WI: WWI Delayed till 1920

[Tibi088]

1) I mentioned Austria and their position is worse of all. Sure, they will have some new artillery but they also face many rivals who are all expanding as well. They have Serbia and Romania to the south and Italy to the west to deal with even before turning to a greatly expanded Russia. The planned Austrian expansion is barely enough to deal with Serbia, let alone their many other rivals

And thats nothing they had not to deal with OTL. Instead they army will be much better prepared for it and hopefully not led by an idiot. And through I dont pretend that im familiar with the extent of planned austrian and serbian military reform I have my doubts that the Austrian army facing the serbians alone wouldnt win. Serbia acquired macedonia that was a pretty poor territory and not too densly populated either. Austria had much greater untapped potental than that, economically, population wise and in railways.

2) If Germany abandons the Schlieffen plan? For what? Some batshit nonsense of East First? Seriously, the Germans hate that idea no matter how many fans it has on this board. The Germans are right- East first would result in the Russians declining battle until they are ready to deal the knockout blow to Austria and France quickly over runs the Rhinelan

OTL Schlieffen plan was a huge gamble. To try it later with a much faster Russian mobilization is on the batshit crazy side. They wont try it because they will see it as impossible not because they would not like to avoid a 2 front war. And on regards of the East first idea: there has been long threads of discussion on this forume about it - lets say yours is just an opinion of the many and not the most supported one. Whats more Germany had numerous Ostaufmarsch plans in the years before 1914 - up to 1913 and they may resume them after Schlieffen plan becomes obsolote. Not to mention that East first doesnt leave the Rhineland and western Germany undefended. The Franco-German border was on both sides very well fortified. And Russia becoming suddenly competent and abandoning its aggressive warplans towards Germany is unlikely. Not to mention that OTL the quality of the russian army proved to be severly overestimated by all sides.

3) Great Britain isn't abandoning France for Germany. If Britain tried to move towards Germany, she is likely to see the Russians and the Germans kiss and make up and face a united continent. How does Britain help Germany? The Germans are looking at 200 French and Russian divisions on their border in three weeks, do you think they give a rat's ass about Britain's six? The last thing the British want is for the victorious Franco-Russian coalition to turn on Britain

there's a reason the British reject the idea of a German alliance in 1902. Nothing has changed to make the idea any better. That Germany is likely to lose a continental war only makes the idea worse

The germans and russian cant kiss for the simple reason they didnt earlier: Russia is dependent on french money, and France wont ally Germany because of A-L. That simple fact makes a continental block opposing Brittain impossible.
I didnt propose Brittain joining Germany but Brittain remaining neutral. And in the course of the war the british brought a bit more to the table than 6 divisions, including the blocade I already mentioned.

But back to diplomacy: Russian-british relations started to sour OTL before WWI and Germany and Brittain were on the way to settle some of their differences (Baghdad railway). And I dont think an agreement on the fleets by 1920 is out of the question. Also, according to your logic Brittain should have made its peace/allied with both Napoleon and the Nazi's. History doesnt seem to agree with you. As I see it Brittain doesnt want a hegemon on the continent - be it called Germany, France or Russia.

4) Japan? What on Earth is Japan going to do for Germany? If Japan attacks, doubtful, the Russians will simply ignore them until they defeat Germany. After Berlin is occupied and the German fleet turned over, defeating Japan would be icing on the cake

I have thrown Japan in more as a question and stated it may join either side for easy pickings. Please read my comments before trying to answer them.

Diplomatically, the interesting thing would have been Franz Ferdinand. He always advocated a peaceful policy and reconciliation with Russia. In the 1890s, he cahmpioned Beck's proposal to split the Balkans. Roughly, this would give Russia Romania, Bulgaria and the straits while Austria got Serbia, Montenegro and Albania. The problem is that by 1914 such a simple division is no longer possible

And how is this interesting if you yourself acknowledge that partitioning the Balkans at that point would be impossible?

 

[DougM]

A 1920 WW1 will look nothing like WW1 because
A Russia will be a lot different.
B. You will have different leadership in AH
C. Germany is going to be MUCH less likely to get involved as they New in 1914 the window was closing on them.
D. The US will be ramping up (not as fast without the money from selling supplies in WW1 but still pretty fast)
E. The Navy’s of the powers will look a LOT different as technology and financial issues will effect the sizes of these Navy’s in various ways.
F. Better communication via radio will change a lot of things
G. Probably a lot of things I am not think of here.

 

[Driftless]

^
^
^
H. Those who can mechanize more completely will have an advantage. (Think of how horse dependent the Germans were in WW2, and the Soviets would have been but for LL)

 

[Mark1878]

^
^
^
H. Those who can mechanize more completely will have an advantage. (Think of how horse dependent the Germans were in WW2, and the Soviets would have been but for LL)

Yes but too early for anyone to do that . As you note Russia and Germany failed to do that by 1940.

The leader will be as otl the US followed by UK but I doubt that us doable until say another 10 years.

Eisenhower transcontinental automobile expedition was in otl 1919 so might be a year or two earlier but not eno to.e to ramp up production.

 

[Driftless]

Yes but too early for anyone to do that . As you note Russia and Germany failed to do that by 1940.

The leader will be as otl the US followed by UK but I doubt that us doable until say another 10 years.

Eisenhower transcontinental automobile expedition was in otl 1919 so might be a year or two earlier but not eno to.e to ramp up production.

I'm thinking just basic light trucks: Model T types on the bottom end(available 1908?) to FWD (and similar) military grade 4x4's Those were available in quantity by 1917. The US military had fairly tested a 4x4 made by Badger Motors as early as 1912. I'm not knoweldgeable about British or French trucks of the the 1910's, but I would expect they had comparable vehicles. Adolphe Kegresse had made a number of half-track cars and trucks for the Tsar and the Russian leadership before the OTL war.

Those vehicles would be available for the logistic role; supplies & personnel carriers. I think in this 1920 World War universe, you're not seeing much beyond a few armored cars and those likely fielded by colonial powers or countries with civil unrest

 

[John Roscommon]

A lot will depend on the flashpoint. In 1914 the assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't a cause of war, it was an excuse for the Austrian Army to launch a war that they wanted against Serbia. Will another round of Balkan wars occur prior to '20 that change that dynamic? From what I've read from contemporary sources, Serbia was pretty much a pariah if not a rogue state. I think that it's possible that any move by Serbia to create a pan-Slavic state might run up against a Russia who would try to rein them in rather that risk a Great Power war.

 

[cpip]

A lot will depend on the flashpoint. In 1914 the assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't a cause of war, it was an excuse for the Austrian Army to launch a war that they wanted against Serbia. Will another round of Balkan wars occur prior to '20 that change that dynamic? From what I've read from contemporary sources, Serbia was pretty much a pariah if not a rogue state. I think that it's possible that any move by Serbia to create a pan-Slavic state might run up against a Russia who would try to rein them in rather that risk a Great Power war.

On the other hand, if the balance of power has indeed shifted sufficiently towards Russia, why wouldn't they want to wield that to intimidate the Germans?

 

[John Roscommon]

On the other hand, if the balance of power has indeed shifted sufficiently towards Russia, why wouldn't they want to wield that to intimidate the Germans?

The Russians and the Germans have no critical areas of direct conflict and the Germans are only indirectly involved in Russia's Balkan ambitions due to their alliance with the Dual Monarchy. Germany doesn't have anything the Russians need or want in terms of territory or influence.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

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?

OTL Conrad died in 1925 of natural causes, so he's likely retired prior to 1920. As the driving force behind Austro-Hungarian army modernization (both prewar when Franz Joseph refused to provide the needed funds, and durring the war where he was able to finally implement numerous far reaching reforms which significantly improved the performance of the Austrian Army) he likely has a very successful peacetime career* and ends up fondly remembered much like Jackie Fisher is.

*possibly paired with a footnote career durring the war

 

[anotherlurker]

The Russians and the Germans have no critical areas of direct conflict and the Germans are only indirectly involved in Russia's Balkan ambitions due to their alliance with the Dual Monarchy. Germany doesn't have anything the Russians need or want in terms of territory or influence.

Why would that stay the same as Russia grows more powerful? Having an unopposed exit from the Baltic Sea looks to me as desireable as having unopposed exit form the Black Sea. Russia is expanding in all directions at that time, what's keeping them from eyeing Germany as they did the Ottomans? As an example of someone who wants something from Germany we have France, they tried repeatedly to gain the Ruhr industrial region.

 

[DougM]

But if you use the idea that Russia wants something from Germany then you cast Germany as the defender and Russia as the aggressor. And that alone will so radically change the war as to make it unrecognizable. This could very well butterfly the whole thing so much that England stays out, As England is not going to feel obligated to honor a defensive treaty with Russia and France if the attack Germany for political/territorial gains.
And without England German territory outside Europe is safe. And the US tending to side with the defender will be more then willing to supply (well sell) to Germany and you don’t have England and it’s Navy stoping this. So Germany will be fighting a defensive war against only Two countries and will be able to get materials from the US for as long as it’s money holds out.

So any war at this point will be drastically different then traditional WW1

 

[cpip]

But if you use the idea that Russia wants something from Germany then you cast Germany as the defender and Russia as the aggressor. And that alone will so radically change the war as to make it unrecognizable. This could very well butterfly the whole thing so much that England stays out, As England is not going to feel obligated to honor a defensive treaty with Russia and France if the attack Germany for political/territorial gains.
And without England German territory outside Europe is safe. And the US tending to side with the defender will be more then willing to supply (well sell) to Germany and you don’t have England and it’s Navy stoping this. So Germany will be fighting a defensive war against only Two countries and will be able to get materials from the US for as long as it’s money holds out.

So any war at this point will be drastically different then traditional WW1

Germany certainly tried to cast itself as the defender and Russia and France as the aggressors, but failed to do so in the court of world public opinion.

Given that there was no defensive treaty, just a series of "understandings" between various individuals in the British government and the French and Russian governments, the British can once more come up with a convenient pretense to join the war, or not, as the government at the time so chooses. Britain had tied itself to Russia and France on gentlemens' agreements rather than actual paper treaties.

As to "the US tending to side with the defender", I'm not sure where you get that from at all.

 

[Catspoke]

The Russians and the Germans have no critical areas of direct conflict and the Germans are only indirectly involved in Russia's Balkan ambitions due to their alliance with the Dual Monarchy. Germany doesn't have anything the Russians need or want in terms of territory or influence.

Agree with this. German-Russian border (and the Austrian-Russian border for that matter) is 1815 Congress of Vienna, not in dispute, getting more territory just gets you more Poles.

No one is going to straight up aggression attack Germany to get their stuff, a country with a huge Military and a fearsome military reputation, known for taking serious all things about waging war. Britain wouldn't be involved in this and Germany would have the sympathy of the world.

 

[DougM]

Perhaps I should of been more clear the American PEOPLE tend to side with the defender vs the aggressor. Note this is based on how they (the people) perceive the conflict not how it actually was. This is why winning the propaganda war is so important if you want the US to back you.
1812 Nasty England kidnaping our Sailer
Civil War, South fires First after “illegally” leaving the union and steeling things that don’t belong to them
Spanish American War, To Hell with Spain, Remember the Maine (that the people were told the Spanish blew up)
WW1. The US sides with England and France who were just defending the Little countries from this nast aggressive Huns
War in China. The US embargo’s the “aggressive Japs”
1939 Eurpean War, the US Although neutral sells supplies to the Alies against those Evil Nazis
1940-41 BoB. The US a still “neutral “ sells the lend support to England going so far as to “protect” shipping from those aggressive U boats
WW2 (for the US) he’ll this time the US actually WAS on the side of the “defender”
Berlin The US spends a lot of resources to keep Berlin free from the evil Commies
Korea The US joins the “whole world” as represented by the UN to defend South Korea from those evil Commies
Vietnam first the US tries to help France against those aggressive commie backed rebels. The tries to protect the south from the evil Commie backed north
The Falkland Islands, the people were all for England (the government is another story)
Grenada the US goes in to protect civilians
Desert Shield Desert Storm the us and most of the rest of the Western world liberate those poor people in that tiny country from that evil commie supplied Iraq
Afghanistan The IS is “forced” to go into this to seek out and destroy those evil people that flew planes into the twin towers and such...
Iraq. The US has to go in because the government is killing its own people with gas weapons, won’t give them up even though they signed a treaty saying the would and they may use them against other people (they had in the past.
Israel is almost always sold as being the “defender” even when it strikes first it is sold as the little guy/underdog having to hit first because the big bad guy would destroy them if the got the first blow in...

So exactly when has the US (well as far as its citizens/propaganda) been on the side of the aggressor?
Once again I am not arguing who the “aggressor “ was in any of these I am commenting on how it was sold in the US.
If you want the US to blow up your enemy just find a way to convince the citizens of the US that your enemy attacked you first while you were peacefully minding your own business. This doesn’t have to be the truth you just need to be able to sell the story.

And yes the agreements between everyone were not realy defensive treaties that is perhaps the simplest way to look at them.
And in a 1920 starting point for a war. And a war that Germany is not pushing forand is not attacking France through Belgium and that France and Russia are pushing in order to get territorial gains England is not going to come to play. They were touch and go about joining in in the original timeline but in this proposed time line Germany will be weaker vs England and thus less likely to be viewed as a majo threat. One of the big reasons that England went to war in the first place was it viewed it as a chance to take out the German Navy with the backing of other countries. This allowed England to bring more of its fleet together while other countries picked up some of the traditional duties of England something a one on one fight would not have done so this was a great chance for England but 6 years later odds are the Navy race will have ended with England the clear winner so they won’t feel the need to take out Germany before it’s Navy becomes a threat. As that time passed a couple years ago.
So unless Germany does something colossally dumb (dumber the what the did otl) you will see England sit this one out, it doesn’t need to spend its money and boys so that France and Russia can get more land...

 

[Catspoke]

I am assuming in a 1920 war, and the Germans are still thinking that attacking west first into France is still the way to go and that east first is a dead end, that they would have to raise another 10 or twelve or 20 divisions to deploy out east, along with some more fortifications here and there, so they could attack in the west but survive a Russian offensive in the east at the same time.

The east divisions could be older reservists, as the won't have to be marching 20 miles per day.

 

[DougM]

So the POD for this is any magical point that delays the war 6 years but somehow doesn’t change who’s fighting whom and or why they are fighting.......
So basicly to put it another way this would be pretty much the same effect to ask what happens if we fought WW1 with 1920 technology....

 

[Dorknought]

This is why winning the propaganda war is so important if you want the US to back you.

'Baby Killers' still works...

Nayirah testimony

In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.

 

[Dorknought]

So basicly to put it another way this would be pretty much the same effect to ask what happens if we fought WW1 with 1920 technology....

A 1914 Battalion commander would be completely bewildered and lost on the 1918 frontline but a 1918 Battalion commander would recognise many of the battlefield attributes evident today; fire and manoeuvre, supply, logistics, evacuating casualties, air support, cooperation and supply, radio comms etc.

 

[TIMER]

A 1914 Battalion commander would be completely bewildered and lost on the 1918 frontline but a 1918 Battalion commander would recognise many of the battlefield attributes evident today; fire and manoeuvre, supply, logistics, evacuating casualties, air support, cooperation and supply, radio comms etc.

All of which knowledge he learned in the previous four years of combat. If the war waits til 1920 none of this hard won knowledge was learned and the only change from 1914, is that it's the Battalion comander's younger brother who gets to learn.

 

[Aphrodite]

And thats nothing they had not to deal with OTL. Instead they army will be much better prepared for it and hopefully not led by an idiot. And through I dont pretend that im familiar with the extent of planned austrian and serbian military reform I have my doubts that the Austrian army facing the serbians alone wouldnt win. Serbia acquired macedonia that was a pretty poor territory and not too densly populated either. Austria had much greater untapped potental than that, economically, population wise and in railways.

No one argued that Austria couldn't beat Serbia. But as 1914 showed, Austria cannot fight Serbia alone. An Austrian attack guarantees a Russian response so Austria must prepare for Serbia + Russia. The situation in Romania will be different. As noted, the Austrians relied on King Carol's assurance of Romanian neutrality. He will be dead and Romania was drifting hard into the entente camp. By 1920, they are likely to be involved from the outset as will Italy for the reasons noted.

OTL Schlieffen plan was a huge gamble. To try it later with a much faster Russian mobilization is on the batshit crazy side. They wont try it because they will see it as impossible not because they would not like to avoid a 2 front war. And on regards of the East first idea: there has been long threads of discussion on this forume about it - lets say yours is just an opinion of the many and not the most supported one. Whats more Germany had numerous Ostaufmarsch plans in the years before 1914 - up to 1913 and they may resume them after Schlieffen plan becomes obsolote. Not to mention that East first doesnt leave the Rhineland and western Germany undefended. The Franco-German border was on both sides very well fortified. And Russia becoming suddenly competent and abandoning its aggressive warplans towards Germany is unlikely. Not to mention that OTL the quality of the russian army proved to be severly overestimated by all sides.

Yes, there have been many threads about East first. Now, if you t hink the Germans are moving towards an East first plan, perhaps you can explain why they stopped all work on it.

The germans and russian cant kiss for the simple reason they didnt earlier: Russia is dependent on french money, and France wont ally Germany because of A-L. That simple fact makes a continental block opposing Brittain impossible.
I didnt propose Brittain joining Germany but Brittain remaining neutral. And in the course of the war the british brought a bit more to the table than 6 divisions, including the blocade I already mentioned.

The Russians aren't dependent on French money. They actually have gold coming out the wazoo. Russia can't abandon France for the same reasons that Germany can't abandon Austria. But if Austria gives up its Balkan pretensions, then there is nothing to prevent extra European cooperation (see for example Triple Intervention against Japan)

Britain may have "brought a bit more to the table than six divisions" but that only happened in a long war. In 1914, the Germans didn't think they could get to a long war unless they crippled France first. British offers are of no interest to the Germans. Nor are the Germans offering Britain anything.

But back to diplomacy: Russian-british relations started to sour OTL before WWI and Germany and Brittain were on the way to settle some of their differences (Baghdad railway). And I dont think an agreement on the fleets by 1920 is out of the question. Also, according to your logic Brittain should have made its peace/allied with both Napoleon and the Nazi's. History doesnt seem to agree with you. As I see it Brittain doesnt want a hegemon on the continent - be it called Germany, France or Russia.

And yet Britain went to war and expected to see Russian power grow immensely. They point blank told the Kaiser that as far as they were concerned, Russia could annex Austria. Only Morley raised the specter of Russian power and his argument fell on deaf ears. The stronger Russia grows, the less likely that Britain will risk antagonizing her. The Tories are even more pro-Russian

Edited to add: The British were mainly concerned with the Balance of power of western europe and specifically, control over the Channel coast. They often made peace with France not just against Napoleon but throughout their long rivalry for control over Western Europe. You can invade Britain from the Normandy coast, Belgium and the Netherlands but you can't from Russia

In the event of a Russian victory in WWI, there is the hope of building an anti-Russian alliance of France, Italy, Japan and possibly America. In a German victory there would be no one left to challenge the Germans

I have thrown Japan in more as a question and stated it may join either side for easy pickings. Please read my comments before trying to answer them.



And how is this interesting if you yourself acknowledge that partitioning the Balkans at that point would be impossible?

I did read your comments and there aren't any easy pickings for Japan against Russia. And you might want to read the comment carefully- I said the "easy partition of the Balkans" There might still be a way or Franz Ferdinand might be ready to bow to reality and forgo the Balkan pretensions of his uncle