It might be legally in place, but the situation on the ground in Ulster is the UK's own wildcard. Depending on how things are handled both politically and militarily (if it comes to that) is important and how it plays out might see a significant reshaping the political situation depending on the fallout from it.
WI: WWI Delayed till 1920
- Thread starter iddt3
- Start date
One thing not mentioned this far is Austria. Before WWI if I remember correctly the fastest developing economy was that of Austria and not of Russia. Similarly Austria was the last to begin to reform its military - and Russia was to be done by the more relevant part of his military reform by 1916. Im not sure about the last so I would appreciate correnction or veryfication. So CP's together might be relativly stronger compared to OTL not because of Germany, but because of Austria. And if the Austrians also manage to get rid of Conrad in that 6 years... It couldnt be that hard to find someone not nearly as bad as him?
Regarding the alliance systems:
I think there was already conflict brewing between Russia and Brittain as Russia was not respecting their agreement in regards of Persia. Brittain was also on the brink of reaching an understanding with Germany in regards of the Baghdad railway. Neither can keep up the naval arms race much longer so in the late 10's they could reach a naval agreement. And as Germany cant afford to ignore Russia in the early phase of the war as OTL they cant do a Schlieffen plan meaning likely no drive through Belgium when finally sh*t hits the fan. So Brittain is more likely neutral and very anxious that neither side can really win: if they dont choose a side its vital for them that neither side emerges as a hegemon post war.
Regarding the alliance systems:
I think there was already conflict brewing between Russia and Brittain as Russia was not respecting their agreement in regards of Persia. Brittain was also on the brink of reaching an understanding with Germany in regards of the Baghdad railway. Neither can keep up the naval arms race much longer so in the late 10's they could reach a naval agreement. And as Germany cant afford to ignore Russia in the early phase of the war as OTL they cant do a Schlieffen plan meaning likely no drive through Belgium when finally sh*t hits the fan. So Brittain is more likely neutral and very anxious that neither side can really win: if they dont choose a side its vital for them that neither side emerges as a hegemon post war.
Last edited:
elkarlo
Banned
I mostly agree with this. But AH did have the fasting growing economy. So there's that.
Plus could czarist Russia really make meaningful reforms?
This is the wild card. France and Germany were each yoked to an unstable ally, so that much hung on which volcano erupted first. My guess is it's more likely to be Russia, as AH is right next door to Germany, who can supply troops if worst comes to worst. It would be much harder for France to assist the Tsar in a similar case. In fact, the essential precondition for a stable Europe is an alliance of France with Germany, which would be difficult at best, and impossible while Alsace-Lorraine came between them.
People mention the Russian aviation industry, but other nations have aviation industries too. And other nations aren't practically feudal. Russia may have had the lead in large aircraft in 1914/1915, but Britain, France and Germany at least would have started building up soon after. Just because you prevent WW1 in 1914 doesn't mean you eliminate European nationalism after all.
Probably not. Nicholas II was deeply conservative and stubborn man who couldn't understand how important changes are and he didn't realise that Russia is socially and politically very backward nation compared to other Europeans nations. Beside some technological advantages and abolishment of serfdom Russia hasn't changed much since Napoleonic Wars.
Even as it was, 1900-1914 Russia had a impressive economic trajectory. Absent further reform the growth projections into the 1920s are substantial.
Rasputin was despised by the nobility because he was actually a moderating influence on the Tzar. Nicholas II actually would have done better if he listened to Rasputin more.
But with those extra 6 years you won’t get WW1 as we know it. Germany was willing to go to war against Russia because they viewed Russia as still being weak. But with 6 more years to build up Russia will most likely be stronger (unless it implodes) and if Russia is stronger odds are Germany will put the breaks on. So whatever war breaks out will odds on see different sides
elkarlo
Banned
Good point.
France and Germany were never going to be allies. They have too much history.
Both AH and Russia had some serious potential problems under the surface
elkarlo
Banned
He was also kinda out of touch too. Guy just didn't understand how the world worked.
I don't think he could appoint anyone who'd make any real reforms. As with the post 1905 Dunma he basically stifled all reforms and dragged his feet on everything
elkarlo
Banned
True and possibly. But could Russia free enough people from what was basically share cropping like levels? If not they lose a lot of economic potential like the post war south.
Driftless
Donor
Not just from breaking the trench deadlock, but by more mobile warfare in early days? The front moves faster than endless trenches can be dug?
Without the experience of a continental war to drive it, I don't think that tactical innovations would drive technology (or vice versa) because there's no real reason to change. Even back before '14, successive war plans were more refinements of prior plans than anything else. In OTL nobody learned anything about the primacy of the defense from the Russo-Japanese War or even the Civil Northern War of Aggression between the States.
German spending had been flat from about 1909-10 and GB's spending could go higher if needed. Don't confuse pre-war 'thats expensive' with 'we can't afford it'.
They did have an agreement of sorts from 1912: 8 Battle Squadrons to 5 and this laid out construction through to 1917:
__________1912___1913___1914___1915___1916___1917
Germany_____2______2______3______2______3______2______(14)
GB__________4______5______4______4(3)__4(5)_____4______(25)
Churchill wanted to shift one of the 4 1915 ships to 1916 (bracketed numbers - the Liberals were facing a General Election in 1915 and wanted to push costs to after the election).
The navy was to protect trade and foreign investment so money would be found if it was under threat:
Foreign investment was also accelerating in GB:
Which will back political support for the Navy.
The German navy will stay level through to the next Law Revision due in 1918 after which Tirpitz will have his 3 ships per year tempo set.
By 1920, the RN will be at about £60m per year while the Germans settle on about £30m per year. Far cheaper than the £38B that the warring nations spent on WW1.
German spending had been flat from about 1909-10 and GB's spending could go higher if needed. Don't confuse pre-war 'thats expensive' with 'we can't afford it'.
They did have an agreement of sorts from 1912: 8 Battle Squadrons to 5 and this laid out construction through to 1917:
__________1912___1913___1914___1915___1916___1917
Germany_____2______2______3______2______3______2______(14)
GB__________4______5______4______4(3)__4(5)_____4______(25)
Churchill wanted to shift one of the 4 1915 ships to 1916 (bracketed numbers - the Liberals were facing a General Election in 1915 and wanted to push costs to after the election).
The navy was to protect trade and foreign investment so money would be found if it was under threat:
Foreign investment was also accelerating in GB:
Which will back political support for the Navy.
The German navy will stay level through to the next Law Revision due in 1918 after which Tirpitz will have his 3 ships per year tempo set.
By 1920, the RN will be at about £60m per year while the Germans settle on about £30m per year. Far cheaper than the £38B that the warring nations spent on WW1.
When I said they cant keep it up I didnt simply mean they cant afford it. I also ment that the politicans of neither state will be willing to finance the increased costs. In Germany the SPD is stronger than ever and in London the liberals wanted to spend money on other things than the navy and especially Lloyd George's group was very agitated with the ever increasing demands of the Admirality. Especially if the international ituation is changing and GB is distancing itselfs from Russia.
If nothing else the Pre Dreadnoughts and Armoured Cruisers will be gone by then.