How does no cold war, no fascism and no communism result in slower democratization? I would say quicker democratization and quicker globalization
AHC: WWI & WW2 Never Happen
- Thread starter Deleted member 103950
- Start date
-
- Tags
- alternate history ww1 ww2
Surely no Nato and No Warsaw pact but I can see some form of EU being more intergovernmental and focused of defense, especially against Russia
The UK would probably stay out of it tho
I fully agree on this one, and imo both Scotland and Ireland would get home rule inside an imperial federation, with Northern Ireland allowed to join Ireland with a new Zealand style agreement
Seems too extreme to me, full federalization will come eventually but only after some decades, the eventuality of a break up seems remote to me
Spain would continue to be a monarchy and go on until eventual industrialization and rise of tourism industry. Probably no civil war even if political polarization is still prevalent. Spain would simply reach other European powers earlier. Portugal would benefit from no world Wars but its colonies will probably be partitioned so the situation will remain unstable. I imagine a more continental Portugal, less focused on overseas issue and ruled by a far left or far right regime, but democratization and wealth will come eventually. Brazil enjoys continued migration from Europe and is probably more populous and richer, even if Argentina will be a powerful rival
I partly agree with you, but to me the rise of a pan-European league of great powers seem likely, the economical integration of the continent demands a common framework. France is simply too small to compete with a mitteleuropean alliance of AH and Germany, the latter would already twice as big as France in terms of population. On the matter of the importance of France I think it would be outclassed by Italy, both economically and demographically, especially since Italy would be able to hold Libya much better than France would do with Algeria
As Russia gains strength, she no longer needs France. Russia's future naval programs were to be big enough to go round 2 with Japan and be the decider between Germany and Britain. This will probably just bring Germany and Britain closer together and perhaps with France forming the world's most powerful bloc dominating Africa and Asia and hemming Russia in. There will be a lot of interest in the ideas of Halford John Mackinder and his World Island concept. Germany, Russia and A-H need to cooperate to keep Poland down and eastern European minorities in-line.
Defense spending prior to WW1 was in the 3-4% range of GDP and could go higher if moving to a CP->TripleE Cold War but I doubt that. In response to pre-war Peace Conventions, the RN's Director of Naval Intelligence listed the practical difficulties of disarmament:
It is believed that—
a) disarmament is impossible without the assurance of a durable peace
b) a durable peace cannot be assured without adjustment of all differences such as Alsace, China, Egypt, etc., etc.
c) the adjustment of differences is impossible without a force to enforce the decrees of Congress
d) No such force exists.
The fact is that after a long peace each Power is prepared to fight for what it considers its legitimate aspirations. It will only yield when exhausted by war ...
Britain, France and Germany will continue to dominate the Ottoman Empire, extending loans and milking it of revenue. China perhaps will fall that way too. These wont result in direct control like Africa, just economic control.
Defense spending prior to WW1 was in the 3-4% range of GDP and could go higher if moving to a CP->TripleE Cold War but I doubt that. In response to pre-war Peace Conventions, the RN's Director of Naval Intelligence listed the practical difficulties of disarmament:
It is believed that—
a) disarmament is impossible without the assurance of a durable peace
b) a durable peace cannot be assured without adjustment of all differences such as Alsace, China, Egypt, etc., etc.
c) the adjustment of differences is impossible without a force to enforce the decrees of Congress
d) No such force exists.
The fact is that after a long peace each Power is prepared to fight for what it considers its legitimate aspirations. It will only yield when exhausted by war ...
Britain, France and Germany will continue to dominate the Ottoman Empire, extending loans and milking it of revenue. China perhaps will fall that way too. These wont result in direct control like Africa, just economic control.
AussieHawker
Banned
All the great powers might get into a system of mutual assistance, or at least mutual don't mess in my backyard, because I can mess your one up.
All of the great, and a lot of the secondary powers are keeping their heel upon somebodies throat. Be that European populations like the Polish, or colony populations in Africa and Asia. The inertia of peace and the investment in holding their gains will start to incentive cooperation.
Particularly if the two polar alliances break up into smaller alliances.
So colonial rule could last until the modern day in some parts. There is no Communist power great power to back up anti Imperialist efforts. There might be a anti colonist USA who has gotten out of the Philippines, but they won't get as aggressive. The other option is China, but they have a lot of issues to deal with.
There will also be no footholds or safe territories for anti Imperialist rebels to train and base from in Africa, bar maybe Ethiopia (who would get bullied into submission for trying). Asia is a bit better with options.
The World War also meant a lot of concessions or promised concessions to colonial populations. Many of them get exposed to various ideologies and ways of thinking, being in Europe or among mass populations of European troops. Which will be far more limited in this world.
I think by this point the European assimilation of their non conforming populations will be mostly done. Mass Communication, Mass Education, Urbanisation and decades of oppression, without the disruption of war or independence. Some will still hang on, like those too weak to do it to all their subjects (Austro Hungary) or more stubbornly independent. But a lot will be rural regional languages and little else.
All of the great, and a lot of the secondary powers are keeping their heel upon somebodies throat. Be that European populations like the Polish, or colony populations in Africa and Asia. The inertia of peace and the investment in holding their gains will start to incentive cooperation.
Particularly if the two polar alliances break up into smaller alliances.
So colonial rule could last until the modern day in some parts. There is no Communist power great power to back up anti Imperialist efforts. There might be a anti colonist USA who has gotten out of the Philippines, but they won't get as aggressive. The other option is China, but they have a lot of issues to deal with.
There will also be no footholds or safe territories for anti Imperialist rebels to train and base from in Africa, bar maybe Ethiopia (who would get bullied into submission for trying). Asia is a bit better with options.
The World War also meant a lot of concessions or promised concessions to colonial populations. Many of them get exposed to various ideologies and ways of thinking, being in Europe or among mass populations of European troops. Which will be far more limited in this world.
I think by this point the European assimilation of their non conforming populations will be mostly done. Mass Communication, Mass Education, Urbanisation and decades of oppression, without the disruption of war or independence. Some will still hang on, like those too weak to do it to all their subjects (Austro Hungary) or more stubbornly independent. But a lot will be rural regional languages and little else.
Abswnt a world war, or with a quick victory Austria Hungary and survive. With a long war it is probably doomed IMHO though it may be a more.... controlled demolition if her allies (Germany and possibly Italy) directly involve themselves to carve their spheres of interest.
The Ottoman terminal decline began eith the Libyan war which also trigger ultimately the Balkans wars and the world wars (it's not a coincidence that Italy and Germany are at the heart of both world wars- their presence was innately destabilizing to a system which did not instinctively accept their existence as unified states). Russia's interest in the Balkans is permanent but after her defeat in the Russo Japanese war became overwhelming given the lack of viable outlets east.
So:
1)Maintain the Triple Alliance, preventing Italy's excursion to Libya and giving the Ottomans some breathing room
2) A Russian victory over Japan allowing her to take an anti Britain stance and remain focused on the far East, further lowering tension in the Balkans.
3) this allowing the Ottomans to stabilize and preventing the Entente and Franco Russian alliance from coalescing into a stridently anti German alliance bloc world war one is delayed possibly indefinitely.
The Ottoman terminal decline began eith the Libyan war which also trigger ultimately the Balkans wars and the world wars (it's not a coincidence that Italy and Germany are at the heart of both world wars- their presence was innately destabilizing to a system which did not instinctively accept their existence as unified states). Russia's interest in the Balkans is permanent but after her defeat in the Russo Japanese war became overwhelming given the lack of viable outlets east.
So:
1)Maintain the Triple Alliance, preventing Italy's excursion to Libya and giving the Ottomans some breathing room
2) A Russian victory over Japan allowing her to take an anti Britain stance and remain focused on the far East, further lowering tension in the Balkans.
3) this allowing the Ottomans to stabilize and preventing the Entente and Franco Russian alliance from coalescing into a stridently anti German alliance bloc world war one is delayed possibly indefinitely.
Colonialism lasts longer and probably remains in some form today. France and Britain are much more focused on their empires. Todays democracy is the result of two world wars and inhumane regimes such as nazism and communism. Monarchies would still have a great impact on society. This is not necessarily bad, but for example Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns and Romanovs would retain great influence on politics in their countries through various constitutional powers. Hence, the policies of these states would largely depend on monarchs and their behavior.
Globalization would not exist in this form. Europe and America would be competitors in the world and I believe that result would be two branches of globalization. One American, another European. For example, America and Europe would be equal in the world in influencing popular culture.
EFTA would be created, but nothing more than that. Not sure about Russia, Germany and Russia needs to cooperate because of Poland. Russia would certainly be part of free trade zone. Agree about UK.
Aha, so Ireland would be OTL New Zealand? An internationally recognized state, but still part of the Commonwealth?
Austria-Hungary - New negotiations about Ausgleich would determine the destiny of the state. Slavs are almost half the monarchy population, and Vienna and Budapest can't ignore this fact for a long time. If Habsburgs are smart, they would reorganize the country in OTL EU.
Is there a chance Brazil and Portugal return to the monarchy?
Yes, Italy would benefit greatly from Lybia, but I'm not so sure about diminishing of French power.
I agree on the first part, after all colonialism still exist today in some forms. Britain would for sure be focused on oversea matters, but France simply cannot hold his empire together. Indochina will be the first to break out in my opinion, while the African colonies are simply too "different" from the mainland to keep them in some kind of federation. At best, a few departments in Northern Algeria would still be French and the rest would be bound in some kind of French commonwealth, but this would not be enough and wouldn't be substitute for a European league
I disagree on the role of monarchies. Their role in government had been decreasing for many decades even before ww1, I can only see this trend continue further. By now, the monarchy would only matter in terms of popularity and gossip, kinda like the Windsors today (without the war they would still be called Coburg Gotha tho)
I agree on this one but there would be other players, like for example the imperial federation, China, Russia and maybe others depending on the region
Northern Ireland would be like new Zealand in the sense that it could join Ireland proper at every moment, just like new Zealand could join Australia
On the matter of Italy surpassing France I think that France would have quite a lot of soft power in the fist half of the century, especially given its role in finance and international investments, but Italy will overtake her eventually. For example France was already quite depressed demographically, while Italy still had to finish its boom. Add Libya to the mix and Italy would be bigger than France in my opinion. France would probably be more influential tho, since the entirety of western Africa would be under its influence while Italy has no real place to expand its influence in, except maybe Albania and a decolonized Eritrea or Somalia
On the topic of monarchy in Portugal and Brazil I don't really know, a return of the Brazilian monarchy seems quite unlikely, Portugal is a bit more plausible but they never returned even in our timeline, to me it would stay a republic
Ratmancampidori
Banned
The biggest problem I have with the idea that France would still loose Algeria in this scenario, is the question of who is funding rebels in Algeria.
In our timeline the two largest sources of funding for the FLA were the Soviet Union and Nasser’s Egypt, with weapons being able to easily flow through the Kingdom of Libya to Algeria.
ITTL Egypt is firmly under the control of Italian’s who would have an interest in stopping Berber nationalism from breaking out in a neighbouring colony. This is besides the point that the Soviet Union and Nasser’s Egypt are most likely never going to exist, with other weapons such as the AK-47 either being delayed or never existing.
France was able to win most battles in the Algerian War but were unable to cut off funding to the rebels, ITTL they’ll most likely be able too meaning that France retains Algeria.
In our timeline the two largest sources of funding for the FLA were the Soviet Union and Nasser’s Egypt, with weapons being able to easily flow through the Kingdom of Libya to Algeria.
ITTL Egypt is firmly under the control of Italian’s who would have an interest in stopping Berber nationalism from breaking out in a neighbouring colony. This is besides the point that the Soviet Union and Nasser’s Egypt are most likely never going to exist, with other weapons such as the AK-47 either being delayed or never existing.
France was able to win most battles in the Algerian War but were unable to cut off funding to the rebels, ITTL they’ll most likely be able too meaning that France retains Algeria.
Why would Egypt be under the Italian since it was under the Brits before the war and British rule over it was already kind of shaky? Egypt will probably be one of the first British colonies to gain independence
Why would a weapon like this be delayed? Assault rifles are bound to be developed at some point given the existence of weapons like the machine gun
We aren't simply talking about winning a war in Algeria, we are talking about keeping it integrated into mainland France, this seems impossible even with a complete military victory. There aren't simply enough French to do this on a large scale, at best France would keep some enclaves and leave a pro French government there. This would be by far the best solution, especially since the left would complain a lot about such a war
Ratmancampidori
Banned
My mistake, I meant Libya. Meaning the land borders of Algeria are nearly completly closed off.
While assualt rifles will most like be developed, with their developed possibly delayed 10-20 years due to a lack of war we are quite likely never going to see a rifle as a versatile as the AK-47 being built, seeing as it was heavily influenced by the realities of the Eastern Front.
With no guns I’m curious how exactly an Algerian Revolution is supposed to occur, even the American Revolution needed foreign support. With no foreign backers or native army supporting it, it seems doomed to failure.
What I'm saying is that there would be political reasons behind this, for example the left would surely want to let the colonies go. Controlling a vast territory such Algeria represents quite a large effort for the French military. At the end, I think that letting the majority of Algeria go would be the best choice for everyone involved.
Also, there was a serious resistance movement against the italians in Libya, I can't see why this movement couldn't support a fight against the French
Lusitania
Donor
Colonies could not be administered the same way as they did in the early 20th century. The administration would need to involve the local population at some point otherwise be subject to insurrection. The interesting thing about Libya is whether oil is discovered early enough that Libya is overwhelmed by huge movement of Italians moving south resulting in the Libyans becoming minority in their own country. While this would not be the case in Algeria due to its higher local population. Could the French incorporate enough of the Algerians that it becomes more of an civil war between supporters of French Community and those seeking independence?
Deleted member 103950
Basically, the culture of European Colonialism saw anything that wasn't Christian and White-European as something to be studied but not condoned. So it's very likely with that sort of culturally chauvinist attitude would lasting longer than it did on our timeline .
The political establishments in europe promised their electorates suffrage in return for service in World War 1. Without the world wars the socialist groups would probably take longer to moderate into reformist social democratic parties and the landed aristocracy would be for much longer to frustrate moves toward land reform or universal suffrage.
The First World War definitely expanded the acceptable size and scope of the modern state. The fiscal burdens of the First World War were the impetus for countries to move away from gold-based currencies toward independent central banks. The Bolsheviks modeled their governance on the planning of Germany's war economy, and the US employed a vast network of price controls and state economic planning. Without World War 1, the transition from a minimal night-watchman state to a modern safety net with unemployment insurance, education, healthcare, and retirement benefits would have been very different.
The growth of state power in the US during World War one also made interventionist projects to reshape society like prohibition feasible.
If all the menfolk weren't Overseas in France fightin, the wimmen wouldn't a been able ta vote in Prohibition.
Many nations had these already before WW1 or were developing them in a steady growth, stable low inflation and low debt environment.
Prohibition was part of a kind secularized, protestant moralizing impulse among turn of the century American progressives who wanted to use government to eliminate sin in society, and move towards a more technocratic economic system planned by cooperation between big business and government technocrats.
This era also marked the widespread use of statistics and data collection by governments. If a government wants to reduce unemployment it needs a way to measure it first.
To me no federal wide prohibition would actually strengthen the prohibition front at a local level. Even now we may see dry counties in many states and alcohol and drugs wouldn't be among the competences of the federal government