Being as we're coming up on the anniversary of the beginning of WWI, I think it interesting to imagine a world without it. So, without the massive wastage of resources and manpower and the damage caused to infrastructure, would the world be more prosperous? Would this extend over the whole world, or would the divide between rich and poor regions be starker?
No World Wars - is the world richer?
- Thread starter Frrf
- Start date
War doesnt create wealth, unless you are a Viking. So yes, the world would be richer, but like the old saying: "War is the father of all things!" in some fields we would not be so advanced.
Curiousone
Banned
The Economist had an article ages ago mentioning how 1/3rd of the worlds physical capital was destroyed in WW2. They did the numbers, reckoned it set the world back economically by about a year or two.
A year or two of growth, averaging in Western economies at about 3% a year..
That plus World War one.
If some crazy turn of events had held those wars off, you or whoever would be in your place might be about 1/10th to 1/6th richer than OTL.
A year or two of growth, averaging in Western economies at about 3% a year..
That plus World War one.
If some crazy turn of events had held those wars off, you or whoever would be in your place might be about 1/10th to 1/6th richer than OTL.
A YEAR or two? Not a DECADE or two? I am not doubting your quote but it sounds like someone at the Economist misplaced a few decimal points.
Didn't it take decades for Europe to repair the damage, convert war production back to civilian etc? The cities were rubble, the oil industry was smashed, the steel industry was smashed, selling food for the free market price was a crime - black marketering - the railways and even the canal system were bombed out (ten ton bombs for the canals).
Didn't it take longer than a year or two for West Germany to get past the phase where cigarettes were money and well brought up girls from good families were prostituting themselves for a can of Spam or a bar of soap?
Anaxagoras
Banned
Setting aside the physical destruction and financial expense, think about the vast losses of what is euphemistically referred to as "human capital". How many potential engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers, poets, inventors, statesmen, and simple honest blue collar workers perished on the battlefields of the First World War and the Second World War? How much richer would the world be had they lived?
Curiousone
Banned
Yep just a year or two.
It did take Europe decades to repair the damage, decades in which they enjoyed fantastic growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Capitalism
One of the effects was to force the ruling classes of the West to bargain with their own workers in order to sustain mobilization of the war effort. It altered the composition of capital (ratio of earnings split into wages vs profit or human capital vs machine capital) which spurred aggregate demand.
Finding myself daydreaming about what I could do with another 1/6th of the income I have currently. Damn German militarists.
Problem is, no world wars = no change.
The Monarchies and Empires probably don't collapse (or at least, with a greater level of internal civil unrest as they tear themselves apart rather than are taken apart by foreign powers or carefully disassembled).
Possibly human rights and equality would take a hit as well. There may not be a 60s parallel.
Could see more depressions as no WWs and damage to repair which inspired growth. Greater internal economic turmoil and social unrest rather than fighting another power.
If we don't have wars against foreign powers we will ineviatably begin to fight internally, especially during the century that saw the rise of fascism and communism.
The Monarchies and Empires probably don't collapse (or at least, with a greater level of internal civil unrest as they tear themselves apart rather than are taken apart by foreign powers or carefully disassembled).
Possibly human rights and equality would take a hit as well. There may not be a 60s parallel.
Could see more depressions as no WWs and damage to repair which inspired growth. Greater internal economic turmoil and social unrest rather than fighting another power.
If we don't have wars against foreign powers we will ineviatably begin to fight internally, especially during the century that saw the rise of fascism and communism.
It does increase a nation's GDP if someone pays a company to dynamite a perfectly good apartment block and then builds a new one in its stead, even if they use the very same plans as for the previous one. Many people would have more jobs, and several companies would get orders for work during the project. But in general, taking into account the loss of the original block of buildings and all the capital needed for building the new one, I think there would be a net loss of resources.
The same would apply to the world in regards to WWI and WWII, I believe. Without them, the world in general and Europe in particular would be richer - meaning that a lot of resources would have been saved for theoretical peace-time projects and economic growth. It is of course another thing entirely how those resources would be used in a TL with no world wars. Not all peace-time projects are beneficial in general, either. And then of course there would be millions more people using those resources - while there would be economic growth, it might not be as good as IOTL in the 50s or the 60s, say, and people would not necessarily be richer, on average, because more people are sharing those resources.
The same would apply to the world in regards to WWI and WWII, I believe. Without them, the world in general and Europe in particular would be richer - meaning that a lot of resources would have been saved for theoretical peace-time projects and economic growth. It is of course another thing entirely how those resources would be used in a TL with no world wars. Not all peace-time projects are beneficial in general, either. And then of course there would be millions more people using those resources - while there would be economic growth, it might not be as good as IOTL in the 50s or the 60s, say, and people would not necessarily be richer, on average, because more people are sharing those resources.
Rstone4
Banned
The wars itself destroy wealth. You draft huge percentages of your population go to off and kill and die, your roads, farms, and industry being wiped out in the process until one side quits. Both WW1 and WW2 devastated Europe, France and Russia/USSR specifically. Millions died, Billions or even Trillions of US dollars were spent on things whose only economic product is survival.
HOWEVER!
What gets left out of the equation is the following:
First 1) The investment in stuff that kills people can be transferred to things that make money. World War 1 saw Naval and Aeronautic developments. World War 2 saw Radar, Electronics, Plastics, Nuclear Energy, Chemical understanding, Medical Understanding. All that money to build weapons and put people back together leads private sector, or civilian (depending on your economic setup) applications that would have been developed later on.
Second 2) Mass killing of population has an economic development side effect. Anyone remember that the Black Death killed Serfdom in europe? The serfs could demand more rights, more power, lower taxes, because they were now in demand. They gained rights. But that is a side effect. This population die off also forces mechanization. Wind Mills begin to develop at this time. So, You are France, you have lost millions of guys killing the Germans. Who the hell is going to work in your fields and factories? I know! Ill use this money that we extorted, i mean "won" from the Germans, and upgrade my factories and farms. Now we produce nearly as much with fewer guys. Our per-capita output is going up.
So, The wars wipe out lots of manpower and resources, however fighting these wars forced technological and economic innovation that had a positive effect.
As I sit here, typing this on a Plastic keyboard, using an electronic computer, connected with a wireless internet system to an Internet itself, eating a tuna sandwich from which the tuna came in a can, and so did the condiments, drinking a soda also in a can, all these things were developed for big wars.
Would we have these technologies without the wars? maybe, but not nearly as soon as we had them now.
The thing is that private business creates things for customers. They have to guess what people want and then make things. When a big war happens the Government demands things, and they are a huge customer, who often throws around stupid amounts of cash. Sure there is huge waste involved, but it gets stuff done.
HOWEVER!
What gets left out of the equation is the following:
First 1) The investment in stuff that kills people can be transferred to things that make money. World War 1 saw Naval and Aeronautic developments. World War 2 saw Radar, Electronics, Plastics, Nuclear Energy, Chemical understanding, Medical Understanding. All that money to build weapons and put people back together leads private sector, or civilian (depending on your economic setup) applications that would have been developed later on.
Second 2) Mass killing of population has an economic development side effect. Anyone remember that the Black Death killed Serfdom in europe? The serfs could demand more rights, more power, lower taxes, because they were now in demand. They gained rights. But that is a side effect. This population die off also forces mechanization. Wind Mills begin to develop at this time. So, You are France, you have lost millions of guys killing the Germans. Who the hell is going to work in your fields and factories? I know! Ill use this money that we extorted, i mean "won" from the Germans, and upgrade my factories and farms. Now we produce nearly as much with fewer guys. Our per-capita output is going up.
So, The wars wipe out lots of manpower and resources, however fighting these wars forced technological and economic innovation that had a positive effect.
As I sit here, typing this on a Plastic keyboard, using an electronic computer, connected with a wireless internet system to an Internet itself, eating a tuna sandwich from which the tuna came in a can, and so did the condiments, drinking a soda also in a can, all these things were developed for big wars.
Would we have these technologies without the wars? maybe, but not nearly as soon as we had them now.
The thing is that private business creates things for customers. They have to guess what people want and then make things. When a big war happens the Government demands things, and they are a huge customer, who often throws around stupid amounts of cash. Sure there is huge waste involved, but it gets stuff done.
Look at Russia in the decades leading up to WW1. There was plenty of social and economic change. There would have been further reform, unrest, and maybe civil war, but the country would have continued to evolve, and likely evolved into something better than OTL.
After all the infrastructure was destroyed, the infrastructure that replaced it was more modern and efficient. Supposedly the reason the European railway system is better than the US one is that the US hasn't had the motivation to rebuild its railroads. So a slight two year setback in the long run sounds right to me.
Rstone4
Banned
Brady, the Fact that Europe doesn't have a big empty midwest helps. East Coast usa uses trains alot! But taking a train from san Fran to Chicago is crazy because it takes a week and has to deal with those damned mountains.
In the USA it is easier to hop a jet and in Europe it is easier to hop a train.
On one hand, the resources needed for rebuilding entire cities would probably pay for a decent number of gradual infrastructure updates. On the other, given a choice instead of having the absolute need to build new infrastructure, many governments might use the money for other things than improving their basic systems - like IOTL, where one could argue that even most Western nations have for several decades been underfunding their infra in ways that is soon becoming apparant through systemic problems. Again, having more resources does not mean you use them more wisely.
First of all, its simply not true. There were plenty of changes without wars. more important thing is, that change is not always a good thing. Rise of the NSDAP.
Avoiding the collapse of monarchies and empires would have been a good thing - or at least not bad.
A constituional monarchy is not a default bad thing, just check the Netherlands or Scandinavia, even Spain.
And avoiding the collapsing of the (colonial) empires would have been a very, very good thing, OTL decolonization was a mess.
And the careful disassemly... well, anything but that.
Regarding human rights, there was a big setback after the world wars, on global levels.
regarding depressions: sure, there would have been some, even many, but not as devastating, as the OTL one.
The rise of fascism and communism was pretty much a direct consequnce of the ww1. Civil wars... not really. Without the WWsm even the CCW would be much more smaller.
But wars also kill people, who go would have gone on to invent things. I got a Ph.D. in the branch of math called complex analysis, and two of the greatest minds my field ever saw died as a direct result of WW2 -- Teichmuller was sent to the Russian front and died there, while Hartogs committed suicide to avoid being sent to a concentration camp. Grothendieck, considered by many, including me, to be the single most important mathematician of the 20th century, in any field, was sent to a concentration camp and only barely survived.
WW2 killed millions of people, I've seen estimates from 60 to 100 million, decades before their time. How many of those minds would have gone on to become physicists, biologists, engineers, inventors? I am firm in my belief that the loss of talent -- a negative effect on technology -- far outweighed any positive effect that increased funding for reseach the war generated may have had.
Also, there are the social effects. How many of those millions would have been artists, statesmen, or reformers?
Far too many uncertaintanties to say this. Would the world really be richer if the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman monarchies and all the colonial empires survived? This is very likely many of these collapses would not have happened without WW1, and no WW1 means no WW2. Assuming that for various reasons, the powerful monarchies of Russia, Germany, eventually fall via revolution or evolve into something else peacefully, can we say they would be replaced by regimes whose ideologies would prompt the growth of wealth, equality, and freedom? Assuming that decolonialization proceeds at roughly the same pace as in OTL (which is highly unlikely in my opinion) do we have any reason to believe countries like India and China will see the economic growth they have in the last few decades?
In different ways, both world wars injected massive amounts of money into national economies, helped promote more meritocratic and more economically egalitarian societies (even when these societies morphed into something evil as in the USSR or Nazi Germany), and helped break down many racial, ethnic, and gender barriers to upward mobility. At a horrible cost, yes, but my overall opinion is that a 2013 world in which the world wars never occurred would be less democratic overall, more dominated by Europe and a few other imperialist states, and probably retain more of the age-old prejudices against women and ethnic minorities. It might also be more stable, wealthy, and advanced in some respects, given that fact that millions of talented people in Europe (which then was the center of social and technological advancement) would still be living and contributing their talents. Choose your poison.
In different ways, both world wars injected massive amounts of money into national economies, helped promote more meritocratic and more economically egalitarian societies (even when these societies morphed into something evil as in the USSR or Nazi Germany), and helped break down many racial, ethnic, and gender barriers to upward mobility. At a horrible cost, yes, but my overall opinion is that a 2013 world in which the world wars never occurred would be less democratic overall, more dominated by Europe and a few other imperialist states, and probably retain more of the age-old prejudices against women and ethnic minorities. It might also be more stable, wealthy, and advanced in some respects, given that fact that millions of talented people in Europe (which then was the center of social and technological advancement) would still be living and contributing their talents. Choose your poison.
I disagree. You either get as OTL Russia has a Communist revolution or a fascist one. The Monarchy was breaking that country. It was going to snap eventually.
The Ottoman Empire was doomed. So was Austro-Hungary.
Worker oppression would continue so we'd see far more socialism if they aren't busy fighting a foreign power, no uniting National feeling.
Less rights for women as they aren't used to supplement men in the workplace being sent to war.
War causes change and sometimes it is for the better. Its not black and white peace = good, war = bad. Sometimes you need to shake up the system to prevent stagnation, and the Empire system was beginning to stagnate.