Supposing the Edwardian world just keeps puttering on...

Frrf · Nov 13, 2012

By which I mean that there are no continent-ravishing, era-defining conflicts, what would the world actually look like? How would most people live? Would it be in inner cities, suburbs or small towns? What would be the dominant mode of transport? What would the dominant form of media be? What would the dominant art and architectural styles be? The dominant music style? Would most people speak just one language, or would the prescence of multiple great powers be a strong incentive to learn others?

As for our POD, lets just assume that the 1914 "incident" is resolved calmly and becomes a footnote in the history books, as do all other such "incidents". The European Empires keep puttering along, groaning and creaking as appropriate, until the modern day.

Incidently, if anyone is inclined to yell "ASB!!!" and leave it at that, don't. If it's your belief that this is unrealistic, please, just humor me and treat this simply as a thought-experiment.

If that was rude, I appologise. I've just seen too many interesting questions drowned in tides of cynicism and dissmissiveness.

EAF602Whizz · Nov 13, 2012

It's an interesting thought. I suppose there'd probably be a more retarded progress towards things like universal suffrage, health care and various forms of welfare. Many of these things might never really have surfaced. No Beveridge report for example. I imagine we'd be a good few decades behind in technology as well without the 'spur of war'.

No swinging sixties for us then

The Oncoming Storm · Nov 13, 2012

The issue of technological progress without the World War's has been discussed quite a few times, there's two schools of thought, one is that without the need to develop new weapons we'd be at about the technological level of 1970 marvelling at our new colour TV's and cassette players with aviation probably another 10 years further back, the other is that wars tend to kill the best and brightest in society and that potential Edisons, Flemings and Teslas perished in the World Wars and the other conflicts that resulted so we'd be further on. I think that a combination of the two is likely, without the Cold War and the need to develop strategic delivery systems for nuclear warheads which spurred the development of rocketry and the computers and electronic systems needed to make them work those technologies will take longer, there may not have been a Space Race in any form. But other fields may be more advanced.

It would certainly be a more socially conservative world, civil rights would have taken longer and music forms like Rock'n'Roll wouldn't have originated (

) so the dominant music form is something like jazz. Decolonisation would probably only have started within the last 40 years, before WW1 I think the British were saying that Indian independence wouldn't happen until the 1980's. Have a look for the Rule Britannia TL, it features a shorter, less bloody WW1 and the values of the Edwardian World last a lot longer.

TxCoatl1970 · Nov 13, 2012

Pt I UK and France

TBH, the Edwardian world had a lot of issues that WWI brought to a head IOTL.
British, French, German, and Russian imperial ambitions had come to several clashes that didn't all trigger simultaneously as the Sarajevo crisis did.
The Ottoman Empire was a "corpse in armour" to borrow a phrase from Gibbon, trying to fight modern wars with a medieval economy. No hate on the myriad internal attempts to reform it and join the industrial and commercial revolutions transforming the world in the latter 1800's and eary 1900's.

I think most of the serious AH folk would agree WWI was a senseless waste of lives, money, and energy.
From a current standpoint, all that was needed for WWI not to happen was Germany and Russia butting out of the crisis between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.
FWIW, the Serbian government did try to comply with A-H demands, and without Kaiser Bill egging on the Austrians, most likely it'd have been a damp squib.

So, let's run with this- AFAIK you need to break it up into powers and spheres of influence.

Europe w/o WWI:

UK- Workshop of the world with lots of restless natives in South Asia and Africa.
Costs of empire and nature of colonies and dominions integration with UK
will mount to a serious challenge by the 1930's even w/o Great Depression or WWI.
OTL, the UK was bankrupted and bled white by WWI.
Ironically, WWI got the Brits thinking what the colonies could be contributing to the war effort and the natives haggling for whatever concessions they could get for their support. Without that external pressure, IDK how serious those efforts would be or how fruitful they'd be.

ITTL, the bleeding's a lot slower in manpower but economically,
the UK's caught between the devil of overproduction and the deep blue sea of nobody wanting or able to buy everything they're producing.
Developing the colonies into more self-directed and economically-sustainable dominions is a decades-long process.

France- a nation divided between a republican spirit and imperial ambitions after the thrashings of 1815 and 1871 to take colonies in Africa, Oceania, and SE Asia that had their merits, especially the West African colonies.
As Prussia went from scrappy to juggernaut over the 1800's, the Brits switched alliances to the French to prevent a continental superpower from emerging, troubling many on both sides of the Channel.

IOTL the Dogger Bank and Fashoda incidents nearly started shooting wars between the UK and France. You could see nasty proxy wars in Africa and SE Asia between the two powers.

My thought is that France has to reconcile its philosophies with its practices in colonial administration and politics in metropolitan France.
Basically, IMO if France focused on a competitive industrial economy and commerce instead of trying to out-Prussia Prussia, they'd be much better off.

Mr.J · Nov 13, 2012

I had an economics professor who claimed that if World War I hadn't happened, there would have been an attempted Communist revolution in Britain, as inequality kept growing and growth slowed down. It certainly would've fit Marx's theories a lot better than a revolution in Russia...

I wonder too if the SPD in Germany would've ended up in charge, and how much of a fight there would've been between the Kaiser and the SPD.

hugh lupus · Nov 13, 2012

TxCoatl1970 said:
TBH, the Edwardian world had a lot of issues that WWI brought to a head IOTL.
British, French, German, and Russian imperial ambitions had come to several clashes that didn't all trigger simultaneously as the Sarajevo crisis did.
The Ottoman Empire was a "corpse in armour" to borrow a phrase from Gibbon, trying to fight modern wars with a medieval economy. No hate on the myriad internal attempts to reform it and join the industrial and commercial revolutions transforming the world in the latter 1800's and eary 1900's.

I think most of the serious AH folk would agree WWI was a senseless waste of lives, money, and energy.
From a current standpoint, all that was needed for WWI not to happen was Germany and Russia butting out of the crisis between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.
FWIW, the Serbian government did try to comply with A-H demands, and without Kaiser Bill egging on the Austrians, most likely it'd have been a damp squib.

So, let's run with this- AFAIK you need to break it up into powers and spheres of influence.

Europe w/o WWI:

UK- Workshop of the world with lots of restless natives in South Asia and Africa.
Costs of empire and nature of colonies and dominions integration with UK
will mount to a serious challenge by the 1930's even w/o Great Depression or WWI.
OTL, the UK was bankrupted and bled white by WWI.
Ironically, WWI got the Brits thinking what the colonies could be contributing to the war effort and the natives haggling for whatever concessions they could get for their support. Without that external pressure, IDK how serious those efforts would be or how fruitful they'd be.

ITTL, the bleeding's a lot slower in manpower but economically,
the UK's caught between the devil of overproduction and the deep blue sea of nobody wanting or able to buy everything they're producing.
Developing the colonies into more self-directed and economically-sustainable dominions is a decades-long process.

France- a nation divided between a republican spirit and imperial ambitions after the thrashings of 1815 and 1871 to take colonies in Africa, Oceania, and SE Asia that had their merits, especially the West African colonies.
As Prussia went from scrappy to juggernaut over the 1800's, the Brits switched alliances to the French to prevent a continental superpower from emerging, troubling many on both sides of the Channel.

IOTL the Dogger Bank and Fashoda incidents nearly started shooting wars between the UK and France. You could see nasty proxy wars in Africa and SE Asia between the two powers.

My thought is that France has to reconcile its philosophies with its practices in colonial administration and politics in metropolitan France.
Basically, IMO if France focused on a competitive industrial economy and commerce instead of trying to out-Prussia Prussia, they'd be much better off.

Yep I can see that.. Dogger bank was Russia though There are already proxy wars between her and the UK in Afganistan and Persia ....smallish in scale though .
IMO for this to succeed Germany is the key ..find some way to allow her to expand not just physicaly ,but economicly shes a rising power looking for her place in the world ..trouble is all the best spots are taken so if you give germany a bigger say in what goes on german nationalism dies down

Derek Pullem · Nov 13, 2012

If the alliance system held together then the probable outcome would be an even more German dominated Mitteleuropa as Austria Hungary splinters into a patchwork of semi-independent regions.

I'm not sure I'd expect a communist revolution in Britain (outside of a Marxist History lecturers wet dream) but certainly unrest on the level of the General Strike is possible and of course there is always the probable conflict in Ireland to resolve

The big question in Britian apart from Ireland will be India. Without the world wars there will be less traction for Congress to put pressure on the British but some form of Dominion status (even second rate Dominion status) is probably inevitable. I'd see Imperial Preference still being developed as the competition from Germany increases (this may trigger a world recession or even depression but nowhere near as bad as OTL)

France will be best served by no world war - it will be increasingly reliant on UK (and possible on ties with the USA to) to counterbalance Germany, especially if Russia spirals into revolutionary conflict (even with no world war I'd expect a succession of communist and nationalist revolts in Russia).

If Russia is preoccupied then Germany / AH will be freer to meddle in the Balkans although a third (and fourth) Balkan War is probably inevitable as the new nations shake themselves down and the old ones (Ottomans) implode

Social changes will be slower generally but I don't believe trends such as universal sufferage and the welfare state will be stopped completely.

Science will be "purer" without the need for new weapons - as has been mentioned before this may accelerate the widespread development of nuclear weapons rather than hinder it. Aircraft and military vehicles are likely to be less advanced. Battleships will grow to insane sizes

Frrf · Nov 13, 2012

These replies have been quite interesting. Thanks. A supplimentary question, what is the most likely dominant cultural power?

Hörnla · Nov 13, 2012

Frrf said:
These replies have been quite interesting. Thanks. A supplimentary question, what is the most likely dominant cultural power?

Expect no dominance, but multi-polarity between the hubs United States (a lot less influential than OTL), Germany (incl. the Central European cultural scene), France and Britain.

I just started reading "The German Genius", which might be of interest to you as well.

Frrf · Nov 13, 2012

Hörnla - Thanks, I'll try to get that when I can. It looks to be fascinating.

Another question for everyone, would there be any sort of decolonisation? Such as turning the unprofitable colonies into puppet-states? Or even all but the settler colonies? If so, what kind of social/cultural/political impacts could this have both on the former colonies and on the metropoles?

lounge60 · Nov 13, 2012

The 1914 "incident" is resolved calmly and becomes a footnote in the history books.

what would the world actually look like?

Colonies are still here,in some form.
We have the United States (the most rich and progressed country),the Imperial British Commonwealth,France,German Federal Empire,the Habsburg Federation,the Kingdom of Italy,The Russian Empire,the Ottoman Federation,and others.
I can see a some form of Economic community in Europe.
China is divided in some indipendent States,Japan is influent in Asia (but nothing war in pacific).
Technological level is the same that in 1970 circa in OTL (but without space vehicles..maybe a German satellite like sputnik).

How would most people live? Would it be in inner cities, suburbs or small towns?

I can see some more suburbs and small town,but for the most is the same that in OTL.

What would be the dominant mode of transport?

In 2012?
Cars,trains,jet planes.

What would the dominant form of media be?

Television,radio,cinema.

Internet not exist,nothing facebook or twitter.
No mobile phones.

What would the dominant art and architectural styles be?

Rationalism and abstract art are important styles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuZ0x5Qkgzg&feature=related
but classical architecture and figurative art are still around and favorites by the average men of the street.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7XL6E9hEVE

The dominant music style?

Jazz ( like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I7y5v8-ao8 )
and traditional music (for exemple in Europe,waltzer is still popular..things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loCYkVr26wE
Rock and roll not exist.

Would most people speak just one language, or would the prescence of multiple great powers be a strong incentive to learn others?

French is the "international" language of diplomacy and culture.
English is slightly second.
German is the language of the science.

neopeius · Nov 13, 2012

I am not sure why rock and roll would not exist. It has its roots in music as far back as the 30s. If there be more colonial integration with their Imperial masters, perhaps African/Asian music might have more of an influence.

Lord Brisbane · Nov 13, 2012

but classical architecture and figurative art are still in vogue and favorites by the average me an of the street.

Major disagree here. 'Classical' architecture was already going out of fashion. There's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't see the rise of both the 'art deco' and 'modernism', indeed the likes of van der Rohe and Lloyd Wright were already making an impact.

PoeFacedKilla · Nov 13, 2012

why no space race? i think with multiple powers competing for all those resources (and industrial powerhouse like germany still existing) we would see an even more escalating space race.

even if its like 2001: a space oddysey by now we'd probably be furthur into space.

Mr.J · Nov 13, 2012

Frrf said:
The European Empires keep puttering along, groaning and creaking as appropriate, until the modern day.

Well, let's look at some of the creaks and groans:

- Russia is going to have trouble, it was already facing unrest and liberal agitation back in 1905 and before. By the 30s or so, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a Constituional Monarchy or even a republic, especially with Germany, the US and the UK all probably supportive of reform.

- At some point, China is going to get its act together, and that'll cause trouble for the European powers, if only as competition in Asian markets. And if colonial tariffs keep China out of the local export markets, they're going to have a real chip on their shoulder about it - Now that I think about it, China and the US are going to be real free-trade boosters, while the Europeans want to protect their colonial markets from outside competition.

- I don't think the colonial empires hold together forever - maybe 20-30 years longer, maybe more, but by ATL 2012 I'd be surprised if there are still large-scale swaths of European powers' colors on the maps of Africa and Asia. Apologies if this is against the OPs assumption - but only a few colonies were ever profitable, and once you have cheap assault rifles that colonial rebels can get their hands on, it's really hard to keep order. If the colonies are still in European hands, it'd have to be either a loose and fairly representative dominion-type system with lots of local autonomy and some local industrialization, or Naziesque repression.

- Latin America's a good question - the rest of the world's carved up, isn't Europe going to want to start challenging the US's economic/political sphere there? I could see it becoming a real political battleground, with sponsored coups and proxy wars as nations look for allies and markets.

- If we go by the OP, radical ideologies like Communism and Fascism haven't taken over any European countries at least, though they probably each have a regime or two in Latin America or the Balkans. It's possible that one of the European powers had a real hard-left Labor/SPD type party win a series of elections and basically set up a socialist state while retaining the forms of the old system - so the factories are nationalized and all men are equal, but there's still a king on the throne. In general though I imagine it's kind of like Kaiserreich: less ideological extremes and more muddling than the OTL mid-century.

Wolfpaw · Nov 13, 2012

hugh lupus said:
IMO for this to succeed Germany is the key ..find some way to allow her to expand not just physicaly ,but economicly shes a rising power looking for her place in the world ..trouble is all the best spots are taken so if you give germany a bigger say in what goes on german nationalism dies down

Since when does something get smaller when you feed it more? Germany was always going to feel inferior because her Emperor had an inferiority complex. If it's not the army, it's colonies. If it's not colonies, it's the navy. If it's not the navy, it's steel output, scientific research, technological advancement, philosophy, music, etc. The Kaiser was notoriously jealous that Paris and not Berlin was the Continental Capital of Culture, along with his wholehearted embrace and endorsement of Pan-Germanism which is just as poisonous and disruptive as Pan-Slavism or any of the other racist Pan- ideologies.

There is no end because Germany entered the 20th century with a malevolent case of Victory Disease combined with an Executive Inferiority Complex. Only a war or a less-nutty monarch can dim these things.

David S Poepoe · Nov 13, 2012

Mr.J said:
I wonder too if the SPD in Germany would've ended up in charge, and how much of a fight there would've been between the Kaiser and the SPD.

I consider that without the Great War Socialist Parties in, at least, Berlin and Paris, would power and there would be, probably by 1920, a call for international disarmament.

lounge60 · Nov 13, 2012

Lord Brisbane said:
Major disagree here. 'Classical' architecture was already going out of fashion. There's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't see the rise of both the 'art deco' and 'modernism', indeed the likes of van der Rohe and Lloyd Wright were already making an impact.

Agree.
Modernism is most likely dominant,but remember that in this timeline classical architecture not have the bad fame to be linked with nazism and fascism.
Is also likely some type of "third way" between classical and modern, like this:
http://www.paris4travel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Musee-d%E2%80%99Art-Moderne-de-la-Ville-de-Paris-View.jpg

neopeius said:
I am not sure why rock and roll would not exist. It has its roots in music as far back as the 30s. If there be more colonial integration with their Imperial masters, perhaps African/Asian music might have more of an influence.

Is possible that south American musics are also very much populars, sounds like bossa nova,mambo,cha cha cha,conga.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhkzD23AtN0
The post war conditions that have made possible the success of rock and roll not are not present in this timeline.
Without WW-II the evolution of society is more slow,i don't see the rise of teenagers in 50s and 60s,we have not a baby boom in 40s,and the history of pop culture is different.

PoeFacedKilla said:
why no space race? i think with multiple powers competing for all those resources (and industrial powerhouse like germany still existing) we would see an even more escalating space race.

even if its like 2001: a space oddysey by now we'd probably be furthur into space.

Without cold war the interest in space is relatively low.
Is probable that in this world the first satellite is launched by Germans in 80s,and in 2012 we have some satellites in orbit.
Maybe a space capsule with a man on board is launched in late 2000s,
but i don't see a race between Imperial British Commonwealth and Russian Empire,or between United States and German Federal Empire.
Maybe a international effort for geophysical year.

Mr.J said:
I don't think the colonial empires hold together forever - maybe 20-30 years longer, maybe more, but by ATL 2012 I'd be surprised if there are still large-scale swaths of European powers' colors on the maps of Africa and Asia.

Likely we have some different forms...
call it Dominions or oversea territories.

David S Poepoe said:
I consider that without the Great War Socialist Parties in, at least, Berlin and Paris, would power and there would be, probably by 1920, a call for international disarmament.

Is probable that we have many socialdemocratic nations in Europe.

Simon · Nov 13, 2012

PoeFacedKilla said:
Why no space race? I think with multiple powers competing for all those resources (and industrial powerhouse like Germany still existing) we would see an even more escalating space race.

Even if its like 2001: A Space Oddysey by now we'd probably be further into space.

Competing for resources? The space race ate up massive amounts of resources for very little return, okay a number of technologies did come out of it but that couldn't be guaranteed going into it, mainly as a willy waving contest. Without the massive driving force of competing ideologies that are diametrically opposed and seen as a threat to each other there's no way you'll see the kinds of resources thrown at it. Look at how the budgets were slashed shortly after achieving the goal of getting someone to the moon. You might still have funding, probably in conjunction with the military if nuclear weapons ever appear and create the need for ICBMs, but on the civilian side it's going to have to be done on a smaller budget and over a much longer period in my opinion.

lounge60 · Nov 13, 2012

Simon said:
Competing for resources? The space race ate up massive amounts of resources for very little return, okay a number of technologies did come out of it but that couldn't be guaranteed going into it, mainly as a willy waving contest. Without the massive driving force of competing ideologies that are diametrically opposed and seen as a threat to each other there's no way you'll see the kinds of resources thrown at it. Look at how the budgets were slashed shortly after achieving the goal of getting someone to the moon. You might still have funding, probably in conjunction with the military if nuclear weapons ever appear and create the need for ICBMs, but on the civilian side it's going to have to be done on a smaller budget and over a much longer period in my opinion.

Yes,sincerly i don't see a massive effort.
Today we have a space station,some capsules like Soyuz and Shenzou (and one or two Americans on the road).
Is few for 2012,after the space race of 60s.
In that ATL technology is more behind..imagine a 1970 world without the cold war boost for the space.