1789-1914

Most people seem to see this as a defining period in modern history. Gave us Napoleon, which led to a unified Germany, which later developed a (somewhat enforced) taste for unity, which gave us Prussian domination of Germany and with one thing and another the First World War. Everybody knows what happened next.

Is it possible that at one point in those 125 years the calamities of the 20th Century could be avoided? Certain individuals being in different places, such as Napoleon remaining in Paris as a young officer instead of going back to Corsica.
 
Sure.

Badinguet shot when trying to escape.

No frankfuhrt, so no WWI.

Other solution : Pichegru transfered so Hoche stays as minister of war and his coup is successfull.

Lots of others. I really like the 'Fieldmarshal Von Bunapartes' solution, even if the PoD is before 1789
 
Just have Socialism / Communism never develop. Mark, Engels, and all the rest ally die early. Thus no Communism or Nazism, the two causes of the "calamities of the 20th Century." That's not to say that other bad things won't happen though.
 
Just have Socialism / Communism never develop. Mark, Engels, and all the rest ally die early. Thus no Communism or Nazism, the two causes of the "calamities of the 20th Century." That's not to say that other bad things won't happen though.

1) That won't stop WWI from coming along.

2) You'd have to kill thousands of men, whose writing didn't come to proheminence in OTL. Socialism/Communist rise was a reaction to exploitation in the industrial nations. It's an effect, not a cause.
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:
 
I don't really see how it's possible to avoid any such calamities occurring in the 19th or 20th century. Industrialization was already gaining ground and was bound to create a large technological boom in the 1800s. Also, the concept of balance of power was already established in the major powers in Europe. If you avoid the French Revolution, you wouldn't have the Congress system for settling disputes, and you'd just have more wars in the 19th century with better technology due to the Industrial Revolution.

The balance of power concept will also lead to competition in the colonial sphere. India is still being fought over and even without a fall of Napoleon to hand it all to the UK, there will be struggles to get the most of India each country can. The Scramble for Africa is bound to start sometime in the 19th century, and with industrialization gaining ground, you'll still have the exploitation of Africa's resources at the detriment of its people. This will especially apply to latecomers in the colonial game, whoever they may be.

Industrialization will also bring a backlash to the merchants, either from the aristocrats due to the rising social status of merchants, or from the oppressed lower classes. The shifting social classes will create new ideologies based on something or another and create upheaval among the old regimes.

Also, with the American Revolution and a French Revolution (even if failed), the idea of individual liberty will have been planted in the peasant classes of Europe. A revolt against the established regime is bound to succeed somewhere in Europe (e.g. Chartists in Britain) which will further encourage the lower classes of Europe (possibly building up to an 1848-analogue).

On nationalism, civic nationalism had already been established from ideas such as Rousseau's Social Contract and the Declaration of Independence, and it's only a short jump from civic nationalism to ethnic nationalism. Sure, there could be different successful manifestations of ethnic nationalism in the 19th century (Pan-Slavic, Polish, Hungarian, Grossdeutschland), but with a POD after 1789 there will certainly be some form of nationalism.


And that's my post. :D
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:

I hear you, man. I'm sort of offended by this nonesense:

Just have Socialism / Communism never develop. Mark, Engels, and all the rest ally die early. Thus no Communism or Nazism, the two causes of the "calamities of the 20th Century." That's not to say that other bad things won't happen though.

Tell me, rcduggan, do you really believe that Socialism is the cause of "the calamities of the 20th century"? You sound like some sort of McCarthy saying that. Socialism is about Equality, brotherhood, and peace; I have a hard time seeing how it brought along WW2.
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:

Since the first world war was between France and England before Germany united, it's obvious that a World war doesn't require Germany.

OTOH, WWI, as we have seen it, supposes that Germany is unified and that there is a system of alliances, which came from from the unresolavable antagonism between France and Germany, in OTL, which, in turn, came from the treaty of Frankfuhrt. So, yes, in OTL, WWI and WWII came from the way Germany was united and a war looking quite like WWI was inevitable after Frankfuhrt.

So avoiding WWi and WWII as we know them requires avoiding Frankfuhrt. That doesn't mean that Germany cannot be united ( in 1848, forex ) but it doesn't mean the unification is written in history ( after all the Great Germany of the XIXth century german nationalists has never been achieved ). And, obviously, a disunited Germany, or one united differently from OTL ( by someone else than Prussia forex ), means that any type of World war will be very different from OTL WWI.

It seems pretty useless to get annoyed at history, in my mind.
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:

Erm, German states stretch across the continent. If there isn't any German State as an integral part of it, we're going to have to shout very loud to curdle the blood of our enemies. Either that or get Scandinavia involved, but frankly I think shouting loud would be easier, based on the number of Scandinavian-initiated conflicts in the last two centuries.

So, really, it's geography you should blame.
 
I'm seriously taking offense to the conclusion that any kind of WW1 needs a German state to trigger it. I know there is a tendency to blame all of the worlds ills on my country, but this is getting seriously annoying. :mad:

Most people were merely saying it would avert the OTL World Wars, which both featured Germany as a major player. It is harder to speculate on whether there would be world wars in TTL, so it is easier to just say that the OTL World WArs would be averted.


Now that I think about it, no French Revolution would probably be the best solution. No nationalism would be a very good thing.
 
I would have to argue that Napoleons destruction of the Holy Roman Empire, and consolidation of power in the German territories helped unify German as much as Nationalism. Also you don't have to get rid of WWI all together, just change it, so that it is a regional conflict and not a world conflict. This can be done by changing the German plans going into it, and avoid the invasion of the low lands and France.
 
No you don't. It was the French Revolution that ignited modern nationalism.

If you define modern as post 1789, yes, by definition.

However, nationalim itself was started when people began to identify with a country rather than clan, a lord or a city. For France and England, that began during the 100 year war. It took longer for some other countries, with HRE and Italy being among the latest in Western europe, IMO. For those 2, the trigger was 1789, but nationalism existed beforehand in other countries.
 

Redbeard

Banned
Where are girls when you need them?

I actually to a large degree can follow Kabraloth's frustrations - and to follow up my point I will suggest the following PoD:

Gavrillo Princip finds a nice girl and settles down instead of shooting Archdukes. So WWI does not happen in 1914, 15, 16 or 17. Then comes the next general election in Germany, and is as expected won decissively by the socialdemocrats.

After some anxious months the Kaiser gioves in to pressure from both the unions and leading industrialists, who have a common interest in stable political conditions - and keeping out the communists.

So the socialdemocrats form government, and soon invite to an international conference with the purpose of establishing a European co-operation sphere. This immediately become a main cause for socialdemocrats all over Europe and all governments are under pressure to take positively part.

The Co-operation Sphere is followed by proposals about an inner European market, tempting not at least the industrialists.

A number of crises arise in the next years, mainly caused by French revanchism, but France suffer dwindling support to her hot-headed policies and a dwindling number of people in the areas taken over by Germnay in 1871 want to leave the safe and prosperous Germany for the unstable France.

Initially the tension between GB and Germany is erased, as the new German Government give up naval ambitions and a colonial Empire, but over time the increasing global socialdemocratic critisim of Imperialism create serious tension with the British Empire and other still in the game colonial empires. The RN still rule the waves, but against this new threat it is utterly useless.

At some time widespread strikes and riots over independence various places in the Empire co-incide with yet another German socialdemocratic campaign vs. imperialism. This is the drop that has the British cup filled, and the British Government declare naval blocade against Germany while the British Army is sent against demonstrators all over the Empire - machinegunning thousands of civilians.

The world is shocked and most sympathise with the Germans, either because they like the socialdemocatts and their results, and/or because they don't like the British, and soon the blockade is given up. This doesn't quiet up things in the Empire however, and over the next two years the Empire is dissolved, King Edward VIII in excile and a number of republics declared on the British Isles.

While anxiously watching what is happening in the USSR the world is pleased with the fate of the evil and warmongering imperialists, but look at Germany as the almost perfect (but slightly dull) example of the humane society...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
I actually to a large degree can follow Kabraloth's frustrations - and to follow up my point I will suggest tit he following PoD:
And where is Russia in all of this? German anxiety over Russia's supposed potential for supremacy of the continent was one of the causes that started the first world war. Also if there is no ww1 then the Russian revolution is out imo.
Edit: the angry emoticon was a mistake... dunno how it got there
 
I'm sorry, I was a bit too drunk when posting this, otherwise I wouldn't have. It certainly wasn't called for, but I guess I'd better explain something:

My post is in relation to the OP, who states a unified Germany, which later developed a (somewhat enforced) taste for unity, [...] gave us Prussian domination of Germany and with one thing and another the First World War.

I'm simply taking offense to the still prevalen view that German Unification under Prussia will directly lead to the World War and that by removing it you could thus create a shiny happy timeline without any greater conflicts.


For a POD which could remove most of the calamities of the 20th century, I'd subscribe to successful 1848 revolutions which could give nationalism a more cosmopolitan direction (not necessarily a contradiction).
 

Susano

Banned
I'm sorry, I was a bit too drunk when posting this, otherwise I wouldn't have. It certainly wasn't called for, but I guess I'd better explain something:
Its nothing to apologise for, you were certainly right and teh formulation was justified.

Oh, yes, sure, Im sure no German unfication removes a lot of tension from Europe. But for that matter, why not have France desintegrate, Im sure that will remove as much tension!:rolleyes:
 
If you have the POD of France disintergrating you could have the Vendee Rebellion properly supplied by Pitt, pushing France into full blown civil war.

Too small. In population, the Vendee is not enough to balance the Republic. In OTL, the republic crushed Vendee at the same time it conquered western Europe. If Vendee is more powerfull, the rupublic will just divert some more of it's power to crushing it. Not to mention that, despite royalist legends, the Vendee was really a civil war inside Vendee, in that there was also quite a lot of support for the bleu there. A Girondin/Montagnard civil war, if you can get it, should be more balanced.

An interesting PoD for a french civil war could be to have more of the country rally against Louis-Napoleon's coup ( of course, there's always the Commune ). But I doubt it leds to France disintegrating. I don't think you can really do that after the fronde at the latest, and the religious war more likely.
 

Redbeard

Banned
And where is Russia in all of this? German anxiety over Russia's supposed potential for supremacy of the continent was one of the causes that started the first world war. Also if there is no ww1 then the Russian revolution is out imo.
Edit: the angry emoticon was a mistake... dunno how it got there

Russia is in civil war as per OTL and therefore not a traditional threat for some years (although I agree it could be argued that sans a WWI Russia doesn't collapse - but that is another ATL). The communists are however anyway a great motivation to support the socialdemocrats. When the ruler of USSR gets things straightened up by the 30's sometime, USSR/Russia again become a military threat. I imagine a major point on the socialdemocratic agenda will be how to counter the Soviets - by appeasement or by military might?

Judging from what we saw of the German socialdemocrats before WWI I guess they would go for a strong army and strict armed neutrality - something like Sweden on steroids.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top