westvirginiarebel
Junior Member
I have been banned from alternate-timelines.com?
Posts: 50
|
Post by westvirginiarebel on Dec 16, 2015 1:13:58 GMT
Probably the closest time this happened was in 1911, so WI there had been a war either then, or in 1905?
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 15, 2018 22:52:36 GMT
I'm less sure about 1911, but I suspect that the Central Powers would have won World War I if it would have broken out in 1905. Back in 1905, Russia was much weaker and thus Germany could focus more of its resources on France. This, combined with the lack of the Franco-British military cooperation which occurred between 1905 and 1914 in our TL, could have given Germany a good chance to quickly win this TL's World War I in 1905-1906 before the lack of the Haber Process could screw Germany over.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 16, 2018 10:38:34 GMT
I'm less sure about 1911, but I suspect that the Central Powers would have won World War I if it would have broken out in 1905. Back in 1905, Russia was much weaker and thus Germany could focus more of its resources on France. This, combined with the lack of the Franco-British military cooperation which occurred between 1905 and 1914 in our TL, could have given Germany a good chance to quickly win this TL's World War I in 1905-1906 before the lack of the Haber Process could screw Germany over.
Would agree that 1905 is likely to be a CP victory for the reason's mentioned. Especially since Britain has no real accord with Russia at this point and the latter has just had a war with Britain's primary ally Japan, including the notorious Dogger Bank incident.
Also that 1911 is probably going to be a EP victory, because the EPs are significantly stronger compared to 1905 and the nitrates issue is a killer in a longer war. Also France isn't tied to the stupid plan XVII at this stage so its likely to suffer the huge human and territorial losses of OTL. Another factor is that the fortress at Liege was overcome in part because of recent very heavy artillery from Skoda so it could take significantly longer and be more costly for the Germans in 1911.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 18, 2018 0:22:53 GMT
I'm less sure about 1911, but I suspect that the Central Powers would have won World War I if it would have broken out in 1905. Back in 1905, Russia was much weaker and thus Germany could focus more of its resources on France. This, combined with the lack of the Franco-British military cooperation which occurred between 1905 and 1914 in our TL, could have given Germany a good chance to quickly win this TL's World War I in 1905-1906 before the lack of the Haber Process could screw Germany over.
Would agree that 1905 is likely to be a CP victory for the reason's mentioned. Especially since Britain has no real accord with Russia at this point and the latter has just had a war with Britain's primary ally Japan, including the notorious Dogger Bank incident.
Also that 1911 is probably going to be a EP victory, because the EPs are significantly stronger compared to 1905 and the nitrates issue is a killer in a longer war. Also France isn't tied to the stupid plan XVII at this stage so its likely to suffer the huge human and territorial losses of OTL. Another factor is that the fortress at Liege was overcome in part because of recent very heavy artillery from Skoda so it could take significantly longer and be more costly for the Germans in 1911.
Agreed with all of your points here, Steve! The only caveat that I want to make is that I think that it would be a tossup as to whether Germany will be able to commercialize the Haber-Bosch process before its munitions will run out in a TL where World War I breaks out in 1911. To my knowledge, the H-B process was developed in 1913; thus, it would need to very quickly be commercialized or else Germany is quickly going to run out of munitions.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 18, 2018 9:00:31 GMT
Would agree that 1905 is likely to be a CP victory for the reason's mentioned. Especially since Britain has no real accord with Russia at this point and the latter has just had a war with Britain's primary ally Japan, including the notorious Dogger Bank incident.
Also that 1911 is probably going to be a EP victory, because the EPs are significantly stronger compared to 1905 and the nitrates issue is a killer in a longer war. Also France isn't tied to the stupid plan XVII at this stage so its likely to suffer the huge human and territorial losses of OTL. Another factor is that the fortress at Liege was overcome in part because of recent very heavy artillery from Skoda so it could take significantly longer and be more costly for the Germans in 1911.
Agreed with all of your points here, Steve! The only caveat that I want to make is that I think that it would be a tossup as to whether Germany will be able to commercialize the Haber-Bosch process before its munitions will run out in a TL where World War I breaks out in 1911. To my knowledge, the H-B process was developed in 1913; thus, it would need to very quickly be commercialized or else Germany is quickly going to run out of munitions.
The initial laboratory version was developed in 1909, see Haber_process, but as you say the Germans only successfully scaled up in 1913. OTL they were still desperately short in the 1st year or two of the war as production was still pretty small scale and also consumption in a prolonged war seems to have vastly exceeded demand. I did read once that a nitrate stockpile captured when Antwerp fell to them was important in preventing German shortages being a lot worse until they fully expanded the H-B production capacity. As such if things kicked off in 1911 and you didn't see a very quick collapse of France, which seems highly unlikely, I doubt Germany could last long enough to fully implement production without losing too much manpower and territory before then, if not being totally defeated.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 27, 2018 0:02:18 GMT
Agreed with all of your points here, Steve! The only caveat that I want to make is that I think that it would be a tossup as to whether Germany will be able to commercialize the Haber-Bosch process before its munitions will run out in a TL where World War I breaks out in 1911. To my knowledge, the H-B process was developed in 1913; thus, it would need to very quickly be commercialized or else Germany is quickly going to run out of munitions.
The initial laboratory version was developed in 1909, see Haber_process, but as you say the Germans only successfully scaled up in 1913. OTL they were still desperately short in the 1st year or two of the war as production was still pretty small scale and also consumption in a prolonged war seems to have vastly exceeded demand. I did read once that a nitrate stockpile captured when Antwerp fell to them was important in preventing German shortages being a lot worse until they fully expanded the H-B production capacity. As such if things kicked off in 1911 and you didn't see a very quick collapse of France, which seems highly unlikely, I doubt Germany could last long enough to fully implement production without losing too much manpower and territory before then, if not being totally defeated. Makes sense. Indeed, as you said, the Germans might not have enough time to scale up the Haber process in this TL and this might end up losing World War I after a couple of years in this TL.
|
|