Someone cited an article on the technology in an earlier discussion on this topic, it is a genuine example of how technology may have been rerouted (or delayed by two/three generations) by WW1
AHC: WWI & WW2 Never Happen
- Thread starter Deleted member 103950
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alternate history ww1 ww2
Lusitania
Donor
While other technology such as airplane, rocketry and even armored car, tanks and chemistry were advanced as result of the war. Wasn't several medical breakthroughs also a result of the war?
It's an interesting point and certainly there was some innovation as a result of the war (the plaster cast for fractures for instance was developed by the Northern Ireland sculptress Ann Crawford Acheson who wouldn't have been working with wounded soldiers in peacetime) but I would incline more to the school of thought that war spurred more rapid adoption rather than innovation.
Aircraft had already been invented and the technologies were already being developed pre-war, Gunther Burstyn had already been designing tanks since 1909 and someone in Britain (I can't remember who now -might have been Louis Brennan- tried to interest the British War Office in what was apparently a practicable design in 1910/11. If the British and German War Staff (or any one of the two) had had a couple of more technophile officers in situ WW1 might have been unrecognisable. Rocketry really advanced post -war in the 1920s by people like Goddard in the US and a Slovene naval engineer in Germany and Austria who wrote under an assumed Germanic name as Hermann Noordung , armoured cars were in use by most of the Great Powers pre 1914. Outside poison gases not sure what advances in chemistry you are thinking of?
"I found this post on Quora. Does anyone here have any disagreements with it?"
Yeah, pretty much with all of it. I will have to go point by point.
"There would have been numerous smaller wars in Europe, even today."
Between 1815 and 1914 there were by my count half a dozen wars in the Balkans, at least a couple of civil wars in Spain, one revolt each in Poland and Hungary, maybe three wars associated with Italian unification, and four short great power wars, counting France (and Britain)-Russia, France-Austria, Prussia-Austria, and Prussia-France. That sounds like alot, but not counting the Balkan stuff it averages to one short war per decade. And once Germany was unified, in the 43 years between 1871 and 1914, nothing at all outside of the Balkans. This is actually a more peaceful record than in the 18th and 17th centuries. In fact one of the causes of World War I was that wars had become so rare and so small that people didn't realize how destructive a great power war would be after the second industrial revolution.
Granted the world wars did produce the League of Nations and the United Nations, which did help a little bit, but the system of international conferences in place beforehand had a pretty good record and the lack of such a conference in 1914 (the Germans were tired of getting isolated and beaten up) was a major cause of World War I.
Europe would have colonized The Levant, Palestine and portions of Asia Minor when the Ottoman Empire collapsed
The Ottoman Empire had spent the previous eighty or so years reforming itself and was getting its act together. And in Germany they finally found a reliable ally among the great powers that would protect them against carve ups by other European countries. World War I did allow them to get out from under the capitulations, which was huge, but Ottoman collapse is by no means a given.
Southern Europe would have likely been either colonized by Northern Europe or fell under its influence
I read this and I don't get this. What does the author think the situation is now? How do you make things even more so than they are now?
The Hapsburg Empire would have become part of Germany
Again historians now think the viability of the Hapsburg empire has been underestimated and the project of absorbing the more German parts into Germany was a fringe idea, supported by fringe people, that only became (briefly) a reality because of the world wars.
The following nations would not now exist
The Quora author is right about Israel, so I will give him or her that. And without the European great powers smashing each other, decolonization would probably have happened later and/ or differently or not at all. However, between 1815 and 1914, independent Belgium and Norway were created without any wars at all. Hungary and Greece were created and Germany and Italy was unified. The system was much more flexible than the author things. Bulgaria was also already in existence in 1914.
Russia would now be a republic
Russia is a republic now and became one because of World War I. They might have become one anyway, but if you do an alternate history where Russia is not a republic, you start by removing the proximate cause of the Russian revolution. Logic fail.
Islam would have been confined to SW Asia, North Africa Asia Minor. NW India and the islands now known as Indonesia.
I read this twice and don't even understand the point. I'm starting to wonder if I am spending too much time rebutting this.
There would be few independent nations in the Caribbean
After slavery was abolished, the Caribbean islands were pretty much useless, but maybe the British would not have bothered to decolonize ITTL (the French and Dutch still have Caribbean island colonies0.
The United States would be an important world power, but not the dominant one
Agreed, and American culture would have been really different as well.
Without the need of warfare to drive their development, many of today’s inventions would have been postponed 10-15 years or simply never invented
Not necessarily wrong but contestable and needs more backup.
The comments on Quora tend to agree that this essay was "poppycock".
Yeah, pretty much with all of it. I will have to go point by point.
"There would have been numerous smaller wars in Europe, even today."
Between 1815 and 1914 there were by my count half a dozen wars in the Balkans, at least a couple of civil wars in Spain, one revolt each in Poland and Hungary, maybe three wars associated with Italian unification, and four short great power wars, counting France (and Britain)-Russia, France-Austria, Prussia-Austria, and Prussia-France. That sounds like alot, but not counting the Balkan stuff it averages to one short war per decade. And once Germany was unified, in the 43 years between 1871 and 1914, nothing at all outside of the Balkans. This is actually a more peaceful record than in the 18th and 17th centuries. In fact one of the causes of World War I was that wars had become so rare and so small that people didn't realize how destructive a great power war would be after the second industrial revolution.
Granted the world wars did produce the League of Nations and the United Nations, which did help a little bit, but the system of international conferences in place beforehand had a pretty good record and the lack of such a conference in 1914 (the Germans were tired of getting isolated and beaten up) was a major cause of World War I.
Europe would have colonized The Levant, Palestine and portions of Asia Minor when the Ottoman Empire collapsed
The Ottoman Empire had spent the previous eighty or so years reforming itself and was getting its act together. And in Germany they finally found a reliable ally among the great powers that would protect them against carve ups by other European countries. World War I did allow them to get out from under the capitulations, which was huge, but Ottoman collapse is by no means a given.
Southern Europe would have likely been either colonized by Northern Europe or fell under its influence
I read this and I don't get this. What does the author think the situation is now? How do you make things even more so than they are now?
The Hapsburg Empire would have become part of Germany
Again historians now think the viability of the Hapsburg empire has been underestimated and the project of absorbing the more German parts into Germany was a fringe idea, supported by fringe people, that only became (briefly) a reality because of the world wars.
The following nations would not now exist
The Quora author is right about Israel, so I will give him or her that. And without the European great powers smashing each other, decolonization would probably have happened later and/ or differently or not at all. However, between 1815 and 1914, independent Belgium and Norway were created without any wars at all. Hungary and Greece were created and Germany and Italy was unified. The system was much more flexible than the author things. Bulgaria was also already in existence in 1914.
Russia would now be a republic
Russia is a republic now and became one because of World War I. They might have become one anyway, but if you do an alternate history where Russia is not a republic, you start by removing the proximate cause of the Russian revolution. Logic fail.
Islam would have been confined to SW Asia, North Africa Asia Minor. NW India and the islands now known as Indonesia.
I read this twice and don't even understand the point. I'm starting to wonder if I am spending too much time rebutting this.
There would be few independent nations in the Caribbean
After slavery was abolished, the Caribbean islands were pretty much useless, but maybe the British would not have bothered to decolonize ITTL (the French and Dutch still have Caribbean island colonies0.
The United States would be an important world power, but not the dominant one
Agreed, and American culture would have been really different as well.
Without the need of warfare to drive their development, many of today’s inventions would have been postponed 10-15 years or simply never invented
Not necessarily wrong but contestable and needs more backup.
The comments on Quora tend to agree that this essay was "poppycock".
Lusitania
Donor
The quote about the lack of wars was taken from several studies/papers and I generally agree with them with the following caveat the world powers had a vested interest Fter 1815 to maintain the status quo as long as possible. They intervened several times to make sure that government change or military action did not have negative consequences to their influence.
Ottoman info and everything after that is a bunch of crap and does not follow general thinking.
FBKampfer
Banned
I'd like to point out to those saying Keep Germany from unifying, the trend had been coming for close to a century prior to actual unification.
And viz a viz Prussia, there was never any really viable alternative as a leader state for the Germans. Austria was hamstrung by not only demographics and language barrier, but geography as well, making it ASB to butterfly away Prussian leadership in any manner that isn't heavily contrived.
And viz a viz Prussia, there was never any really viable alternative as a leader state for the Germans. Austria was hamstrung by not only demographics and language barrier, but geography as well, making it ASB to butterfly away Prussian leadership in any manner that isn't heavily contrived.
Lusitania
Donor
I wonder if a western Germany nation like Bavaria had been able to unite the western part of Germany especially if Prussia had not received all the lands along the Rhine after Napoleonic wars. Could we have two Germanies Prussia to the East and Germany Federation to the west?
I'd argue the two wars were a wash for advancement of technology. They caused a focus on some items, but others were neglected, or diverted into narrow military applications. I've seen some aviation engineers argue WWI retarded aircraft development.
Ratmancampidori
Banned
The most interesting thing about this scenario is the impact it would have on decolonization.
European Empires would continue settling their territories, particulary Libya by Italy and Algeria by France. The extreme weakening of the various empires wouldn’t occur due to the wars not occuring.
We could possibly see things such as a French Algeria and an Italian Libya surviving to modern day, along with possible brutal wars in the Congo, India and Indonesia for some countries to retain their territories.
I can see Britain possibly retaining the Suez Canal to the present day.
This would make an interesting timeline.
European Empires would continue settling their territories, particulary Libya by Italy and Algeria by France. The extreme weakening of the various empires wouldn’t occur due to the wars not occuring.
We could possibly see things such as a French Algeria and an Italian Libya surviving to modern day, along with possible brutal wars in the Congo, India and Indonesia for some countries to retain their territories.
I can see Britain possibly retaining the Suez Canal to the present day.
This would make an interesting timeline.
At it's core, who will progress faster? Private enterprise working with investment money to build products a customer sees value in and will buy or a Government with tax revenue (squeezed dry), loans (milked) and money creating powers (inflation) buying vast quantities of the same stuff?
By extrapolating world air speed records from 1909-1914 out to 1920 you get an additional 80kmh (339kmh vs 262kmh IRL) for the pre-war trend and over 700kmh by 1930, not reached till 1934. Perhaps war retarded airspeed progress by 3-4 years.
Looking at RollsRoyce. They got into the aero engine at request of the Navy but only as liquid cooled engines not air cooled as Navy wanted. HP went from 250hp in 1915 to 300hp in 1917 for the Eagle series. Similar for the Falcon but the Condor was about 675hp in 1918. This was for a bomber to reach Berlin but could also be any large commercial aircraft to carry a large payload a long distance.
Consider that the Military didn't have the fastest aircraft in the world. They were several years behind the bleeding-edge tech. The other thing that the Military needed was aircraft that had a lifecycle of about 5 years. During war, this compressed down to 1 or 2 years. Having said that, the Military strived for aircraft that were maintainable in the field and easy to fly for the vast numbers of pilots. Without the war there would be a smaller number of more highly trained pilots.
Another thing to consider would be as theories around airpower evolve, what would be banned by international agreement? The Hague convention was held every 7 years and due in 1915. There was already a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons".
In defense of the military mind, it can also work things out for itself without war. The RN is an example, most of the ships required over the 1920's and 1930's had been scoped or prototyped prior to WW1, suggesting that they didn't need war experience to develop. The Lightfoot class leader of 1913-14 was seen as the right size for all future destroyers because it had the required endurance to stay with the fleet for 3-4 day sorties and sea-keeping. It's the same tonnage and dimensions as the later Scott class leader that provided the prototype of most Destroyers built in the 1920s and 30's in many navies.
Without war, the classic 'u-boat' was fully developed and matured by 1914. Compare the German U43 class designed pre-WW1 and under construction in 1914 with the later Type VII refined during the 1920's and 30's:
Type U43 - 725 tons surfaced 940t submerged
Type VII - 769 tons surfaced 871t submerged
Type U43 - 65m long, 6.2m beam
Type VII - 67m long, 6.2m beam,
Type U43 - 2,400 hp 17.1 knots, 1200 hp - 9.1 knots submerged
Type VII - 2,800 hp 17.7 knots, 750 hp - 7.6 knots submerged
Type U43 - Range 9,400miles at 8knots, 55miles at 5knts submerged
Type VII - Range 8,500 miles at 10knots, 80 miles submerged at 4 knots
Type U43 - 4TT 2bow/2stern, 88mm deck gun
Type VII - 5TT 4bow/1stern, 88mm deck gun
Type U43 - Crew 36
Type VII - Crew 44
Type U43 - 164ft depth
Type VII - 750ft depth
As you can see, 20 years of development went into structural improvements following war experience to increase diving depth from 164ft to 750ft. Why? Because concealment as a defense wasn't enough, great depth was required too. The second war showed that great speed at depth was also required and thus the Elektro Boot was required. However, the high speed submarine had been developed in WW1 by the RN - the R class submarine from completely different requirements ie. to ambush submarines.
By extrapolating world air speed records from 1909-1914 out to 1920 you get an additional 80kmh (339kmh vs 262kmh IRL) for the pre-war trend and over 700kmh by 1930, not reached till 1934. Perhaps war retarded airspeed progress by 3-4 years.
Looking at RollsRoyce. They got into the aero engine at request of the Navy but only as liquid cooled engines not air cooled as Navy wanted. HP went from 250hp in 1915 to 300hp in 1917 for the Eagle series. Similar for the Falcon but the Condor was about 675hp in 1918. This was for a bomber to reach Berlin but could also be any large commercial aircraft to carry a large payload a long distance.
Consider that the Military didn't have the fastest aircraft in the world. They were several years behind the bleeding-edge tech. The other thing that the Military needed was aircraft that had a lifecycle of about 5 years. During war, this compressed down to 1 or 2 years. Having said that, the Military strived for aircraft that were maintainable in the field and easy to fly for the vast numbers of pilots. Without the war there would be a smaller number of more highly trained pilots.
Another thing to consider would be as theories around airpower evolve, what would be banned by international agreement? The Hague convention was held every 7 years and due in 1915. There was already a "Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons".
In defense of the military mind, it can also work things out for itself without war. The RN is an example, most of the ships required over the 1920's and 1930's had been scoped or prototyped prior to WW1, suggesting that they didn't need war experience to develop. The Lightfoot class leader of 1913-14 was seen as the right size for all future destroyers because it had the required endurance to stay with the fleet for 3-4 day sorties and sea-keeping. It's the same tonnage and dimensions as the later Scott class leader that provided the prototype of most Destroyers built in the 1920s and 30's in many navies.
Without war, the classic 'u-boat' was fully developed and matured by 1914. Compare the German U43 class designed pre-WW1 and under construction in 1914 with the later Type VII refined during the 1920's and 30's:
Type U43 - 725 tons surfaced 940t submerged
Type VII - 769 tons surfaced 871t submerged
Type U43 - 65m long, 6.2m beam
Type VII - 67m long, 6.2m beam,
Type U43 - 2,400 hp 17.1 knots, 1200 hp - 9.1 knots submerged
Type VII - 2,800 hp 17.7 knots, 750 hp - 7.6 knots submerged
Type U43 - Range 9,400miles at 8knots, 55miles at 5knts submerged
Type VII - Range 8,500 miles at 10knots, 80 miles submerged at 4 knots
Type U43 - 4TT 2bow/2stern, 88mm deck gun
Type VII - 5TT 4bow/1stern, 88mm deck gun
Type U43 - Crew 36
Type VII - Crew 44
Type U43 - 164ft depth
Type VII - 750ft depth
As you can see, 20 years of development went into structural improvements following war experience to increase diving depth from 164ft to 750ft. Why? Because concealment as a defense wasn't enough, great depth was required too. The second war showed that great speed at depth was also required and thus the Elektro Boot was required. However, the high speed submarine had been developed in WW1 by the RN - the R class submarine from completely different requirements ie. to ambush submarines.
I agree with you about Italian Lybia but I disagree about French Algeria, I doubt that France would be able to hold the entirety of Algeria, maybe only a few departments like Oran
Regarding possible decoloration wars, I feel like India, Indonesia and others are likely to be allowed to simply walk away without any major fight, they are simply too big to be contained. India wouldn't be split into many countries but world maintain the princely states, and be possibly even more isolationist than OTL India, despite its status as the largest Muslim power. There could be fights in other places tho, depending on the internal situation of the colonizer
That's just what I think is going to happen in most possible TLs. A united China is going to industrialize sooner or later, it was already on its way before ww1.
Imperial Japan doesn't go fascist like in OTL, since its resource needs are satisfied by continued trade with the rest of the world, and also it doesn't have any chance to bully China as it did in OTL. The country would probably continue to democratize under the Taisho period and it would resemble much less the hyper-futuristic Japan of our pop culture and much more a normal industrialized country with varying degrees of western influence
The navy and the army stay important in Japanese culture and government, so Japan wouldn't need a foreign power to handle its defense needs, even if the alliance with the British empire stays important.
The republic of China would continue to be dependent on the great powers but with time it will industrialize and kick the foreigners out of its borders, a war with Japan is a possibility here
I think Korea would get its independence from Japan sooner or later, but probably with some form of violent fight and/or terrorism. Taiwan is probably integrated into Japan for good. I assume the Philippines will continue to be an American ally but I'm not sure to what extent, given the presence of a rising China
Lusitania
Donor
Why would japan not attack China on some pretense of Chinese aggression. Manchuria and other parts of China would be targeted. Also puppeting warlords would occur. No world wars means greater dominance of China by Europeans and japan.
Japan wouldn't be able to bully China as it did in OTL because no other great power would allow it, all the western powers wanted a united and stable China to trade with, the only other power interested in actual territorial gains is Russia, but Russia and Japan have conflitting interests. Not to mention that Japan's only ally is great Britain, and great Britain is
All these powers wouldn't allow China to fall into chaos, so any warlord period wouldn't last long
The foreign powers will continue to enforce unequal treaties until it is worth it, but there is simply too much money to be made with Chinese industrialization, so an industrializing China would make both the Europeans and the Chinese happy. The result of this will be an industrialized nationalist China that will eventually kick everyone out of its borders and continue trade normally, kinda like communist China did OTL
Deleted member 103950
Well what about the code cracker enigma machines that were pretty much the prototypes of modern-day computers? Those came around because of a need to crack the German code. No World War II,no code to crack, no need to create computational technology, no computers.
Admittedly this is mostly my own thoughts on the matter all I know about the Enigma machine and that particular part of World War II is from that one Benedict Cumberbatch movie. I'm much more familiar with the Pacific Theater than the European one.
Computing was being pushed along quite well pre WW1 with fire control computers solving long range gunnery. If you can lift hit probability from 1% to 2% then you have doubled the value in your £2.5m Dreadnought.
Business will drive the need for secure communication. They were already using coded telegrams just as governments were. The original Enigma machine was developed for business.
Business will drive the need for secure communication. They were already using coded telegrams just as governments were. The original Enigma machine was developed for business.
As were the IBM & NCR machines that were used to find the Enigma keys. IBM got started in the 19th Century building punch card sorting machines for the US Census Bureau. By the 1920s they were building analog 'adding machines' for business. Electronic versions were on the lab bench in the 1930s. The giant 'Turing Bombs' of 1943-44 were built mostly from bits developed in the 1920s & 30s. The Polish mathematicians who originally broke the Enigma cypher system were trained as statiticians for the insurance industry. The Polish intelligence service scooped up a handful of unemployed insurance arcturialists to see what they could do with the uncrackable encoded messages that had been collected monitoring German training exercises.
I honestly believe that without the two world wars there would be still social revolutions, local wars and the creation of new states. Each country can be analyzed in detail, but in general there would be more monarchies, democratization would be slower, decolonization would be slower and strictly monitored. Europe would remain the center of the world in all segments, globalization would be slower, but perhaps more stable. The architecture would be significantly different. Multipolar world.
Nazism, communism and fascism wouldn't emerge as implemented ideologies. No NATO, EU, UN and Warsaw Pact.
America would eventually become the first economic power of the world, but without the two world wars its influence would be reduced to the status of a regional power. Since it wouldn't be a world superpower as in OTL, and wouldn't become the center of the world's high-tech industry, as well as the center of world-famous popularity, its development would have proceeded considerably differently. America and the European powers would compete for influence in South America and Asia.
Germany would remain the monarchy and the main player in Europe. Over time, it would have to be reformed under the British model of constitutional monarchy. Frankly, I think the German colonial empire would soon break, but Germany eventually created a prototype of the European Union. Second world economy, but the center of world technology development.
Britain would probably succeed in the creation of an imperial federation, especially with white dominions. India would gain independence, only later than in reality. Would Ireland get full independence?
France would continue its development from the time of the Third Republic. Belle Epoque would last longer. It might be possible at some point to try to reach an agreement with Germany on the return of Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for colonies and money. France would probably still be an oasis of Republicanism in Europe. How would decolonization take place? Would France succeed in becoming the center of the world film industry?
Russia would have a number of problems, especially with the behavior of Nicolas II. Without world wars, the Bolshevik revolution is almost impossible. Russia as a republic is also quite unrealistic. Russia would eventually have to become a federal empire with the great powers of Duma. Bearing in mind the Russian specifics, I think the maximum would be the division of power between Duma and the Emperor. Russia would have between 350-400 million people today, it would be much larger than today, and among top 5 economies of the world. I think Poland would gain independence in congress borders, as Finland. The Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus, and the Central Asian states wouldn't exist today.
Austria-Hungary is doomed in long term. Full federalization, or breakdown in a series of revolutions and civil wars. Austria itself stays monarchy.
The Ottoman Empire would survive, influx of oil cash keep the minorities in loyalty.
Japan would be the first Asian power.
China is a pure unknown, but without world wars, we probably do not have China in today's borders.
Spain, Portugal and Brazil are unknown to me.
The world is divided between USA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Japan. Secondary powers would be Italy and Ottomans. China really depends on its internal situaation.
Nazism, communism and fascism wouldn't emerge as implemented ideologies. No NATO, EU, UN and Warsaw Pact.
America would eventually become the first economic power of the world, but without the two world wars its influence would be reduced to the status of a regional power. Since it wouldn't be a world superpower as in OTL, and wouldn't become the center of the world's high-tech industry, as well as the center of world-famous popularity, its development would have proceeded considerably differently. America and the European powers would compete for influence in South America and Asia.
Germany would remain the monarchy and the main player in Europe. Over time, it would have to be reformed under the British model of constitutional monarchy. Frankly, I think the German colonial empire would soon break, but Germany eventually created a prototype of the European Union. Second world economy, but the center of world technology development.
Britain would probably succeed in the creation of an imperial federation, especially with white dominions. India would gain independence, only later than in reality. Would Ireland get full independence?
France would continue its development from the time of the Third Republic. Belle Epoque would last longer. It might be possible at some point to try to reach an agreement with Germany on the return of Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for colonies and money. France would probably still be an oasis of Republicanism in Europe. How would decolonization take place? Would France succeed in becoming the center of the world film industry?
Russia would have a number of problems, especially with the behavior of Nicolas II. Without world wars, the Bolshevik revolution is almost impossible. Russia as a republic is also quite unrealistic. Russia would eventually have to become a federal empire with the great powers of Duma. Bearing in mind the Russian specifics, I think the maximum would be the division of power between Duma and the Emperor. Russia would have between 350-400 million people today, it would be much larger than today, and among top 5 economies of the world. I think Poland would gain independence in congress borders, as Finland. The Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus, and the Central Asian states wouldn't exist today.
Austria-Hungary is doomed in long term. Full federalization, or breakdown in a series of revolutions and civil wars. Austria itself stays monarchy.
The Ottoman Empire would survive, influx of oil cash keep the minorities in loyalty.
Japan would be the first Asian power.
China is a pure unknown, but without world wars, we probably do not have China in today's borders.
Spain, Portugal and Brazil are unknown to me.
The world is divided between USA, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Japan. Secondary powers would be Italy and Ottomans. China really depends on its internal situaation.