Historical What-If: World War I in 1905

[DinoDoc]

Germany had an excellent opportunity to gain hegemony in Europe in the summer of 1905. Russia was reeling from its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and in no position to defend itself from a German attack. The UK wasn't yet in an alliance with France and Russia. This left France to stand virtually alone against Germany.

How would history had turned out had Germany siezed upon the unparalled opportunity these events presented it and provoked "The Great War" in 1905 instead of letting events run thier course in 1914?

[DuncanK]

I think defense had the advantage in that era. Any nation taking the offense would have been making a mistake. It wasn't until the invention of the tank that big offensive gains could be made at a low cost to the attacker.

[orange]

I would still bet that England joins on the side of France, especially if Holland and Belgium were invaded, and a stalemate is reached with them similar to 1914...only the war on the east would be much easier for the Germans and Austrians...and they gain a lot of ground, most of which isn't given back after the war.

[orange]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think defense had the advantage in that era. Any nation taking the offense would have been making a mistake. It wasn't until the invention of the tank that big offensive gains could be made at a low cost to the attacker.

In the west this is true, but in the east? Germany made very large gains against the Russians, and defeated them in most every major battle and offensive even in 1914 through 1918, when Russia was slightly better prepared to handle such a war.

[Jon Shafer]

Germany nearly won in the West rather quickly... it was only when trench warfare set in did things get really nasty. If Germany could maintain the momentum that they had in 1914 without losing it, then I think Germany would end up winning.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Theodore Rossevelt would be in the White House, and ther's no way that loveable little warmonger would have sat the war out for three years. I think we can assume that the US would have entered right away. We can also assume that the Decembrist Revolution in Russia would have succeeded.

But here's the really tantalizing part:

Ottoman participation on the side of Germany was occasioned by Britain refusing to deliver a battleship they had been building for the Turks -- but they weren't building that ship in 1905. It's reasonable to assume Turkey would remain neutral. Thus:
1) No partition of the Middle East by the Great Powers
2) No British mandate in Palastine

[CerberusIV]

Britain in 1905 was still trying to learn the military lessons of the Boer War, and hadn't really got a proper General Staff structure set up. Britain would still have allied with France but would have struggled to come to any strategic plan to fight a war.

The crucial difference in 1905 was that the Russian rail network was inferior to 1914 and the Russians would have struggled to send troops to the front. In 1914 the Germans took divisions from the West to face the larger Russian forces at that time. In 1905 this would not have been necessary so German forces in the West would have been stronger and might well have overrun France in a replay of 1870, rather than grinding to a halt and trench warfare.

[Dr. Nick]

The Russians weren't any readier in 1914 either, and the British would have still been dragged into the war. But with a live Schlieffen, it just might have worked, considering that there would have been much less pressure from the eastern fronts.

Although it would have been hard for Britain to intervene against an enemy of Japan considering the alliance London and Tokyo had.

[DinoDoc]

nm

[Dauphin]

Re: Historical What-If: World War I in 1905

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The UK wasn't yet in an alliance with France and Russia. This left France to stand virtually alone against Germany.

The UK and France were alligned in 1904. The French and Russians were already alligned. Does that not mean they were ipso facto a triple alliance in the event of a German attack on France.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Theodore Rossevelt would be in the White House, and ther's no way that loveable little warmonger would have sat the war out for three years. I think we can assume that the US would have entered right away.

Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

I see no reason to believe the U.S. would have entered any differently than in the actual war.

England, no doubt, would have acted to contain Germany, as they viewed Germany as their greatest rival in Europe.

My guess is that Germany knocks Russia out very quickly, and then throws those Eastern troops against France and brings the war to a quick close with a favorable peace. Austria gets its way in the Balkans, Germany gets Poland. However, I think this would set the stage for a future conflict, as England and France aren't likely to be content with Germany's position of dominance on the continent.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

I love TR and have little patience for Wilsosn, but I must disagree. TR loved war and adventurism, as his role in the attack on the Phillipines (going behind the backs of his superiors and greenlighting the attack while only asst. secretary of the Navy) nicely illustrates. There's no way he would have sat out WWI if it happened on hi watch.

[Boris Godunov]

Yet, during his presidency, TR didn't get us involved in many international conflicts. Wilson undertook more foreign interventions than any president before or since. If even he dragged his feet on WWI, I don't see why Roosevelt would have been more aggressive. It was a longstanding U.S. policy not to get involved in European wars, and I really doubt Roosevelt would have been gung-ho to jump into a war that was looking likely to be pretty bloody. The Phillipines was a very different ball of wax from being part of a huge European continental war. Unless there is some compelling reason for TR to get involved beyong simple "warmongering," I don't see it happening.

[Saras]

I was reading the vol. II of the Rothschilds history, and since these guys were connected at every major power, it gives some insights into the inner workings of diplomacy. I was surprised that Germany and UK almost allied in the end of 1800's, because the colonial interests of both nations were so closely matched in Africa and elsewhere.

Now that would have been some alliance!

[Boris Godunov]

Saras, it probably would have happend if Bismarck had retained his position. It was the Kaiser's foolishness that sparked the France-England alliance in the first place. Had Germany not been such a bully towards France in Morocco, and had the Kaiser not blatantly tried to challenge British naval power, the alliance could have happened.