mixing. Reading the journals of many of the sons of the ruling class while they were in the trenches, it's clear that a lot of them (for example, Harold MacMillan) came to appreciate that working class people were actually people like they were. MacMillan freely admits that his political views were changed sharply by his time in the trenches.
Political reform of the House of Lords had just gone through, and resistance to the change from the Lords had been gathering pace when War broke out. Expect a political crisis here.
Airships. The Imperial Airship Scheme had started just before the war, and received a change of direction as a result of seeing the Zeppelins. Absent WWI, the scheme, intended to speed communications between the far-flung Empire, would be different. God alone knows how. Maybe speeded, maybe slowed, it's difficult to say. It's possible that by 1922 (the intended due date), it would be possible to fly from London to Sydney in 7 days (cf 7 weeks by ship) via Malta, Cairo, Bombay, Singapore, and Perth.

That's just the obvious ones off the top of my head.

Scottish Home Rule was also set to pass at the same time as Irish Home Rule. Might one see the beginnings of a federal imperial UK? Major butterflies for the UK either way.