WI WW1 starts in 1919

Even if Russia grew more in % than Germany and Austria, both grew more in absolute numbers. The industrial revolution was spreading across Austria, and it is not impossible that they would have managed their problems (it was only in summer 1918, when Austria as a state was failing that nationalists started gaining massive support and claim for their own nations).

The Ottomans were also reorganising from the Balkan wars. If they get another 5 years to re-establish themselves they are probably going to be a lot better off.
 
I can see Italy starting another round of the Balkan wars or Russia attacking the Ottoman Empire .
 
What if it starts in 1919 with Russia attacking the Ottomans, British helping resisting further Russian advances, then everybody else gets invoved
 
Even if Russia grew more in % than Germany and Austria, both grew more in absolute numbers. The industrial revolution was spreading across Austria, and it is not impossible that they would have managed their problems (it was only in summer 1918, when Austria as a state was failing that nationalists started gaining massive support and claim for their own nations).

The Ottomans were also reorganising from the Balkan wars. If they get another 5 years to re-establish themselves they are probably going to be a lot better off.

I don't know if that's completely correct.

Russia also outspent Germany in navy spending in 1914 in absolute numbers. I'm reading Norman Stone's "The Eastern Front 1914-1917" now and he mentions this IIRC without looking it up. I can do so if you want?

Also Russia isn't facing Germany and Austria-Hungary alone; at least France ought to be factored in.
 
There are other places to consider if blood is not spilled in Sarajevo:

(1) As had been mentioned before, there's a civil war brewing in Ireland that will severely limit British activity on the continent if it is not avoided.

(2) As has also been mentioned, the Ausgleich renewal is coming up.

(3) There's a dispute between Greece and Turkey over the northern Aegean islands that could easily result in a war between them.

(4) There's a civil war in Albania in which the interests of A-H, Italy, Serbia, and Greece are involved.

(5) Outside Europe, you've got major instability in China and Mexico which could end up entangling at least 2 world powers against each other.

What if it starts in 1919 with Russia attacking the Ottomans, British helping resisting further Russian advances, then everybody else gets invoved

The British had concluded that they could live with a Russian Constantinople. Furthermore, they had their own rivalry with the Ottomans in Egypt and the Gulf. The Russians, meanwhile, didn't know how the British would react and weren't going to mess up one of the pillars of their foreign policy to find out. They also weren't in a good position to attack Turkey (no naval dominance in the Black Sea and good defensive terrain for the other side) and were far more interested in Germany and A-H than in their rather anachronistic rivalry with Turkey.
 
I don't know if that's completely correct.

Russia also outspent Germany in navy spending in 1914 in absolute numbers. I'm reading Norman Stone's "The Eastern Front 1914-1917" now and he mentions this IIRC without looking it up. I can do so if you want?

Also Russia isn't facing Germany and Austria-Hungary alone; at least France ought to be factored in.

I am talking GDP, to counter the idea some had of the German "window" for victory. If there were any window, it was 1905, not 1914-15.
 
I am talking GDP, to counter the idea some had of the German "window" for victory. If there were any window, it was 1905, not 1914-15.

Realistically, yes. But that was not necessarily the German position.

I refer to Fritz Fischer here (hating myself for doing that) and his emphasis on the German War Council on Dec 8th, 1912. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912]

Basic positions here were that the Navy was not ready for conflict until at the very least Mid-1914, while the Army saw the "window of opportunity" rapidly closing with a victorious war becoming impossible not soon in the future.

Now, I do not support Historians which argue that the Germans scheduled WW1 here. But the findings are imporant insofar as we can get a grip on German decisionmakers' strategic thinking in the 1910s before the outbreak of the war.

This means that if war is avoided in 1914 and in 1915, it afterwards becomes rather improbable that Germany takes an overtly aggressive stance in the cases of crises- that is unless the alliance-system is shaken up by any kind of new development.
 
Can WWI even be delayed until 1919? And would it even be the First World War? If it happens in 1919, what are the odds of WWII even occurring?
I agree. There had been international incidents almost every year preceding the war (Balkan war of 1912-1913 might have already been enough to start the war, as the other thread on this forum proves). 5 more years would have been extremely unfavourable for Germany (as Russia would have industrialised at that point).,

I've been researching possible starts for WWI for 8 months now. I've come to the conclusion that a later WWI is almost ASB. I generally look for possibilities for it to start earlier.
 

Deleted member 1487

All the following information is from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953

The war really cannot start earlier for Germany either because of her limited siege artillery. AH only managed to get her 24 mortars finished in 1913 and Germany still didn't have her 2 big Berthas yet. Yes, she did have several 350mm 'Küsten Möser' that really were siege pieces, but they weren't really all that mobile. Plus the Kiel canal didn't get finished until 1913 IIRC either.

Now a slightly later start to WW1 is interesting; if the war starts in 1915-16 Germany's 'window' is still open and relatively her forces are will be getting stronger, as she was forming two additional corps for peace time. They would be ready by the end of 1915 and more experienced by 1916. Also her nitrate plants would be ready in 1915-16 before the war.

Meanwhile France would in 1915 still be disorganized by her 3 year law about conscript service time and only in 1916 would she start to realize any benefits from it. However the liberals were rallying and would likely have taken down the 3 year law (the so-called Cadre Laws) in 1915 anyway, further disorganizing them. However the French would have more modern howitzers in 1915-1916, but probably no more than 100.

Russia was also rapidly improving, but was having trouble spending the money on the army. Even though the government passed a bill to allocate money to expand the army, it wasn't getting spent on time, there were major production delays, both domestic and foreign, and worst of all civil unrest was increasing and may well boil over before 1916, which would make Russia much less effective in battle. Also in 1915 she was adopting a new mobilization plan that would likely make mobilization far less efficient for a year or two as everyone became familiar with it, as it radically changed vs. the previous plan. The only truly bright spot for Russia in the 1915-1916 period would be the increased rail capacity and a quicker mobilization of her forces.

AH is an interesting case. Her artillery modernization program would be complete in 1916 and leave her forces with 60 artillery pieces per division, including 36 howitzers. Each corps would have another 24 heavy howitzers and it looked like the Hungarians were going to allow it through because the Honved was getting it too. Now there were problems in that the Hungarians were delaying Combined army recruits from departing to training again and were starting to contest money to the army again because tensions were subsiding, but who knows how that would play out. A later start means AH has more men trained after the 1912 conscription expansion law has more time to take effect (an extra 50,000 men a year IIRC).
 
wiking

If Russia is developing as people feared, including the large naval programme they were starting and Germany has given up on it's challenge to the RN you might see Britain having started moving towards a pro-German stance.

Steve

Russia had a naval programme to replace its losses from the war against Japan not to become a rival to the mighty Royal Navy. And this war prove that Russia is not on the level of an european power on the naval level.

And remember that any russian fleet must cross the Bosphorus or the Skagerrak/Kategatt so Russia had only "ship in a bottle" fleet.

Germany are building a fleet just across the North Sea and this represent a mortal threat to the UK.

Any pro-german stance from the UK is a nonsense. The UK had realized that a united Germany is not only a rival in military terms but also on economy and colonial issues.
 
Though Germany’s so called window may be closing all of her allies would of got a lot stronger. So, a Central Powers victory might still be in the cards. Wiking mentioned the Army enhancements above, but there would be a significant naval balance of power change in the Med. A May 1919 or later war means Austria-Hungary Active Fleet would be: 4 Super-Dreadnoughts, 4 Dreadnoughts, 9 Cruisers, 6 Destroyers, 24 High Seas Torpedo Craft, 1 Torpedo Depot Ship, 6 minesweepers, Danube Flotilla (4 monitors & 5 patrol craft), and 10 Submarines. Her Reserve Fleet: 6 Battleships (only 3 Pre-Dreadnought), 3 Cruisers, 6 Destroyers, and 12 High Seas Torpedo Craft.

Turkey would have 2 Dreadnoughts (the ones the British kept OTL) and were looking at purchasing 24 new Destroyers and 12 new Subs from Germany (Most if not all would of been purchased by 1919). In addition, the Turkish army was in the process of getting upgraded militarily by a German mission in 1914, so it too would be a lot more battlefield effective. Next, Britain and France were terrified Germany would ask Italy for a coaling station at Tripoli. Since this would mean a permanent German Squadron in the Med. Lastly, even without the Germans both the British and French knew by 1915 the Central Powers (counting Italy & Austria-Hungary but not Turkey) would have the balance of power in the Med from that point forward.

As mentioned earlier Austria-Hungary was outgrowing all other major European powers GDP wise, and the addition of Nitrates (for fertilizer) being shipped from Germany (or even possibly a subsidy company in Austria-Hungary) rather than Chile (main nitrate exporter) would be a huge boon on her agricultural economy. This “might” even spawn farm consolidation, which would have freed up considerable manpower for industrial work or in Austria-Hungary’s very underdeveloped Mining Industry (especially the Hungarian half). The end result of this potential development would be even faster GDP growth.

Yes, a new Ausgleich renewal was coming, but in 1903-1905 when Hungary tried to play games with the military it almost got universal suffrage forced on them. So, there is no guarantee they would come out ahead. A “possible compromise” is the both the Landwehr and Hoved could be expanded to field army size giving the Hungarians there army just not the way they wanted.

Diplomatically, the way a late war comes about could mean stark differences in who gets involved. Italy and Austria-Hungary might work out their differences in the Balkans and other areas before the war starts. Italy might start the war which would require both Austria-Hungary and Germany coming to her aid. Maybe Russia or France starts the war, which would give Italy a harder time to copout, and might even effect Britain’s initial entry as she would supporting the aggressor now.

Though OTL Germany pretty much carried the Central powers in a 1914 WW1, it does not mean that a weaker Germany relative to the Entente means an auto-loss for the Central Powers. If the other members of the Central Powers participate at a more effective level that may more than make up for any German weakness in a late war scenario.
 
Last edited:
(6) Sorry I forgot about this one, but the idea of dividing the Portuguese colonies had been flying around for years. It could damage Anglo-German relations... or improve them.

A-H was trying to obtain French loans for its industrialization, as Russia had. A lot might change if they do.
 

BooNZ

Banned
All the following information is from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953

The war really cannot start earlier for Germany either because of her limited siege artillery. AH only managed to get her 24 mortars finished in 1913 and Germany still didn't have her 2 big Berthas yet. Yes, she did have several 350mm 'Küsten Möser' that really were siege pieces, but they weren't really all that mobile. Plus the Kiel canal didn't get finished until 1913 IIRC either.

Now a slightly later start to WW1 is interesting; if the war starts in 1915-16 Germany's 'window' is still open and relatively her forces are will be getting stronger, as she was forming two additional corps for peace time. They would be ready by the end of 1915 and more experienced by 1916. Also her nitrate plants would be ready in 1915-16 before the war.

Meanwhile France would in 1915 still be disorganized by her 3 year law about conscript service time and only in 1916 would she start to realize any benefits from it. However the liberals were rallying and would likely have taken down the 3 year law (the so-called Cadre Laws) in 1915 anyway, further disorganizing them. However the French would have more modern howitzers in 1915-1916, but probably no more than 100.

Russia was also rapidly improving, but was having trouble spending the money on the army. Even though the government passed a bill to allocate money to expand the army, it wasn't getting spent on time, there were major production delays, both domestic and foreign, and worst of all civil unrest was increasing and may well boil over before 1916, which would make Russia much less effective in battle. Also in 1915 she was adopting a new mobilization plan that would likely make mobilization far less efficient for a year or two as everyone became familiar with it, as it radically changed vs. the previous plan. The only truly bright spot for Russia in the 1915-1916 period would be the increased rail capacity and a quicker mobilization of her forces.

AH is an interesting case. Her artillery modernization program would be complete in 1916 and leave her forces with 60 artillery pieces per division, including 36 howitzers. Each corps would have another 24 heavy howitzers and it looked like the Hungarians were going to allow it through because the Honved was getting it too. Now there were problems in that the Hungarians were delaying Combined army recruits from departing to training again and were starting to contest money to the army again because tensions were subsiding, but who knows how that would play out. A later start means AH has more men trained after the 1912 conscription expansion law has more time to take effect (an extra 50,000 men a year IIRC).

I recall the earlier chapters of that book concluded if Germany had attacked France in 1905/06 they would probably have won. On paper the German Army outmatched the French in all respects (manpower, quality and quantity), although the French 75mm was superb. Russia would not be relevant for some years to come.

I recall the book suggested the UK would be reluctant to enter the fray and its army was not well placed to do so. It did not address the Royal Navy capacity to block the supply of nitrates, but the book contemplated a successful Schlieffen plan and a short war.
 
(6) Sorry I forgot about this one, but the idea of dividing the Portuguese colonies had been flying around for years. It could damage Anglo-German relations... or improve them.


That likelihood of that happening is very low because both powers had settled the question privately between themselves. After the understandably hostile Portuguese reaction to the British Ultimatum of 1890 over Portugal's so-called "Pink Map", Germany and the UK came to a private understanding about the fate of Portugal's empire in 1898.

"Towards the end of June, however, France and Germany brought pressure to bear on Portugal. In the end, Great Britain agreed to admit Germany to the negotiations lest she summon a general conference on Africa, including Egypt, a conference which France and her ally, Russia, must necessarily attend. After carefully excluding France from all participation, the two Governments, on 30 August 1898, agreed publicly to furnish Portugal with loans secured on the revenues of her African colonies and the island of Timor in the East Indies and, privately, to divide these possessions between themselves in the not unlikely event of Portugal defaulting. Delagoa Bay was to be included in Great Britain's portion, but the lion's share was to go to Germany. It was, the Germans explained, the least they could accept for abandoning the Boers, a subject on which their public opinion was extremely sensitive. (bolded emphasis mine)

The Cambridge History of the British Empire by Eric Anderson Walker, Volume 7 Part 1, page 584.

(The last part of that quote can explain Britain's later umbrage during the Boer War at the actions and statements of the German government up to the Kaiser in support of the Boers. In the thinking of British officialdom, Germany had already agreed to be bought off through this private agreement to divide the Portuguese Empire after Portugal's seemingly inevitable bankruptcy so Germany publicly supporting the Boers was viewed as a breach of faith.)
 
Alliances are not static.

The main objective of UK is to prevent hegemony of any power in europe.

If France and Russia became too powerful, UK could maintain itself neutral in the war or search an alliance with Germany and AH.

Sorry for my english :S
 

Deleted member 1487

As mentioned earlier Austria-Hungary was outgrowing all other major European powers GDP wise, and the addition of Nitrates (for fertilizer) being shipped from Germany (or even possibly a subsidy company in Austria-Hungary) rather than Chile (main nitrate exporter) would be a huge boon on her agricultural economy. This “might” even spawn farm consolidation, which would have freed up considerable manpower for industrial work or in Austria-Hungary’s very underdeveloped Mining Industry (especially the Hungarian half). The end result of this potential development would be even faster GDP growth.

Yes, a new Ausgleich renewal was coming, but in 1903-1905 when Hungary tried to play games with the military it almost got universal suffrage forced on them. So, there is no guarantee they would come out ahead. A “possible compromise” is the both the Landwehr and Hoved could be expanded to field army size giving the Hungarians there army just not the way they wanted.


Though OTL Germany pretty much carried the Central powers in a 1914 WW1, it does not mean that a weaker Germany relative to the Entente means an auto-loss for the Central Powers. If the other members of the Central Powers participate at a more effective level that may more than make up for any German weakness in a late war scenario.

The new Emperor and the Ausgleich pretty much means that Hungary is getting Universal Suffrage in 1917 one way or another. It was point #1 for Franz Ferdinand, who correctly understood that it would break Magyar blockage of military spending increases and abuse of the Ausgleich negotiations. It would mean using Plan U and force, potentially ripping the empire apart in civil war, but not necessarily. There were a lot of Magyars pissed by the current political system and Combined Army Hungarians proved more loyal to the Crown than Hungary. The Honved is so small as to be irrelevant, so the period of Magyar nobility abuse was coming to a rapid conclusion. Whether or not that means a wider war is open for debate. I personally don't think Russia would be stupid enough to try this, nor will they be politically stable enough to start a war.

DanF is correct that a stronger Entente relative to Germany is forgetting about her Allies. The Ottoman army would be MUCH stronger, more developed, as would her infrastructure, making her a more dangerous opponent. OTL they started a new war within a year of fighting their last major conflict. Here they have time to rebuild and expand their oil industry, which means a lot more money flowing into their coffers for army expansion.

The AHs, as noted, will be getting significantly stronger and more centrally governed, which will make they far more effect in organizing if a war starts.

But as stated before, what is going to be the catalyst for the war in 1919? Germany won't start it, nor will AH as they realize their window has closed. Serbia will be headed in a new direction politically after 1914 and won't be as eager for confrontation with AH (OTL the assassination of FF was partly motivated by the elections that threatened to bring in a new government that would reign in the Black Hand). War would have to be started by Russia, Italy, or France and that means Britain won't be able to enter the war on their side.
 
Top