No World Wars world in 1945 and beyond

[Grey Wolf]

The SPD were on the rise within Germany at this time and without the interuprion of war to bring the old conservative order back more firmly one could postulate a period where the Kaiser tries to juggle centrist and right wing parties but eventually has to bow to parliamentary pressure and appoint an SPD chancellor by c1920. Maybe from that moment onwards what was a slowing down of the German naval build up can be formalised as a ratio in agreement with Britain.

Looking at aircraft development before WW1 there was a lot of drive towards distance and reliability -not just first to cross the channel, but overflights of Europe and races to be the first to Egypt etc. One could postulate that instead of developments related to raw power, manoevrability and offence/defence, the main developments would be ones that instead boost distance and overall reliability.

Grey Wolf

There's a lot of good points, and I'm not going to try to postulate a timeline of my own here. I may eventually, thought.
I see a few things that will come into play, though.
1. The Ottoman Empire, if it doesn't get dismembered, has a great potential to become quite rich in the 1920's. Control of the Middle East oil fields will insure this. By 1916 or so, the Ottoman Navy will have 3 dreadnoughts, one with 14 12" guns and 2 more with 10 13.5" guns. I wouldn't be surprised to see them purchase more, and later, as the money flows in from oil, develop facilities to build their own.
2. Some sort of Naval Understanding will have to be worked out between Germany and Britian before they bankrupt themselves. Either that, or the Reichstag and Parliament simply stop voting money for the fleets. I'd expect Britain to end up with a significant lead over Germany. There was an attempt, IIRC, by Britain and Germany to end up with such an agreement at one point. Perhaps this ends up being the POD that keeps Britian less threatened by Germany.
3. Without the wartime pressure on aircraft development, they will, IMHO, develop slower. As a rsult, the battleship remains queen of the seas for longer--probably right up to the 1945 landmark for the proposed no World Wars.
A Washington treaty may or amy not occur. If the naval race peters out in the early 20's, probably not. I certainly find no Washington Treaty more interesting. Battleships continue to grow--perhaps the US gets a pair of Lexingtons and a pair of South Dakota's (the ones cancelled by the treaty)
The US may become the number one naval power, but more likely simply overtakes Germany. Britain's two-power standard will be history.
Also, the potential of the submarine will remain uncertain.
Oh, yes--the volatility of British cordite remains undiscovered for some time to come.
Just a few random thoughts, make what you will of them.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

1. The Ottoman Empire, if it doesn't get dismembered, has a great potential to become quite rich in the 1920's. Control of the Middle East oil fields will insure this. By 1916 or so, the Ottoman Navy will have 3 dreadnoughts, one with 14 12" guns and 2 more with 10 13.5" guns. I wouldn't be surprised to see them purchase more, and later, as the money flows in from oil, develop facilities to build their own.

Erin and Agincourt would have been in hand, and the third BB was to be built in a new shipyard being built in Izmid by Armstrong/Vickers. It was projected as an enlarged Erin, but would likely have ended up a 15" or 16" ship by the time the shipyard was complete.

Ibn Saud was an Ottoman vassal technically, and over time Ottoman control would have been extended into Arabia. The Ottomans actually occupied Riyadh in 1905, but pressing concerns elsewhere and the total worthlessness of the interior of Arabia at the time caused them to withdraw after confirming the Saudi's vassalage.

I think Russia will have too many of its own problems to deal with, not the least of which being Japan, and its gaze will move away from Istanbul - without the emotional appeal of Slavic solidarity (no more Slavs in the OE), it would be hard to motivate the populace to fight the Ottomans.

The chief strategic problem of the Ottoman Empire was the lack of rail network in Eastern Anatolia; it made the Kurds difficult (impossible) to control, causing most of the tensions with the Armenians, and prevented rapid concentration of troops in the east and made armies there very difficult to supply. Oil revenue will solve that problem, but fast.

Imagine if you will, the Ottoman Empire in 2004, controlling all the oil revenues of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and either some or all of Kuwait, with a population of about 160 million. Eeek.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think Russia will have too many of its own problems to deal with, not the least of which being Japan, and its gaze will move away from Istanbul - without the emotional appeal of Slavic solidarity (no more Slavs in the OE), it would be hard to motivate the populace to fight the Ottomans.

I am intrigued as to why you think Russia is going to be having problems with Japan ??? Where do their interests clash now ? Japan has made Korea a vassal, the Russian naval force in Vladivostock is only going to be boosted by a couple of cruisers (Muraviev Amurski and Admiral Nevolskoi) so that leaves China I guess ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I am intrigued as to why you think Russia is going to be having problems with Japan ??? Where do their interests clash now ? Japan has made Korea a vassal, the Russian naval force in Vladivostock is only going to be boosted by a couple of cruisers (Muraviev Amurski and Admiral Nevolskoi) so that leaves China I guess ?

Grey Wolf

You don't feel that Japanese expansionism is going to clash with Russian interests? How about Manchuria? Plus, there's still Austria-Hungary and the German Empire to worry about!