WI:WW1 starts in 1950s

[The new kid]

What if WW1 happened 1950s because alternate Wilhelm II tries to maintain the status quo. Nicholas ii does the same like in OTL .Russia retains it's political system.
Wilhelm II die in 1940 and are succeeded by war hawks who launch war with same alliances as OTL WW1 and schlieffen plan. No tanks or nukes when war begins but can be invented during it

who wins and what are the territorial changes ?

how much will Russian modernization progress by the time war begins ?

 

[Lalli]

There is some issues:

Wilhelm II wa<sn't dictator. Germany was constitutional monarchy wehere much of powe was on hands of Reichtag and kaiser was closer of figurehead than actual all-powerful ruler. War wouldhad begun even if he would had opposed that.

And for Russia it is impossible to maintain authotarian system very long anymore. It is going to tranfer to constitutional monarchy or republic at some point even without WW1 in 1910.

And it is impossible to aboid tanks until 1950's. Nukes might are possible to delay enough but I can't see tanks being same.

So you would have politically very different world without WW1 in 1910's. Things bnot remain as stagnated.

 

[The new kid]

Wilhelm II wa<sn't dictator. Germany was constitutional monarchy wehere much of powe was on hands of Reichtag and kaiser was closer of figurehead than actual all-powerful ruler. War wouldhad begun even if he would had opposed that.

but he has veto power and can stop germany from starting a war and control defense treaties

And for Russia it is impossible to maintain authotarian system very long anymore. It is going to tranfer to constitutional monarchy or republic at some point even without WW1 in 1910.

without war army can crush any revolution. Any reforms are symbolic like in 1905

And it is impossible to aboid tanks until 1950's. Nukes might are possible to delay enough but I can't see tanks being same.

No Tanks without trench warfare. everyone still expects a war like mid 19th century but with better rifles and artillery

 

[stodge]

Given there had been periodic conflicts between European states for most of the preceding 500 years, it seems implausible that we could get to 1950 without some form of inter or intra-state conflict.

The central question is whether, in the absence of the shock of the conflict that occurred in WW1, any of the pre-existing European political power structures (whether autarchic or democratic) could evolve peacefully or whether the only mechanism for change and evolution was going to be conflict.

The political and economic pressures of industrialisation and the development of a defined middle class were already evident long before Princip got his 15 seconds of fame in our TL - could, for example, the demands for political reform in Germany be met without fatally undermining the dynastic power structure? We can theorise a political environment like OTL Singapore where the middle classes put aside their political demands in return for the benefits of continued economic growth but cyclical economic pressures will demand a slow down or recession at some point at which time the political pressures will be re-enforced.

Ignoring the internal dynamics, it's easy to forget the Balkans remained a powder keg - the recent wars involving the Ottomans, Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks, Albanians and others had failed to resolve the power balance in south east Europe and the continued Russian threat to Constantinople (whether direct or in alliance with another Slavic power) remained in existence.

Another Balkan War was inevitable and the question is whether it could or would have drawn Austria-Hungary and Russia into conflict with that spiralling into a general European war via the alliance system. In effect, that's what happened in June 1914 and I suspect would have happened sooner rather than later. The problem was there was no mechanism to prevent a regional conflict becoming a continental conflict.

The only way war could have been prevented would have been internal upheaval and dramatic political change such as we saw in 1918 in OTL. Absent Marxism, we'd have seen the Social Democrats take over in Germany and perhaps (in conjunction with Karl) in Vienna.

I'd also note the potential for political change and upheaval in the more democratic western European countries - Britain was struggling with Ireland and votes for women and France had issues as well.

My thought then is even if you avoid war, you don't avoid conflict and new political structures emerging in the 1920s and 1930s "could" have destabilised Europe into conflict although it's also possible new methods for co-operation and conflict prevention might have emerged as well - a cross between the early European Economic Community and the League of Nations for example.

 

[The new kid]

Given there had been periodic conflicts between European states for most of the preceding 500 years, it seems implausible that we could get to 1950 without some form of inter or intra-state conflict.

let's assume war happens as said who wins and what are the territorial changes ?

new political structures

Germany wasn't that autocratic so political change is not a given. Russia could've retained it's political system with force like OTL. How much will Russian modernization progress by the time war begins ?

 

[David Flin]

What if WW1 happened 1950s because alternate Wilhelm II tries to maintain the status quo. Nicholas ii does the same like in OTL .Russia retains it's political system.

Given the situation in the early part of the 20th Century, it's vanishingly unlikely that there won't be a stumble into war at some point. There were many, many potential flashpoints, and there had been several near-misses before. Not enough people in high places were scared enough of a general war, and sabre-rattling when a crisis came around was par for the course. I once wrote a modest article about a few of these near-misses (some of which would have involved different sides).

It's perfectly possible to sidestep the outbreak of war in August (or June, depending on when you count the start of the war) 1914. I do so in fiction (Building Jerusalem, an 8 book series, of which the first six have been published. Book 1 is Green and Pleasant Land). But the tensions between the various countries are still there, and the lessons that many of them have learned from the previous crises is that if you push and threaten war and sabre-rattle, the other side will blink first. Austria-Hungary had also learned that you can tear up agreements and get away with it (apart from pissing off potential allies who are pushed towards the other camp). What about Japan's growing ambitions in the Pacific? That's going to cause it to bump into issues sooner or later.

The idea that WWI won't have broken out by 1924 at the latest is a vanishingly small chance. There may well be changes of partners along the way, and it may not break out over the Balkans, but when so many people are waving lit matches about in a room filled with gunpowder dust, sooner or later, there's going to be a stroke of bad luck.

And, if we accept that by some miracle, WWI doesn't break out, then there will have been so many butterflies by 1950 that the world will be unrecognisable. Has India become independent? There was the belief that Dominion status leading to Independence was in varying degrees imminent by 1914. Whether and how this develops will be complicated, to put it mildly. How does Home Rule go down in Ireland? Has that been resolved? How do Britain and Russia resolve the issues they had over Persia, and northern Persia in particular? What happens with the development of Socialism throughout Europe? Has decolonisation started? It had in OTL, but in the absence of two world wars shattering Europe, do the European powers maintain a grip? Or do they decide to go down the Dominion-Independence route quicker? Or do the accountants start analysing the cost/benefit equation of keeping certain bits of the world painted a given colour? What about technology? With no WWI, the technological drivers are different. Aircraft design received a huge boost in WWI. On the other hand, there are lots of clever people who in OTL died and who get to live and make changes in technology or art or politics or whatever.

Essentially, if one imposes the restriction WWI doesn't break out and there is "peace" until the 1950s, there are millions of vastly different versions of the 1950s available, and one can pretty much write whatever one wants.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

You might well get some of the more impractical technologies being developed further because they don't get fpund wanting in combat.
Multi turret tanks, flying aircraft carriers, light-tank and tankette-heavy forces. Kind of a steam-punk dream, probably with great variety as nobody has tested out what works and what diesn't.
But you'd also have some effective technologies like semi-auto and automatic rifles having time to be developed, fighters, radar, AA and control systems plus good civil defence measures against the bombers that always get through. Automotive technology would be improved, so tanks in general would be mechanically better, but nobody would know what really worked. I'm thinking stuff that resembles late 1920s and 1930s designs but with welded armour, better reliability, and 1941 guns.
In essence a strange mix of interwar ideas with enough technology to make it possible, but very little tested or proven, and a fair bit of theoretical doctrine that is also untested and unproven.
It should provide good scope for speculation.

 

[Gillan1220]

If a WWI breaks out in the 1950s, that would mean there are huge butterflies of biblical proportions that occurred in the first half of the 20th century. I don't see how this would have happened given the tensions of the European Empires at this time which were essentially locked in their own Cold War.

And, if we accept that by some miracle, WWI doesn't break out, then there will have been so many butterflies by 1950 that the world will be unrecognisable. Has India become independent? There was the belief that Dominion status leading to Independence was in varying degrees imminent by 1914. Whether and how this develops will be complicated, to put it mildly. How does Home Rule go down in Ireland? Has that been resolved? How do Britain and Russia resolve the issues they had over Persia, and northern Persia in particular? What happens with the development of Socialism throughout Europe? Has decolonisation started? It had in OTL, but in the absence of two world wars shattering Europe, do the European powers maintain a grip? Or do they decide to go down the Dominion-Independence route quicker? Or do the accountants start analysing the cost/benefit equation of keeping certain bits of the world painted a given colour? What about technology? With no WWI, the technological drivers are different. Aircraft design received a huge boost in WWI. On the other hand, there are lots of clever people who in OTL died and who get to live and make changes in technology or art or politics or whatever.

I'm definitely curious how decolonization works in this scenario. Since WWI is late by 40 years, does it mean many countries of the world are not yet independent?

For technology, we would probably see OTL equivalents or prototypes that never made the cut.

As you said, completely unrecognizable.

 

[Alanith]

So different as to be unrecognizable. Anything from WW2 on steroids to Germany ends up bringing the allies to their knees in the first 24 hours of the nuclear exchange.

 

[Garrison]

So different as to be unrecognizable. Anything from WW2 on steroids to Germany ends up bringing the allies to their knees in the first 24 hours of the nuclear exchange.

Indeed, you have decades of cultural, political, and scientific development all without the massive influence of WWI and WWII. Is the USA a world power? Does the USSR exist? What happens to the development of aerospace technology? Was there a great depression? Did Fascism gain traction if it didn't? Those are just sample questions, you could ask hundreds of others.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I think any world war in the 1950s would be characterised by extensive use of napalm in addition to poison gas, ensuring this would be among the most miserable conflicts to ever happen. On the bright side, there's probably not much trench warfare in Western Europe since aircraft (even if they're primitive by OTL standards) and artillery will level most fortresses and trenches permitted breakthroughs by armoured cars and probably what we'd recognise as tanks, even if closer to 1930s tanks.

We'd probably have numerous battleships the size of the Yamato at sea, maybe even something approaching 100K tons, but most battleships used by great powers will be akin to Iowa-class in size. Many will have incredibly poor AAA defenses since carriers will be a supplementary sort of ship in most navies, or often mated to cruisers.

If missiles are invented, then things get even more interesting in terms of tech. I think it would be some incredibly bizarre mishmash of weapons and technologies, anything from literal cavalry charges to early Cold War sort of electronics.

 

[The new kid]

I think any world war in the 1950s would be characterised by extensive use of napalm in addition to poison gas, ensuring this would be among the most miserable conflicts to ever happen. On the bright side, there's probably not much trench warfare in Western Europe since aircraft (even if they're primitive by OTL standards) and artillery will level most fortresses and trenches permitted breakthroughs by armoured cars and probably what we'd recognise as tanks, even if closer to 1930s tanks.

We'd probably have numerous battleships the size of the Yamato at sea, maybe even something approaching 100K tons, but most battleships used by great powers will be akin to Iowa-class in size. Many will have incredibly poor AAA defenses since carriers will be a supplementary sort of ship in most navies, or often mated to cruisers.

If missiles are invented, then things get even more interesting in terms of tech. I think it would be some incredibly bizarre mishmash of weapons and technologies, anything from literal cavalry charges to early Cold War sort of electronics.

who will win ?