Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
They already had Port Arthur. Indochina? I think Britain and the US would have something to say about that.
WWI delayed by four years
- Thread starter Imperator
- Start date
They already had Port Arthur. Indochina? I think Britain and the US would have something to say about that.
Without Wilson being able to use his "He will keep us out of war." slogan.. Ted Roosevelt gets more votes in 1916, and takes back the presidency in the U.S., and the "Bull Moose" Progressive Party wins more seats in Senate and Congress.
I have no idea on how much this would effect the U.S. entry into the war.
I have no idea on how much this would effect the U.S. entry into the war.
Poison Frog
Banned
I see the most likely outcomes to this being either a stalemate or central powers defeat. Remember how Russia was industrializing at a blistering pace right before WWI.(granted it was from a low starting point but still)
As you said: very low starting point. 4 years of even fast industrialization won't enable them to compete with the second largest and technologically probably most advanced economy in the world, which was Germany, and which wouldn't suffer from a blockade without Britain involved.
@ VoCSe
You're of course right, Manchuria is already in japanese hands as is Port Arthur. But thanks to American negotiation they didn't get as much as they wanted - or as much as they deserved given their stunning victory?
Wouldn't this be a good time to grab some Siberian soil and improve the Japanese situation in Northern China? With a second victory against russia, they'd rule Manchuria almost undisputedly.
Of course, Britain and America wouldn't want Indochina in Japanese hands. But the Germans could promise it anyway for help. It's only an incentive.
Tucker
Did teddy stand in 1916? I thought it was 1912 he was the 3rd party candicate and that in 1916 it was Wilson v Hughes?
Steve
The Japanese had control of a railway line across Manchuria, along with some resultant influence. They might well try something along the line of the 15 demands they issued in 1916. [Although if Britain isn't actively involved in the conflict it has a lot more capacity to step in and maintain Chinese territorial integrity].
I could see Japan joining the conflict against Russia as they did want more land in the north and were still concerned about a potential Russian threat. With Britain neutral or possibly slightly pro-German this would not be likely to cause them any political problems.
Just had a nasty thought. If they attacked Russia what would France do. If it did a DOW on Japan the Japanese might try and use it to activate the Anglo-Japanese alliance. Not sure of the political interactions here but even a threat they would do that might make France unwilling to get involved in a Pacific conflict. Especially since in an all-out shooting conflict in Europe they will have nothing to spare to defend their Pacific/Asian possessions.
If you really want to complicate matters the US objects to Japanese expansion and, possibly coupled with French attacks on Belgium Britain finds itself dragged into the war against the US. Now you have a real world war!
Steve
And the shit hits the fan.The Japanese had control of a railway line across Manchuria, along with some resultant influence. They might well try something along the line of the 15 demands they issued in 1916. [Although if Britain isn't actively involved in the conflict it has a lot more capacity to step in and maintain Chinese territorial integrity].
I could see Japan joining the conflict against Russia as they did want more land in the north and were still concerned about a potential Russian threat. With Britain neutral or possibly slightly pro-German this would not be likely to cause them any political problems.
Just had a nasty thought. If they attacked Russia what would France do. If it did a DOW on Japan the Japanese might try and use it to activate the Anglo-Japanese alliance. Not sure of the political interactions here but even a threat they would do that might make France unwilling to get involved in a Pacific conflict. Especially since in an all-out shooting conflict in Europe they will have nothing to spare to defend their Pacific/Asian possessions.
If you really want to complicate matters the US objects to Japanese expansion and, possibly coupled with French attacks on Belgium Britain finds itself dragged into the war against the US. Now you have a real world war!
Steve
Who writes that into a scenario?
i agree and disagree on some points.
first of all i don't agree on the point that germany would have become a liberal democracy, they surely would have done some reforming but not enough to put them in that category they still be a Constitutional Monarchy
i agree on the fact that they would have to give up on the naval race around 1915 or 1916 at the latest.
now i read some of you argueing that germany would be overrun in the east
but many seem to forget that in OTL germany had the world largest army
and that while i am not saying that russia might not have surpassed that in quantity in the ATL i doudt that this would be in suficiant nr's to make any real progress.
here are some mobilisation nr's of the german army at start of ww1
should give you a picture of how many man they might mobilize with 4 more years to prepair.
From Imperial German Army Handbook by David Nash.
Active Army peacetime strength--34,870 officers,663,578 men.
Within 6 days after the outbreak of war "the regular Army of some 700,000 men were augmented to a strength of 3,840,000 and field armies containing 2,100,000 soldiers were deployed..."
13 million men served in the German Army 1914-18,peak strength of 8 million in 1917/18.
My understanding is that reservists,Landwehr & Landsturm in 1914 were kitted out in pre-war helmets,shakos etc.
Ersatz helmets were probably more common for replacements etc.The 1914 class of recruits were called up in October 1914(the normal month of such an event),while the 1915 Class were called up early by 6 months,in April 1915.The 1916 class was called up in August 1915.The 1917 Class was called up in May 1916.
The 15 divisions of mainly wartime volunteers(the 43-54 Reserve Divisions,the 6 Bavarian Reserve Division) raised in the autumn of 1914 should also be taken into account.
The 1914 Class also helped to man the new 75-82 Reserve Divisions activated in late 1914
first of all i don't agree on the point that germany would have become a liberal democracy, they surely would have done some reforming but not enough to put them in that category they still be a Constitutional Monarchy
i agree on the fact that they would have to give up on the naval race around 1915 or 1916 at the latest.
now i read some of you argueing that germany would be overrun in the east
but many seem to forget that in OTL germany had the world largest army
and that while i am not saying that russia might not have surpassed that in quantity in the ATL i doudt that this would be in suficiant nr's to make any real progress.
here are some mobilisation nr's of the german army at start of ww1
should give you a picture of how many man they might mobilize with 4 more years to prepair.
From Imperial German Army Handbook by David Nash.
Active Army peacetime strength--34,870 officers,663,578 men.
Within 6 days after the outbreak of war "the regular Army of some 700,000 men were augmented to a strength of 3,840,000 and field armies containing 2,100,000 soldiers were deployed..."
13 million men served in the German Army 1914-18,peak strength of 8 million in 1917/18.
My understanding is that reservists,Landwehr & Landsturm in 1914 were kitted out in pre-war helmets,shakos etc.
Ersatz helmets were probably more common for replacements etc.The 1914 class of recruits were called up in October 1914(the normal month of such an event),while the 1915 Class were called up early by 6 months,in April 1915.The 1916 class was called up in August 1915.The 1917 Class was called up in May 1916.
The 15 divisions of mainly wartime volunteers(the 43-54 Reserve Divisions,the 6 Bavarian Reserve Division) raised in the autumn of 1914 should also be taken into account.
The 1914 Class also helped to man the new 75-82 Reserve Divisions activated in late 1914
Britain was a liberal democracy and a constitutional monarchy so I do not follow what you mean? If the SPD and centrist parties in parliament grow in strength, as they had been doing depite repression and the contempt of the ruling class, then it is inevitable the non-aristoractic parties will have a majority and will continue to keep it.
Once their confidence grows and prosperity continues, the influence of the Junkers and the Emperor diminishes. Unless Willie under these circumstances toes the line he will be forced to abdicate. He was in many ways a very weak man who lacked self confidence. In order to preserve some of their influence and priviliges the Prussian military class will abandon him. This is political reality and has plenty of precedents.
As for the naval race. The SPD was anti-militarist and was opposed to the wasteful and pointless naval build-up. It would be abandoned as soon as they had cemented their position in government and felt they could successfully challange the establishment.
Until then the naval race would continue and Britain would still be forced to ally with France and Russia. Even if the war is delayed by four years, the alliances would still look the same. The principal difference is, with a Germany no longer ruled by the militarists, Britain and France have less concern. With a Germany now a civilian state, the prospects of solving the outstanding issues by diplomacy increases dramatically. Maybe even Teddy, as a private citizen who is trusted by all parties, could be appointed as an arbitrator!
@Schrammy: Thank you for helping with real facts.
@democracy/constitutional monarchy:
I think this is a problem of definition. Monarchy refers to the head of state. That would still be the Kaiser in 1918. As far as I know, a constitutional monarchy means that the monarch is still at parts the souvereign, but has to share power with the people. In most cases, as in France and in Germany, that meant that the monarch was the executive branch and had to work together with a elected legislative branch. this is the basic model, then there might be a right to Veto against laws for the monarch or the only right to appoint a government, whatever. Thus, Germany was a constitutional monarchy, but with very restricted democratic elements.
Parliamentaric monarchy refers to the British system, where the parliament elects the government and the monarch has only representative functions or very limited political power.
Of course, Germany would stay a monarchy. But it could get more democratic. Maybe Prussia quits its election-system of three classes, maybe the Reichstag gets more rights, maybe part of the Bundesrat, the federal representation, has to be elected rather than sent by local princes, maybe the Reichstag has to accept a new chancellor. That would in fact be the most probable thing, given increasing success of SPD and Zentrum during elections, Wilhelm might be forced to appoint a social democrat or at least a Zentrum-member as Reichskanzler when these parties control the Reichstag and thus legislation.
If he tried to rule against the constitution when such things happen, I think that thanks to inner tensions Germany would stay out of a war.
@democracy/constitutional monarchy:
I think this is a problem of definition. Monarchy refers to the head of state. That would still be the Kaiser in 1918. As far as I know, a constitutional monarchy means that the monarch is still at parts the souvereign, but has to share power with the people. In most cases, as in France and in Germany, that meant that the monarch was the executive branch and had to work together with a elected legislative branch. this is the basic model, then there might be a right to Veto against laws for the monarch or the only right to appoint a government, whatever. Thus, Germany was a constitutional monarchy, but with very restricted democratic elements.
Parliamentaric monarchy refers to the British system, where the parliament elects the government and the monarch has only representative functions or very limited political power.
Of course, Germany would stay a monarchy. But it could get more democratic. Maybe Prussia quits its election-system of three classes, maybe the Reichstag gets more rights, maybe part of the Bundesrat, the federal representation, has to be elected rather than sent by local princes, maybe the Reichstag has to accept a new chancellor. That would in fact be the most probable thing, given increasing success of SPD and Zentrum during elections, Wilhelm might be forced to appoint a social democrat or at least a Zentrum-member as Reichskanzler when these parties control the Reichstag and thus legislation.
If he tried to rule against the constitution when such things happen, I think that thanks to inner tensions Germany would stay out of a war.
All very true.
But I don't think that a mere 4 yrs. is enough to see this process run its course. I think that the first reaction on the part of the Junker establishment to continued electoral advances of the SPD would be to stick to the existing constitution whereby the government is appointed and dismissed by the Emperor.
I don't think that the SPD actually ever received an absolute majority at the polls, even in Weimar days. They'd be even less likely to do so without Germany having lost the war, so assuming the SPD remains stuck at 35-40% of the votes Wilhelm has still a right-wing majority to work with.
Although I agree that all non-SPD parties would be right wing, some would be centrist and constitutional. That is, they would not all be natural political allies of the right.
On this basis the SPD could very probably put together a coalition government in order to obtain a majority. Similarly, the centrist parties could likewise join together to form a parliamentary majority. A minority government would also be possible with the main opposition parties allowing either the SPD or a centrist party to govern as a minority party.
Your point about there not beng enough time for the democratic parties to change the political landscape to the degree I suggested has validity. However, the changes had been happening for some time prior to 1914. Bismarck had tried in vain to stop the rise of the SPD and the conservative elements in Germany had been singualrly unsuccessful in stopping democratic advances.
My contention is that it was the outbreak of war that stopped the inevitable adoption of a liberal democratic state in Germany. An exta four years of peaceful political advances building on the new state of the political and social landscape of Germany would have produced a modern civilian government structure.
Surely the issue with Russia's industrialisation is not that it will catch up to Germany, but rather that it will be able to bring more pressure to bear on an already strained Germany. More industry means more and better weapons, which in turn means more German troops to tie them down, which in turn means less troops in the West to face the more dangerous enemy.*
* Then again, presumably the French are still obsessed with the offensive and believe cold steel can carry the day, so perhaps they're a less dangerous enemy.
MrP
Banned
Actually, while the French will almost certainly still have the silly offensive ideas, they'll probably have a proper selection of artillery by then. Russia will have a more effective navy, too - a squadron (at least) of dreadnoughts in the Baltic. I expect Russia's military could benefit, too, if some one of the two squabbling generals dies.
Guess I should have said non-Socialst rather than right-wing
The phrase "could very probably put together a coalition government in order to obtain a majority" presupposes that Parliament controls the formation of governments. In Wilhelm's Germany that was not the case: the Emperor did. And IMO Wilhelm and his advisors will try every way of not having the SPD in the government.
In order to have political parties put together governments you need to change the constitution first. Which is not something that happens easy or fast.
You talk as if everyone considered the SPD to be salonfähig. That's not the case. Most of the political spectrum considered Socialists ao all descriptions as anathema. Without WWI it may well have taken decades for this attitude to wear off.
That was the case here in the Netherlands. The SDAP had been polling 25-30% for 20 yrs., but only on the eve of WWII would the other parties admit them into a coalition government.
I am using the SPD as the most obvious example of the growing changes taking place in Germany before the war. While the German constitution placed the sole right of forming a government in the hands of the Kaiser, the whole thrust of reform had been to erode Imperial authority and absolutism peacefully.
Willie was too weak to do much to stop it and his erratic behaviour alienated some of his natural allies like some of the Prussian generals. My point isthese reforms and changes in mindset would continue peacefully.
that's true. There would be no SPD-chancellor. But if there is a SPD-led coalition in the Reichstag, say with Zentrum and left-liberals, Welfs, Poles, Danes and Alsaciens, the government appointed by the Kaiser would still have to win the votes in the Reichstag against this majority. And Reichstag influence on legislative already was in the constitution since 1871, thus a SPD-led majority in the Reichstag would be a hard competitor. Their influence would grow steadily - as it did prior to the war.
True. But the SPD was the strongest fraction in the Reichstag in 1912, with no sign of slowing down their successes. The Zentrum showed a movement to the left, left-liberals might be willing to cooperate with the SPD, too. After all, there's no need for a SPD-coalition here. A liberal-Centrum coalition with some conservatives might also speed up reforms in the Reich. Actually, there might be the idea of accepting Catholics and Liberals to fight the socialists?
so those other parties showed some sort of cooperation? If that happens in the Reichstag, that would be more than enough. If the conservatives use coalitions in the Reichstag to fight the socialists, that is an advance in democracy.
Russian Industry--- Between 1915 and 1917 [when they left the war] Russia built more Planes and Artillery than the other four powers combined. A extra 4 years would only increasce this.
During the GW the French and British soldiers used cans of Bully Beef [1914 version of Spam] to try to pave the bottoms of their trenchs. This was because the Allies refused to provide improvements, for fear that if the trenchs were too comfortable, the men would refuse to go over the top.
OTOH The Germans had Concrete walkways, And tunnels going back several hundred feet behind the trenchs leading to Sleeping Rooms, with Kitchens and Showers.
?What If During these Four years, German turns the plan around?, Instead of holding Russia while knocking out France first. The Germans go for Holding France, while Attacking Russia.
?Could whe see a German Version of the Maigot line ?
During the GW the French and British soldiers used cans of Bully Beef [1914 version of Spam] to try to pave the bottoms of their trenchs. This was because the Allies refused to provide improvements, for fear that if the trenchs were too comfortable, the men would refuse to go over the top.
OTOH The Germans had Concrete walkways, And tunnels going back several hundred feet behind the trenchs leading to Sleeping Rooms, with Kitchens and Showers.
?What If During these Four years, German turns the plan around?, Instead of holding Russia while knocking out France first. The Germans go for Holding France, while Attacking Russia.
?Could whe see a German Version of the Maigot line ?
Certainly.
But they'd take something like 20 yrs to make Germany just as democratic ad Britain.
Not a mere four.
Going to have a be a cheaper job than the one on OTL, but I would go with this. One "advantage" the Germans would have over the French is no possibilty of an invasion through Belgium. There is no way that the French are going to do this because the British would in theory have to declare war on them. Whilst that is not particulary likely, the British would stop any support for them.