World War I Breaks Out in 1905 or in 1906

[futurist]

What if World War I would have broken out in 1905 or in 1906?

Would Germany have won a quick victory in World War I in this scenario due to Russia being even more backward than it was in 1914 in real life and due to the fact that Russia would have still been recovering from the shock of its 1905 Revolution at this point in time?

Any thoughts on this?

[lordroel]

Jun 20, 2016 4:36:20 GMT futurist said:

What if World War I would have broken out in 1905 or in 1906?

Would Germany have won a quick victory in World War I in this scenario due to Russia being even more backward than it was in 1914 in real life and due to the fact that Russia would have still been recovering from the shock of its 1905 Revolution at this point in time?

Any thoughts on this?

Could you provide a a reason why in 1905 or 1906 there would war.

[stevep]

I'm not sure if the plan was for an overwhelming attack in the west at that stage plus Russia is in turmoil and Britain is far less committed to opposing Germany at this stage. Hence I suspect Germany could well win big and possibly relatively cheaply.

If it was say 1910 after the 1st Moroccian crisis then I suspect Germany would go down fairly quickly since their going to run out of nitrates very quickly without the Haber Process being developed.

[futurist]

Jun 21, 2016 16:43:04 GMT stevep said:

I'm not sure if the plan was for an overwhelming attack in the west at that stage plus Russia is in turmoil and Britain is far less committed to opposing Germany at this stage. Hence I suspect Germany could well win big and possibly relatively cheaply.

If it was say 1910 after the 1st Moroccian crisis then I suspect Germany would go down fairly quickly since their going to run out of nitrates very quickly without the Haber Process being developed.

Didn't the Haber Process become commercialized in 1913, though? If so, and if Germany has enough munitions to fight a two-front war for two years without the Haber Process, wouldn't running out of munitions during World War I not be a problem with Germany if World War I will break out in 1911 or later (after all, 1913 - 2 = 1911)?

[stevep]

Jun 22, 2016 21:35:19 GMT futurist said:

Jun 21, 2016 16:43:04 GMT stevep said:

I'm not sure if the plan was for an overwhelming attack in the west at that stage plus Russia is in turmoil and Britain is far less committed to opposing Germany at this stage. Hence I suspect Germany could well win big and possibly relatively cheaply.

If it was say 1910 after the 1st Moroccian crisis then I suspect Germany would go down fairly quickly since their going to run out of nitrates very quickly without the Haber Process being developed.

Didn't the Haber Process become commercialized in 1913, though? If so, and if Germany has enough munitions to fight a two-front war for two years without the Haber Process, wouldn't running out of munitions during World War I not be a problem with Germany if World War I will break out in 1911 or later (after all, 1913 - 2 = 1911)?

  Depends on the exact details.  For instance everybody used up munitions, especially artillery shells a hell of a lot faster than they expected.  Read once that even in 1914 Germany was still suffering because the Haber process wasn't industialised enough and would have suffered a serious crunch on munitions but for a large stockpile of nitrates taken when they seized Antwerp.  As such a shooting war starting in 1910-11 could get very difficult for them.  Although they would probably put more effort into developing Haber production faster not having enough artillery at key points could be a serious problem.

  Also as I said France has a far superior plan compared to 1914 so any German successes in the west are likely to be more limited.  Similarly I'm not sure when Belgium last updated its forts, especially Liege but the artillery that smashed the defences there OTL were only just about entering service so the German army could be seriously delayed there.

  Another factor is that this conflict would pre-date the Balkan wars and possibly the Italian-Ottoman conflict.  The former would mean a larger Ottoman empire but without the OTL reforms after its defeat and also Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece were all allied against it.  As such if either as part of the larger war or in parallel to it the 1st Balkan war occurred the Ottomans would probably still get pasted and the allies might well support the assorted Balkan powers.  If Italy and the Ottomans are already fighting this further weakens the Ottoman position and removes Italy from play for a while.  As such the straits are likely to stay open to Russian trade or if the Ottomans join the CPs their likely to be jumped on quickly.  [Furthermore the Greek king, who I think was assassinated in 1913, was more friendly to the western powers than his successor so in any such conflict in the region an isolated Ottoman empire is in for a very hard time].

[deltaforce]

Jun 22, 2016 21:35:19 GMT futurist said:

Jun 21, 2016 16:43:04 GMT stevep said:

I'm not sure if the plan was for an overwhelming attack in the west at that stage plus Russia is in turmoil and Britain is far less committed to opposing Germany at this stage. Hence I suspect Germany could well win big and possibly relatively cheaply.

If it was say 1910 after the 1st Moroccian crisis then I suspect Germany would go down fairly quickly since their going to run out of nitrates very quickly without the Haber Process being developed.

Didn't the Haber Process become commercialized in 1913, though? If so, and if Germany has enough munitions to fight a two-front war for two years without the Haber Process, wouldn't running out of munitions during World War I not be a problem with Germany if World War I will break out in 1911 or later (after all, 1913 - 2 = 1911)?

The Haber Process is also used to produce fertilizer. Even if Germany wasn't using it to produce fertilizer during World War I (and it may have been), without the Haber Process Germany would have been required to use its stockpile of natural nitrates for both munition and fertilizer production. Keep in mind that the food situation in Europe was already quite perilous during World War I (source):

[stevep]

deltaforce

Good point as that is going to cause Germany problems as well. I think the primary reason for the OTL shortages in Germany was over-militisation as too many men and horses were pulled off the farms and into the army. However with the Haber process not developed the crunch is going to be even tighter.

Russia is likely to be better off than in that map as with a shorter war your unlikely to get the breakdown of order that led to both the February revolution or the October coup and resulting civil war. The Balkans could be better or worse depending on circumstances.

Steve