WI: WWI Delayed till 1920

In regards to air travel, once you get beyond 30,000 lb ground weight for land based aircraft then they need concrete runways which is a considerable infrastructure investment. This isn't an issue for flying boats and you just need a large lake. You will probably have railways investing in air travel as they already have the market and know how for 'travel' sector while money would be easy to come by unlike OTL.
Well the loaded weight of the Ilya Muromets was ~12,000 lb, so plenty of room to grow. In fact, none of the WW1 heavy bombers hit even half that weight, so yeah, I think, for the time being, that that particular point won't be much of an issue.
 
Ok, so a few countries including Russia will have bigger aircraft with better range. And better use of sea planes and such And a lot of newer technology in war ships and a lot of new battleships. So basically the German Fleet is in WORSE shape and the Zeppelin is not as useful.

So why would the war happen? Did everyone in Germany go insane? And without German how does this become a world war? France may want to join in but if Germany declares itself Neutral then France can’t easily get anyplace and has no excuse to attack Germany and without that if they tried to attack Germany everyone would turn against them.

England is not getting involved if Germany is not aggressive and sure won’t if France starts the war.

So how do you even HAVE World War 1 without Germany and England? And probably not France?
 
A wild card for Russia: does Tsarevitch Alexei survive to 1920? That could impact both the Tsar's frame of mind and the political situation if he dies by some misadventure tied to his haemophilia.
This would lead to a return to an Heir Presumptive as was the case before the Tsarevith was born in 1904 with the Tsar's brother Grand Duke Michael. What were his views on diplomatic and foreign concerns of Russia?
 
The Alliance system was originally based on Bismarcks attempt to isolate France and avoid a two-front war. Wilhelm II's over-confidence in the Schleiffen Plan as a means to win a two-front war, and his underestimating of his personal influence over his cousin Nicholas II, leads him to end the non aggression pact with Russia and rely on the public Triple Alliance to keep Russia out of any war Germany may have to fight against France, as well as with his relatives in Britain whom he wrongly assumed would not fight on the continent.

But by 1920, Italy, which waned at the outbreak of War in 1914 and eventually joined the Allies in 1915, might no longer be allied to Germany and Austria-Hungary. They may even be allied with France over her shared rival interests against Austria-Hungary in Southern Europe. An Emperor Franz Ferdinand will be dealing with internal ethnic issues, and though he most likely will stay allied with Germany because of a possible threat on its eastern border against Russia, and former ally Italy now possibly on opposing sides, he would likely not want to risk any aggressive moves in the Balkans that may threaten a war to both his eastern and southern borders.

Germany may need to rethink its strategy without Italy, whom they will have lost as a prospective ally at France's southern border, and consider toning down their naval and colonial rivalry with Britain in an attempt to keep her from joining with Russia in any alliance against them. This could be feasible because Russia by 1920 may pose a threat to the British in areas such as Afghanistan, the Middle East, and of course how the British might deem Russia to be a threat to their Empire's crown jewel colony of India.

Maybe if things hold off till 1920, common sense, which was completely absent it seems in 1914, will prevail in 1920.
 
Last edited:
if Italy switch sides and Russia becomes too strong Germany and Britain would become allies in order to keep the Power Balance. the Portuguese Empire has been petitioned between Germany and Britain in this world. I can see French and British relations being at a low. the warlord era in China is now in full swing to Russia France Japan Britain and possibly Germany will be carving up China with warlords thay support.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand will most likely be Emperor and a strong friend of Wilhelm II will most likely remain allies.

the British Russians and French will be circling the Ottoman Empire looking for potential weaknesses or have already exploited said weaknesses to their advantage leading to a civil war or a collapse of the state this could be your spark for the world war you want but I think Germany at this point would have written them off

if the Armenians Kurds Arabs and Palestinians all rise up at once or in quick succession there will be no point in trying to prop up the Ottoman Empire especially with three other great Powers trying to rip it down to the ground.

basically if you delayed World War end game colonialism begins Italy most likely tries again invading Ethiopia European powers intervene in Chinese warlord era and the ottoman Empire's most likely going through Rebellion / Civil War due to foreign support for Rebel groups you might see Bulgaria actually tried to take advantage of this and declare war on the Ottoman Empire also in my opinion I can see Home rule becoming a bloody affair

you might see a world war at the end of the 1920s look at the beginning there too much stuff that is going on in my opinion
 
This is starting to look like a ghastly clusterfcuk.

Nation A builds 1 battleship.
Nations B and C must each build a pair of battleships.
Nation D must build 3 battleships to beat Nation C.
Nation B must build 5 battleships to beat Nations D and C.

Nation A builds another battleship...

Dollars will kick in eventually. If not for the price of ships, for the price of enlarged infrastructure to support the ever growing ships. The only surety is that the Brits will out build everyone except maybe the Americans because they can afford to skimp on their army.

Someone mentioned motorizing armed forces above. Who would be doing it? The Brits leap out with their small army and secure oil supplies. I can see potential interest on the continent but no one can afford it beyond light horse type units. It is certainly more realistic than tanks.
 

Driftless

Donor
Someone mentioned motorizing armed forces above. Who would be doing it? The Brits leap out with their small army and secure oil supplies. I can see potential interest on the continent but no one can afford it beyond light horse type units. It is certainly more realistic than tanks.

Big IF.... The US starts to ramp up its ground forces by 1920, then mechanization might pick up there. Even the woebegone Pancho Villa Expeditionary Force of 1916-17 was a mix of automotive and horse units. The US Army had tested 4x4 cars as early as 1912, so there's some precedent there.

*edit* From an old FourWheeler magazine article:
129_1206_05%2bjune_2012_backward_glances%2bscout_car


In a stroke of luck, FWD was able to demonstrate one of its touring cars to a U.S. Army officer doing research on the military use of motor vehicles. Captain A.E. Williams was impressed and astute enough to know that if the U.S. Army was going to motorize, four-wheel-drive had best be a part of the picture. As a result, FWD sold the army its first 4x4 vehicle in late 1911 for use in a 1912 cross-country test from Washington D.C. to Ft. Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. The army bought a stripped touring car chassis, fitted it with an escort wagon rear body and called it a truck. Loaded with up to 2,000 pounds of gear, it finished that 1,500-mile torture test in 1912, proving the utility of four-wheel drive.
 
Last edited:
Russia better, Austria better, France worse.

Pages 176-177 of The Real German War Plan – 1904-14 by Terence Zuber
Had war not broken out in 1914, the European military arms race would have continued with increased intensity. The Three Years’ Law was the last gasp for the French army; no further French manpower increases were possible. In fact, there was significant opposition to the Three Years’ Law and the German 1914 intelligence estimate speculated that the French might not be able to maintain it. The Russian Great Programme would have increased the size of their peacetime army and its deployment speed.

The Austro-Germans had lost the arms race to this point, but there was every indication that they recognized the danger of their position, and the Austro-Germans had plenty of room for improvement. Between mid-August and mid-October 1914 the Germans had enough untrained manpower to easily raise six new reserve corps (about 180,000 men). What the Germans lacked was the time and cadres to train them adequately. If the Germans were given the opportunity in peacetime to add just six more trained corps to their order of battle—and the passing of the Russian Great Programme in June 1914 would surely have forced the Germans to do so (even the German socialists hated and feared the Tsarist government) – then the strategic situation would have been radically altered. The addition of six corps (12 divisions) would have fundamentally changed the German strategic calculus, which in 1914 was based on the fact the Germans would be outnumbered on both fronts. The Germans would have been able to deploy eighty divisions in the west against some sixty-three French. The French would not have been able to convince themselves – as they did in 1914 – that they at least had a numerical parity and that it was practical to launch an offensive.

The French might have been forced to adopt a strategic defensive outright; if the French had attacked, there was a good chance it would be a spectacular failure. A German attack would have had a far greater chance of quick success. Under these circumstances, the Russians would have been far from enthusiastic for an attack on East Prussia. Six more German corps would have derailed the Franco-Russian plan for simultaneous attacks on Germany. The Germans would have gained the strategic initiative. Due to Germany’s interior position and rail net, they would have been free to mass at one front or another, at the time and place of their choosing. Giving the German army the initiative was the recipe for a Franco-Russian catastrophe.

The strategic situation in 1914 was optimal for the Entente. The German position was nearing a ‘worst possible case’ scenario. It was very much in the Franco-Russian interest to fight in 1914, when Germany was still faced with the prospect of being outnumbered on both fronts. In the near future that might no longer have been true.
 
So the French man power crunch happens 20 years earlier. Fortifications remain the obvious solution and the French have to be a bit more humble. I am not seeing the problem.
 
So the French man power crunch happens 20 years earlier. Fortifications remain the obvious solution and the French have to be a bit more humble. I am not seeing the problem.

France is effectively neutralized, the Germans can focus solely on the Russians or do as IOTL and mob the French with superior numbers and logistics.
 
The immediate cause of Ottoman entry won't be there, so they might jump either way, or stay neutral.
One challenge the rest of the world has in matters naval is the sheer number of BIG ships the USA can build at once. Six Lexingtons AND six South Dakotas on the ways at the same time, with Washington already launched.
Also, I suspect that the USA, at least, will experiment with motorization even more; motor vehicles are cheaper to maintain, and don't eat when not in use.
 
France is effectively neutralized, the Germans can focus solely on the Russians or do as IOTL and mob the French with superior numbers and logistics.
And that is a bad thing?
A France that can't afford to champ at the bit for revanche is probably a good thing. Focused on defense France might prove to be able to respond more appropriately than their OTL effort.

And as France declines in relevance to Germany, Russia is increasingly industrialized and threatening. As was mentioned earlier, maybe even enough to make Britain rethink its priorities.
 
The Liberal Party's response to the "We want eight and we won't wait" press-driven public outcry led to one of my favorite Churchill quotes: "The Admiralty had demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight."
and the Empire threw in an additional two (New Zealand and Australia).
 
And that is a bad thing?
A France that can't afford to champ at the bit for revanche is probably a good thing. Focused on defense France might prove to be able to respond more appropriately than their OTL effort.

And as France declines in relevance to Germany, Russia is increasingly industrialized and threatening. As was mentioned earlier, maybe even enough to make Britain rethink its priorities.

Wasn't ruling on it either way, just posting the information concerning it.
 
Ok, so a few countries including Russia will have bigger aircraft with better range. And better use of sea planes and such And a lot of newer technology in war ships and a lot of new battleships. So basically the German Fleet is in WORSE shape and the Zeppelin is not as useful.
It's more than that. With more effective bombers, you could easily see them going after railways and other transport links, and also see the adoption of the idea of paratroops.
 
Here is the impact of war on GB's GDP, wow look at that increase over the blue dashed line of pre war trend!
vWKZ4Cw.jpg


If we adjust for inflation (dashed Orange line).
h9YHgEE.jpg

The war knocked off 15 years of GDP. 1930 is the new 1945?

Russia, 20 years lost population (blue pre-war trend)?
adf9bC7.jpg


The pre-war explosion in innovation in aircraft types that collapsed during the war?
6jA0C7m.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's more than that. With more effective bombers, you could easily see them going after railways and other transport links, and also see the adoption of the idea of paratroops.

Or that the Hague Peace Convention, due in 1915, would seek to set rules on the military use of airpower just as the 1907 Convention had focused on Naval.

Article XIV - Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/245?OpenDocument
 
Last edited:
Dollars will kick in eventually. If not for the price of ships, for the price of enlarged infrastructure to support the ever growing ships. The only surety is that the Brits will out build everyone except maybe the Americans because they can afford to skimp on their army.

The cost of battleships by the ton is pretty flat from 1900 - 1914 and would continue.
ATGWqTO.jpg


dh6ajNi.jpg

The French have invested in large docks up to 130 ft wide, GB settled for 110ft. Germans are limited by the Wilhelmshaven Locks.
 
Last edited:
Top