earliest End of history possible

I know, I know, the concept of an end to history (introduced by Fukuyama) isn't very well received by everyone, but I want to ask you anyway: what's the earliest do you think we could have achieved it? I'm talking about the near absolute dominance of an ideology that leads to a prolonged period of peace between great powers, in OTL it happened in the 90s, but could it have happened before?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
The end of history coincided with the brief time known as the US "unipolar moment" in which the US was known as a hyperpower and was for all intents and purposes unchallengeable.

You could have one empire or nation decisively crush all of its rivals and stand atop the globe victorious.

As for the ideological aspect-you need a conflict of ideologies first.

You could have a communist wank where most of the world becomes communist say by 1960-with a 1919 POV that would be an end of history.
 
Maybe you could Britain initially stay neutral at the start WW1 and somehow still have the long stalemate that happened IOTL. Have America stay completely neutral throughout the whole war, and have Britain take up the role of America in IOTL, initially selling weapons before eventually entering the war at the late stage and deciding it.

Afterwards deciding that splendid isolation is no longer an option, decides to start taking a more active role in policing the world, with the other European powers too weak to do much to stop Britain and America being fundamentally disinterested in world affairs. Not sure how long this would last though.
 

Toraach

Banned
There were several times in history when for big players it looks like the end of history, when situation was stable and there weren't any harbingers of change visible, which were imaginable and didn't look like ASB or cheap SF. Example the regional system of the late bronze age circa 1200BC, it looked for those elites just like the end of history. Some decades later this world dissapeared. For Romans during the Principate also it looked like they were living during the end of history. Barbarians were some disorganized tribes outside borders, relations with the Parthians were settled, with some ocasional short wars sometimes. For elites of "englighted Europe" after the Seven Years War it also looked like a world of peace and prosperity, situation was stable, and any changes were somewhere far far away, in North America or in Poland, but who cared. During the Belle Epoque also it seemed like the end of history and all things were stable.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Indeed. In fact I am tempted to believe the whole notion of the end of history is one based on hubris.

The Bronze Age world collapsed, the Roman Empire fell, the Europe of the late 18th century with all its glamour and sophistication, wealth and intricate hierarchies, and social norms was shaken to its foundations by the French Revolution, the Belle Époque seemed stable as well-no continental wars, trade and travel were increasing, and the Paris commune had been crushed-so revolution wasn't a fear. But WW1 happened and all those riches and glamour and hierarchies fell by the wayside.

There are probably other historical examples.
 
Well, in theory the US could have "won"* a WWIII to become the sole hegemon at any point between 1945 to around the late 1950s, if the leadership are composed of hard men willing to make hard choices while hard. The necessary prerequisites needed for this to occur would probably ensure the end results being closer to 1984 rather than Roman empire 2.0.


*would would entail Europe being shafted yet again, horror & costs on a scale almost unimaginable, and condemnation by historians centuries down the line, but the premise isn't asking about those.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I know, I know, the concept of an end to history (introduced by Fukuyama) isn't very well received by everyone, but I want to ask you anyway: what's the earliest do you think we could have achieved it? I'm talking about the near absolute dominance of an ideology that leads to a prolonged period of peace between great powers, in OTL it happened in the 90s, but could it have happened before?
Yeah, the USSR could probably have collapsed in the 1970s if a bunch of PoDs and bad luck happened and you would have had the 1990s 20 yrs earlier
 
Arguably the early 20th century was close to it-there weren't the same set of tech changes, and people were talking about the "end of warfare" or at least the idea that nobody would ever actually start a great powers war.
 
Indeed. In fact I am tempted to believe the whole notion of the end of history is one based on hubris.

The Bronze Age world collapsed, the Roman Empire fell, the Europe of the late 18th century with all its glamour and sophistication, wealth and intricate hierarchies, and social norms was shaken to its foundations by the French Revolution, the Belle Époque seemed stable as well-no continental wars, trade and travel were increasing, and the Paris commune had been crushed-so revolution wasn't a fear. But WW1 happened and all those riches and glamour and hierarchies fell by the wayside.

There are probably other historical examples.
Honestly I feel like everything that happened between 1914 and 1989 was just a long hiatus, in a way, we are still living in the Belle Epoque. Globalization is still a thing, democratisation is still happening, we are still fighting for civil rights and many important powers are still relevant. The death of Franz Ferdinand inadvertently caused a chain of events that brought doom to much of the world, but is a far different thing than the fall of the Roman empire or the end of the bronze age. Anyway, I do think that we are heading towards some kind of end of history, mainly for techbological reasons
 
Top