60s in a world without World Wars.

War diverts technology - for example aircraft were coming along fine prior to 1914, and would have continued to do so but the requirements of war pushed their development in a different direction. Now I can't recall the detail of this argument (I made it before in detail somewhere, after spending a few weeks studying the development of aircraft, but these days my memory is swiss cheese).

I don't see why it would be seen as likely that the colonial empires would still fall. Even in OTL they were ADDING to their size right through the 1930s etc, so with no wars to bankrupt the nations, they would develop as parts of the body politic of the ruling European regime

For example, dominion status is intended as an END not as a path to independence - once it has been obtained by a federal India then most of the impetus for pushing further would have been lost

Algeria was viewed as a PART OF France, and a France not weakened by 2 world wars is not going to lose it

Nicholas II won't live for ever, and even if he holds together an autocracy whoever succeeds him (and this is an unknown given the illness of his son, and the general failure to live beyond early middle age of such people - qv Prince Leopold of Albany) would have a good bet to sort things out. There may be upheavals and civil disorder but it seems most likely that a constitutional monarchy on the German or Austrian model would emerge

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Tell me again, why was nuclear power developed? And the rocket engine. Those are the two great inventions of the modern age. Both were developed due to war.

While true, you haven't proved they wouldn't have developed without war. And perhaps without the legacy of Hiroshima, we'd be less afraid to use atomic power.
 
OK, well then you have to say that:

1. Russia would still be under the Tsarist autocracy.
2. Central Europe still run by the Hapsburgs.
3. All the big European empires in Asia and Africa still in place.
4. Air travel limited to the rich and famous.
5. Ditto for car travel.
6. Trade Unions still illegal in many countries. Most workers still working without pension schemes, sickness cover etc.
7. Steam power as the most common motive force in industry.
8. No pennicilin or most other antibiotics.
9. Most tropical diseases still going strong.

I'm sure anyone can think of more than that...good or bad?

Why would trade unions still be illegal? Great progress was made towards their legalization OTL during this era, after all.

Likewise, why would medical develpoments stop? Louis Pasteur didn't work during a war...
 
Likewise, why would medical develpoments stop? Louis Pasteur didn't work during a war...
While I don't agree that technology would stagnate after a war, there is one thing that probably would have: Penicillin. All that Fleming did was look at it under a microscope, notice that it seemed to kill bacteria and noted this in a medical journal (I think). If I remember, the reason it got funding to be developed by Florey and Chain was that it would help soldiers to recover.
 
Technology would only be about 10 years behind OTL . You should remember that prior to WW1 was one of the fastest technologically developing periods and the world was well on it's way of a globalist economy which was shattered by WW1.
I think that you are right,but on the other hand without cold war Technology in 70s,80s and 90s could be a little bit more back.
But in this alternate 1965 technological level could be like in 1950 in OTL.

As for decolonization i see maybe India gaining Dominion status and then full independence but much latter than 1960's. The problem is WW1 weakened the colonial powers severely with WW2 being the knockout blow. With no world wars the generations of young men are busy controlling and investing in the colonies. As for colonial uprisings without the support of a powerful state like the USSR they are doomed from the start. The colonials have no weapons, no money, no training and the Europeans aren't shy of using brutal methods to quell a bunch of "savage natives" who imagine that they can oppose the "march of civilization"
This is right.
 
OK, well then you have to say that:

1. Russia would still be under the Tsarist autocracy.
Autocracy? in 1914 Russia was on the road of reforms and modernization
2. Central Europe still run by the Hapsburgs.
Yes,and this is good.
Maybe the empire was tranformed in a Central-Europe Commonwhealth.
3. All the big European empires in Asia and Africa still in place.
This is right.
4. Air travel limited to the rich and famous.
Why?
In this alternate 1965 we not would have an "jet age",this is sure,but propeller aircraft for passengers (and airship) were.
5. Ditto for car travel.
I don't agree. car travel was nearly the same that in OTL (without highway,maybe)
6. Trade Unions still illegal in many countries. Most workers still working without pension schemes, sickness cover etc.
Why would trade unions still be illegal? Great progress was made towards their legalization OTL during this era, after all. (quote from faeelin)
7. Steam power as the most common motive force in industry.
Why?

8. No pennicilin or most other antibiotics.
9. Most tropical diseases still going strong.
there is one thing that probably would have: Penicillin. All that Fleming did was look at it under a microscope, notice that it seemed to kill bacteria and noted this in a medical journal (quote from Talkie Taster)
I'm sure anyone can think of more than that...good or bad?
I dont no,but avoid much milions of deads and the holocaust i think is good.

In my opinion this world in Europe in 1965
would have been very similar at UK in 50s.
A little bit old fashioned,with traditions and Monarchies,
but not a world "steampunk" ,
reactionary or outdated.
Only ten-fifteen years back (from OTL) in tecnological level.
 
While I don't agree that technology would stagnate after a war, there is one thing that probably would have: Penicillin. All that Fleming did was look at it under a microscope, notice that it seemed to kill bacteria and noted this in a medical journal (I think). If I remember, the reason it got funding to be developed by Florey and Chain was that it would help soldiers to recover.

Again, you're just saying because it happened this way OTL this is the only way it could have.
 
To win a war (especially a world war) can be a great motivation for a government to put some serious money in technological progress. This is not to say that there is no technological progress in times of peace, but a world war can help speed up matters. Naturally this will mostly be the case in areas related to war, rockets, bombs, medicine, computers/electronics and jet propulsion.

However an arms race can have a similar effect (and in real-life it did). Furthermore, that there are no World Wars doesn't mean that there are no wars at all, maybe even that on the whole it will be a much more violent world, with separate nations and coalitions constantly fighting each other. Although to prevent this from escalating into World Wars in their own right seems difficult, it would seem almost inevitable that any war between a great power would quickly escalate.
 
Rubbish. War is not a spur to advancement at all it is a hinderance to economic development and is a waster of wealth and a destroyer of human happiness.

War has not produced any scientific innovations nor has it produced any technological advancement that would not have occurred if there was no war. Instead it has eaten up the wealth of nations and has channelled technology into unnecessary side tracks.

Weren't you the one who said the World Wars were necessary to break the class system?

Obviously if you've changed your position, that's cool, but I was shocked that it was you who said that considering I said something similar, which you argued against, during our disagreement a few months back.
 
Tell me again, why was nuclear power developed? And the rocket engine. Those are the two great inventions of the modern age. Both were developed due to war.

If every person was perfectly fine with the system why would it change? War makes certain change must happen and therefore new technological advancement.

The theory behind nuclear fission was around earlier. Someone would probably get the idea of basnig power on it sooner or later.
 
Top