A more slow XX century.

How could be possible a more slow XX century,with more slow and less changes between a decade and another?
More slow tecnological development,habits and fashion changes?
 
Less wars and smaller wars. Wars not only shake up the existing international order but also internal political structures and push technological advances. Have 1914 be a short sharp repeat of 1870 and no other massive conflict and you would see a world socially in the 30's and technologically in the 70's today.
 
How could be possible a more slow XX century,with more slow and less changes between a decade and another?
More slow tecnological development,habits and fashion changes?

The easiest path would be to prevent WW1 entirely, keep the old order going as long as you can. The conservative nature of, well, nearly every society at the time is conductive to keeping things as they are. I seem to remember someone once making a comment on such a scenario being, essentially, a 'long 19th century'.

Certainly, change is going to occur, but at a slower pace.

For extra flavour, find a way to keep France as an Empire. Monarchies always were less prone to social and cultural change by their nature.

Both World Wars sent seismic shocks through society and upset society quite a bit.
 
I agree with the above statements, but I think that there is also the risk that without change tensions can build up till they explode. An example can be the Russian Revolution which went form conservative monarchy to communist state overnight largley because the Russian monarchy refused any kind of progressive reform. Therefore, continious small scale reform might be preferable to keeping things they way they are than simply stopping any kind of developments.
 
Monarchy's aren't necessarily stagnant, look at Britain one of the most dynamic countries post 1680 despite having an uninterrupted monarchy. However preventing WW1 or minimising it means you don't shake up the old order, prevent WW2 and you don't annihilate it.
With no World Wars states are smaller (as % of GDP), pure research is less well funded and things are more static. You wills still see change as societies like the Britain and USA aren't going to stand still, but nothing like the scale of OTL. Also without World Wars you aren't going to have the massive generational gaps that you saw in the 60's but much more gradual social change.
 
The easiest path would be to prevent WW1 entirely, keep the old order going as long as you can. The conservative nature of, well, nearly every society at the time is conductive to keeping things as they are.

The trick here is finding the right PoD -- remember, when the Archduke was assassinated, the powers had already come very close to clashing a number of times.

Maybe prevent, delay, or undo* the 1908 Young Turk Revolution...

*e.g. a successful March 31 incident
 
Thing is that the early 20th century is so similar to the late 19th century. If you want to 'slow down' the 20th century you've got to slow down the 19th.
Given that the industrial revolution came in two surges-one with steam etc. and the second with steel, railways (this is outside Britain btw) and electricity. So if the second surge can be either delayed or slowed down then the 20th century would be much slower.
 
The easiest path would be to prevent WW1 entirely, keep the old order going as long as you can. The conservative nature of, well, nearly every society at the time is conductive to keeping things as they are. I seem to remember someone once making a comment on such a scenario being, essentially, a 'long 19th century'.
More that a long 19th century i have in mind a long early 20th.
I think that the WW-I is the key of the problem.
A 20th century without world wars and Cold War (don't forget the cold war) is fore sure more slow.
you would see a world socially in the 30's and technologically in the 70's today
 
The conservative nature of, well, nearly every society at the time is conductive to keeping things as they are. I seem to remember someone once making a comment on such a scenario being, essentially, a 'long 19th century'.

I think that is partially true. The societies of Europe in the 1910s were not conservative in the sense of 'keeping things as they are'. There were certainly sectors or portions that sought to, but on the whole socieities were changing. Its likely that without the outbreak in 1914 the Socialists would have continued making great gains in most national legislatures.
 
I think the best way is to go way back to the mid 1800s. Prevent the ACW and wars will become far less bloody and far less "easy" to wage... such as transportation and medical supplies. The American Gilded Age would be blunted and technological and social progression in America at the time would slow to a second rate nation. The ripples on the rest of the world would surely lessen the pace.
 
Anything which stops WW-1 and avoids such a major war for the rest of the century would probably do it.

Perhaps a crisis that gets close to war, with the concept so terrifying/inconvenient at the time that something like a more fair version of the League of Nations is created to prevent further major wars developing.

Also, some sort of scientific dead-end being accepted by the mainstream for too long, it could even be based on a hoax that takes ages to be debunked because lots of folks jump on the bandwagon. It could slow down electronics.
 
Anyone who thinks things were 'slow' in the years leading up to WWI should read "The Vertigo Years" by Philipp Blom.

And that's all I have to say for now... :)
Bruce
 
Things weren't slow and those who think that by butter-flying away WW1 the world would be frozen in amber in August 1914. Social changes like the rise of organised Labour were happening and would continue to happen. But without WW1 the Wilhelmian Reich persists, the SDP are eventually going to gain the Reichstag and begin implementing reforms but it is going to take longer and be slower.
Equally as more western educated Ghandi analogues come along agitation against Imperialism is going to continue but without the financial burdens of two World Wars the powers that be can hold on for a bit longer.
Technology is still going to advance, aeroplanes are still going to be developed and jets wills still come along, but its will be on peacetime military budgets and gentlemen amateurs at least at the beginning meaning that things will take a bit longer.
That's why I think you'll see in 2000 something like the technology of the 70's. Its going to be unevenly distributed with aerospace way behind but goods more dependent on consumer demand like cars at a closer to OTL.
Socially the Junkers aren't going to be wiped out in Germany or the old aristocracy humbled in England, they aren't going to be running the place anymore, democracy is on the march, but you're not going to have the Somme and 1945 to clear them out.
 
One point might be to butterfly away Henry Ford's mass-produced automobile. Cars would be restricted to the wealthy for a longer period. After all, after a generation of cheap cars, US soldiers in WWII had an advantage over their German counterparts when it came to fixing jeeps and machinery. Society remains railroad-oriented for a longer period.

Allow the Titanic to complete its voyage and many to come. That way, some of the instability that resulted from the sudden passage of wealth to the next generation would be avoided. There were, after all, rather wealthy people on that ship.

Many threads have addressed the issue of by-passing or toning down WWI so as to eliminate the unstable Versailles Europe. In any case, there is no WWII and the development of microwave radar, atomic power and jet engines is stymied.

In Russia, the Bolshevik revolution does not create the threatening USSR at first; Stalin and collectivization do. Butterfly away this issue.

You will then have a mid-twentieth century without a standing cold war. Developed countries might direct their resources to improving less developed countries rather than to building massive war machines.
 
Top