Max Sinister
Banned
In the last election before WW1, SPD and left liberals cooperated in the constituencies (since Germany still had the majority vote).
WWI delayed by four years
- Thread starter Imperator
- Start date
blysas
Banned
Listen up, stop going off topic. Anyway, If we have all the combants in WW1 staying the same and push then to 1918, then we have a similar war. However, it will be fought with more advanced weapons.No. :1 If we were observing then we would see Germany being pushed back further then she was in OTL on the Eastern front. If the UK dosen't intervene we will evanually see the Germans marching to Moscow.
As for the Great Western front, when and if someone invades begilum, there will be some nasty surprises waiting for them. More defences and more trouble. Whoever wins will have control of Western Europe. Place my bets on the french bleeding the germans dry or no:2 the germans use their heads and skirt along to paris thus avoiding problems.
Also the germans will be more dangerous this round and they will push to Moscow. That I can guarantee for certain.Wheter they can take it or the country impoldes depends on what happenes,
Also please keep on topuc because it seems we go all off on a tangent
As for the Great Western front, when and if someone invades begilum, there will be some nasty surprises waiting for them. More defences and more trouble. Whoever wins will have control of Western Europe. Place my bets on the french bleeding the germans dry or no:2 the germans use their heads and skirt along to paris thus avoiding problems.
Also the germans will be more dangerous this round and they will push to Moscow. That I can guarantee for certain.Wheter they can take it or the country impoldes depends on what happenes,
Also please keep on topuc because it seems we go all off on a tangent
Last edited:
?Any idea how this plays out in Turkey? Four years of rebuilding under the young Turks.
Ottomans keep there European [Balkan] Holdings
continued SLOW immigration under the Zionists
Continued Ottoman control of Mesopotamia, Means less strain on the Omani control of Persia,
OTOH it was the new Phalivi Shah in 1921 that banned the Burka, and started Irans aggressive modernization program
No French Syria, or British Jordon
Eygpt remains part of the Ottomans [Technially at lest]
Ottomans keep there European [Balkan] Holdings
continued SLOW immigration under the Zionists
Continued Ottoman control of Mesopotamia, Means less strain on the Omani control of Persia,
OTOH it was the new Phalivi Shah in 1921 that banned the Burka, and started Irans aggressive modernization program
No French Syria, or British Jordon
Eygpt remains part of the Ottomans [Technially at lest]
well here's what i think would happen given that the reason for war and there for the participants are the same with the exception of britain that stays neutral due to less tentions with germany (won the naval race) and no german invasion of belgium.
all nations involved have improved there economy and military to a certain degree but economically speaking the nation with the bigest growth rate % are russia followed by austria with germany a little behind that and still further behind that france.
militarily speaking the most improvment in over all in quantity and quality of the army goes to germany as it has to give up the naval race and focuses on army instead they get the division reforms and the reserve reforms and get more and better artilery and more troops altough not so much maybe an extra army core or 2 but over all all these improvements i feel would give them just a slightly bigger improvment as either russia or france.
russia is most defenetly second here the sheer improvment in numbers alone is
cause for this as i feel that the overall strenght of each division both organisation wise and firepower wise would't change that much.
france and austria are a tossup while france defenetly had some improvments comming as mentioned more and better artillery the austrian army has more room for improvment and with germany as there main allie defenetly some one that could help them improve there army alote i have not enough insite into what possible improvments the austrians could have made as to comment on it.
but for the sake of the debate i will asume that they have about the same improvment rate to there army as france does or a little below that.
basicaly my conclousion that while russia was some what colseing the gap in terms of economics it will be no where near enough to replace the loss of british support and militarily while britain in OTL might not have been that important in the beginning it latter added greatly to the over all army strenght of the entente (note i am talking about army no one could ever doudt the strenght of the royal navy)
so basicaly i see france running up agains well prepaired defences bleeding them self dry and russia faceing the bulk of both the german and the austrian army's and altough they can propbarly match that in sheer numbers they lack the needed quality trough the ranks to seriously defeat both these armys on a constant bases.
also with britain truely neutral there might be other neutrals that are rather hostily to some of the participants that might want to jump in i am thinking here mainly of sweden and japan.
while neither on its own would be a threat to any of the powers (except japan at sea) they might be the nail in the coffin of the bear.
all in all i perdict russia surrenders by autum 1919 or spring 1920, not long after france has to seu for peace 2.
note( this all is based on the german high commands asumption that 1914 would be the last date that the von shliefen plan can work due to russian rail network upgrades being made and there for it has been abandoned)
all nations involved have improved there economy and military to a certain degree but economically speaking the nation with the bigest growth rate % are russia followed by austria with germany a little behind that and still further behind that france.
militarily speaking the most improvment in over all in quantity and quality of the army goes to germany as it has to give up the naval race and focuses on army instead they get the division reforms and the reserve reforms and get more and better artilery and more troops altough not so much maybe an extra army core or 2 but over all all these improvements i feel would give them just a slightly bigger improvment as either russia or france.
russia is most defenetly second here the sheer improvment in numbers alone is
cause for this as i feel that the overall strenght of each division both organisation wise and firepower wise would't change that much.
france and austria are a tossup while france defenetly had some improvments comming as mentioned more and better artillery the austrian army has more room for improvment and with germany as there main allie defenetly some one that could help them improve there army alote i have not enough insite into what possible improvments the austrians could have made as to comment on it.
but for the sake of the debate i will asume that they have about the same improvment rate to there army as france does or a little below that.
basicaly my conclousion that while russia was some what colseing the gap in terms of economics it will be no where near enough to replace the loss of british support and militarily while britain in OTL might not have been that important in the beginning it latter added greatly to the over all army strenght of the entente (note i am talking about army no one could ever doudt the strenght of the royal navy)
so basicaly i see france running up agains well prepaired defences bleeding them self dry and russia faceing the bulk of both the german and the austrian army's and altough they can propbarly match that in sheer numbers they lack the needed quality trough the ranks to seriously defeat both these armys on a constant bases.
also with britain truely neutral there might be other neutrals that are rather hostily to some of the participants that might want to jump in i am thinking here mainly of sweden and japan.
while neither on its own would be a threat to any of the powers (except japan at sea) they might be the nail in the coffin of the bear.
all in all i perdict russia surrenders by autum 1919 or spring 1920, not long after france has to seu for peace 2.
note( this all is based on the german high commands asumption that 1914 would be the last date that the von shliefen plan can work due to russian rail network upgrades being made and there for it has been abandoned)
i dont know if that was already said because i dont have to time to read all through this but whatever....
i strongly disagree that the russians even with 4 years progress in industrialisation would have been able to defeat the germans.
brest-litovsk was not about a lack of industrialisation. the red army 30 years later was able to stop the german attack with an army that was bitterly unefficient where every second soldier didnt even have a weapon etc. this was similar in 1914 but-standing alone- was not the reason russia lost the war in 1917. russia never head a big problem with swallowing invasion armies as a whole as long as they were men fighting for their motherland.....at some time the reserves of the enemy were depleted and he had to defeat....the svedes, the french, the germans in 1942/43....its all the same priciple.
no, the reason fpr bresk-litovsk was, that the average russian soldier was a famer who was convinced that he was fighting in a war, e.g. risking his own life, from which he would not profit, and deserted en masse. 1917, most trenches were empty. thats the reason they lost, not that they hadnt anough rifles or shells.
i strongly disagree that the russians even with 4 years progress in industrialisation would have been able to defeat the germans.
brest-litovsk was not about a lack of industrialisation. the red army 30 years later was able to stop the german attack with an army that was bitterly unefficient where every second soldier didnt even have a weapon etc. this was similar in 1914 but-standing alone- was not the reason russia lost the war in 1917. russia never head a big problem with swallowing invasion armies as a whole as long as they were men fighting for their motherland.....at some time the reserves of the enemy were depleted and he had to defeat....the svedes, the french, the germans in 1942/43....its all the same priciple.
no, the reason fpr bresk-litovsk was, that the average russian soldier was a famer who was convinced that he was fighting in a war, e.g. risking his own life, from which he would not profit, and deserted en masse. 1917, most trenches were empty. thats the reason they lost, not that they hadnt anough rifles or shells.
I don't subscribe to the idea of drastically political change in Imperial Germany within 4 years. Even today in a small democratic European country constitutional change isn't something you snap out of the blue. Remember even though SPD was ascending in 1914, people of that age had another perception of duty and the authority of Monarchy.
For this I don't see major changes in German political life in 4 years time.
As already mentioned the German General Staff did realize that it was time to change their strategic plans. I don't recall his name but the Head of Army Railway Office of the General Staff was enraged at the claim that when the mobilization had been started the trains had to go west. Within 2 weeks he had his office draw up plans to show that a move to the East could be undertaken if that had been the decision! It was then possible for the Germans to go east instead of west.
With 4 years of planning and new timetables for the Railroads, the hilly Alsace-Lorraine could have been fortified beyond Thionville, Metz, Strassbourg and Neu Breisach for the French to bleed themselves on.
The Naval Race would be over by 1916 with Germany de facto yielding to Britain, even if still building a few odd dreadnoughts or battle-cruisers.
In the East the primary German objectives in Russia IMHO would be Warsaw, Lodz and Riga. Then they'd propably go for St. Petersburg through the Baltic States.
The German Army had fielded their Air Force in 1912, so that would develop also over the years.
This new German strategy (if adopted) would of course mean no German invasion of Belgium and probably make Britain stay neutral or non-bellingerent.
Other issues of importance would be the death of Emperor Franz-Josef in 1916, and the resulting A-H politics and the possible Italian defection from the Triple Alliance in 1917 (correct me if i'm wrong, but the Alliance was formed in 1882 and would be re-newed every 5 years) so that year could be of importance.
The Serbs would still yearn for a Greater Serbia and every now and then pick at the A-H or one of their neighbors. Or Italy might try to carve out something for themselves on the Adriatic coast leading to a major crisis. Russia could have a new go on the Straits. Problem in the Balkans could be if somebody got going for Salonika - that could bring Britain into the Game. And now we just avoided that - didn't we???
For this I don't see major changes in German political life in 4 years time.
As already mentioned the German General Staff did realize that it was time to change their strategic plans. I don't recall his name but the Head of Army Railway Office of the General Staff was enraged at the claim that when the mobilization had been started the trains had to go west. Within 2 weeks he had his office draw up plans to show that a move to the East could be undertaken if that had been the decision! It was then possible for the Germans to go east instead of west.
With 4 years of planning and new timetables for the Railroads, the hilly Alsace-Lorraine could have been fortified beyond Thionville, Metz, Strassbourg and Neu Breisach for the French to bleed themselves on.
The Naval Race would be over by 1916 with Germany de facto yielding to Britain, even if still building a few odd dreadnoughts or battle-cruisers.
In the East the primary German objectives in Russia IMHO would be Warsaw, Lodz and Riga. Then they'd propably go for St. Petersburg through the Baltic States.
The German Army had fielded their Air Force in 1912, so that would develop also over the years.
This new German strategy (if adopted) would of course mean no German invasion of Belgium and probably make Britain stay neutral or non-bellingerent.
Other issues of importance would be the death of Emperor Franz-Josef in 1916, and the resulting A-H politics and the possible Italian defection from the Triple Alliance in 1917 (correct me if i'm wrong, but the Alliance was formed in 1882 and would be re-newed every 5 years) so that year could be of importance.
The Serbs would still yearn for a Greater Serbia and every now and then pick at the A-H or one of their neighbors. Or Italy might try to carve out something for themselves on the Adriatic coast leading to a major crisis. Russia could have a new go on the Straits. Problem in the Balkans could be if somebody got going for Salonika - that could bring Britain into the Game. And now we just avoided that - didn't we???
They are on topic: 'what if the Great War broke out four years later?' Nothing in the original post stated specifically that we had to exclusively discuss technological developments. That's just what you want to talk about, and it's fair game to talk about it as well as anything else regarding a delayed WW1.
In any case: it's four years of peace. How much technological development can there be?
I agree with this as it has been pointed out that tanks in warfare are better than those built in peacetime. You know exactly what you want to do with them in the former whilst those of the latter have to cover more than one scenario.
Assuming that the Germans build the Hindenburg Line along the Franco-German border, the obvious French counter would be to develop heavier artillery for cracking it open for the cold steel to break through. Some wise acres may suggest mounting light guns on tracks, but logic tells you that bigger is better. Besides the vehicles are never going to climb over the defences.
Instead the new super guns are mounted on trains. Furthermore new rail laying units are formed so the guns are no longer limited to the existing network. Instead new spurs can be built at record rates.
By the time the wise acres are proved right and the French get working "chars" the war will be over. In the new era of peace no serious army is going to put much development in them (I won't say none becaue the wise acres are still writing theories on how to use them)
Thus compared OTL, armoured warfare is going to be at least ten years behind the curve if not more.
Generally IMHO technology wouldn't advance that far, except that the aircraft would slowly enter the armed forces for recce and artillery spotting. These task' would also be carried out by airships - as there would be no major conflict you wouldn't have the incentive to advance weapons technology.
The French did realize the need to counter German fortifications in A-L and issued stocks of grenades for their troops.
Some kind of siege artillery would be developed by the French to counter the German fortifications in the Vosges. This in turn would lead to some German countermeasure, in how to stay alive in the combat zone being shelled by big monster guns AND keeping the enemy from advancing. Perhaps an emphasis on semi-automatic rifles and mortars. But also on infantry tactics to quickly infiltrate into enemy lines, cutting off strong-points and reducing these. Yes, a kind of Stoss-truppen used in defense.
Concerning tanks nobody would probably think of these except one canny Austrian army officer and development wouldn't start until needed. But German countermeasures would also count here, especially in artillery anti-tank fire.
Considering technological development, that would depend on smaller wars that might be fought in the meantime. If a european power had to fight a small colonial war, where they use aircraft, that could show the use of this new technology, maybe they start to build up bomber squadrons, because they worked so wellagainst some african tribes.
I could also think of a war that starts with gas rather than seeing its development in the war. Maybe again gas is used in a colonial war, and the powers decide to make it illegal to use in combat?
I could also think of a war that starts with gas rather than seeing its development in the war. Maybe again gas is used in a colonial war, and the powers decide to make it illegal to use in combat?
As far as I remember the Italians used aeroplanes in Libya in 1911. It really didn't make headlines. Probably experience gained fighting natives wouldn't suffice for a change of European military thought. Just think of the attitude towards ACW in Europe.
Gas was used pre-war by Police to clear mobs. Military units were not considered mobs. I don't think that would make it into military minds, also regarding the above.
Perhaps armies could be more motorized, especially recce troops. I read once that German recce 1914 were a mix of cavalry, motorcycles and cars. Perhaps the assembly line could work its way into especially Germany, providing for more and cheaper motorization. That would appeal to German military minds - speed. Another possibility is radio sets. That would change the command and control aspect of military leadership. Important technological changes!
Will the Germans automatically go east just because they realise they can't win fast enough in the west?
The entire point of going west was to just have a one front war, if they concede that they will need to fight a two front war they still might think the French one can be won easiest or quickest (just because the quick knock out blow doesn't work doesn't mean they won't win through a bit of a grind, of course this is scuppered by the strength of the defence but a WW1 stalemate wasn't viewed as the likely outcome i.e. home by Christmas and all that).
The entire point of going west was to just have a one front war, if they concede that they will need to fight a two front war they still might think the French one can be won easiest or quickest (just because the quick knock out blow doesn't work doesn't mean they won't win through a bit of a grind, of course this is scuppered by the strength of the defence but a WW1 stalemate wasn't viewed as the likely outcome i.e. home by Christmas and all that).
its rather simple would you rely on the austrians to stop the russians for a longer amoount of time if you where the germans? depend on the austrian army and a few reserves to keep the russians from berlin?
no way
its simple they know they have to do most of the work thats why they go for the russians first if they know they can't win fast.
no way
its simple they know they have to do most of the work thats why they go for the russians first if they know they can't win fast.
The rationale for the Schlieffen plan was to kick France out of the war before Russia were able to send it's mobilized armies west. According to russian railway capacity and mobilization scheme Schlieffen needed 6 weeks in the west for his campaign. That was the perception in 1906 after the Russo-Japanese war.
1914 the Germans knew the gap was closing, but they didn't believe and neither did France that Russia would throw her armies west before conclusion of mobilization. That was what made Molkte send 2 corps East...
But as already mentioned it was possible for the Germans to move east before Russia had gone through mobilization and remain on the defensive in the west. But the time was ripe for a new German strategy in 1914.
"britain that stays neutral due to less tentions with germany (won the naval race) and no german invasion of belgium."
I'm not so sure. In 1914 it were the Liberals who needed to be persuaded to go to war by Germany's invasion of Belgium.
But 1914 was also the year of the Irish Home Rule Bill. It's highly likely that the Liberal cabinet would have fallen over that little dust-up and be replaced by a Conservative one.
The Conservatives were a lot more ready to join the war against Germany than the Liberals.
I'm not so sure. In 1914 it were the Liberals who needed to be persuaded to go to war by Germany's invasion of Belgium.
But 1914 was also the year of the Irish Home Rule Bill. It's highly likely that the Liberal cabinet would have fallen over that little dust-up and be replaced by a Conservative one.
The Conservatives were a lot more ready to join the war against Germany than the Liberals.
I do not necessarily disagree I simply say that the changes to German political and social life had been happening for some time before 1914 nd were interrupted by the war.
