This thread is not about discussing the notion of whether or not war is a social and technological catalyst. I personally believe WW II, apart from advancements in specific fields, was a net loss given that 50-60 million people died and the famines, genocides, political instability, civil wars, tyrannical regimes and failure of decolonization that it resulted in. Who knows how many scientists, inventors, artists and other innovators wound up in a shallow grave somewhere and how many advanced industrial facilities and scientific centres were destroyed by bombs? World War II cost trillions of dollars in current US dollars that could've been spent on something else.
For the sake of argument we'll be assuming a 1938 PoD in which Hitler is removed in a coup for going to war over the Sudetenland, thus avoiding WW II. With the above in mind, some (military) technologies we know today would've been developed slower or perhaps not at all. A number of them have found their way into civilian life later on. To list a few:
Nuclear weapons: the fear that Nazi Germany was developing nuclear weapons, led to the Manhattan Project. This push led to the development of an atomic bomb in only four years time by 1945. Nuclear fission found its way into the area of electricity production. With no pressing need to achieve nuclear weapons there's no telling when nuclear weapons would've been developed. Would Tube Alloys result in Britain becoming the first nuclear power somewhere in the 1950s or 60s or would someone else like the US, Germany or the Soviets beat them to it? And what about nuclear energy for peaceful uses?
Aviation: jetfighter technology wasn't much invested in as the existing turboprop designs sufficed in the beginning of WW 2, until later in the war a push was made to get the Me 262 in service (after Hitler's fighter-bomber folly was done away with) as well as the Gloster Meteor. How much longer would turboprop designs have remained dominant in air forces world wide and in civil aviation given that by the mid-40s they'd reached the maximum of their potential?
Rocketry: when it became clear the war might be lost and with no way to retaliate against massive aerial bombing of German cities by the Allies, Nazi Germany resolved to develop ballistic missiles to strike back with. They managed to construct the world's very first long-range guided ballistic missiles. While not a war winner and probably even a net detractor from Germany's war effort, Wernher von Braun further developed the V-2 in the United States, leading to new designs that propelled us into outer space. Given the ridicule Robert Goddard (another rocket scientist) experienced, it's unclear how missile development would progress and if we'd see space travel later then IOTL or not at all.
Tanks: in 1939 the warring countries went to war with tanks weighing 20-30 tonnes at the most, with thin armour often no thicker than 50 mm and ditto main armament. By 1945, the main combatants all had designs twice as big, armour sometimes over 100 mm and main guns with calibres between 76 and 122 mm. Would tanks have gotten this heavy so quickly without WW 2 and when?
Radar: though civilian aviation would probably necessitate its development as air travel increases, my guess its development would be slower.
Computing: codebreaking required computing power unlike anything ever seen before WW II. While a single Iphone 12 or Samsung Galaxy S20 probably has more computing power than all of Bletchley Park put together, the revolutionizing modern processors came decades after the war and the real precursors to internet were developed after WW II too, I do think we have a lot to thank these early pioneers for.
On the other hand I believe there are also technologies and developments that would've been developed faster and/or better without WW2:
Automobiles: without the destruction of their automobile industries in the war, European and Asian production was held back for years while American brands could continue unimpeded as their factories and design bureaus still stood. With continued European competition more advanced, innovative car designs would probably hit the market sooner.
Television: production of cathode ray tubes was not exactly a priority in WW2. While the first TV sets as we would recognize them appeared in the 1930s, TV only replaced radio and newspapers as the primary medium for influencing public opinion in the 1950s. Colour TV would have to wait until the mid/late sixties and the first recording technology, videotapes, entered home use in the 70s. How would this develop if mass use of television was brought forward by a decade? John Logie Baird had a 600-line colour TV ready in 1944, but post-war reconstruction meant there was no money left for it, thus this is IMO, one of the technologies that was very certainly retarded by the war.
Aviation: whilst jetfighters were developed in WW2, many countries saw their aviation industries devastated. Perhaps this would offset each other (?)
And there are probably plenty of other examples. Discuss.
For the sake of argument we'll be assuming a 1938 PoD in which Hitler is removed in a coup for going to war over the Sudetenland, thus avoiding WW II. With the above in mind, some (military) technologies we know today would've been developed slower or perhaps not at all. A number of them have found their way into civilian life later on. To list a few:
Nuclear weapons: the fear that Nazi Germany was developing nuclear weapons, led to the Manhattan Project. This push led to the development of an atomic bomb in only four years time by 1945. Nuclear fission found its way into the area of electricity production. With no pressing need to achieve nuclear weapons there's no telling when nuclear weapons would've been developed. Would Tube Alloys result in Britain becoming the first nuclear power somewhere in the 1950s or 60s or would someone else like the US, Germany or the Soviets beat them to it? And what about nuclear energy for peaceful uses?
Aviation: jetfighter technology wasn't much invested in as the existing turboprop designs sufficed in the beginning of WW 2, until later in the war a push was made to get the Me 262 in service (after Hitler's fighter-bomber folly was done away with) as well as the Gloster Meteor. How much longer would turboprop designs have remained dominant in air forces world wide and in civil aviation given that by the mid-40s they'd reached the maximum of their potential?
Rocketry: when it became clear the war might be lost and with no way to retaliate against massive aerial bombing of German cities by the Allies, Nazi Germany resolved to develop ballistic missiles to strike back with. They managed to construct the world's very first long-range guided ballistic missiles. While not a war winner and probably even a net detractor from Germany's war effort, Wernher von Braun further developed the V-2 in the United States, leading to new designs that propelled us into outer space. Given the ridicule Robert Goddard (another rocket scientist) experienced, it's unclear how missile development would progress and if we'd see space travel later then IOTL or not at all.
Tanks: in 1939 the warring countries went to war with tanks weighing 20-30 tonnes at the most, with thin armour often no thicker than 50 mm and ditto main armament. By 1945, the main combatants all had designs twice as big, armour sometimes over 100 mm and main guns with calibres between 76 and 122 mm. Would tanks have gotten this heavy so quickly without WW 2 and when?
Radar: though civilian aviation would probably necessitate its development as air travel increases, my guess its development would be slower.
Computing: codebreaking required computing power unlike anything ever seen before WW II. While a single Iphone 12 or Samsung Galaxy S20 probably has more computing power than all of Bletchley Park put together, the revolutionizing modern processors came decades after the war and the real precursors to internet were developed after WW II too, I do think we have a lot to thank these early pioneers for.
On the other hand I believe there are also technologies and developments that would've been developed faster and/or better without WW2:
Automobiles: without the destruction of their automobile industries in the war, European and Asian production was held back for years while American brands could continue unimpeded as their factories and design bureaus still stood. With continued European competition more advanced, innovative car designs would probably hit the market sooner.
Television: production of cathode ray tubes was not exactly a priority in WW2. While the first TV sets as we would recognize them appeared in the 1930s, TV only replaced radio and newspapers as the primary medium for influencing public opinion in the 1950s. Colour TV would have to wait until the mid/late sixties and the first recording technology, videotapes, entered home use in the 70s. How would this develop if mass use of television was brought forward by a decade? John Logie Baird had a 600-line colour TV ready in 1944, but post-war reconstruction meant there was no money left for it, thus this is IMO, one of the technologies that was very certainly retarded by the war.
Aviation: whilst jetfighters were developed in WW2, many countries saw their aviation industries devastated. Perhaps this would offset each other (?)
And there are probably plenty of other examples. Discuss.
Last edited:
