• Post made for three hours last night (9pm-12am EST) have been deleted. This was necessary due to some problems with server maintenance. Anyone who had problems logging into their account during this time should be fine now.

Fate of neutral countries if the world wars had never happened

I have read basically all the threads about the world wars not happening posted in this site and one thing I noticed is that they are mostly focused on the great powers (quite understandable obviously). Now I want to talk with you about the effects of no or severely delayed world wars in neutral countries or countries that were only marginally important . I know that some countries benefitted from the wars, like Sweden for example, but I feel like most of them were hurt by the war in some way
Example of countries I think deserve a look: Iran, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, China, Latin American countries, Switzerland
Switzerland would not win the money of Nazis dignitaries after their execution, China wasn't neutral, Spain probably would've participated to a delayed WWII, because it would have recovered from the civil war (if not butterflied), I don't know for the rest, it mostly depends on what the world looks like, you will have lucky nations that rise from small to strong, but it's had to predict
What exactly counts as a neutral country? Do they not have colonies? That means the Nordic Countries count as neutral while the Low Countries don't. Their wern't that many neutral countries left that haden't colonized or been colonized. It's a pretty short list. By 1914 there was:

*Latin America
*Abyssinia/Ethiopia (Debatable. It was an empire)
*Siam/Thailand (Also an sort of an Empire)
Siam/Thailand (Also an sort of an Empire)

Siam is aligned with Axis powers during WW2. That said, the direction Thailand could take can be interesting. In 1932, Thailand undergoes coup d'etat that place Khana Ratsudon party in power. This marked the end for absolute Thai monarchy. Originally led by a civilian (Nititada), he was ousted by another coup in April 1933 by Phahon due to communist accusation. October 1933 saw a bothced monarchist counter-coup. Later, Phahon resigned and replaced by Phibul in 1938. This was further consolidated by the aftermath of failed Songsuradet Rebellion in 1938, Phibul's own Night of Long Knives, according to Wiki.

Phibul is (somewhat) a fascist. His Thai Cultural Mandate contains several fascist-like point. He has ambition to unite all Thai people (which he defines as not just Southwest Thai, but all of them). This is one of the cause of Franco-Thai War in 1940, which Thailand won after Japan meditated ceasefire (and France occupation by Germany). Originally the goal was all territories taken by France (Laos and Inner Cambodia IIRC), Japan trims the demand down. Neverthless, this war catapulted his popularity. No WW2 can means that France is more able to defends Indochina, thus fall of Phibun, slowly but surely if not by the hand of France governor themself

France probably won't turn Thailand colony or something like that. The Brits might get angry. At most, they'll take Isan highland

Phibul's fall of popularity will attract vultures. Luang, his chief propagandist, might double cross him. So does the left-leaning Pridi. But most likely, the the monarchy can't use this opportunity. The last king fled the country in 1935, the new King is in Swiss studying,

Due to no WW2, Thailand is not faced a question on whether to collaborate with Japan or not. Assuming Phibul survibed the Franco-Thai war, or it doesn't happen, the split between Khana Ratsudon and Seri Thai might not happens here, so probably Phibul won't get to be replaced by Pridi. Maybe deposed by coup after he dissastified the military perhaps, like his second, post war OTL term