Could preventing WW1 make the world a much worse place?
- Thread starter noodle
- Start date
And relatively few were any good at attracting actual colonists, so I think that any scenario which involves colonizing powers wiping out large swaths of the native non-European populations to make room for the master race are borderline ASB.
Once the ball really started rolling on decolonization after the mid-1950's, the European powers (with the notable exception of Portugal) tended to not try to stop it, or even slow its progress. I'd say this was more out of self-interest for themselves, knowing that colonies were by and large money-losing propositions. In some instances they even pushed certain territories along when they didn't want full independence, or were (arguably) nowhere near ready for it, and would have preferred an autonomous/associated/protectorate status.
I think with no World Wars, decolonization would still have happened - only it would have occurred a bit later and taken a more gradual and less radicalized (and frequently traumatic, for the local populations) a form. I don't necessarily think this would have been a bad thing, when one considers the horrors that accompanied OTL decolonization for millions of people.
AlexG
Banned
Not at all.
At least, not in the sense that a conflagration that involves the European Powers destroying themselves was beneficial for the world.
That said, WWI is inevitable. Delaying it will only involve a rearranging of alliances, and an increase in the technologies and quality of equipment used by the great powers, probably also an increase in casualties unless inventions that will break through the trenches are adopted during the delay.
At least, not in the sense that a conflagration that involves the European Powers destroying themselves was beneficial for the world.
That said, WWI is inevitable. Delaying it will only involve a rearranging of alliances, and an increase in the technologies and quality of equipment used by the great powers, probably also an increase in casualties unless inventions that will break through the trenches are adopted during the delay.
I don't think a general European War is inevitable at all. By 1914 the situation is changing and alliances that once looked solid are now starting to look shaky. If and when war or revolution comes to one or more of the European powers after 1914 there is no guarantee that it would start a chain reaction bringing in the rest.
The problem is that for all the alliances were getting shaky, nobody was willing to back down and there were ideological motivations at stake. Germany would never get rid of it's High Seas Fleet because of pride and the Kaiser. Britain could never allow that to stand, and that's before you get to the continental Hegemony fears. France would never let the Franco-Prussian War and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine stand. Thus regardless of how shaky the alliance gets, those two are stuck on-side. Italy is Italy and OTL shows that they weren't particularly bound to anything other than "Fuck Austria!". Russia and Austria would always be on opposite sides because of too many competing claims and arguments. Their previous attempts at peace completely fell apart.
At most, you could have multiple separate wars, more likely you just get different people on different sides.
I suspect, but could be wrong, that if you wanted to actually avoid a WW1/General European War, you'd need to go back to the Franco-Prussian War and have it be different or have Austria-Hungary and Russia deal with their Balkan problems in good faith instead of backstabbing each other repeatedly.
At most, you could have multiple separate wars, more likely you just get different people on different sides.
I suspect, but could be wrong, that if you wanted to actually avoid a WW1/General European War, you'd need to go back to the Franco-Prussian War and have it be different or have Austria-Hungary and Russia deal with their Balkan problems in good faith instead of backstabbing each other repeatedly.
Last edited:
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
I would disagree to an extent. By 1914 the Royal Navy had won the naval arms race, and the feeling was that Anglo-German relations were back on an even keel, with very few points of dispute.
France and Alsace-Lorraine is, I think, overplayed. Much of France had accepted the loss of two provinces over 40 years earlier. There was no great public clamour for war to regain them.
The Great Powers had, to a degree, worked not-quite-together to bring the Balkan Wars to a close that was acceptable to both Austria-Hungary & Russia, the latter now facing a choice in backing Serbian or Bulgarian interests.
To most contemporary observers the 1914 crisis came out of nowhere, when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
If the Black Hand are closed down in Serbia, or fail to assassinate a senior Habsburg, Vienna has no reason or excuse to seek their destruction.
Since 1815 Europe had not known complete peace, although most wars were short-lived affairs (outside the Crimea) and not to the knife; total war was hinted at in the Franco-Prussian War but that was over 40 years ago.
WW1 was not inevitable, but a series of poor decisions led to the outbreak of war. Change one or two of those decisions and the conflict is butterflied away.
marathag
Banned
So was WWIII, till it wasn't.
There will be a War, but doesn't take much for OTL WWI to be unrecognizable if happens a few months later, UK is embroiled Home Rule and suffrage, or Germany goes on the defense in the West and crushes Russia in 1915.
Gotta concur on this one (as long as you mean "WWII" rather than "WWIII"
). For a long time I was of the opinion that, while WWII, at least in Europe, was easily preventable with a different outcome to WWI (the Pacific War was another matter, but might not've become a global conflagration), that WWI was more or less inevitable - it was just a matter of time. If not for Duke Archie's shooting of the ostrich , another "powder keg" would've gone off somewhere. The longer I spend on AH the more I learn to avoid that word "inevitable".That being said, I do now see that WWI could have been avoided - but it would probably take a handful of POD's rather than just one, releasing swarms of butterflies.
Even so, it is difficult for me to see how averting the Great War could (realistically) result in anything other than a continuation of the "Long 19th Century", at least for a few more decades. To have a worse 20th Cent than the one we had OTL would be a discourse in improbably dystopian fiction that would require mass death scenarios sufficent to get a thread locked around here
. But no, it's not impossible, strictly speaking...Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
While I don't see WW1 as being inevitable, the opposite applies to WW2.
We have one nation strong enough to overrun most of the European continent - and with the desire to match. This was missing in 1914. No-one at the start desired to smash an opposing nation (note: A-H probably did want to crush Serbia, not a major power) and there were not the later extreme war aims fuelled by millions of casualties. There was no equivalent to Lebensraum.
We also have three distinct political structures: Fascism; Soviet Communism; and parliamentary democracies. In 1914 we miss out on the two opposing theism with Russia perhaps being on paper the closest to the dictatorial measure (in reality nowhere near) and have a mixture of monarchical & republican democracies, and those perhaps a few more years off democracy (e.g. the Habsburg Empire). I'm excluding the Ottoman Empire as they were a little late to the party. Germany, France, Italy & Great Britain had more in common in 1914 than in 1939. There is not the coming obvious clash between Nazis & Soviets, which is why the M-R Pact came as such a crashing shock.
We have one nation strong enough to overrun most of the European continent - and with the desire to match. This was missing in 1914. No-one at the start desired to smash an opposing nation (note: A-H probably did want to crush Serbia, not a major power) and there were not the later extreme war aims fuelled by millions of casualties. There was no equivalent to Lebensraum.
We also have three distinct political structures: Fascism; Soviet Communism; and parliamentary democracies. In 1914 we miss out on the two opposing theism with Russia perhaps being on paper the closest to the dictatorial measure (in reality nowhere near) and have a mixture of monarchical & republican democracies, and those perhaps a few more years off democracy (e.g. the Habsburg Empire). I'm excluding the Ottoman Empire as they were a little late to the party. Germany, France, Italy & Great Britain had more in common in 1914 than in 1939. There is not the coming obvious clash between Nazis & Soviets, which is why the M-R Pact came as such a crashing shock.
Maby but it is really suspect that the president of France during the July crisis was from A-L and had made multiple comments about trying to get it back. Or how numerous members of the British cabinet still considered the naval race still ongoing dispute Germany consding 2 years previously.
Gust because from a big picture perspective things look one way dosnt mean the people actually in charge dint think about it the other way, germany was never confused about french disier for A-L but never really got that the British dint consder the navy race over.
Also where did you get the idea that there wasn't al lot of will in France for the regaining of A-L? everything is read makes it very clear that there was at the very lest a large part of the french electorate who wanted it back if not an outright majority.
Thomas1195
Banned
There were only 2 large democracies by 1914: the US and France. A-H, Germany and the UK were similar in that, they were not democracies, and for the Central Powers, their large peacetime professional standing armies would be an obstacle to democratization. An often overlooked factor that prevented strongmen from gaining power in the US in its early years was its complete lack of a standing army.
And I don't buy into the "monarches/ruling aristocrats would grant voting rights sooner or later" talking point, especially when Germany and A-H had loads of Poles under their boots at the time
Maximinus Thrax II
Banned
The problem with no WW1 is that some countries would win others would greatly lose from there not being WW1. So universally acceptable opinion on this question is impossible.
Easiest way would be for Imperial Federation to get going successfully and Indian attitudes towards caste/class spread throughout the empire.
Honestly I don't understand how a world without the world wars would be "less multicultural" or less diverse. I think we are forgetting that for the last 100 years something like a quarter to a half of the human population lived in socialist or communist regimes that always had in common a certain degree of disgust for local customs, traditions, religion and freedom of espressione in general. Imagine how many pieces of art from Chinese or Russian artists will never exist because their countries suffocated or tried to exploit their talent.
Honestly I feel like a modern non communist China would be a cultural juggernaut greater than any other single country, even if still less influential than the entirety of the West. The same thing could be said about India, a country which in our timeline wasted the first 5 decades of its existence following some downright crazy economic policies.
Honestly I feel like a modern non communist China would be a cultural juggernaut greater than any other single country, even if still less influential than the entirety of the West. The same thing could be said about India, a country which in our timeline wasted the first 5 decades of its existence following some downright crazy economic policies.
I'm sorry, what?! The UK not a democracy? By what metric are you measuring?
Now let's talk about France with their colonies, or the USA with their blacks.
marathag
Banned
Austrians were glad of the Poles, they sided with them against the Czechs in the Reichstrat. It was different in Germany.
I question somewhat your definition of what constitutes a "democracy"...
The voting electorate of certain of the southern states of the US (the most egregious offenders) in 1920:
Florida - 31,613
South Carolina - 25,433
Louisiana - 44,794
Alabama - 62,345
Georgia - 59,196
The UK adopted universal suffrage for all adult males and for most women over 30 in 1918. Prior to that, about 55% of males had the vote - quite a bit higher a percentage than in any of the examples above.
Germany already had universal adult male suffrage at the national level for ALL citizens, including Poles in the German partition.
A-H was admittedly a bit of a mixed bag, but in the Austrian or Cisleithanian portion, the franchise was quite broad. Poles from Galicia were well-represented on the Austrian side of things.
Poles were far happier in Austria than in Prussia and Russia, so much so that Austrians allied with the Poles to keep the Czechs quiet. Many Poles in occupied Galicia actually aided Austrian partisans, and aided Austrian espionage which aided the reconquest of Galicia. Mackensen used the partisans to gather information pretty nicely.
Thomas1195
Banned
Unfortunately Poles under Austria were the smallest group. The majority of Poles in Germany and Russia are going to be fucked big time, and Austria would contribute to "fucking the Poles" indirectly.
Let's say Poles in Germany and Russia revolt once more. Poles in Austria are very likely to be supportive of the revolt. However, Austria would certainly support their ally Germany and maybe Russia as well in putting down Poles.
This was possible thanks to the war. And you kinda seem to ignore the Northern states which constitute the majority of the US.
30-40% of UK adult male could not vote before 1914, ok? No nation can call itself a democracy when 30-40% of citizens cannot vote.
You mean the Reichstag whose function was simply voting Yes/No on budget lol. In addition, German Chancellors were always "Independents" a.k.a conservative aristocrats with no specific partisan leaning appointed by the Kaiser. The Court of German Empire/Weimar Republic IOTL was much worse than the US Supreme Court and its judges did not even believe in democracy at all.
Last edited: