I suspect it would look different to our world, but also eerily familiar in many ways. I suspect a lot of the touted benefits of the world wars are overblown and come more from a desire to find some good in what is otherwise senseless slaughter than from any actual evidence. The sufferagette movement was already on full swing by 1914 and woman had the vote in many places - off the top of my head New Zealand and Australia - and economic pragmatism was always going to lead to women entering the workforce in greater numbers (most working-class women already worked anyway, being a housewife was a privilege of the middle and upper classes prior to the wars). Democratic socialism was also in the ascendant in many places - notably Germany - and this would have lead to more redistributive policies. Without the massive waste of resources of two years long total wars, nations across the world would be significantly wealthier, and there's not much reason to suspect that Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire couldn't have followed the development pattern of the 'Asian Tigers', initially booming as low-cost manufacturing centres under authoritarian government before transitioning into advanced economies with democratic governments.
Similarly, decolonisation is pretty much inevitable for simple economic reasons. Direct rule is expensive and provides few benefits that cannot also be gotten from client states at much lower cost. Russia likely keeps its possessions because they are contiguous with their homeland, but Britain is more likely to transition towards some sort of Imperial Federation (or more likely confederation). The French probably try to retain direct rule, lose a lot of blood and treasure in guerilla wars, and eventually compromise with the same solution for all but the few colonies where French settlers make up a majority or plurality. Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Spain and the US probably fall somewhere between the two approaches.
Without the utter devestation of two world wars, the global economy likely remains more multi-polar, meaning that an event like the Wall St Crash is less likely to sent the whole world into a death spiral and instead remain relatively contained in its region. This could allow for a more balanced development pattern as investment could come from many sources, and due to the greater competition would have to have fewer strings attatched. Without an ideological contest between communism and capitalism, there'd also be greater willingness to experiment and to adopt successful strategies no matter where they came from (as opposed to say, the US approach of decrying things other developed countries take for granted like universal healthcare as 'communism')
Without the destruction and impoverishment of Europe by war and the cutting off of half the continent by the Iron Curtain, culture would remain far less concentrated, with the French, German, British, Italian and Russian film industries remaining major players alongside Hollywood. Similarly Germany, France and the UK would remain major scientific centres on par with the US. Multilingualism would be somewhat inevitable for anyone wanting to function in scholarly or artistic circles.
I don't buy that without war we couldn't have had computers or rocketry. The earliest computers were created in the 19th Century, and people were already imagining reaching space. There's no reason they would just suddenly stop because they didn't start killing eachother in 1914. If anything, I could see the impulse for competition between the powers without war driving them to invest in a space race sooner, and with 4 or 5 competitors they could very well get there faster.
Computers are just useful and will be iterated upon, and much like CERN I could see a group of universities networking their computers into a primitive internet, at which point it's only a matter of time before someone realises that civilians will pay for this convenience. I agree that it's more likely to emerge as multiple distinct national or regional internets that then get networked together rather than as a single system, which would also make it much harder to create tech monopolies since any product would have to cross between networks and compete with alternatives indigenous to that system.
Another interesting concept is that this world could very well ban nuclear weapons without ever using them. I recall that at the time when they were being developed by the Manhatten Project, there was genuine concern that a nuclear blast might ignite the atmosphere. Without the pressures of total war, I could see the great powers sitting down and deciding that the risk of that happening is unacceptable.
There would also be a difference in urban design. Without the destruction of European cities, the sudden catapulting of young men into the middle class after the war, the massive investments in highways as economic stimulus during the depression and the sudden glut of cars postwar, car-dependent suburbia would have a much slower start and might never become as ubiquitous as it is in English-speaking countries. The Garden City/City Beautiful movements were both already in full swing, but pre-wars they generally emphasised public transport and public parks, and terraced homes or small apartments rather than widely-spaced detatched single family housing and little-to-no public transport. Without the pressure to quickly house a great many returning soldiers, there'd be more incentive to build new suburbs and towns to be self-sustaining communities. (In Australia, Canberra might actually get built on its original timeframe, rather than being put off for decades because of war debt.)
Art Nouveau and Art Deco would probably linger a bit longer as styles, before being replaced by other, newer ones. I don't think that we'd get quite the same Brutalism or Socialist Realism without the trauma of war and the urgent need to build a great many buildings in a very short timeframe. The demonisation of ornamentation would be a much harder sell, since people like ornament. Similarly, historicist styles would be harder to banish into the realm of embarrasing eccentricity without a cultural context conducive to rejecting the past.
Similarly, decolonisation is pretty much inevitable for simple economic reasons. Direct rule is expensive and provides few benefits that cannot also be gotten from client states at much lower cost. Russia likely keeps its possessions because they are contiguous with their homeland, but Britain is more likely to transition towards some sort of Imperial Federation (or more likely confederation). The French probably try to retain direct rule, lose a lot of blood and treasure in guerilla wars, and eventually compromise with the same solution for all but the few colonies where French settlers make up a majority or plurality. Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Spain and the US probably fall somewhere between the two approaches.
Without the utter devestation of two world wars, the global economy likely remains more multi-polar, meaning that an event like the Wall St Crash is less likely to sent the whole world into a death spiral and instead remain relatively contained in its region. This could allow for a more balanced development pattern as investment could come from many sources, and due to the greater competition would have to have fewer strings attatched. Without an ideological contest between communism and capitalism, there'd also be greater willingness to experiment and to adopt successful strategies no matter where they came from (as opposed to say, the US approach of decrying things other developed countries take for granted like universal healthcare as 'communism')
Without the destruction and impoverishment of Europe by war and the cutting off of half the continent by the Iron Curtain, culture would remain far less concentrated, with the French, German, British, Italian and Russian film industries remaining major players alongside Hollywood. Similarly Germany, France and the UK would remain major scientific centres on par with the US. Multilingualism would be somewhat inevitable for anyone wanting to function in scholarly or artistic circles.
I don't buy that without war we couldn't have had computers or rocketry. The earliest computers were created in the 19th Century, and people were already imagining reaching space. There's no reason they would just suddenly stop because they didn't start killing eachother in 1914. If anything, I could see the impulse for competition between the powers without war driving them to invest in a space race sooner, and with 4 or 5 competitors they could very well get there faster.
Computers are just useful and will be iterated upon, and much like CERN I could see a group of universities networking their computers into a primitive internet, at which point it's only a matter of time before someone realises that civilians will pay for this convenience. I agree that it's more likely to emerge as multiple distinct national or regional internets that then get networked together rather than as a single system, which would also make it much harder to create tech monopolies since any product would have to cross between networks and compete with alternatives indigenous to that system.
Another interesting concept is that this world could very well ban nuclear weapons without ever using them. I recall that at the time when they were being developed by the Manhatten Project, there was genuine concern that a nuclear blast might ignite the atmosphere. Without the pressures of total war, I could see the great powers sitting down and deciding that the risk of that happening is unacceptable.
There would also be a difference in urban design. Without the destruction of European cities, the sudden catapulting of young men into the middle class after the war, the massive investments in highways as economic stimulus during the depression and the sudden glut of cars postwar, car-dependent suburbia would have a much slower start and might never become as ubiquitous as it is in English-speaking countries. The Garden City/City Beautiful movements were both already in full swing, but pre-wars they generally emphasised public transport and public parks, and terraced homes or small apartments rather than widely-spaced detatched single family housing and little-to-no public transport. Without the pressure to quickly house a great many returning soldiers, there'd be more incentive to build new suburbs and towns to be self-sustaining communities. (In Australia, Canberra might actually get built on its original timeframe, rather than being put off for decades because of war debt.)
Art Nouveau and Art Deco would probably linger a bit longer as styles, before being replaced by other, newer ones. I don't think that we'd get quite the same Brutalism or Socialist Realism without the trauma of war and the urgent need to build a great many buildings in a very short timeframe. The demonisation of ornamentation would be a much harder sell, since people like ornament. Similarly, historicist styles would be harder to banish into the realm of embarrasing eccentricity without a cultural context conducive to rejecting the past.
