Likely the Armenian and Greek populations of Anatolia, as well as the Assyrian populations of Urfa would be preserved as well, since the Genocide was undertaken under the cover of WW1
Since there no Genocides by the Ottoman Empire then it would be interesting to see what happened into the 20th Century.
I know this Whatifathist vid is kinda bias on the Turks but it still have some good hindsight like the Ottoman will make the Middle East not as unstable and less developing in OTL.
There’s one thoughts that I will like guys: The Migrates In Ottoman Empire and Someone in the Demographic of No TLWW talking about it
There is potential for the demographic situation of the Middle East in particular to be significant different from that of our world. Essentially, there are too options: the Ottoman Empire either collapses from internal strife and/or the stress of another Balkan war, opening up much of its territory to seizure by European colonial powers (which comes with the real risk of triggering a global conflagration unless some conference is organized to partition the land in a relatively organized fashion)... or it does not, and the empire survives with more or less its 1914 borders up to the present.
In the event that the Ottoman Empire does not totally collapse, what would happen to the empire's various Christian minority groups? Now, there had been several notable massacres of Armenians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but absent the First World War, would would the government have organized anything as wide and deadly in scope as the Armenian Genocide, as well as the concurrent genocides organized against the empire's Greek and Assyrian populations? Of course, even if they do not, there is always the possibility that economic, social, and political pressure would lead to many of these Christians immigrating to the United States, Latin America or elsewhere, in much the same way that a disproportionate number of the Syrians and Lebanese who settled in America came from their homeland's Christian community.
Now, if the Ottoman Empire manages to hang around for just a few more decades, they could potentially exploit the massive oil reserves found in their Arabian territories, but this would lead a demographic transformation of the region not dissimilar from our own timeline. The various Persian Gulf states are home to large non-Arab populations nowadays, many of them workers in the oil extraction industries. Indeed, in some of these countries South Asians and others outnumber the local Arab population. In a world where the Ottoman Empire still existed, where would these workers have been brought in from? Would they have drawn from the labor pool within the empire, both Turkish and non-Turkish (Kurds, Armenians, etc.)? Or would they have also sought to recruit a massive number of people from overseas, and if so, where from?
Item: IMO, Prohibition in the US is never enacted. IMO, it was passed at a moment when government took control of everything in the name of the war effort, and drinking was seen as damaging to that effort.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but no World War I means that Germans are never persecuted in the US, that led to them completely assimilating into American culture by giving more of their customs and language. Keep in mind that before WWI, and before the US joined against the Central Powers, German was commonly spoken throughout the communities of the Midwest (and in fact, it's said there was a special Midwestern German dialect that formed from it), and they kept many of their old culture and customs from the Old World.
In such a timeline, I could see German being as ubiquitous in the US as Spanish, and in fact the German cultural elements could take a deeper root in influencing America. In fact, much like how the Southwest is heavily influenced by Spanish and Latin American culture, the Midwest would be heavily influenced by German and other Central European cultures. Of note is that, by extension, other ethnic diaspora in the Midwest like Poles, Scandinavians, Dutch, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks etc. would have their cultures retained as well, and could develop even further in new directions by both continuing in the landscape of America, and alongside all the other Central European communities in that same area, leading to interesting new cultures that we can only speculate would be like. In fact, you have to wonder how different all of America itself looks as a result.
For reference, consider the impact that the German community had on the development of Brazil over all these years, and you can get an idea of how that would affect the US.
Brazil also has a large German population (especially in the south), and everything from the architecture, cuisine, traditions, language, and ideas, had a have a much pronounced impact on Brazil today than the US. That's thanks in part because the German communities were more isolated, remained culturally German longer (what with Brazil only having the most minimal of roles in either of the World Wars), and during this time their culture (much like with the cultures of the Portugal, Italy, Poland, Africa, Japan, Arabia, the Native tribes, and many more) formed the basis of Brazil's cultural identity. This in contrast by how much the German Americans had assimilated and lost much of their cultural identity.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but no World War I means that Germans are never persecuted in the US, that led to them completely assimilating into American culture by giving more of their customs and language. Keep in mind that before WWI, and before the US joined against the Central Powers, German was commonly spoken throughout the communities of the Midwest (and in fact, it's said there was a special Midwestern German dialect that formed from it), and they kept many of their old culture and customs from the Old World.
In such a timeline, I could see German being as ubiquitous in the US as Spanish, and in fact the German cultural elements could take a deeper root in influencing America. In fact, much like how the Southwest is heavily influenced by Spanish and Latin American culture, the Midwest would be heavily influenced by German and other Central European cultures. Of note is that, by extension, other ethnic diaspora in the Midwest like Poles, Scandinavians, Dutch, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks etc. would have their cultures retained as well, and could develop even further in new directions by both continuing in the landscape of America, and alongside all the other Central European communities in that same area, leading to interesting new cultures that we can only speculate would be like. In fact, you have to wonder how different all of America itself looks as a result.
For reference, consider the impact that the German community had on the development of Brazil over all these years, and you can get an idea of how that would affect the US.
Brazil also has a large German population (especially in the south), and everything from the architecture, cuisine, traditions, language, and ideas, had a have a much pronounced impact on Brazil today than the US. That's thanks in part because the German communities were more isolated, remained culturally German longer (what with Brazil only having the most minimal of roles in either of the World Wars), and during this time their culture (much like with the cultures of the Portugal, Italy, Poland, Africa, Japan, Arabia, the Native tribes, and many more) formed the basis of Brazil's cultural identity. This in contrast by how much the German Americans had assimilated and lost much of their cultural identity.
Wilson turned against anyone who wasn't white English speakers. Other ethnic groups too faced heavy pressure abandon their culture and language. Yes, ITTL it probably wouldn't happen but Germans and others would are still assimilated to American society altough much slower. In 2022 there might be still notable German speaking societies in Mid-West and Texas but not anymore in such numbers as in 1910's.
People were moving away from the Art Nouveaux, Art Deco, ect... I suspect the movements of the post No War era are similar to OTL. The largest difference being what is state subsidized.
Taking a hard look at the details of Socialist realism in architecture you see it was a growth out of the embryonic International Style of pre 1914. you see antecedents in the US Prarie Style. In commercial architecture there was a foundation for the 'Brutalist' Style. Instead of Stalin getting blamed Capitolist commercial building owners get the rap for ugly factories, warehouses, and office or apartment blocs.
Wilson turned against anyone who wasn't white English speakers. Other ethnic groups too faced heavy pressure abandon their culture and language. Yes, ITTL it probably wouldn't happen but Germans and others would are still assimilated to American society altough much slower. In 2022 there might be still notable German speaking societies in Mid-West and Texas but not anymore in such numbers as in 1910's.
Enclaves of Dutch & French speaking communities survived into the 1950s in the rural midwest. Jasper County Indiana saw the last use of Dutch in public discourse end in the early 1960s. Ditto for French in the St Anne area of Illinois. Urban non English speaking enclaves survived to midcentury and beyond. The Great War reinforced the nativist & English language doctrines. Without that German survives in public use into mid 20th Century & beyond.
Certainly changes the direction it goes. If Prohibition lacks traction, then narcotics would not be quite as restricted. Extortion from legit business and local government remains a major revenue stream for gangs & other organized crime. Coppola's script writers will have to find a different story line for initiating Battaglias revolt against the Don.
Now since we are in the topic of food, I think having no WWI would butterfly fast-food culture in the U.S. or at least delay it by decades. Fast-food culture arose from diner culture, which occurred after President Eisenhower signed the National Highway Act in 1956. The NHA itself was a result of the post-WWII baby boom so surburbs were created and people did not need to live in a city to work in a city.
Diner culture was well established in the US. In the mid 19th Century fast food was the thing at 15 minute breakfast & lunch stops for passenger trains. Street food was plentiful even in late 18th Century US cities. For a couple pennies you could get a cup of baked beans from a street vendor. In the bars along the street the hurried urbanite could grab a schooner of beer and some pickled vegetables to consume standing, before rushing off to resume his hustle. Early versions of the Delcatessen made their money handing out ready made sandwiches to laborers and clerks running out during their ten or twenty minute midday break.
State & local 'Dry' laws were demonstrating the weaknesses and down side to Prohibition. Absent the national imposition of 1919 the recognition of its limits and backlash would develop in the 1920s anyway.
I don't know how immigration policy is going to change without WW1 but it would be much strickter in many places since racism and antisemitism would be on presence much longer and without Holocaust no one begin to think that persecuted people should get safe haven.
Review the founding of the English colonies. Several were founded as safe havens, and remained so for a considerable time. The nativists or WASPs were not able to entirely suppress the concept or practice & the Statue of Liberty not removed as someone proposed.
In asking a question like this it is critically important to define what you mean by "WWI does not happen." Do you mean, there are no great power wars in the 20th century. If this is the proposition, you need to carefully explain how this could possibly come to pass, since there were several near misses prior to 1914. The events that somehow prevent a great power war for a century would have impacts on all aspects of society. On the other hand, you might mean there is a minor great power war (analogous to the Franco-Prussian War) in 1914ish. In this case, it depends whether you are conceiving of a quick German victory (e.g. the Schlieffen plan works) or a quick Franco-Russian victory (e.g. Ludendorf is killed in Belgium and the Russian steam roller continues slogging through East Prussia).
In asking a question like this it is critically important to define what you mean by "WWI does not happen." Do you mean, there are no great power wars in the 20th century. If this is the proposition, you need to carefully explain how this could possibly come to pass, since there were several near misses prior to 1914. The events that somehow prevent a great power war for a century would have impacts on all aspects of society. On the other hand, you might mean there is a minor great power war (analogous to the Franco-Prussian War) in 1914ish. In this case, it depends whether you are conceiving of a quick German victory (e.g. the Schlieffen plan works) or a quick Franco-Russian victory (e.g. Ludendorf is killed in Belgium and the Russian steam roller continues slogging through East Prussia).
In asking a question like this it is critically important to define what you mean by "WWI does not happen." Do you mean, there are no great power wars in the 20th century. If this is the proposition, you need to carefully explain how this could possibly come to pass, since there were several near misses prior to 1914. The events that somehow prevent a great power war for a century would have impacts on all aspects of society. On the other hand, you might mean there is a minor great power war (analogous to the Franco-Prussian War) in 1914ish. In this case, it depends whether you are conceiving of a quick German victory (e.g. the Schlieffen plan works) or a quick Franco-Russian victory (e.g. Ludendorf is killed in Belgium and the Russian steam roller continues slogging through East Prussia).
Another thing to consider would be the immense impact of no Cold War on global culture. Imagine how much of a cultural superpower China could become by leveraging its immense market and cultural capital with a less oppressive regime. Russian culture and media would be much more widespread too. Instead of US+Japan+Western europe centric globalism we might get a much more diverse pop culture
You'd get cultural divergence of some sort by combining being way behind technologically but significantly richer than OTL at say 1962 or 1982 or 2002 or whatever year you assume it's closest to. Why? Significantly weaker institutional leverage over individuals with the only real Ideological stuff coming from nationalism which ends up fading in the mid or late 20th century if slower than OTL and religion which does the same if delayed and no ideological creativity or mass societal mobilization..
Premodern societies only economically grew at the rate of population growth because of how strong their institutions were. The west grew due to luck meaning parts of the west ended up with significantly weaker institutions than other civilizations. The world wars ended this trend and are probably why we only have growth rates of say 1-3% in the "first world" due to the new ideologies to rally the masses, massively mobilizing everything, etc. Add on this Mancur Olson's notes about economic/social rigidities on top of it.
Before someone does the obvious and brings up socialism existing. Yes, so what? Pre-WWI socialists were more the favoring electoralism, sort of proto-social democracy or in some cases literal social democrat sortos. I suspect thie much bigger than OTL economic pie probably ends up being redistributed at levels closer to how it was mid-century OTL. Well, this could all wome about gradually and best of all, end up being better thought out thanks to less slavish imitation of Prussian-style clientalism. Think an unconditional basic income and national healthcare instead of say a complex mess of programs designed to nudge people in what experts view as the "right" direction. Think bribery as opposed to. This would probably all be paid for by taxing economic rents with a land value tax or other related taxes with income or consumption taxes likely never playing the major roles they did OTL. Why? You'd have socialist agitation happening in a context where societies didn't get locked into the path of using income/sales taxes to pay for EVERYTHING because of mass mobilization.
It could, but would also result in rather negative diplomatic (and especially in the case of Russia, economic) consequences for both.
But, it wouldn't even take that. There was no defensive agreement between Russia and Serbia at all, so if Russia had demobililized (or never mobilized to begin with), you could've seen a (probably brief) Austro-Serbian War....
I think that's a little too strong. There was a considerable German-immigrant element in the US as far back as colonial times, but this element continually assimilated to anglophone, AFAICT.
The current ubiquity of Spanish is driven by several factors which don't apply to German.
The inclusion in the US of a substantial hispanophone population in Texas, the Mexican Cession, sssand the Gadsden Purchase.
The inclusion of another substantial hispanophone population with the annexation of Puerto Rico.
Admission to the US of a large number of Cuban refugees after the Communist takeover there.
The source area of hispanic immigration is adjacent to the US.
High fertility and general poverty in Mexico and Central America in 1960-2000.
More populous source region.
The US was pretty much the only destination for Latin American emigrants.
Even in a no-WW I TL, German would lack similar driving factors.
It would be more imperialist and nationalist but also less radical. Russia would be (even) more resented in Eastern Europe for colonisation and there would be a larger Islamic presence in Turkey, yet less Islamic presence in the Balkans with the Ottoman Empire likely making some attempt to reenter European politics in the 1920s with the Young Turks still in power and potentially Ataturk as Vizier. The US would have less influence and would be more imperialistic in America and Asia, with a higher hispanic population and more influence, also the Great Recession would've never happened, which would likely mean't that Hoover would've been given a second term. Africa would be probably still colonised without Soviet and American pressures and thus more resentment towards whites but with a higher standard of living.
It would be more imperialist and nationalist but also less radical. Russia would be (even) more resented in Eastern Europe for colonisation and there would be a larger Islamic presence in Turkey, yet less Islamic presence in the Balkans with the Ottoman Empire likely making some attempt to reenter European politics in the 1920s with the Young Turks still in power and potentially Ataturk as Vizier. The US would have less influence and would be more imperialistic in America and Asia, with a higher hispanic population and more influence, also the Great Recession would've never happened, which would likely mean't that Hoover would've been given a second term. Africa would be probably still colonised without Soviet and American pressures and thus more resentment towards whites but with a higher standard of living.
Agree but Africa would still see lot of decolonisation. That system just couldn't last even without world wars. European naitons might keep more of Africa as in OTL and decolonisation would begin later but it is impossible to keep these all colonies.
Agree but Africa would still see lot of decolonisation. That system just couldn't last even without world wars. European naitons might keep more of Africa as in OTL and decolonisation would begin later but it is impossible to keep these all colonies.
I remember hearing before that the Europeans had intended to decolonize Africa at some point anyways, mainly because it was such a drain on resources that didn't bring in as much as they hoped in return. But I imagine it being a slower, more gradual process without the World Wars happening.
