Guns of April- WI WWI began in 1917?

[Sir Francis Burdett]

Leaving the broad outlines of the origins of the Great War as they
were OTL; WI the actual trigger for the war occurs several years
later?

Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

Are there any political developments that preclude a war beginning in
1917 if Europe had been able to avoid war in 1914, 15 and 16?

There would have been a General Election in Great Britain sometime
between 1914 and 1917. It seems likely that the Conservatives would
have won this election. Lord Balfour would have been the Prime
Minister in the spring of 1917. Would the _opposition _ Liberals have
been against British involvement in the conflict? Would there have
been any changes in the UK General Staff in the extended three years?

The French President in 1917 would still have been Raymond Poincaré
but as to whom the prime minister would be who can say. Perhaps
Alexandre Ribot or Aristide Briand. And again are there any changes in
the French General staff in this extended peace?

The Russian Empire would be limping on as in 1914.

I know even less of the actors in the Central Powers. Von Moltke is
dead by 1917, unless his death was predicated on events that occurred
in our 1914. But Generals von Falkenhayn and von Hindenburg are
certainly active and Erich Ludendorff would be working his way up in
the German General staff. If it actually matters Theobald von
Bethmann-Hollweg would still be Reichskanzler.

The American Presidential election of 1916 would be fought on a purely
domestic agenda. What might be the complexion of the 6th Congress
elected in the fall of 1914 or were there no international issues
affecting those races? Who might President Wilson be facing as a
Republican nominee? Is it too early for there to be a reconciliation
of Roosevelt to the GOP?

In a very vague outline would the course of the war be similar or is
there some year dependent variable that will cause the course of the
war to drastically vary?



-Francis "Leaving Aside" Burdett


"If I might harp for a minute, we are a newsgroup devoted to
discussing alternate history. Cutting out the history part is almost
never a good idea." – President Chester Arthur

[Oliver Neukum]

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

But that is important.
Is Serbia involved? And even more important, is the Ottoman Empire
involved?

Regards
Oliver

[JoatSimeon]

Also, of course, there's a very good reason for the war starting in August.
The grain harvest in most of Europe takes place in summer, after which more
horses can be mobilized to pull wagons and guns.

This is an important logistical factor.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by JoatSimeon
Also, of course, there's a very good reason for the war starting in August.
The grain harvest in most of Europe takes place in summer, after which more
horses can be mobilized to pull wagons and guns.
This is an important logistical factor.

Danish War February 1, Austro-Prussian War June 14, Franco-Prussian
July 19. If you shoot Arch Duke Whazzitz in March the Armies will
march long before August, harvest or no harvest. I question whether
many farm horses would qualify as suitable for military duty.

The airplanes would have been very little improved, no one had really
thought of anything beyond recconaisance before those started shooting
at each other with pistols and rifles (Aug. 1914). Better engines, but
still a 'sport' not a weapon.

[Nicholas Smid]

Post by Oliver Neukum

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

But that is important.
Is Serbia involved? And even more important, is the Ottoman Empire
involved?

OK, for the sake of argument the princes driver has been picked a little
more carefully, less for pretty looks and more for a level head an on his
state visert in 1914 the prince survives a monor, typically bungled attempt.
It causes a minor diplomatic bun fight but nothing more.
So what changes in the next 3 years?, Turkey gets her battleships and
relations with Britain are on something of an up swing, though still far
from best buddies. The British/German navy race is going strong but well
both sides have more dreadnoughts the ballince of power is probably even
more strongly in favour of the RN. Russia has more time to modernise her
army, and her fleet.
Aircraft improve, probably not as fast as they did under the pressure of war
but say something like late 1915 levels, Fokker E1's and Nieuport XI's,
though I'm shore the details would be very different but about that level,
the RFC probably has pusher types like the Vickers gunbus, FE2 and D.H.2.
Germany has a new chief of general staff, maybe even one who can find his
arss without needing a pack of dogs to help him.
Best case for Germany is this new broom has sweept away the France First
school, the plan now is to stand on the defensive in the west and deal with
Russia first. The French probably haven't changed their plans much, after
all they really don't have many choises, its attack of defend but the ground
stays the same and all armies of the day still delieve it will be a war of
rapid movement, 1870 writ large though with higher casualties.
So how dose the war start, no reason why some other A-H prince shouldn't
make a state visert someplace and this time meet a Serb who can shoot
strieght, I mean there have to be a few of them shorly. All the reasons for
going to war are still there just wound 3 years tighter and Europe is under
starters orders when half a dozen pistol shots start the race.

[mike stone]

WWI began in 1917?
So how dose the war start, no reason why some other A-H prince shouldn't
make a state visert someplace and this time meet a Serb who can shoot
strieght, I mean there have to be a few of them shorly. All the reasons for
going to war are still there just wound 3 years tighter and Europe is under
starters orders when half a dozen pistol shots start the race.

Though successful assassination attempts on Habsburgs were relatively rare.
Offhand, the only other I can think of is the murder of Empress Elizabeth by
(iirc) a Swiss anarchist. There were a number of attempts on Franz Joseph but
none successful. Compared to the Romanovs, the House of Austria got off light

Also, if offensive war is no longer an option for Germany, does she still egg
Austria on to stomp the Serbs? If she dfoesn't need to get war started on the
double, what is the benefit of it

[Derrick Reeves]

Post by Nicholas Smid

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

The French probably haven't changed their plans much, after
all they really don't have many choises, its attack of defend but the ground
stays the same and all armies of the day still delieve it will be a war of
rapid movement, 1870 writ large though with higher casualties.

It may be the case that the French won't have changed their warplan
very much, but IIRC, the French Army was due to have substantial
deliveries of heavy artillery weapons in the three year's grace the
premise gives them. I would contend that such deliveries could lead
to an attack across the frontier being sufficiently strong to lead
to unpleasant complications for any German warplan.

As I understand it, Plan XVII was something of an interim measure.
It was a stroke of somewhat poor luck to get caught with the
offensive plan but the wrong offensive weapons, though this may
have been intentional on the other fellow's part.

- Derrick

[Nik Simpson]

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Leaving the broad outlines of the origins of the Great War as they
were OTL; WI the actual trigger for the war occurs several years
later?
Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.
Are there any political developments that preclude a war beginning in
1917 if Europe had been able to avoid war in 1914, 15 and 16?

It's difficult to think of any likely political developments in a peacetime
extension from 1914-17 that is going to change the basic instability of the
relationship between the European powers. Is Germany going to be any less
concerned about being the meat in the sandwich of France & Russia? Is the UK
going to be any less threatened by the naval arms race with Germany? Is the
fundamentally broken & decaying nature of the Austro-Hungarian & Ottoman
Empires going to change?

All of these things made Europe in the early 20th a century into a powder
keg looking for a spark.

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
There would have been a General Election in Great Britain sometime
between 1914 and 1917. It seems likely that the Conservatives would
have won this election. Lord Balfour would have been the Prime
Minister in the spring of 1917. Would the _opposition _ Liberals have
been against British involvement in the conflict? Would there have
been any changes in the UK General Staff in the extended three years?

I suspect that UK politics is likely to be concerned with two things:

1. The question of Irish home rule that rather got put on the backburner in
1914 but which as a hot issue prior to that point.

2. The conflict between the percieved need to meet German naval expansion
head on and the conflicting requirements of a growing welfare state.

I don't see either of these things changing the basic goal of Britsh foriegn
policy in Europe, i.e. Germany is the threat and foriegn policy should seek
to minimize that threat which means continued Entente with France/Russia.

As to the naval arms race, it certainly showed no signs of slowing in
1914/15 plans of both Britain & Germany so in the event of a war in 1917 you
just have rather larger fleets.

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
The French President in 1917 would still have been Raymond Poincaré
but as to whom the prime minister would be who can say. Perhaps
Alexandre Ribot or Aristide Briand. And again are there any changes in
the French General staff in this extended peace?
The Russian Empire would be limping on as in 1914.

I'm not sure how true this is, the Russian economy was growing quite
healthily in the years leading up to the war and there is good reason to
suspect that the Russians would have been much better prepared for a war in
1917 than in the OTL. In fact, the potential improvement in the Russian
situation was one of the major concerns for the German General Staff who
feared that if they waited too long to knock out Russia or France they would
end up in a situation where they could do neither.

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
I know even less of the actors in the Central Powers. Von Moltke is
dead by 1917, unless his death was predicated on events that occurred
in our 1914. But Generals von Falkenhayn and von Hindenburg are
certainly active and Erich Ludendorff would be working his way up in
the German General staff. If it actually matters Theobald von
Bethmann-Hollweg would still be Reichskanzler.
The American Presidential election of 1916 would be fought on a purely
domestic agenda. What might be the complexion of the 6th Congress
elected in the fall of 1914 or were there no international issues
affecting those races? Who might President Wilson be facing as a
Republican nominee? Is it too early for there to be a reconciliation
of Roosevelt to the GOP?
In a very vague outline would the course of the war be similar or is
there some year dependent variable that will cause the course of the
war to drastically vary?

If Russia has improved significantly by 1917, then the War is very different
because the Germans probably can't simultaneously invade France & hold of a
Russian offensive in the East, that makes the decision to go to War much
more difficult for the Germans.

[mike stone]

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
The French President in 1917 would still have been Raymond Poincaré
but as to whom the prime minister would be who can say. Perhaps
Alexandre Ribot or Aristide Briand.

Caillaux?

Three years on, the scandal about that editor his wife shot has had time to
fade

[JoatSimeon]

Leaving the broad outlines of the origins of the Great War as they were OTL;

WI the actual trigger for the war occurs several years later?

-- a problem: the main reason the German general staff were ready for a
preventative war in 1914 was that they thought this was about the last time
Germany had a reasonable chance.

They were afraid that Russia, due to the rapid growth its population, industry
and transportation net, and its military buildup, would be too strong to be
beaten within a few years.

Hence by 1917 they would probably be more cautious.

There would have been a General Election in Great Britain sometime between

1914 and 1917.

-- civil war in Ireland was also quite likely in 1914-15.

Would the _opposition _ Liberals have been against British involvement in the

conflict?

-- many of them would. Grey and Haldane had kept the extent of British
military and political committment to the Entente more or less secret even from
the bulk of the Cabinet.

In essence, a group of Liberal Imperialists got a partially unwilling party to
declare war; the Conservatives were fully committed to stopping Germany, of
course, which strengthened their position.

The Russian Empire would be limping on as in 1914.

-- it would be much stronger. The planned extension of the strategic railway
net and the very large military buildup would have been pretty well complete in
1917.

1914 caught them with this half-done.

[Sir Francis Burdett]

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Leaving the broad outlines of the origins of the Great War as they
were OTL; WI the actual trigger for the war occurs several years
later?
Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

which is the date that the US declared war in OTL

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
There would have been a General Election in Great Britain sometime
between 1914 and 1917. It seems likely that the Conservatives would
have won this election. Lord Balfour would have been the Prime
Minister in the spring of 1917. Would the _opposition _ Liberals have
been against British involvement in the conflict? Would there have
been any changes in the UK General Staff in the extended three years?
-Francis "Leaving Aside the POD" Burdett
"If I might harp for a minute, we are a newsgroup devoted to
discussing alternate history. Cutting out the history part is almost
never a good idea." - President Chester Arthur

So going back to this WI however vaguely I originally phrased it.

How would a _Conservative_ government conduct the beginning of the war
any differently than the Asquith government?

Would there have been an armed uprising in Ireland by the spring of
1917?

[Michael Price]

Post by Sir Francis Burdett

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Leaving the broad outlines of the origins of the Great War as they
were OTL; WI the actual trigger for the war occurs several years
later?
Again leaving aside what the actual trigger was except to say that it
was similar enough that the beginning stages of the conflict go as
OTL, let us say that the start of the Great War was April 6, 1917.

which is the date that the US declared war in OTL

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
There would have been a General Election in Great Britain sometime
between 1914 and 1917. It seems likely that the Conservatives would
have won this election. Lord Balfour would have been the Prime
Minister in the spring of 1917. Would the _opposition _ Liberals have
been against British involvement in the conflict? Would there have
been any changes in the UK General Staff in the extended three years?
-Francis "Leaving Aside the POD" Burdett
"If I might harp for a minute, we are a newsgroup devoted to
discussing alternate history. Cutting out the history part is almost
never a good idea." - President Chester Arthur

So going back to this WI however vaguely I originally phrased it.
How would a _Conservative_ government conduct the beginning of the war
any differently than the Asquith government?

I doubt the plans would be any different. They are after all concocted by
the General Staff not by politicians and the alliances they assume are, not
changed
from OTL. The real question is, how is the balance of forces changed? From
memory part of the reason that Germany encouraged the Austrians was that
they
feared the British and French were overtaking them in the arms race. Was
this
perception accurate? Which countries could sustain the arms race best? The
economic effects of 3 more years of intense military buildup would be a real
strain.
In fact it might even shorten the war, which ended due to economic effects
more than
anything else.
Now I assume that in the 3 years the americans don't waste the money on
building
up and so their economy if fine. In fact american capitalists are making a
fortune selling
resources and weapons to europe. Now I assume a US entry about 3 years into
the war as in OTL. There are bigger european navies and artillery batteries
at the start
of the war but the economic strain has reduced the amount produced during
the war.
So the forces are probably equivelent to OTL +3. The US can throw in about
the
same amount of manpower but probably at least 5% more money (their economy
would have grown that much or more).
Now one thing that might be different is Turkish entry. OTL Turkey
entered because
the Germans were giving them lots of military aid especially training,
organisational
help, tech support etc. The last payment on this purchase of alliegance was
a free fairly modern
battleship. Now what happens if said battleship had been delivered 2 years
before? I think
that the "young Turks" are too indebted to Germany to do anything but join
in, unless the
arms race was obviously lost by the Central powers.

Post by Sir Francis Burdett
Would there have been an armed uprising in Ireland by the spring of
1917?

[Derrick Reeves]

[WWWI in 1917]

Post by Michael Price
The real question is, how is the balance of forces changed? From
memory part of the reason that Germany encouraged the Austrians was that
they
feared the British and French were overtaking them in the arms race.

You forgot Russia. Which is a pity, because that was the
biggest fear for Germany.

Post by Michael Price
Was this perception accurate?

Absolutely.

Post by Michael Price
Which countries could sustain the arms race best?

In terms of finance, Great Britain and France. GB isn't
even breaking a sweat. France is doing so well at financing
its own rearmament, it's financing much of Russia's as well,
and of course there's the big investment flows out from both
countries (France -> Eastern & Southern Europe + Africa, GB
-> The Americas, Africa and Asia).

Russia has an extraordinarily generous creditor to draw on
in France. Italy will continue her diplomatic realignment
in order to secure better loans from the same source.

The German government is struggling to raise taxes, and
is starting to have problems with credit (though not
severe ones). I'm not too sure what the situation is in
A-H, but I'm fairly sure it's... poor.

Post by Michael Price
The
economic effects of 3 more years of intense military buildup would be a real
strain.
In fact it might even shorten the war, which ended due to economic effects
more than
anything else.

Major battlefield upsets, naval blockade and a collapse of
morale notwithstanding.

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume that in the 3 years the americans don't waste the money on
building
up and so their economy if fine. In fact american capitalists are making a
fortune selling
resources and weapons to europe.

These assumptions are bogus. The European economies will
be fine as well, and the Yankees won't be making "a fortune"
off the arms trade. In this period, the American arms
industry was pathetic, so far so that the U.S. armies needed
to be given equipment by the French before they were up to
fighting on the Western Front.

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume a US entry about 3 years into the war as in OTL.

You're assuming that the Dual Entente doesn't just demolish
Germany in two years, as well.

Post by Michael Price
There are bigger european navies and artillery batteries
at the start
of the war but the economic strain has reduced the amount produced during
the war.

Well, that depends on how the war is fought. To take a
useful example, France lost most of her war industry in
the initial German invasion. Unperturbed, the French
rebuilt a military-industrial machine powerful enough
not only to meet their own needs but also sufficient
to see to the heavy equipment needs of the arriving
Americans.

If the Schlieffen Plan is not used (which is plausible),
or is derailed by a strong French advance into A-L (which,
with substantial amounts of heavy artillery, is likely),
then France will be producing even more than she did
historically.

Post by Michael Price
Now one thing that might be different is Turkish entry. OTL Turkey
entered because
the Germans were giving them lots of military aid especially training,
organisational help, tech support etc.
The last payment on this purchase of alliegance was
a free fairly modern
battleship. Now what happens if said battleship had been delivered 2 years
before? I think
that the "young Turks" are too indebted to Germany to do anything but join
in, unless the
arms race was obviously lost by the Central powers.

Errm. You might want to consider the effects of the
British seizure of the two battleships they were
building for the Turks at the onset of OTL's WWI.

- Derrick

[Michael Price]

Post by Derrick Reeves
[WWWI in 1917]

Post by Michael Price
The real question is, how is the balance of forces changed? From
memory part of the reason that Germany encouraged the Austrians was that
they feared the British and French were overtaking them in the arms

race.

Post by Derrick Reeves
You forgot Russia. Which is a pity, because that was the
biggest fear for Germany.

And the least threatening IOTL. Now that you mention it a modest
increase in the resources of the Russian army could have a big effect
without
straining the budget of GB/France. The cost of giving Russia 100,000 rifles
is probably not much more than those useless battlecruisers of Fishers.
They're still badly led but no longer pathetically armed.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Was this perception accurate?

Absolutely.

Post by Michael Price
Which countries could sustain the arms race best?

In terms of finance, Great Britain and France. GB isn't
even breaking a sweat. France is doing so well at financing
its own rearmament, it's financing much of Russia's as well,
and of course there's the big investment flows out from both
countries (France -> Eastern & Southern Europe + Africa, GB
-> The Americas, Africa and Asia).
Russia has an extraordinarily generous creditor to draw on
in France. Italy will continue her diplomatic realignment
in order to secure better loans from the same source.
The German government is struggling to raise taxes, and
is starting to have problems with credit (though not
severe ones). I'm not too sure what the situation is in
A-H, but I'm fairly sure it's... poor.

Post by Michael Price
The economic effects of 3 more years of intense military buildup would

be a real

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
strain. In fact it might even shorten the war, which ended due to

economic effects

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
more than anything else.

Major battlefield upsets, naval blockade and a collapse of
morale notwithstanding.

Well I'm including the naval blockade as an economic effect. The collapse
of morale
similarly has a lot to do with the fact that the economy is obviously shot.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume that in the 3 years the americans don't waste the money on
building up and so their economy if fine. In fact american capitalists

are making a

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
fortune selling resources and weapons to europe.

These assumptions are bogus. The European economies will
be fine as well,

Well not as fine as they could be. The arms race was a big expense, and
even if it didn't cripple their economies, relatively america is better off.

Post by Derrick Reeves
and the Yankees won't be making "a fortune"
off the arms trade. In this period, the American arms
industry was pathetic,

They were probably OK in small arms, but yes, you're right, they
had no reason to have large factories making artillery etc.

Post by Derrick Reeves
so far so that the U.S. armies needed
to be given equipment by the French before they were up to
fighting on the Western Front.

Ok, fine, my bad.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume a US entry about 3 years into the war as in OTL.

You're assuming that the Dual Entente doesn't just demolish
Germany in two years, as well.

Well OK.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
There are bigger european navies and artillery batteries
at the start of the war but the economic strain has reduced
the amount produced during the war.

Well, that depends on how the war is fought. To take a
useful example, France lost most of her war industry in
the initial German invasion. Unperturbed, the French
rebuilt a military-industrial machine powerful enough
not only to meet their own needs but also sufficient
to see to the heavy equipment needs of the arriving
Americans.
If the Schlieffen Plan is not used (which is plausible),

Well what's the alternative? German military thinking at
the time didn't favour sitting around waiting for the triple entende
to crush them and for good reason. Even assuming they somehow
realise the Russians are incompetent and therefore numbers aren't
that threatening they still can't afford a two front war. They can't
take out the Russians quickly due to the sheer size of the army
and country. So France has to go. Now this might be
much harder than IOTL but there is no alternative.
Now a Schlieffen Plan that goes off the rails (even more) badly could
make for a very short war. If the Germans are overwhelmed by massed
French artilery at some point and their flank is turned it could be a
scramble
just to get back to their bases.

Post by Derrick Reeves
or is derailed by a strong French advance into A-L (which,
with substantial amounts of heavy artillery, is likely),
then France will be producing even more than she did
historically.

Post by Michael Price
Now one thing that might be different is Turkish entry. OTL Turkey
entered because the Germans were giving them lots of military aid

especially training,

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
organisational help, tech support etc. The last payment on this

purchase of alliegance was

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
a free fairly modern battleship. Now what happens if said battleship

had been delivered 2 years

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
before? I think that the "young Turks" are too indebted to Germany to

do anything but join

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
in, unless the arms race was obviously lost by the Central powers.

Errm. You might want to consider the effects of the
British seizure of the two battleships they were
building for the Turks at the onset of OTL's WWI.

On their willingness to enter the war or their ability to fight it?

Post by Derrick Reeves
- Derrick

[Derrick Reeves]

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
[WWWI in 1917]

Post by Michael Price
The real question is, how is the balance of forces changed? From
memory part of the reason that Germany encouraged the Austrians was that
they feared the British and French were overtaking them in the arms

race.

Post by Derrick Reeves
You forgot Russia. Which is a pity, because that was the
biggest fear for Germany.

And the least threatening IOTL.

Actually, the most threatening IOTL. The fact that those threats
were not backed up doesn't mean that they weren't taken seriously.

Post by Michael Price
Now that you mention it a modest
increase in the resources of the Russian army could have a big effect
without
straining the budget of GB/France. The cost of giving Russia 100,000 rifles
is probably not much more than those useless battlecruisers of Fishers.
They're still badly led but no longer pathetically armed.

Russia can build its own rifles and artillery. The loans from
France in the peacetime period cover railroad construction and
industrial expansion. Russian difficulties in the initial
advance were largely logistical, in so far as their army
concentrated and moved too slowly. Cryptology was also pretty
lousy. Small arms, by comparison, were only a problem as far
as morale went. (While the troops didn't like being told to
pick up rifles from their dead comrades, doing so didn't really
sap the fighting power of the army.)

Post by Michael Price
Well I'm including the naval blockade as an economic effect.

Though one hardly likely to be duplicated in three years of
peace.

Post by Michael Price
The collapse of morale
similarly has a lot to do with the fact that the economy is obviously shot.

The collapse of morale had more to do with the abject failure
of the German offensive, and the fact that German troops felt
that the Americans wouldn't shoot them when they tried to
surrender.

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume that in the 3 years the americans don't waste the money

on

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
building up and so their economy if fine.

These assumptions are bogus. The European economies will
be fine as well,

Well not as fine as they could be. The arms race was a big expense, and
even if it didn't cripple their economies, relatively america is better off.

The expense is trivial, and conscription has some very positive
effects on the economy. Not to mention the fact that the investor
economies of France and Britain benefit a great deal from lots
of state bonds being issued.

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
If the Schlieffen Plan is not used (which is plausible),

Well what's the alternative? German military thinking at
the time didn't favour sitting around waiting for the triple entende
to crush them and for good reason. Even assuming they somehow
realise the Russians are incompetent and therefore numbers aren't
that threatening they still can't afford a two front war. They can't
take out the Russians quickly due to the sheer size of the army
and country. So France has to go. Now this might be
much harder than IOTL but there is no alternative.

IOTL, there were plenty of warplans for going to Russia first.
The Western Front is considerably easier to defend, after all.

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
Errm. You might want to consider the effects of the
British seizure of the two battleships they were
building for the Turks at the onset of OTL's WWI.

On their willingness to enter the war or their ability to fight it?

The Turks were somewhat insulted at having their ships
seized IOTL. Clearly, that won't happen in this TL.

- Derrick

[Michael Price]

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
[WWWI in 1917]

Post by Michael Price
The real question is, how is the balance of forces changed? From
memory part of the reason that Germany encouraged the Austrians was that
they feared the British and French were overtaking them in the arms

race.

Post by Derrick Reeves
You forgot Russia. Which is a pity, because that was the
biggest fear for Germany.

And the least threatening IOTL.

Actually, the most threatening IOTL. The fact that those threats
were not backed up doesn't mean that they weren't taken seriously.

The least threatening in reality. The perception was that they were the
most threatening.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now that you mention it a modest
increase in the resources of the Russian army could have a big effect
without
straining the budget of GB/France. The cost of giving Russia 100,000 rifles
is probably not much more than those useless battlecruisers of Fishers.
They're still badly led but no longer pathetically armed.

Russia can build its own rifles and artillery.

The first month Russia made 17 rifles. That's less than Springfield
Armoury
made in peacetime in a day.

Post by Derrick Reeves
The loans from France in the peacetime period cover railroad
construction and industrial expansion. Russian difficulties in the

initial

Post by Derrick Reeves
advance were largely logistical, in so far as their army
concentrated and moved too slowly. Cryptology was also pretty
lousy. Small arms, by comparison, were only a problem as far
as morale went. (While the troops didn't like being told to
pick up rifles from their dead comrades, doing so didn't really
sap the fighting power of the army.)

Oh come on, having your firepower halved doesn't affect your
fighting power?

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Well I'm including the naval blockade as an economic effect.

Though one hardly likely to be duplicated in three years of
peace.

Well no but that wasn't what I was saying.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
The collapse of morale
similarly has a lot to do with the fact that the economy is obviously shot.

The collapse of morale had more to do with the abject failure
of the German offensive, and the fact that German troops felt
that the Americans wouldn't shoot them when they tried to
surrender.

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now I assume that in the 3 years the americans don't waste the money

on

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
building up and so their economy if fine.

These assumptions are bogus. The European economies will
be fine as well,

Well not as fine as they could be. The arms race was a big expense, and
even if it didn't cripple their economies, relatively america is better off.

The expense is trivial, and conscription has some very positive
effects on the economy.

Not it isn't and no it doesn't. The expense of the pre-WWI arms
buildup was enormous. I mean do you think Dreadnaughts were cheap?
Artillery isn't either.
Conscription has no good effects on the economy, unless you think
transfering
wealth from the poor and the rich in most industries to the rich in other
industries
is a good effect.

Post by Derrick Reeves
Not to mention the fact that the investor economies of France and Britain
benefit a great deal from lots of state bonds being issued.

Well no, they don't. The purchase of State bonds crowds out every other
type of money making, substituting loans for productive investment. Sure
those with cash reserves get richer but that is more than made up for by the
greater expense of borrowing for everyone who needs cash to build factories
etc. The Yanks don't have this problem and their investors are better off.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
If the Schlieffen Plan is not used (which is plausible),

Well what's the alternative? German military thinking at
the time didn't favour sitting around waiting for the triple entende
to crush them and for good reason. Even assuming they somehow
realise the Russians are incompetent and therefore numbers aren't
that threatening they still can't afford a two front war. They can't
take out the Russians quickly due to the sheer size of the army
and country. So France has to go. Now this might be
much harder than IOTL but there is no alternative.

IOTL, there were plenty of warplans for going to Russia first.
The Western Front is considerably easier to defend, after all.

Is it? Why? The Western Front is, after all closer to Berlin and
has better transportation infrastructure. Sure it was easier to defend
after trench warfare broke out but that wasn't in anyone's plans.

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price

Post by Derrick Reeves
Errm. You might want to consider the effects of the
British seizure of the two battleships they were
building for the Turks at the onset of OTL's WWI.

On their willingness to enter the war or their ability to fight it?

The Turks were somewhat insulted at having their ships
seized IOTL. Clearly, that won't happen in this TL.

Well sure they were insulted but if they weren't wouldn't they
find another excuse to enter? I mean they were pretty much in
the German pocket and if the central powers lost then Russian
power in the Balkans rises as AH influence there disappears.
The Turks have to fight a war with no allies to speak of. Wouldn't
they prefer a war where others take the brunt?

Post by Derrick Reeves
- Derrick

[Doug Hoff]

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Derrick Reeves
The loans from France in the peacetime period cover railroad
construction and industrial expansion. Russian difficulties in the

initial

Post by Derrick Reeves
advance were largely logistical, in so far as their army
concentrated and moved too slowly. Cryptology was also pretty
lousy. Small arms, by comparison, were only a problem as far
as morale went. (While the troops didn't like being told to
pick up rifles from their dead comrades, doing so didn't really
sap the fighting power of the army.)

Oh come on, having your firepower halved doesn't affect your
fighting power?

And I know that 'elan vital' was kind of discredited by the industrial-age
killing of WW1, but combat psychology has not been. Rushing forward with
empty hands has got to be tougher than rushing forward with a rifle, even if
you only have a few rounds in it. AFAIK, both the Russian and German armies
collapsed essentially through catastrophic failures of morale ...

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Derrick Reeves
The Turks were somewhat insulted at having their ships
seized IOTL. Clearly, that won't happen in this TL.

Well sure they were insulted but if they weren't wouldn't they
find another excuse to enter? I mean they were pretty much in
the German pocket and if the central powers lost then Russian
power in the Balkans rises as AH influence there disappears.
The Turks have to fight a war with no allies to speak of. Wouldn't
they prefer a war where others take the brunt?

I think the confiscation of the Turkish battleships (objectively a
reasonable enough decision on the part of the British government - nobody
wants major weapons to be leaving the country just as one is embarking upon
a war) just helped the Young Turks garner public support for declaring for
the Central Powers.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:38:00 -0500, "Doug Hoff"

Post by Doug Hoff
I think the confiscation of the Turkish battleships (objectively a
reasonable enough decision on the part of the British government - nobody
wants major weapons to be leaving the country just as one is embarking upon
a war) just helped the Young Turks garner public support for declaring for
the Central Powers.

Yup - the catch of course being that Germany (which didn't have a hope
in hell of getting the Goeben back to Germany anyhow) was able to use
the Goeben was a "partial replacement" for the ships confiscated by
London.

I personally think that even if the Allies had caught the Goeben (as
they darned well should have) Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

[Doug Hoff]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:38:00 -0500, "Doug Hoff"

Post by Doug Hoff
I think the confiscation of the Turkish battleships (objectively a
reasonable enough decision on the part of the British government - nobody
wants major weapons to be leaving the country just as one is embarking upon
a war) just helped the Young Turks garner public support for declaring for
the Central Powers.

Yup - the catch of course being that Germany (which didn't have a hope
in hell of getting the Goeben back to Germany anyhow) was able to use
the Goeben was a "partial replacement" for the ships confiscated by
London.

An excellent piece of diplomacy on the German government's part. Almost
_too_ good, really for Wilhelmine Germany, really. Kind of inverse gunboat
diplomacy.

Post by The Horny Goat
I personally think that even if the Allies had caught the Goeben (as
they darned well should have)

Yeah, that rather broad definition of 'superior forces' in the 'do not
engage' order.

Post by The Horny Goat
Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

Wasn't the Turkish military pretty much in the hands of German advisors?
That and the long-standing emnity with Russia make it pretty likely, IMHO.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

[Doug Muir]

Post by Doug Hoff
An excellent piece of diplomacy on the German government's part. Almost
_too_ good, really for Wilhelmine Germany, really.

Yah, good point.

Does anyone have a reference for the details of that decision? My
memory is that the Germans fairly jumped at it, but I could be wrong.

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by The Horny Goat
Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

Wasn't the Turkish military pretty much in the hands of German advisors?
That and the long-standing emnity with Russia make it pretty likely, IMHO.

Well, probably; but it might have taken a bit longer. And even a
modest delay could have significant knock-on effects.

Say the Turkish DOW is delayed until January 1915. You get another
couple of months of Russian trade with the world through the
Dardanelles. That's significant -- about 80% of Russia's maritime
trade was going out of the Black Sea ports. There's not enough time
to get the winter wheat crop out, but there may be time to get some
neutral munitions in.

Balkan diplomacy... um. Weird and nonlinear. For instance, if the
later Turkish DOW delays the subsequent Bulgarian DOW by even a few
weeks, then it's /bad/ for the Allies -- the full winter snows will
have fallen on Albania, and the Serbian Army will be trapped and
captured intact, with no chance to make a heroic retreat.

Mind, the Turks are going to get a bloody nose in their first Caucasus
offensive no matter what. Does moving this forward a few months make
a difference?

And, of course, Gallipoli. Again, if it takes place a couple of
months later than iOTL, any change?


Doug M.

[Doug Hoff]

Post by Doug Muir

Post by Doug Hoff
An excellent piece of diplomacy on the German government's part. Almost
_too_ good, really for Wilhelmine Germany, really.

Yah, good point.
Does anyone have a reference for the details of that decision? My
memory is that the Germans fairly jumped at it, but I could be wrong.

My vague recollection (and I cannot find my copy of 'Guns of August'
anyplace) is that once the German ships arrived, the decision was either
made or strongly suggested by the German ambassador, who knew how Turkish
public opinion was running about the loss of the British-built ships.

Post by Doug Muir

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by The Horny Goat
Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

Wasn't the Turkish military pretty much in the hands of German advisors?
That and the long-standing emnity with Russia make it pretty likely, IMHO.

Well, probably; but it might have taken a bit longer.

Yeah, I mean the CP are going to have to start the bidding, so that could
take some time.

Post by Doug Muir
And even a
modest delay could have significant knock-on effects.
Say the Turkish DOW is delayed until January 1915. You get another
couple of months of Russian trade with the world through the
Dardanelles. That's significant -- about 80% of Russia's maritime
trade was going out of the Black Sea ports. There's not enough time
to get the winter wheat crop out, but there may be time to get some
neutral munitions in.

True, which could have all sorts of butterfly effects. I mean, not enough
to save the Tsar, but a little pot-stirring there.

Post by Doug Muir
Balkan diplomacy... um. Weird and nonlinear. For instance, if the
later Turkish DOW delays the subsequent Bulgarian DOW by even a few
weeks, then it's /bad/ for the Allies -- the full winter snows will
have fallen on Albania, and the Serbian Army will be trapped and
captured intact, with no chance to make a heroic retreat.

Hmmm. Thinking about all those Serbian troops sitting in POW camps for
three years or so, possibly becoming radicalized politically one direction
or the other.

Post by Doug Muir
Mind, the Turks are going to get a bloody nose in their first Caucasus
offensive no matter what. Does moving this forward a few months make
a difference?
And, of course, Gallipoli. Again, if it takes place a couple of
months later than iOTL, any change?

Hmm, Great War fiascos are not really my cup of meat, but the general
impression I have gotten is that the Gallipoli campaign is a tale of lost
opportunities - strategic suprise, for one, doing the Navy alone thing
first. Push it back a few months and all sorts of odd things could
happening. Having the personnel who ran that fiasco productively occupied
elsewhere would probably be a good start.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

Post by Doug Muir
Doug M.

[mike stone]

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by Doug Muir
Balkan diplomacy... um. Weird and nonlinear. For instance, if the
later Turkish DOW delays the subsequent Bulgarian DOW by even a few
weeks, then it's /bad/ for the Allies -- the full winter snows will
have fallen on Albania, and the Serbian Army will be trapped and
captured intact, with no chance to make a heroic retreat.

Hmmm. Thinking about all those Serbian troops sitting in POW camps for
three years or so, possibly becoming radicalized politically one direction
or the other.

Do we still get a Salonika Front if there is no Serbian Army left? Once Serbia
has surrendered would the Allies see any oint in hanging on there?

Also, if the fall of Serbia has been moved back to around December, that means
we are getting close to the start of Verdun (OTL 21 Feb). If the French see
this coming (how much advance warning did they have?) they will be _very_
unwilling to divert men to a Balkan sideshow

[Doug Hoff]

Post by mike stone

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by Doug Muir
Balkan diplomacy... um. Weird and nonlinear. For instance, if the
later Turkish DOW delays the subsequent Bulgarian DOW by even a few
weeks, then it's /bad/ for the Allies -- the full winter snows will
have fallen on Albania, and the Serbian Army will be trapped and
captured intact, with no chance to make a heroic retreat.

Hmmm. Thinking about all those Serbian troops sitting in POW camps for
three years or so, possibly becoming radicalized politically one direction
or the other.

Do we still get a Salonika Front if there is no Serbian Army left? Once Serbia
has surrendered would the Allies see any oint in hanging on there?
Also, if the fall of Serbia has been moved back to around December, that means
we are getting close to the start of Verdun (OTL 21 Feb). If the French see
this coming (how much advance warning did they have?) they will be _very_
unwilling to divert men to a Balkan sideshow

Hmm. From what I know about that particular sideshow, without a Serb army
to, er, rescue, there probably wouldn't be much point to the Salonika front.
Although once the Western Front settles down, I suppose the UK may look for
some other meat-grinder to open up. Definitely right about the French not
wanting to play along, tho.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

[mike stone]

Post by Doug Hoff
Hmm. From what I know about that particular sideshow, without a Serb army
to, er, rescue, there probably wouldn't be much point to the Salonika front.
Although once the Western Front settles down, I suppose the UK may look for
some other meat-grinder to open up. Definitely right about the French not
wanting to play along, tho.

OTL, the British military were very unenthusiastic about Salonika. For reasons
I'm not wholly clear about, it was the French who insisted on staying. If they
go cool on the idea, it is dead

[Doug Hoff]

Post by mike stone

Post by Doug Hoff
Hmm. From what I know about that particular sideshow, without a Serb army
to, er, rescue, there probably wouldn't be much point to the Salonika front.
Although once the Western Front settles down, I suppose the UK may look for
some other meat-grinder to open up. Definitely right about the French not
wanting to play along, tho.

OTL, the British military were very unenthusiastic about Salonika. For reasons
I'm not wholly clear about, it was the French who insisted on staying. If they
go cool on the idea, it is dead

Just shows what I know - not much about the Salonika campaign, for one. I
was under the impression that the promotors of the various side shows tended
to be British and the French were against diverting one man from the Western
front.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

[mike stone]

Post by Nicholas Smid

Post by mike stone
OTL, the British military were very unenthusiastic about Salonika. For

reasons

Post by mike stone
I'm not wholly clear about, it was the French who insisted on staying. If

they

Post by mike stone
go cool on the idea, it is dead

Just shows what I know - not much about the Salonika campaign, for one. I
was under the impression that the promotors of the various side shows tended
to be British and the French were against diverting one man from the Western
front.

That was true irt Gallipoli, but for some reason not the Balkan front - at
least not in the crucial period of Winter 1915-16, which determined there would
_be_ one. From a quick dig into Alan Palmer's _The Gardeners of Salonika_, my
impression is that this had more to do with the "office politics" of the French
Army (General Sarrail had important friends in the Chamber of Deputies, but
Joffre didn't want him. so another posting had to be found) than with any
broader concerns

Couple of possible butterflies. Sarrail was initially sent east to replace a
French officer with the British at Gallipoli, who had been wounded. A later
Gallipoli could remove that opening. Also, on the very day that British forces
were landing at Salonika, King Constantine dismissed PM Venizelos, who had
invited them. Had he done so a day earlier (or the landing been a day later)
the Greek commander could have been ordered to resist any landing. While in
theory it might have been possible to force a way ashore, in practice it is by
no means certain that this would have been done, as a lot of top Brits were
dubious about the enterprise. And at this stage all the troops involved were
British, so any French objections would have counted for a lot less.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by The Horny Goat
Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

Wasn't the Turkish military pretty much in the hands of German advisors?
That and the long-standing emnity with Russia make it pretty likely, IMHO.

OTOH, Turkey's extreme weakness encouraged them to remain neutral.

The GOEBEN business had several effects. It was a huge public
relations coup for Germany - two beautiful new ships sitting
right where the Turkish public could see them. (The second
ship was only a cruiser, but it was still big by ordinary
standards.)

Another effect was that GOEBEN's guns literally commanded the
imperial palace. Nobody knew whether GOEBEN would bombard the
palace if Turkey held back or went Allied; but nobody wanted
to find out.

Third, ultimately GOEBEN forced Turkey's hand by steaming into
the Black Sea under Turkish colors and bombarding Russian ports.

OTL the Turkish DoW didn't come for several months. Absent these
factors, it may not come at all.

[Doug Hoff]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Doug Hoff

Post by The Horny Goat
Turkey might well have gone CP anyhow
but the Goeben pretty much ensured it.

Wasn't the Turkish military pretty much in the hands of German advisors?
That and the long-standing emnity with Russia make it pretty likely, IMHO.

OTOH, Turkey's extreme weakness encouraged them to remain neutral.

Were the Turks cognizant of their weakness? I mean, they would have to be
pretty dense not to know that every statesman in Europe had been mentally
parceling out their empire for the last 50 years or so.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Another effect was that GOEBEN's guns literally commanded the
imperial palace. Nobody knew whether GOEBEN would bombard the
palace if Turkey held back or went Allied; but nobody wanted
to find out.
Third, ultimately GOEBEN forced Turkey's hand by steaming into
the Black Sea under Turkish colors and bombarding Russian ports.

Yes, we should not forget these two rather important facts. OTOH, if Russia
didn't _want_ to declare war on Turkey, they could have looked through the
charade and simply accused the Germans of playing false flag, regardless of
the accuracy of that.
--
----------

Doug

I like the Fourth of July. It breathes the spirit of revolution.

Eugene Debs

***@dhoff5767.eiomail.com
(replace the 2 with a 3 and you have my shwi e-mail address)

www.althist.com

[mike stone]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Third, ultimately GOEBEN forced Turkey's hand by steaming into
the Black Sea under Turkish colors and bombarding Russian ports.
OTL the Turkish DoW didn't come for several months. Absent these
factors, it may not come at all.

Not even after the CP breakthorough at Gorlice?

That _could_ be butterflied away, just conceivably, but I doubt it. And the
Turks are probably paying more attention to events in the east than in the more
remote west

[Oliver Neukum]

Post by mike stone

Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL the Turkish DoW didn't come for several months. Absent these
factors, it may not come at all.

Not even after the CP breakthorough at Gorlice?
That _could_ be butterflied away, just conceivably, but I doubt it. And the
Turks are probably paying more attention to events in the east than in the
more remote west

They must have known that they'll be toast if Russia and France emerge
victorious from WWI.

Regards
Oliver

[mike stone]

Post by Oliver Neukum
They must have known that they'll be toast if Russia and France emerge
victorious from WWI.

Didn't stop them joining the CPs OTL - at a time when the latter weren't doing
as well as in May 1915

[Oliver Neukum]

Post by mike stone

Post by Oliver Neukum
They must have known that they'll be toast if Russia and France emerge
victorious from WWI.

Didn't stop them joining the CPs OTL - at a time when the latter weren't
doing as well as in May 1915

It seem to me that they joined the CP exactly for that reason. They
could not allow a Russia without a counterbalance. There were also
French designs about Lebanon.
Staying neutral might have bought the Ottoman Empire maybe 10 years,
but it would have been doomed.

Regards
Oliver

[Errol Cavit]

<snip>

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
Now one thing that might be different is Turkish entry. OTL Turkey
entered because
the Germans were giving them lots of military aid especially training,
organisational help, tech support etc.

And the pro-German politicians got into power

Post by Derrick Reeves

Post by Michael Price
The last payment on this purchase of alliegance was
a free fairly modern
battleship. Now what happens if said battleship had been delivered 2 years
before? I think
that the "young Turks" are too indebted to Germany to do anything but join
in, unless the
arms race was obviously lost by the Central powers.

Errm. You might want to consider the effects of the
British seizure of the two battleships they were
building for the Turks at the onset of OTL's WWI.

Quite. The Turk's British-built ships would have been delivered (the crews
had been dispatched to pick them up in OTL). It is quite likely that some
other 'friendly' neutrals would have had ships seized (with repayment of
monies paid, as was offered to the Turks OTL). Any suggestions as to whose
ships would be on the stocks in 1917?

[Sydney Webb]

Errol Cavit wrote:

<snip>

Post by Errol Cavit
Quite. The Turk's British-built ships would have been delivered (the crews
had been dispatched to pick them up in OTL). It is quite likely that some
other 'friendly' neutrals would have had ships seized (with repayment of
monies paid, as was offered to the Turks OTL). Any suggestions as to whose
ships would be on the stocks in 1917?

Hmm. Is the Netherlands getting worried about her East Indies empire
and those powerful Japanese battlecruisers? In OTL a Royal Commission
reported in July 1913 recommending nine 12" gunned, 21kt dreadnoughts -
four for home waters and five for NEI. There was some faffing about and
nothing became of the plans before August 1914.

With war delayed until 1917 there might be a different story. I can't
see the Hague building all these battleships domestically - but mightn't
she go to Germany rather than Britain for construction?

- Syd