Imperial Cold War?

So, there's an AH scenario that's been running around my head for a while and that's where WW1 is not only delayed but it never happens and a perpetual Cold War happens between the Great Powers of the OTL 1910's, The UK, France, Germany, Tsarist Russia, A-H, Ottoman Empire, etc. My questions is what would the world look like if this "Imperial Cold War" had dragged on until today politically, socially, technologically, etc.? For one, colonialism would probably still be around but what else?
 
It could mean a lot of proxy wars, but the racism in the Imperialsm/Colonialism often prevented the European powers from supporting a native nation against another European nation. Against another native nation, sure, but not against whites. The most common war would probably be civil wars in the few free non-european nations, with the sides propped up by various European nations (or the US), to get their own tinpot dictator instead of the tinpot dictator of some other nation.

Ethiopia, Thailand, Liberia, Afghanistan, China, especially China. If the Europeans feel brave enough to covertly challenge the Monroe doctrine, South America might also become a battlefield.

Trade was flourishing 1914, it would not be until 1990 that the world economy was so intermingled again as it was 1914. If ww1 is spirited away, we're going to see a big increase in wealth all over the world.

Without war, Austria-Hungary and Russia can probably keep together, especially if Franz Ferdinand is successful in creating his federated Empire and crushing the Hungarian nationalists in the process (with violence).
 
Without WWI you probably wouldn't see the USA rising to superpower status or at least so fast.

Germany would be the economic powerhouse of Europe with a military to back it up.
Germany would have a lot of political change in the 20's with the SDP forcing Kaiser Bill to either reform or abdicate.

Russia is a question mark do the bolshies still make their play if so then kaiser Bill will probably help his cousin.

The Ottomans to are a question mark if they don't refore expect some type of rebellion in the 20's or 30's.

Japan will definitely go to war with somebody as Germany, France. GB, the USA and Russia have them hemmed in.
Any choice they make will be hard but the logical targets are Russia and the US. The others are just too powerful and there is noway that a japan of the 20's could take on an unimpeded Germany.
Expect the German Pacific fleet to consist of all the 11" and 12" DN's and BC's. The others would be in Europe annoying the British and French.

Expect large navies dominated By DN's and BC's with the odd carrier thrown in.
The Us would probably remain a second rate naval power as congress wouldn't allow the USN to compete in naval cold war with GB and Germany.

Interesting Idea.
 
It could mean a lot of proxy wars, but the racism in the Imperialsm/Colonialism often prevented the European powers from supporting a native nation against another European nation. Against another native nation, sure, but not against whites. The most common war would probably be civil wars in the few free non-european nations, with the sides propped up by various European nations (or the US), to get their own tinpot dictator instead of the tinpot dictator of some other nation.
).

Not really....That was nothing to do with racism, just that these 'non-white' nations didn't stand a chance against the Europeans on their own and generally Europe first agrred on who was allowed to expand where before it happened.
In Asia however where things were not so clear cut you did see support from Europeans against others.


But anyway. It could happen. Most of the 19th century had a UK-Russia cold war.
 
Both Afghanistan and Ethiopia defeated large-scale European invasions during the late 19th century - without European help. Propping up small nations against your enemy's influence or invasion was a standard tactic in Europe. UK did it with Hannover, Sweden with Holstein, Russia with Serbia, UK with Portugal, France with Sardinia-Piedimonte etc etc.

It was done European against European, Non-European against Non-European but not Non-European against European.
 
Maybe that could be the POD, give the Europeans a big, bloody outlet for their aggression. Let someone do it first, then everyone does it.


I think it would help if they had some reason to fear open warfare, like the nukes in The Cold War.

Maybe some European voluteers in the US civil war to spread concern about the new ways of warfare as non-elanish?
 
Well, if you can get China to blow up in the post-Boxer Rebellion chaos, then you can see imperial interests dragged increasingly into this. If its early enough, then neither TR nor Taft have yet fully enunciated their policies to China, so US intervention AGAINST European intervention won't be on the cards.

This could also serve to divert Japan's energies, and perhaps remove the Russo-Japanese War from the timeline, thus not showing Russia up to be weak internally (ie no 1905 revolution). Whilst people often say that this denies Russia much-needed military reforms, it is better to be perceived as strong and not to have to fight, than to be seen as weak but having sorted out the army

Whilst imperial rivalries over spheres of influence etc would raise their heads, this is less dangerous in terms of a European conflagration then tensions over Morocco or in the Balkans

Without a weaker Russia you won't get an Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and without that you won't get the Young Turks coup, and without that you can avoid the Balkan Wars of OTL

Of course, SOMETHING will occur to fill in the gaps, other explosions and tensions, but these can be less dangerous in terms of creating a road to war

Also, even if you DO get a major crisis blow up without the 1908 fiasco, Russia won't have the attitude that it can in now way compromise or back down without losing all of its influence and risking revolution at home, so the first major crisis could be solved by negotiation, and thus alleviate whatever tensions have led to it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Both Afghanistan and Ethiopia defeated large-scale European invasions during the late 19th century - without European help. Propping up small nations against your enemy's influence or invasion was a standard tactic in Europe. UK did it with Hannover, Sweden with Holstein, Russia with Serbia, UK with Portugal, France with Sardinia-Piedimonte etc etc.

It was done European against European, Non-European against Non-European but not Non-European against European.

Afghanistan, Persia, various central Asian khanates. Even Japan to an extent (a lot of the British support there was that it would make a good ally vs. Russia)


And for the record- Afghanistan never beat a European invasion.
 
Considering the nitwits in charge in the immediate pre-war era I am very pessimistic about peace prevailing for very long in Europe even without the OTL spark.

Also I cannot really see stability prevailing if Willie stays on the Imperial throne. Even if the SPD can force parliamentary supremacy on the Empire, this may well lead to more instability with escalating tensions between those wanting the Kaiser as an absolute monarch (but under the control of ‘proper’ aristocrats and the army) and democrats. Willie himself embodied these contradictions in society with, for example, his attitudes towards extending and protecting workers’ rights but having absolute contempt for these same workers’ representatives. A Germany that is fundamentally unstable is bad news for European peace.

Russia is a basket case despite those who quote statistics showing how it was growing economically. The underlying problems of political turmoil and gross exploitation of industrial workers as well as peasants is still there. The revolutionary and social change parties were growing rapidly in strength and there is no reason to suppose this would not continue. Just like Imperial Germany, these fundamental stresses in society will eventually explode especially with a simpleton like Nick in charge who will still be advised by his crazy wife. The aristocracy stills rules every aspect of Russian life and the new plutocrats growing rich from industry were no better. Their record in managing anything is not inspiring and their vision is limited to the next dinner party.

Britain and France are better placed to continue as stable, relatively prosperous states and to modernize effectively. Even they, however, have inherent problems that are not easily resolved. Most particularly their colonial possessions are a drain on their economies and societies. Conservative social mores are beginning to relax by 1914 and social spending can probably be extended and improved without the drain of war. National trauma as a result of the slaughter will not exist and the mindset of their citizenry will be very different indeed. How this will translate into social change is the question and it could go either way by strengthening the existing elites or a steady but fairly rapid advance in change and representative democracy.

My guess is that the UK will forge ahead with some sort of Imperial preference in trade and a generally progressive attitude towards public housing, health and education at home. This will lead to a more open and less stratified social hierarchy in time and a freer attitude. France will cling to its colonies and will still be paranoid about Germany. It will have no real choice but to move even closer to Britain since Germany will still be out producing it and will be growing faster in population and Russia is a dubious ally at best.

As for the US, it will still grow but an even richer GB will mean increased investment in American industry and business by British interests. No war profiteering will mean its nett debt will be erased only slowly thereby slowing its growth. A plus is that Congress will most likely not approve any great expenditure on the military so there will be more capital to spend on infrastructure and in the private sector which should encourage wealth creation. At some point though there will be pressure to at least modernize the navy so it is a credible deterrent to any encroachment into the American sphere of influence. A modest increase in the army may also be approved even if it is to a level where it can be an effective garrison for American possessions at home and abroad.
Japan has no choice but to abandon any pretence of empire building. If China becomes even more unstable it may be able to get something there so long as the Great Powers allow it. A continuing Japanese alliance with Britain and an accommodation with Russia appear inevitable. The former will face strong opposition from Australia as in OTL while the latter may face opposition from within Russia. If this happens then the long-term choices will be that Japan must move rapidly to find a niche it can exploit in world trade and abandon military adventures.
 
In OTL, we did have an Imperial Cold War--the "great game" in Central Asia between the British and the Russians.

Of course, by 1910, things are rather different. Perhaps the Dreikaiserbund (sp?) survives and you have an alliance of the less-democratic Central and Eastern European states vs. the more democratic Western European states?
 
My guess is that the UK will forge ahead with some sort of Imperial preference in trade and a generally progressive attitude towards public housing, health and education at home. This will lead to a more open and less stratified social hierarchy in time and a freer attitude.p
Definitely UK would proceed with the Imperial preference system -- which would have interesting effects on its relationship with its colonies and other Commonwealth nations. I'm not so certain about the rest. The massive national trauma caused by WWI seriously damaged the image of the monarchy and its attendant elites in the public mind. Without that and the influence of returning war veterans and the impact of the rise of communism following the Russian Revolution, British class society would remain relatively untouched. Without the war, there was little impetus for social change in any of the nations of Europe.

ETA: Without the tremendous financial strain caused by the war, Britain would be able to hold its Empire together for many more decades IMO.

Another consideration, and the source of massive butterflies: what is the effect of all those people were were NOT killed, crippled, or otherwise traumatized by the Great War? Military and civilian, the war caused 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded. France lost 4.29 percent of its entire population, Romania 9.07 percent, per Wikipedia. UK lost 885k killed and 1.7 million wounded.
 
Definitely UK would proceed with the Imperial preference system -- which would have interesting effects on its relationship with its colonies and other Commonwealth nations. I'm not so certain about the rest. The massive national trauma caused by WWI seriously damaged the image of the monarchy and its attendant elites in the public mind. Without that and the influence of returning war veterans and the impact of the rise of communism following the Russian Revolution, British class society would remain relatively untouched. Without the war, there was little impetus for social change in any of the nations of Europe.

ETA: Without the tremendous financial strain caused by the war, Britain would be able to hold its Empire together for many more decades IMO.

Another consideration, and the source of massive butterflies: what is the effect of all those people were were NOT killed, crippled, or otherwise traumatized by the Great War? Military and civilian, the war caused 16 million deaths and 21 million wounded. France lost 4.29 percent of its entire population, Romania 9.07 percent, per Wikipedia. UK lost 885k killed and 1.7 million wounded.
Possible we'd get African colonies with a lot more white people.
 
Well all the countries had been gearing up for war the last 20 years to achieve their knock out blows and supremecy, but I guess that didn't stop the US and the USSR from avoiding all out war. Perhaps if the war planners realised how stalemated it would get (and blood thirsty) they would avoid it, but the whole scenario would be based on how the powers wrangled to gain supremecy (ie proxy wars etc) my guess is that Russia will become a superpower and the Central Power block will evenutaly collapse.

Regards Bobbis
 
For a start I think military technology would advance at a much slower pace. WW1 and WW2 were catalysts for huge leaps forward in technology. So I would guess we might be seeing combat aircraft until the 20's. The development of bombers however, might act as a deterrent with the great powers fearing mutual destruction much like the actual Cold War.
Decolonization would certainly be delayed significantly. The fear of opportunistic, predatory foreign powers (stoked of course by imperial propaganda) would supress desire for independence and increase the feeling of loyalty and dependence on the repective 'mother countries' of subject peoples.
I think that proxy wars could act as 'pressure valves' which would allow the rival powers to let off steam and decrease the risk of total war by settling their differences without fighting each other directly.
However, unlike the real Cold War, rivalry is not based upon ideology but rather patriotism, geography, and commerce. This would probably mean that the USA would stay in isolation and view all other great powers with suspiscion. But, even without clear ideological division, the great powers would still form two rival blocs out of necessity. The most logical arrangement would be Britain, France, Russia and Japan on one side and Germany, Austria, the Ottoman Empire, and China on the other side. Spain and Italy will have ceased to be great powers at this stage and will probably seek protection from the others.
 
Something which I have often pondered: as far as Britain was concerned, then as soon as we had beaten the Germans in 1918, Russia was public enemy number one. Doubtlessly Bolshevism and the paranoid fear of it speeded up this porcess and gave it a popular urgency, but would it have happened anyway? Russia in its Imperial/Soviet form is a natural superpower: it has the population and raw resources to sustain world-spanning ambition. It was yet to become more than a European Great power, however, because it was backward. But since 1885, Russia had been sucking in capital at an alarming rate. Railways were lengthening, factories appearing, and literacy had gone up a lot (albiet mostly in the cities). Even after the devestation of the war and civil war, Russia kept growing and modernising, until in 1941, so to speak, shit got real, and it became clear that Russia was just too bloody big to sit quietly as one equal part of a multiploar system.

Would this happen anyway? I see no reason why not.
 
Top