1960s in a timeline without world wars.

[Mark E.]

On the other hand, with the US as but one of several great powers, why would the world follow their lead? Prohibition never really spread beyond North America, and it's likely that most Europeans would have seen it as silly.

On the matter of space, it is possible that it might be pursued as a prestige project by various nations, similarly to OTL. It might be fused with a pure science motivation, as was common in ante-bellum Europe.

Actually, other countries, including Canada, did ban distilled liquor for a short time circa WWI, in response to a worldwide grain shortage. Keep in mind you still had quite a few farm work animals to feed in those years. It didn’t last long and would not have lasted as long in the United States if it was enacted by simple legislation, not a constitutional amendment. A real good point here is that without the wars, the US is far less influential as a military power and Germany enjoys a much greater level of respect.

It would be nearly impossible to forecast the progress of a space program in this ATL. We must consider the incredibly short interval between Sputnik and Apollo. Without the military incentive, who has the bankrolls? Howard Hughes was an aviator, remember. The prospect of spotting hurricanes and typhoons from outer space over the open seas would have huge multinational support.

 

[Frrf]

The US is not just less militarily influential, but also less culturally influential. France, Britain and Germany will likely remain the focus of European culture for much longer, if not indefinitely. Without the wars, Germany will remain a major centre for the sciences and education, with German universities likely ranking among the world's best. You have a point about meteorology, that would be a strong motivation. Combined with the communication potential, we might see cooperative efforts to launch satellites.

 

[lounge60]

Without the wars, the whole thought process over the military is different. You may have institutions more like the Peace Corps (foreign development) or Vista (addresses domestic poverty).

Thos is probable in long term; However i not see a complete abolition of the draft in countries like Germany and France in 1960s ATL.

It was said that prohibition was extended to include beer and wine to spite those of German decent during WWI. If prohibition only involved distilled liquor, the effects are substantial. Organized crime would be less developed. Given the way American marijuana laws were adopted worldwide, a ban on distilled liquor could affect the policies of other countries. I could imagine a system where eventually, licensed bartenders could serve mixed drinks only if the mix complied with an alcohol percentage limit. Rum and Coca-Cola is bottled pre-mixed.

The WW-I im OTL affected prohibiction in USA?
Without WW-I we could have different prohibiction or not prohibiction at all?

On the other hand, with the US as but one of several great powers, why would the world follow their lead? Prohibition never really spread beyond North America, and it's likely that most Europeans would have seen it as silly.

I agree completely.

 

[Mark E.]

Point about American prohibition.

It was a sporadically fought issue through the nineteenth century. Not until the 1830's did it mean "no alcohol" instead of "no whiskey." States and counties went wet-dry-partially dry decade by decade. It was a strong religiously conservative issue into the twentieth century. By the WWI era, the prohibition movement was very strong. Yes, the fact that the US at war with Germany could have affected prohibition because contempt for Germans was an incentive to deprive beer-craving German immigrants. The point is, that if prohibition was differently defined (hard liquor, alcohol percentage) and allowed beer and/or wine, it could have lasted longer and be partially in force today. So, WWI likely influenced the nature and extent of prohibition.

American cultural influence.

I think we can all agree that without the wars, progress in a robust Europe would dilute America's disproportional influence. We must, though, see America's large population, market force, and industrial presence. An element of entertainment and popular culture was the American western. The setting of the Great Train Robbery is one where the railroads that represented ribbons of civilization through otherwise unsupervised territory. No such genre developed over the Canadian Rockies or Australian Outback. The world craved it to the extent that Europeans marketed "western" and Italian versions took the label "spaghetti western." Horsemen could point to the movies and say "Look at the horses' bits. If they are curved, they are European. American bits are straight."

American influence would not go away. It's just that second-rate performances would be eclipsed by European ones that had a chance to develop without war.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
American influence would not go away. It's just that second-rate performances would be eclipsed by European ones that had a chance to develop without war.

Or hopefully both would improve.

 

[TFSmith121]

Guggenheim wasn't exactly poor.

Aeroplanes aren't rockets.

40 miles up is balloon territory, not rocket territory. Basically, for Goddard to really make it, you have to want a big bankroller who wants to get into space.

Think of a multi-polar world where aerial reconnaissance is recognized as a useful tool with plausible deniability.

Take the XC-35, Explorer, Goddard, and shake well.

Rockoon!

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

All of the above, actually; the Army and Navy both funded

From a private,or with a Federal program (maybe a Army or Navy project)?

the Army and Navy both funded rocketry research as early as WW I; Goddard was a member of the team that developed what amounted to a bazooka in 1919.

Granted, SRBs, but still - the sounding rocket concept is obvious, and from there, if liquid fuelled engines get some attention (and with Goddard as PI, they would) it's (essentially) a matter of scaling things up...

Add the fact that in a multi-polar world, aerial recon will be very attractive.

Explorer has high altitude photography, above any chance of interception, written all over...

Best,

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

I think the biggest loser of the World Wars was not really European colonial powers but a settler-based country of Argentina.

At the outbreak of World War I, Argentina was considered to be the United States of South America where it was expected to be the hegemon of the said continent, given with its Dreadnought race with Brazil and Chile with the advantage of Argentina, being a Latin American country receiving bulks of British, French, and German investments before WWI and upon the outbreak, Argentina was starting to create its own industries like its pioneering efforts of discovering oil and gas reserves by the YPF. The outbreak of the World Wars distorted the agricultural markets where Argentina has had its comparative and competitive advantages as there was an abnormal spike of agricultural prices during WWI and sudden price decline after WWI. Without World Wars would assure milder recession in the late 1920s instead of severe depression the OTL had which means continuous economic growth and development. Democracy in Argentina would have been interrupted by the 1930 coup as normal economic climate would have not driven liberal conservatives to support and initiate institutional breakdown to topple populist regime of Yrigoyen. Without 1930 coup also mean without the rise of Juan Peron as God-like figure among Argentines.

Without the World Wars, I would expect Argentina in the 1960s as one of the leading economies in the world, standard of living in par with Australia or Canada, have diversified economic structure not reliant on beef exports.

 

[Frrf]

Would other Latin American states benifit like Argentina? Increased investment would also flow into Australia, and that with higher settlement could help develop a more diverse economy than OTL, would the same hold true for the other dominions?

 

[lucaswillen05]

WW1 could have broken out anyway for another reason. The first decade or so of the 20th Cenury were very crisis pron *(eg the Morroccan crises, the Balkan Wars and of course the July 1914 crisis. Had these bullets been dodged another crisis would probably have followed leading to WW. But assuming all the bullets were dodged and the international scene eventually calmed down which is possible then there might have been no world wars. That does not however rule out large international conflicts happening anyway. They just don't escalate or coalesce into global conflicts.

 

[Danth]

Their would still be powerful "white" settler colonies in Africa as more people are alive to go to the colonies...scary thought

 

[lounge60]

Their would still be powerful "white" settler colonies in Africa as more people are alive to go to the colonies

Absolutly!

 

[Mark E.]

Their would still be powerful "white" settler colonies in Africa as more people are alive to go to the colonies...scary thought

The ones that become "powerful" would be in areas that were sparsely populated before new settlers made the regions able to support more people as a result of new technology. Examples, southern California, Arizona, Las Vegas.

 

[Danth]

The ones that become "powerful" would be in areas that were sparsely populated before new settlers made the regions able to support more people as a result of new technology. Examples, southern California, Arizona, Las Vegas.

Tell that to The people of Southern Africa

 

[Mark E.]

Tell that to The people of Southern Africa

As I understand it, the region that is now South Africa was populated by native Zulus, but at a lesser developed state, and not with a high population density. The Dutch (Afrikanners) and British came in with elements of the industrial revolution, and brought with them relocated western tropical Africans. The new settlement completely eclipsed the population of the Zulus.

 

[Frrf]

As I understand it, the region that is now South Africa was populated by native Zulus, but at a lesser developed state, and not with a high population density. The Dutch (Afrikanners) and British came in with elements of the industrial revolution, and brought with them relocated western tropical Africans. The new settlement completely eclipsed the population of the Zulus.

The peoples you're thinking of here are the Khoi-khoi and San. As I recall, the Zulus and other Bantu-speaking peoples entered the region from the north at around the same time, but hadn't penetrated the far south because it was unsuited to their agricultural package.

 

[Danth]

And Angola, Mozambique or Rhodesia all "powerful" White colonies, with hundred of thousands more men and women moving to the colonies due to larger population through no World Wars) you could see the entire geographic southern Africa become permanently white controlled.

End of White rule OTL:
Algeria - 1962
South Africa- 1994
Angola - 1975
Mozambique- 1975
Rhodesia- 1979

Their are some 5 million White people in Africa today.

Now imagine if their were far more Whites and far more readiness in Europe to crush the Africans...
The fact that countries like South Africa survived well into 1994 without outside backing (controversial) is an indicator that no World Wars could end very well for Europe but very badly for Africa

 

[The Gunslinger]

And Angola, Mozambique or Rhodesia all "powerful" White colonies, with hundred of thousands more men and women moving to the colonies due to larger population through no World Wars) you could see the entire geographic southern Africa become permanently white controlled.

End of White rule OTL:
Algeria - 1962
South Africa- 1994
Angola - 1975
Mozambique- 1975
Rhodesia- 1979

Their are some 5 million White people in Africa today.

Now imagine if their were far more Whites and far more readiness in Europe to crush the Africans...
The fact that countries like South Africa survived well into 1994 without outside backing (controversial) is an indicator that no World Wars could end very well for Europe but very badly for Africa

A lot of that had to do with the world wars though. Without them, there (hopefully) would have been a more managed withdrawal from colonies rather than facing revolution/rebellion and vanishing like a thief in the night with anything of any value.

 

[lounge60]

And Angola, Mozambique or Rhodesia all "powerful" White colonies, with hundred of thousands more men and women moving to the colonies due to larger population through no World Wars) you could see the entire geographic southern Africa become permanently white controlled.

I think that the same would have been for Italians in Lybia.

 

[Frrf]

I think that the same would have been for Italians in Lybia.

I suspect, just due to proximity, that the Italian would do in Lybia what the French attempted to do in Algeria OTL.