DBWI: No 1914 General Strike in Europe

Exactly what it says.

If the 1914 general strike doesn’t happen, what happens then? Would the Serbian Crisis spill over into a continent-wide war? How would that affect Europe and the labor movement as a result?
 
I don't think there's any doubt that without the SFIO-SPD pact being activated Europe was headed towards a catastrophe. Diplomacy had ended in an utter farce, and the war camps in both France and Germany were trying to convince the socialists and the trade unions to unite with them for the cause of "patriotic" bloodshed. The Austro-Serbian conflict was bad enough and when we consider the casualties generated by that bloody stalemate being replicated throughout Europe. There's an excellent TL on the forum called The Second Franco-Prussian War if you haven't already read it, it's a bit edgy and maybe tries to overly shock the reader but I fear that much of what it describes could have easily been reality.

As for the labour movement, there's no doubt that there would be a rollback followed by something similar to a coiled spring. I don't think you would see the sort of score settling and fanaticism that went on in the ÖDR being replicated throughout Europe but depending on the winner, if any, you could see revolutions with a level of violence that would make the contemporary comparisons to 1848 seem like a bad joke.
 
It would have been a swift victory for the Entente, probably over in a year, which would have rid the world of the canker of the Prussian Militarists earlier than OTL. It might have been bloody but it would have made the world more stable and prevented anymore wars.
 
I don't think there's any doubt that without the SFIO-SPD pact being activated Europe was headed towards a catastrophe. Diplomacy had failed, and the war camps in both France and Germany were trying to convince the socialists and the trade unions to unite with them for the cause of "patriotic" bloodshed. The Austro-Serbian conflict was bad enough and when we consider the casualties generated by that bloody stalemate being replicated throughout Europe. There's an excellent TL on the forum called The Second Franco-Prussian War if you haven't already read it, it's a bit edgy and maybe tries to overly shock the reader but I fear that much of what it describes could have easily been reality.
Would that war have delayed the crash of 1918 and the subsequent depression through most of the 1920’s though?
 
Would that war have delayed the crash of 1918 and the subsequent depression through most of the 1920’s though?

I guess it's possible but it really does depend on the scope of the war. I see that @Maponus is banging on about the Russian steamroller again and whilst I can already hear them calling me a Heeraboo already I really can't see anything other than a bloody stalemate that would probably leave both the Entente and the Triple Alliance in debt to Britain and anyone else willing to lend. Can you see anyone being able to pay those bills? When the debtors and their benefactors both realised they've been running the global economy based on a war that shouldn't have happened I could the see resulting shocks being far worse than Churchill's Folly.
 
Oh boy, somebody brought up Churchill, now we’re bound to get some Mosley apologist in here to try and whitewash his mismanagement of the economy, since it allowed dear old Daddy Oswald to seize power.
 
Oh boy, somebody brought up Churchill, now we’re bound to get some Mosley apologist in here to try and whitewash his mismanagement of the economy, since it allowed dear old Daddy Oswald to seize power.

I'd really rather we just banned the Keyboard Biff Boys on sight to be honest, I'm fed up with hearing about "Jewish interest rates" manipulating Ozzie into running the economy into the ground when he was just trying to fix the mess Churchill had made. Not that Churchill was an angel either, but different types of incompetence don't cancel each other out when it comes to economics.
 

Deleted member 14881

I mean if a major European war happened, and if it was a stalemate for a long time let's say 4 to 6 years, I think it would ignite revolution sooner because of all the radicalized Soldiers and Labor and Capital relations would probably take a quick nosedive.
 
It would have been a swift victory for the Entente, probably over in a year, . . .
I think this is most likely. And due to embarrassment, the Prussian militarists probably lose a lot of political influence.

Those talking about a protracted conflict, I think that’s the AH disease of gravitating toward the most extreme outcomes, I’m sorry, but it is! :p
 
I guess it's possible but it really does depend on the scope of the war. I see that @Maponus is banging on about the Russian steamroller again and whilst I can already hear them calling me a Heeraboo already I really can't see anything other than a bloody stalemate that would probably leave both the Entente and the Triple Alliance in debt to Britain and anyone else willing to lend. Can you see anyone being able to pay those bills? When the debtors and their benefactors both realised they've been running the global economy based on a war that shouldn't have happened I could the see resulting shocks being far worse than Churchill's Folly.

I suppose that raises an interesting point about the situation in Britain; the Austro-Serbian conflict (@The Red, not to be rude, but I'm curious where you're from? Here we call it The Third Balkan War) going off into a wider conflict and some kind of "rally round the flag" surge in national unity as well as a surge in demand to her increasingly inefficient industry (Without needing to resort to the Protective Duty) and avoiding the damages the Strike inflicted (both economically and to the electoral popularity of Labour) might have headed off the radical moves by the the Cabal within the Liberals. I mean, I can understand the desire, in the chaos of the Strike, to keep the Home Rule Crisis from bubbling over (Especially after H.M.S Lady Carrington blew up in Belfast Habor), but using the Naval Police to trigger the (horribly botched) Plot Against Ulster with the Belfast strikes as the excuse to crack down on the U.D.F (Especially since the Catholic portiers were just as much involved as the Protestants) really was a bone-headed move. I doubt, in the event of a more secure Liberal government (if not a National Unity one formed for the sake of the war effort) and a more organized and legitiment war cabinet the First Sea Lord would have been granted nearly as much power as he did IOTL, meaning we're unlikely to see so horrible a series of events as the Folly that the 2nd Glorious Revolution would be required. I must admit, the prospect of the Empire moving in a more liberal direction IS a curious one... would it continue its pre-Emergency Defense of the Realm Act steady economic decline, or would Asquith (Or Law, if the Conservatives can get power somehow) be able to steer some kind of national course to revitalize the Imperial economy and legitimacy?

Oh boy, somebody brought up Churchill, now we’re bound to get some Mosley apologist in here to try and whitewash his mismanagement of the economy, since it allowed dear old Daddy Oswald to seize power.

I'd really rather we just banned the Keyboard Biff Boys on sight to be honest, I'm fed up with hearing about "Jewish interest rates" manipulating Ozzie into running the economy into the ground when he was just trying to fix the mess Churchill had made. Not that Churchill was an angel either, but different types of incompetence don't cancel each other out when it comes to economics.

Yah... that's what happens when you give a single ideology absolute dictatorial control over the economy and put them in a position where they (in panic) see threats around every corner. They fly off to the most extreme interpretation of their policies and have no moderating correcting factors.
 
I think this is most likely. And due to embarrassment, the Prussian militarists probably lose a lot of political influence.

Those talking about a protracted conflict, I think that’s the AH disease of gravitating toward the most extreme outcomes, I’m sorry, but it is! :p

The Balkan States and Turks managed to fight almost continuously for around a year during the first two Balkan Wars. Powers with much larger reserves of manpower, industrial potential, and assets could certainly fight at least somewhat longer if they could muster up the will for it. Though, I suppose that'd only be the case if the other side is presenting terms that are impossible to accept honorablely in a Napoleonic fashion; that goes against the last century of European tradition. MAYBE Czar Nicholas would be willing to take that plunge, but most of the other governments are far more pragmatic.
 
. . . only be the case if the other side is presenting terms that are impossible to accept honorablely in a Napoleonic fashion; that goes against the last century of European tradition. MAYBE Czar Nicholas would be willing to take that plunge, . . .
Or, maybe war fever catches fire among just the citizens, and the leaders dare not pull back?

There was an AH novel with a bona fide historian as co-author which made much of the fact that early public schools taught patriotism in a very unreflective manner. It was considerably more realistic than most nineteen-teens catastrophe novels, but . . . within a couple of days of finishing it, I still thought it was really a long shot.
 
Last edited:
Well, war serves as good deterrents against growing leftish movements. Compare what happened with Europe to that of the USA.

The Strike over there really lit a fire inside some of the people there and there was greater push against the bigger corporations that began pushing back. Then things got dicey when a major paper got accused of try to lead people to demand war as part of a deal with the Democrats (the US conservative government at the time), to try and sway things more conservative. That... did not go over so well. The Republicans began doing things all right for a while, albeit between them and the Democrats, they didn't do so well, especially with the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which would be followed by a drought that would cause the American Depression.

Socialists would gain some serious tractions in the USA to try and use Keynesian economics to help. The Socialists would finally be voted out and beaten by the Progressive Party by the time the Pacific War occurred, since Japan attacked the USA first. About the first time some conservatives got some hold, though the Progressive Party were more willign to work with the Socialists than with them.
 
Or, maybe war fever catches fire among just the citizens, and the leaders dare not pull back?

There was an AH novel with a bona fide historian as co-author which made much of the fact that early public schools taught patriotism in a very unreflective manner. It was considerably more realistic than most nineteen-teens catastrophe novels, but . . . within a couple of days of finishing it, I still thought it was really a long shot.

Are you referring to Robert Conroy's 1914: Europe's Great War? I love the man's work and think he's great as an author, but his view of alternate history tends to hyper-focus on a handful of facts without fully considering countervailing points. I can see how you could get a patriotic fervor to spark a continent wide war, sure, but once people's sons, fathers, and brothers start coming home in boxes by the trainload? I fail to see how the masses would continue to metaphorically hold the leadership hostage to the policy of continuing to throw their family and wealth into the meatgrinder for 6 entire years.
 
This one is pretty big and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more.

First of all, imagine if the various labour and socialist movements called for a general strike to stop a major war, and failed, or even failed to call for one. There is no question that the working classes of Europe would be in much worse condition. You can forget about getting universal suffrage or the expansion of the welfare states, or the co-ops. The fact that the SPD and SFIO managed to pull this off demonstrated that the working class could come to power, and could do it peacefully.

And the Tsar would have remained in power a few more years, and maybe Russia would be an absolute monarchy to this day.

On the war itself, I've seen different opinions, and I think the really big variable is if Britain gets involved. They had an "understanding" with France and Russia and had apparently done military planning with France, but on the other hand there was no formal alliance, you had another Irish home rule crisis at the same time, and the British had tended to sit out continental wars if there was no Napoleon threatening hegemony. If Britain actually goes to war against Germany, they can cut off the German supply of nitrate, which came from a small island in the middle of the Pacific, and it would have been a pretty short war. But I can't think of how the British government would have sold entering the war to the British public, and the Liberal government at the time even depended on the Labour Party, whose support of the strike turned out to be the tipping point, for its majority in the House of Commons.
 
Top