Peace w/o WWII?

Suppose WWII had never happened* -- by which I mean no massive conflict matching the carnage (total or annual) of WWI, to present day. Even with this (relative) peace as a given, would the past 60 years have seen the same kind of decline in war deaths as OTL? For reference:



*For our purposes, we're assuming a 1932 PoD that keeps the Nazis from coming to power; yes, I know the total here is of contested plausibility, but I'm specifically looking to see if the peace of the latter 20th Century is dependent upon the violence of the 1940's

Maybe, maybe not. There are multiple factors that go into this.

As weapons have gotten more accurate, the total amount of ammunition expended has dropped, which generally leads to fewer civilian deaths. Another thing to remember is that battlefield medical care has greatly improved during the past century, even in mediocre armies. Many of the wounded today would have been dead in the past.

Also, warfare has gotten more expensive as time has gone on. The focus has shifted from large numbers of infantry to the effective use of complex heavy weapons: tanks, artillery, planes, etc. This "capital intensive" kind of war lets states carry out campaigns with fewer men, and therefore fewer casualties.

Finally, it seems that we're living in a bit of a lull, war-wise. I'm not convinced that this is going to last. This lull seems dependent on a single nation (America) dominating world affairs, and like all empires/hegemons is destined to go under sooner or later. In fact, we might be witnessing this right now, though maybe not. History is never certain until its over.

It seems like most of these factors would still occur even without WWII, and asking if America could still rise to dominance without WWII is a matter for discussion.

dustbunny said:

As weapons have gotten more accurate, the total amount of ammunition expended has dropped, which generally leads to fewer civilian deaths. Another thing to remember is that battlefield medical care has greatly improved during the past century, even in mediocre armies. Many of the wounded today would have been dead in the past.

Click to expand...

I had forgotten about the role of modern medicine -- that, along with more accurate weapons, are likely to happen even without a Second World War (or First one, for that matter). There's also the role super-weapons play in OTL's peace (it's been called the "Nuclear Peace"), but the question of if and how they develop TTL is really for another thread; for our purposes, it's enough to assume that if they are developed, they are not employed in mass war.

dustbunny said:

Also, warfare has gotten more expensive as time has gone on. The focus has shifted from large numbers of infantry to the effective use of complex heavy weapons: tanks, artillery, planes, etc. This "capital intensive" kind of war lets states carry out campaigns with fewer men, and therefore fewer casualties.

Click to expand...

This is trickier, since I'm less than certain of the role the expectation of war plays in military modernization; that, plus the lack of "experience" gained in WWII may complicate this.

dustbunny said:

Finally, it seems that we're living in a bit of a lull, war-wise. I'm not convinced that this is going to last. This lull seems dependent on a single nation (America) dominating world affairs, and like all empires/hegemons is destined to go under sooner or later. In fact, we might be witnessing this right now, though maybe not. History is never certain until its over.

Click to expand...

True, the 1990's and 2000's were relatively peaceful compared to previous decades during the Cold War; then again, by my very rough estimate, even if two superpowers splitting the world, the world was (at least after 1951) by and large more peaceful than previous centuries (counting deaths from battle, genocide, etc). At the very least, this kind of peace is compatible with a multipolar world order, so I wouldn't put too much stock in how geopolitics are likely to play out TTL.

True, the 1990's and 2000's were relatively peaceful compared to previous decades during the Cold War; then again, by my very rough estimate, even if two superpowers splitting the world, the world was (at least after 1951) by and large more peaceful than previous centuries (counting deaths from battle, genocide, etc). At the very least, this kind of peace is compatible with a multipolar world order, so I wouldn't put too much stock in how geopolitics are likely to play out TTL.

Click to expand...

Good point, one that I've overlooked.

Here's another idea: what if the current "global peace" is less dependent on one power or another dominating, and instead comes from the spread of global markets and trade? In previous centuries it was never certain that the traders of one state could access the resources of another state for trade. This was one of the main drivers of colonialism, war and conquest, IIRC.

But could such a system have arisen without the rise of America? Once again I'm dragged into geopolitics...

Also, I misspoke on my first point. The amount of ammunition expended seems to have grown, rather than diminished. It might be better to say that greater accuracy brings more focused use, rather than less use. The effect on civilian casualties seems to be the same though.

dustbunny said:

Here's another idea: what if the current "global peace" is less dependent on one power or another dominating, and instead comes from the spread of global markets and trade? In previous centuries it was never certain that the traders of one state could access the resources of another state for trade. This was one of the main drivers of colonialism, war and conquest, IIRC.

But could such a system have arisen without the rise of America? Once again I'm dragged into geopolitics...

Click to expand...

I've heard more than one historian say that global market forces in 1914 were remarkably modern, even that the world back then was "as" integrated as today. I'm somewhat skeptical, of late, of the "capitalist peace". To the extent it is relevant, it gets to the question of how the global economy would be altered without WWII.

dustbunny said:

As weapons have gotten more accurate, the total amount of ammunition expended has dropped, which generally leads to fewer civilian deaths.Another thing to remember is that battlefield medical care has greatly improved during the past century, even in mediocre armies. Many of the wounded today would have been dead in the past.

Click to expand...

This is more the result of there being pretty much no high-intensity conflicts between peer opponents. Low-intensity conflicts or curbstomps between a major military power and some dysfunctional developing world military won't generate the same munition expenditures or body count as if, say, Russia and China were to conveniently forget they have nukes and get into a major ground war. And all that medical technology has to be conducted by skilled professionals with high technology unsuited to the frontlines. It isn't much use when you can't get said wounded from the battlefield to the rear hospitals because the casevac system is being clogged by sheer numbers, enemy air defense systems have rendered your sector too "hot" to risk the heli's, or some other SNAFU.

So if it isn't conventional geopolitics or the global trade system, that leaves us with... nukes? After WWII, all the big players got their hands on them. Is it that simple? Everyone is just too afraid to start a big war?

Sounds plausible enough.

EDIT:

This is more the result of there being pretty much no high-intensity conflicts between peer opponents. Low-intensity conflicts or curbstomps between a major military power and some dysfunctional developing world military won't generate the same munition expenditures or body count as if, say, Russia and China were to get into a major ground war.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was just thinking about civilian casualties mostly. But we haven't seen a direct great-power war since WWII so it's hard to say for sure.

dustbunny said:

So if it isn't conventional geopolitics or the global trade system, that leaves us with... nukes? After WWII, all the big players got their hands on them. Is it that simple? Everyone is just too afraid to start a big war?

Click to expand...

It is probably a mixture of these things. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that none of this necessarily makes a major war impossible merely less likely. This is an important distinction.

ObssesedNuker said:

It is probably a mixture of these things. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that none of this necessarily makes a major war impossible merely less likely. This is an important distinction.

Click to expand...

That sounds about right. So to recap: A combination of stabilizing factors has made large-scale warfare less likely, while changes in the nature of war (medical, technological) have reduced the number of dead, in the wars actually being fought.

You guys agree?

dustbunny said:

That sounds about right. So to recap: A combination of stabilizing factors has made large-scale warfare less likely, while changes in the nature of war (medical, technological) have reduced the number of dead, in the wars actually being fought.

You guys agree?

Click to expand...

For now I do, unless convincing arguments against are given here; so that means the latter 20th Century without WWII is more likely than not to be at least as peaceful as OTL's same period with the war, correct?