WI: WW1 Starts in 1900

So for whatever reason, a crisis erupts which triggers a 1900 war with Britain and Germany. How different from the 1914-18 war would this be, and would it drag in other powers? I'm assuming France would likely still be involved should Germany take Belgium, and that Britain would be at a greater advantage in the naval war especially with the lack of U-boats but what about on the ground?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, note that British industry was still larger than that of Germany at this point IOTL. The French military doctrine was not yet messed up by Joffre. OTOH, this was before Russian reforms.
 
So for whatever reason, a crisis erupts which triggers a 1900 war with Britain and Germany. How different from the 1914-18 war would this be, and would it drag in other powers? I'm assuming France would likely still be involved should Germany take Belgium, and that Britain would be at a greater advantage in the naval war especially with the lack of U-boats but what about on the ground?

Even by 1900 IOTL in war the weapons of
defense- such as artillery- had achieved a
dominance over the weapons of offense
(Check out the ACW, I think there were also
some nasty mowing down of infantry assaults in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-
1905)that I doubt the ground fighting in this
WWI would be much different than it was in
the war IOTL.
 
Well, assuming McKinley still dies (which is a big if), you'd have Theodore Roosevelt as the United States President for much of this war, and during the OTL World War I, he was quite eager to declare for the Entente, though he was out of office.
 

trajen777

Banned
In 1900 per the Dreadnought book there was an approach between Germany and GB for an alliance. But anyway if this were to occur then :

Plus and minus for Germany
1. Shlieffen would be commander (plus)
2. No plans yet for offensive thru Belgium (plus)
3. French 77 being deployed (minus)
4. German artillery not yet updated( minus)
5. Russia economy still underdeveloped

So :
1. GB starts blocade
2. France maybe neutral ? Or more likely mobilizes and invades and held at border
3. Russia mobilizes and invades and gets bloody nose
4. Japan ??
5. War a slaughter - comes to a negotiated truce
 
Without the Haber-Bosch Process (industrialized 1913) won't the blockade defeat Germany rather quickly when the run out of ammunition for their weapons?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Well, assuming McKinley still dies (which is a big if), you'd have Theodore Roosevelt as the United States President for much of this war, and during the OTL World War I, he was quite eager to declare for the Entente, though he was out of office.
In this case I assume the British would be the protagonists, unless you consider Willy's speeches and natural bluster a valid Casus belli. Britain was less than popular on the continent with its army strong arming the Boers in South Africa at the time. Anglo French relations were not exactly cordial - the French still had a British invasion plan on its books until 1902. The Anglo-Russian relationship was the same as it had always been. I'm just guessing, but the Dutch probably also empathized with the Boers in South Africa.

The British would struggle to get any allies (beyond empire) and would be incapable of blockading western Europe in its entirety.

Without the Haber-Bosch Process (industrialized 1913) won't the blockade defeat Germany rather quickly when the run out of ammunition for their weapons?
The catalyst used in the commercial production was not identified until July 1914. I often thought nitrates a vital consideration in any early WW1 scenario, but I have never encountered any published material indicating it was even seriously considered before WW1. In this scenario the German use of ammunition would be limited by a narrow front (if any), being on the defensive and no fast firing artillery.
 
An earlier World War does not necessarily entail the same allies. Victorian and Edwardian Britain for a very long time feared France would be a continental enemy just as much as it did Germany. Where the alliances solidify depends on happenstance of royal hissyfits.
 
Well, assuming McKinley still dies (which is a big if), you'd have Theodore Roosevelt as the United States President for much of this war, and during the OTL World War I, he was quite eager to declare for the Entente, though he was out of office.

An interesting point Fanboy- but I can't see
Congress allowing Roosevelt to get us in
(115 years ago IOTL Congress actually
thought- unlike now- that @ least part of its
job was to restrain Presidents in the realm of
foreign affairs)
 
But would the U.S. in such a situation feel
threatened enough to want to intervene in
a war in as far away a place as Europe?

Indeed. At best, you'd get a parallel war occuring at the same time between the U.S and the U.K while the U.K is also fighting in Europe rather than the Americans actually being part of the "wider war".
 
If war breaks out in 1900 between Britain and Germany the fighting would go like this:

Britain would take the German colonies. These are worthless trophies that won't hurt Germany one bit. The Germans will start attacking British shipping using armed merchant ships, cruisers and the like

The French and Russians will seek to keep the war going as long as possible and grab what they can as their two main rivals fight it out. They'll look for easy gains as the British and Germans seek them as allies. The Japanese would be prime targets of the Russians. Expect an ultimatium reducing them to Russian protectorate. Without British aid and France backing them, the Japanese will bend or be quickly defeated

The French will seek colonial gains- Morocco for sure. The Portuguese colonies would also be possible. More risky but possible would be the Belgian Congo and Indonesia

Without the Haber-Bosch Process (industrialized 1913) won't the blockade defeat Germany rather quickly when the run out of ammunition for their weapons?

Unless the British somehow get the French and Russians to join in (rather unlikely) there won't be any blockade of Germany. The French and Russians despise the British as much as the Germans at this point and would have no reason to back Britain. Let the two rivals fight it out

As to Haber-Bosch- in WW I this was crucial as German agriculture depended on artificial fertilizers. The cutting off of nitrates gave the Germans a food or bombs dilemma. This was made worse by having their horses and men sent to the front. Assuming Franco-Russian neutrality, there is no problem. Russian grain would be used as it was before the war.

What little nitrates they would need could come from either natural sources (animal dung), imports through France and Russia or as a byproduct of the coking process
 
Top