What would WW1 starting in 1939 have looked like?

[Avrorrange]

Suppose that OTL’s WW1 participates managed to somehow crawl their way to 1939 intact, and there’s no war between the participants before 1939,what would WW1 have looked like in terms of technology and military doctrine?

 

[Alanith]

Radically different. There’s no guarantee the alliances are even remotely the same.

 

[33k7]

if Russia avoid the Civil War and continues to economically grow at this pace it was projected to go the British may look to Germany as a new Ally to keep the balance of power in Europe.
for me personally I see the military alliances as France Italy and Russia versus a British German Japanese maybe if it's still alive austro-hungarian Bohemian Empire

I don't think the Ottoman Empire would have survived I think sometime in the 1920s they would have had a Arab Spring that would be instigated by the European powers.

China is probably divided up between European powers with warlord serving European powers selling access to their lands in exchange for large amounts of money.

I don't know if Spain will have a civil war but if it does I still see a monarchist or right-leaning government winning.

 

[DracoLazarus]

France with elan probably has all sorts of heavy motorised vehicles all ready to roll through the mountains of the Vosges.

 

[Lillith]

Without the expierence of World War One i don't think we can say for sure who the U.S president is, did the great depression still happen?

 

[naraic]

I think we are more likely to see Britain return to isolation rather than being in bed with the Germans.

It takes a generation to change the biases in the organs of state and there's too many francophiles in the foreign office in 1914 to plan on backing someone else against the French.

It can take years of propaganda to get a democracy ready for war and its very hard to reverse that.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Oil :-
Are the Ottomans exploiting their oil sources and thus becoming rich in revenue?
Has Italy begun exploiting the oil of Libya?

Battleships:-
Britain was able to maintain a lead over the Germans by constantly increasing gun calibre meaning that time and again new British dreadnoughts outclassed new German dreadnoughts. At some point it must equalise - whether this is 16" or 18" gunned ships. Beyond that becomes almost unfeasible. Thus new German ships, if completed at a similar rate to OTL, begin to fill the ranks of the navy just as the British do theirs. You could thus see something like Britain has 40 battleships with top-notch guns and Germany has 30, for sake of a number to discuss. But if the ships are becoming more equal the British qualitative edge is going. And any fleet battle is unlikely to see the whole of any battleline involved, so if for sake of argument we could say 25 ships of any fleet get into battle, then the British and German EFFECTIVE battlelines might be equal.

Aircraft Carriers
These would be coming, even without spare hulls of larger ships. The likely scenario is they evolve from experimental small carriers like Hosho, Langley, Hermes. Thus by 1939 there is probably an equal number between the powers, most of which are small or medium. Larger ones develop naturally but are entirely new-builds. Nobody would have huge old carriers

 

[DracoLazarus]

France was the first country to pioneer the use of aircraft against its enemies, and was rather in deep with the Jeune Ecole.
I could see a French navy being big on submarines, aircraft carriers and torpedo-armed destroyers to counter the German battleline at a relatively low price.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Answering some points raised by others

-> I can't see why the Ottomans would not be around. They've been driven from almost all of Europe, which is what European powers care about. They've a certain class of reformers in power whose weaknesses would not be so evident without a general war. The main question is does Russia decide to attack them (the 1916 plan)? If not, then they're trying to modernise, utilise German funding for railroads, develop their industries and oil. AFICS they are more likely to expand formal power over Asir than they are to lose any of their remaining possessions to some putative Arab uprising

-> Spain's civil war has its roots in the Rif War which was undertaken in part to try to "balance" other countries' gains from the world war, which would not be happening here. That doesn't mean Spain is stable, but it has a chance.

-> Austria-Hungary's survival depends in part on the renewal of the Ausgleich. Interesting question. Franz Ferdinand would become emperor, perhaps not in 1916 if Franz Josef lives longer without the stress of a world war. So maybe Franz Josef is still overseeing this renewal? So perhaps the crunch comes in 1926

 

[xsampa]

The powers might have carved up China as per Whelm II’s wish to dismantle the remaining uncolonized states

 

[Lalli]

Political situation would be extremely different so there would be totally different WW1.

Germany and United Kingdom probably would have much better relationships. And Schlieffen Plan would be pretty pointless so it would had been abandoned so UK wouldn't declare war to Germany. Russia was industrialising and its economy was boosting. But the tsar was good to screw things. It is not even sure that Russian empire survives to 1939. And I am not sure if France is anymore very revanchist due Elsass-Lothringen. No one even remember that anymore. Austria-Hungary was very fragile empire. It might survive but if emperor Franz Ferdinand's reforms fail it is possible that the empire collapses or at least Hungary leaves that. Italy is bit unpredictable and pretty much depends what happens to Austria-Hungary and in Balkans. Ottomans might survive but it depends what other nations are doing.

So briefly: World in 1939 without OTL WW1 would be pretty different and it is hard to say what it would look like.

 

[Avrorrange]

Oil :-
Are the Ottomans exploiting their oil sources and thus becoming rich in revenue?
Has Italy begun exploiting the oil of Libya?

Battleships:-
Britain was able to maintain a lead over the Germans by constantly increasing gun calibre meaning that time and again new British dreadnoughts outclassed new German dreadnoughts. At some point it must equalise - whether this is 16" or 18" gunned ships. Beyond that becomes almost unfeasible. Thus new German ships, if completed at a similar rate to OTL, begin to fill the ranks of the navy just as the British do theirs. You could thus see something like Britain has 40 battleships with top-notch guns and Germany has 30, for sake of a number to discuss. But if the ships are becoming more equal the British qualitative edge is going. And any fleet battle is unlikely to see the whole of any battleline involved, so if for sake of argument we could say 25 ships of any fleet get into battle, then the British and German EFFECTIVE battlelines might be equal.

Aircraft Carriers
These would be coming, even without spare hulls of larger ships. The likely scenario is they evolve from experimental small carriers like Hosho, Langley, Hermes. Thus by 1939 there is probably an equal number between the powers, most of which are small or medium. Larger ones develop naturally but are entirely new-builds. Nobody would have huge old carriers

France was the first country to pioneer the use of aircraft against its enemies, and was rather in deep with the Jeune Ecole.
I could see a French navy being big on submarines, aircraft carriers and torpedo-armed destroyers to counter the German battleline at a relatively low price.

Without WW1, would aircraft development be retarded to the point where they only function as harassment against enemy battle line or would they still be battleship killers?

 

[Dorknought]

Without WW1, would aircraft development be retarded to the point where they only function as harassment against enemy battle line or would they still be battleship killers?

Modern battleships would be following the trend set pre-ww1 and would be Yamato sized by the mid-late 1930s:

As such, they would be much better protected against bombs and torpedoes.

Air Speed Records

Blue is the airspeed record pre-war projection, red is RL so the war perhaps caused a 3-4 year lag. The focus on speed pushes engine development, better fuels, stronger airframes, streamlined airframes etc. which then finds its way back into military aircraft. War can retard things like the radial engine being kept in production way past its use-by date. Fighter Pilots had much sway over policy in OTL and will want manoeverability and dog fighting over speed. On the other-hand it did bring Rolls Royce into the aero-engine market but they would have got in anyway, probably through RN Airship development.

 

[Michele]

Many replies about politics and diplomacy, but the OP asked about technology and doctrine.

I think that in the air, you'd have essentially the same level of tech development as in OTL with regard to heavier-than-air vehicles. It's a new field and there is no reason to assume a continued (but very strained) peace doesn't bring about the OTL developments. However, lighter-than-air stuff (dirigibles) are probably still around in numbers. Even with a Hindenburg disaster, without WWI it's not as clear they are too vulnerable to airplanes. They'd be used for maritime patrolling, and possibly expected to be able to carry out night-time strategic bombing.

On the ground, tanks would exist but they would be fairly backward in design when compared to OTL. With no live-fire testing in WWI, there will be several very bad designs around. You'll also have even more mounted cavalry or mixed cavalry units than in OTL. And everyone will be for the attack, not having had the experience of trenches, barbed wire and MGs. Permanent fortifications will be much less fashionable.

At sea, it very much depends if reason and budget constraints have brought about a great powers' naval treaty or not (without WWI, it's possible the fear of constant escalation isn't there). If yes, then the navies and warships might resemble those of OTL, though possibly with less torpedo protection. But if no cap has been placed, you might have battleship behemoths. These will have plenty of torpedo and horizontal protection, given that they will be exceptionally costly.

Presumably, there will have been colonial wars, minor wars, possibly proxy wars. Everyone, not just the British, will be more used to small-scale, lower-intensity operations, possibly counterinsurgency. It is possible that minor wars bring about the knowledge that in OTL was given mostly by WWI, and thus you'd have slightly better tanks, more focus on the defense etc.; but it's also possible that they don't.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

I think we are more likely to see Britain return to isolation rather than being in bed with the Germans.

It takes a generation to change the biases in the organs of state and there's too many francophiles in the foreign office in 1914 to plan on backing someone else against the French.

OTL, despite a war that almost bankrupted the British Empire and the death of several million young British men at the hands of the German armed forces, Britain moved to a more pro-German stance in the 1920s and early to mid 1930s as (a) they were more worried about Russia/USSR than Germany and (b) they didn't want a too powerful France. The balance of power in Europe was Britain's key objective, not making kissy-face with the French. Sir Edward Grey and King Edward VII were Francophiles but one died in 1911 and the other would have been gone by 1916 at the latest even TTL. Eyre Crowe the Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign Office was a Germanophobe but he died in 1924. If Russia had been seriously exploiting it's economic potential 1914-39, Britain wouldn't even be remembering a couple of minor diplomatic tiffs with the Germans over the Boer War and Morocco a quarter of a century back. Or a naval race hyped up by the newspapers equally long ago.

But the tsar was good to screw things.

The Tsar would probably have been dead or effectively out of things through age and infirmity by 1939 even if he had clung on and not been assassinated. His cousin George died in 1936 and his cousin Wilhelm in 1941 (and Wilhelm had been spared the stresses of high office since 1918). But, although he was politically inept and no use as a military commander, Tsar Nicholas wasn't administratively incompetent (a point many people forget because he was politically incompetent) he had good people at the Finance Ministry and Imperial Bank, the Navy was being effectively reformed after the Russo-Japanese War, the Army was being modernised, the economy was doing well, the growth of literacy was considerable.

 

[Lalli]

OTL, despite a war that almost bankrupted the British Empire and the death of several million young British men at the hands of the German armed forces, Britain moved to a more pro-German stance in the 1920s and early to mid 1930s as (a) they were more worried about Russia/USSR than Germany and (b) they didn't want a too powerful France. The balance of power in Europe was Britain's key objective, not making kissy-face with the French. Sir Edward Grey and King Edward VII were Francophiles but one died in 1911 and the other would have been gone by 1916 at the latest even TTL. Eyre Crowe the Permanent Undersecretary at the Foreign Office was a Germanophobe but he died in 1924. If Russia had been seriously exploiting it's economic potential 1914-39, Britain wouldn't even be remembering a couple of minor diplomatic tiffs with the Germans over the Boer War and Morocco a quarter of a century back. Or a naval race hyped up by the newspapers equally long ago.
The Tsar would probably have been dead or effectively out of things through age and infirmity by 1939 even if he had clung on and not been assassinated. His cousin George died in 1936 and his cousin Wilhelm in 1941 (and Wilhelm had been spared the stresses of high office since 1918). But, although he was politically inept and no use as a military commander, Tsar Nicholas wasn't administratively incompetent (a point many people forget because he was politically incompetent) he had good people at the Finance Ministry and Imperial Bank, the Navy was being effectively reformed after the Russo-Japanese War, the Army was being modernised, the economy was doing well, the growth of literacy was considerable.

Nicholas II would be 71 years old in 1939 so not reason to assume that he would had been dead by then. Of course it is another thing would he be ousted or assassinated before 1939. But he can live at age of 71 if then probable early death of tsarevich Alexei doesn't ruin his health and he effectively lost his will to live.

 

[Thoresby]

This is a crucial graph, as you show the trend line towards Yamato sized fast battleships armed with 18 inch guns is going to continue and even without the economic chaos caused by the war Britain (or even an Imperial Federation) can't afford to pump out 3 or 4 of those every year and Germany certainly can't while also maintaining sufficient army to deter the French and Russians. Fleets are going to get smaller whether by the dictate of Treaty or the Treasury but in a pre-war situation I can't see something on the scale of the Washington Naval Treaty happening, that was an agreement between victorious allies, rivals wouldn't be able to come to such an agreement on ships sizes etc. However they might agree to limit the numbers of hulls being built.

 

[Avrorrange]

This is a crucial graph, as you show the trend line towards Yamato sized fast battleships armed with 18 inch guns is going to continue and even without the economic chaos caused by the war Britain (or even an Imperial Federation) can't afford to pump out 3 or 4 of those every year and Germany certainly can't while also maintaining sufficient army to deter the French and Russians. Fleets are going to get smaller whether by the dictate of Treaty or the Treasury but in a pre-war situation I can't see something on the scale of the Washington Naval Treaty happening, that was an agreement between victorious allies, rivals wouldn't be able to come to such an agreement on ships sizes etc. However they might agree to limit the numbers of hulls being built.

Could the British Empire afford to compete in a dreadnought race with the US in this scenario?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Could the British Empire afford to compete in a dreadnought race with the US in this scenario?

No

But it's not certain the US would start one. It would build what it wanted but whether it would want to be larger than the Royal Navy isn't certain .

 

[anotherlurker]

Navies at that time were quite popular, contrary to todays popular belief. Even in Austria-Hungary expansion of the navy passed parliament with little resistence, the only thing left to argue about was which companies get some of that sweet tax money.

Would they go for Yamato sized vessels in the 20s? Yes, national prestige demands it, naval associations are campaigning for it and the industrialists are lobbying for it.