How history would have been different if both sides had not had submarines or aircraft during World War 1 ?

Question

How do you think *history* *would* *have* *been* *different* if both sides had not had submarines or aircraft during World War I?

Answer 1

Lack of aircraft would have made little difference as they only had marginal influences on campaigns where they were deployed - except perhaps in the Middle East.   Submarines are a very different matter.   WITHOUT SUBMARINES GERMANY COULD NOT HAVE USED THE "UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE" THAT BROUGHT AMERICA INTO THE CONFLICT.   Without American involvement the Europeans would have had to seek a peace of exhaustion among themselves.   Such a peace, so obtained, would not have included the provocations for future war that the American influenced Treaty of Versailles did.   Without things like "war guilt clauses" favoured by America a European Treaty would not have created a situation in Germany that allowed the rise of Hitler.   On balance American involvement was a long-term disaster - but would have been unlikely without submarine warfare.

EXTRA

I understand RainBoWs points, but I still think that a more "European" Peace Treaty would have made a major difference.   Much of the settlement was American inspired and alien to established European ways and did not really work - most notably the stress on national self-determination which led to the break up of the Austrian Empire - meaning there was no overall control in the Danube Valley.   That was an ancient formula for disaster.   Also, at a European settlement the Japanese would have got a better deal - the Americans saw to it that they had a rough time,   The consequences of Japan's loss of faith in the international system were catastrophic.   Basically I am arguing that the world would have been a better place had the New World not tried to "redress the balance of power in the Old World".

Answer 2

This is actually a very hard question to answer.  It may apear simplistic to some, but i can assure you this is not the case.

The far easier of the two to analyse is the scenario that aircraft had not been invented.

Aerial supremacy was important in WW1 primarilly for reconnaissance.  But this role was predominantly played by Air ballons/Zeppelin ships.  By the time aircraft were used for this role extensively, trench warfare was well established.  

Air ballons could drop bombs, but their pay loads were rather limited.  Their value as bombers was rather minimal, and apart from the one-off air raid on enemy cities (which did minimal damage) their use as anything other than observation platforms was limited.  The presence of aircraft would not have prevented Zeppelins from attacking British coastal towns, precisely because aircraft had low operating ceilings and could not fly as high as the air ships, and as such could not destroy them.

Aircraft did challenge one another for control of the skies during the First World War, but the fact is, although reconnaissance did aford the defenders knowledge of enemy biuld up of forces behind the lines.  The fact is, the trench system itself, afforded much security to a surprise attack, simply because of the level and strength of the defense on the western front.

Aircraft were important in offensives in the latter stages of the war, as they could drop amunition to troops advancing over no mans land, they could fire on retreating troops or drop bombs on enemy positions.  But, their importance should not be over estimated.  When enemy troops were well positioned aircraft could do little to harrass them, and were themselves vulnerable to being shot down by enemy fire.

Aerial supremacy during the first world war, was a close run thing.  At different times, either side had a technological advantage with their aircraft, but such advantages rarely lasted long.  Both sides complained throughout the war, that their opponents had superior equipment.  Generally speaking, German tactics were some what superior, and they had to be when they were out numbered for large spells of the war.  

But its highly doubtful the end result would have been different, had neither side possessed aircraft.  Simply because neither side possessed a true advantage from aircraft, and by the time, the allies had such an advantage, the war was in many senses unwinable for the Germans.

Submarines.

The lack of submarines would have had a huge impact on the First World War.  For the British, their supply lines would have been secure, and as such had more supplies at their disposal.  With no need to secure their lines of shipping, British naval forces could have operated more freely.

However, since the British did not deploy convoy until the latter stages of the war, its doubtful what use these "freed" naval forces could have achieved, since they were small in number.  More over, with the Germans not deploying an unrestricted u-boat campaign, American lives and shipping would not have come under threat.  Its quite possible, with no high incentive to enter the war, the US may have remained neutral.

With a neutral US, the Germans would have been in a far stronger position.  Russia would still have fallen into chaos and revolution, and with that, the Germans would have been freed to send all their troops to the western front.  This would have been a massive blow to British and French hopes of defeating Germany. The moral boost to the British and French, with the entry of the US was huge.  Without the US, hopes would have been bleak, but in no sense did this mean Germany would have been victorious.  By 1918, the Germans were in bad shape, and even had they launched their spring offensive and took massive gains of the allies, they would have been exhausted.  The German economy was in a very bad way, and German people were starving.  The war would have taken longer, but the eventual winners, would be uncertain.  

That said, without u-boats the German Kriegsmarine, would have faced a h**l of a lot of criticism, (as they did anyway) for a lack of action.  With no u-boats the German surface navy would have had to take a more positive role than it actually deployed.  Had the Germans looked to fight the Royal Navy, perhaps pushed on to do so by higher powers, then its doubtful that they could have defeated the Royal Navy.  Only under extremely positive circumstances could the German navy hope to defeat the Royal Navy in a grand naval battle.  With the German navy forces to take action, she may well have faced destruction in the North Sea in 1917.

The freeing up of the Royal Navy by the defeat of the German Navy in the North Sea, would have been a huge blow to German moral, as well as a huge boost to British and French confidence.  A moral boost which would not make up for the lack of US forces on French soil, but would have been important in the British and French resolve to fight on, given the setbacks of the spring offensive.  

Lastly, just because the US entered the war on the grounds, that the Germans conducted a policy of unrestricted u-boat warfare on neutral shipping, should not misguide you on other elements that were important in why the US declared war on Germany.  The fact is, the US could only trade with Britain and France, and could not trade with Germany due to the geographical nature of Europe.  As such, she had closer ties with Britain, and as such, prior to the German attack on US shipping, if she was to enter the war,it was always going to be on the British side.  Although the ordinary american had no wish to go to war, the reality was, German was the aggressor in 1914, and had been aggressive prior to war in 1914.  A Europe controlled by Germany was a threat to the US, and something she did not wish.  Whether you want to believe it or not, the defeat of germany in the war, meant that a Militaristic Germany did not control Europe.  The US involvement in the war, made sure that this outcome would not transpire.  Therefore although the US did enter the war, off the back of German aggression against US shipping, its quite likely the US may have entered the war at a latter stage, had the Germans not attacked US shipping.

To sum up, the loss of aircraft would make no real difference to the outcome.  The loss of submarines would have made a real difference, but such a difference is extremely hard to evaluate,given the nature of "what if" History.

Tony - Dont confused the allied victory in World War 1, with being responsible for the outbreak of War in 1939.  There are many ways in which war could have been avoided in 1939, such as,

- A more harsher or kinder Treaty of Versailles.

- A stronger German government post 1919 to ward off the n**i's

- No Wall street crash/Great depression.  Hitler had virtually no support prior to the Depression.  His support increased 10-fold off the back of it, precisely because the German people had, had enough.

- Stronger European politicians in Britain and France to prevent Hitler from abusing the conditions of the League of Nations.

- A true League of Nations, to ward off aggressive Nations.  The US came up with the idea, but never joined it.  Had they done so, aggressive countries would have faced more opposition from the League.

Answer 3

Not much as they were much more important in WW2 in WW1 planes were unreliable and not very damaging being used primarily for scouting.  The only thing subs did in WW1 that was of any consequence was to bring the US into the war on the side of the allies (at least that was the excuse).  But again in all reality they had little impact on the fighting. The battleship ruled the seas in WW1.