AHC- Modern First World Peace Without World Wars

Today, first world countries do not fight each other, and indeed have mostly formed together in the EU, or NATO. The state of war between first world modern nations being unthinkable came as a result of the World Wars bringing the nations together. What would it take for the wars between modern western nations to still be unthinkable, but have no World Wars?
 
first world actually is the term for the "West" in the cold war. Its has however become short hand for "Developed." When these countries fought each other they wouldn't have met our modern definition of the term. So I would say your best bet is to stay the course, increase economic growth and introduce stable democracy. Countries that are wealthy and stable don't have much reason to fight.
 

Archibald

Banned
Globalization ties nearly all the world economies together, making a large scale war a very counter-productive (if not suicidal) idea.
 
There not being any more wars isn't inherently impossible. There are however some issues that need to be overcome:

1. Democratisation of Germany, Russia etc. They were getting there, so this is possibly one of the easiest to solve problems.
2. The second Ausgleich within Austria-Hungary. This one is incredibly tricky, and could very well lead to war if not handled correctly.
3. Rise of nationalism. Especially in colonies, this will become a huge problem, which will only be exacrebated if one power fund rebels in anothr power's colonies. Moreover, Russia, Ottomans and A-H have large minorities that are bound to cause trouble, especially if the state is repressive and the franchise restricted
4. Alsace-Lorraine. The French were itching to get it back, and the whole thing was being indoctrinated into children to make sure they didn't forget about it.
5. German fears. The Franco-Russia alliance and Russia's growth was really scaring the shit of the Junkers, and as long as they remain influential, it's highly probable a war might start.
6. Arms race. In the general attitude of severe distrust, but without MAD hanging over their heads, every little crisis or incident can become a very serious issue.
 
Today, first world countries do not fight each other, and indeed have mostly formed together in the EU, or NATO. The state of war between first world modern nations being unthinkable came as a result of the World Wars bringing the nations together. What would it take for the wars between modern western nations to still be unthinkable, but have no World Wars?

Carrot: interdependent economies

Stick: nuclear weapons and collective defense a la NATO

Interdependent economies already existed to a certain extent in the 20s/30s; it was one reason the Depression was a multinational event.
 
How about members of the various Royal Families band together after a chance meeting in order to arrest what was seen as a slide towards war

One opportunity was the meeting in May 1910 of 9 Kings!

9-kings-in-one-photo.jpg




"In May 1910, European royalty gathered in London for the funeral of King Edward VII. Among the mourners were nine reigning kings, who were photographed together in what very well may be the only photograph of nine reigning kings ever taken"

While in some cases the monarchs may not have had any real power they could have laid the foundation for a forum where things could be discussed outside of the usual political channels.

From this something might have flourished - and WW1 might have been dodged - Arms limitations instigated instead and trade deals created.
 
How about members of the various Royal Families band together after a chance meeting in order to arrest what was seen as a slide towards war

One opportunity was the meeting in May 1910 of 9 Kings!

"In May 1910, European royalty gathered in London for the funeral of King Edward VII. Among the mourners were nine reigning kings, who were photographed together in what very well may be the only photograph of nine reigning kings ever taken"

While in some cases the monarchs may not have had any real power they could have laid the foundation for a forum where things could be discussed outside of the usual political channels.

From this something might have flourished - and WW1 might have been dodged - Arms limitations instigated instead and trade deals created.

Interesting. Perhaps a number of royalty have cousins or sons or someone serving in the military, and being killed in an accidental escalation of an issue no one really cares about at the end of the day on national boarders, making them resolve to prevent needless wars.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
You guys are missing another key reason that no major war has happened since WWII, the fact that one side of any perspective big war would be the overwhelming favorite to win, whichever the US is on. In order to get peace in
Europe you would need to get one side to be so obviously dominant that the other side will not push the issue to war. In that vein I would say that either somehow the three emperor's alliance alive or at least have Germany choose Russia over Austria and even France would be unwilling to push for a land war in Europe.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
You guys are missing another key reason that no major war has happened since WWII, the fact that one side of any perspective big war would be the overwhelming favorite to win, whichever the US is on. In order to get peace in
Europe you would need to get one side to be so obviously dominant that the other side will not push the issue to war. In that vein I would say that either somehow the three emperor's alliance alive or at least have Germany choose Russia over Austria and even France would be unwilling to push for a land war in Europe.

Are you sure about that? The Red Army in 1945 was the most formidable ground force in the world, and the only way the US had any superiority in terms of all out war was its monopoly on nuclear weapons. Without them, a European war between east and west is, as Wellington would say, 'a near-run thing.' I'm not ignoring the West's lead in technology in many areas, but with Soviet manpower and good quality armour and artillery, the US is definitely not the overwhelming favourite. Of course, it only took another four years for the Soviets to develop their own atom bomb. And Korea was as large a war as it got after WW2, and the US, whose forces made up about 90% of the UN troops, was unable to hold on to North Korea when China intervened.
Equally, you don't need one dominant side, as the Cold War showed us. I would argue that that makes war more likely, in early 20th century Europe at least, as the larger power tries to swallow up its neighbours. A few may join it, but the rest will probably form an alliance and fight back. Once this has happened, you no longer have one dominant power - you have two. One is a single nation, the other is an alliance of smaller ones, but the effect is the same.
I agree more that long term peace would be very likely if several Great Powers allied together, such as the ones you mentioned, Germany and Russia for example, but if France, Britain, Italy, the Ottomans and Austria all work together against them, it's evenly matched again. Also, in times of peace, it's hard to get alliances to hold together if there is no obvious benefit, so there may not be 'one side' which is dominant, but instead a loose alliance which has individually powerful members which could break away at any moment.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
What would it take for the wars between modern western nations to still be unthinkable, but have no World Wars?
... and what about some/more/many 'smaller' wars ?

Before WW I, small wars were rendered a 'common' or 'accepted' measure of politics (i.e. Balkan wars).
Without such wars not going out of hand and becomming ... world wars, wouldn't they still be seen as such ?

You might say : "Given the evolving system of alliances not possible."
But alliances can break apart, as well as the 'Big Empires' being part of such.
There are good chances, that A-H and Russia would break apart even without the "Great War".

And such things still happen. Anyone remember Yugoslavia ?

Given humanities/humans inherent trend to agression - and stupidity - IMHO there are good chances, that without the 'lesson' of the Great Wars - and what 'achievements' were made due to them (i.e. nuclear power ... to destroy), we would have seen a century of many/much more wars.
 
Interesting. Perhaps a number of royalty have cousins or sons or someone serving in the military, and being killed in an accidental escalation of an issue no one really cares about at the end of the day on national boarders, making them resolve to prevent needless wars.

Perhaps it starts with the British and Germans hashing out some sort of naval treaty limiting the battleship race and the whole thing snowballs.
 
Top