No World War 1?

Hmmm..
So in a peacefull XX century we have,for exemple, 1970 with same technological level,but without counterculture,with a different pop music (Jazz,maybe?) a little bit more conservative fashions (bowler hats? tailcoats for evenings?)..
things like this:

I want to see TTL in the present day. If the butterflies will it, it'd be hilarious to see Barack Obama in a top hat.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
WW1 was bound to happen somehow, too long had the great powers of Europe been calm, there were forces that wanted war. The armaments industry, many industrialists that thought war was a good way to discipline the workers and destroy marxism. Also the two blocks had antagonized ach other for some time, they were more or less looking for an excuse to go to war.
 
Hmmm..
So in a peacefull XX century we have,for exemple, 1970 with same technological level,but without counterculture,with a different pop music (Jazz,maybe?) a little bit more conservative fashions (bowler hats? tailcoats for evenings?)..
things like this:

That reminds me of a theory that I had regarding the novels of P.G. Wodehouse: that they took place in a TL without the World Wars.

Having a world without either of the wars would be interesting to see, but establishing a PoD would be tricky. Perhaps Bismarck dies in some tragic accident as a child, preventing the unification of Germany?
 
a) Except that Italy entered WW1 first 1915. Italys foreign department solved it's border problems with France far earlier, but told neither Germany or the Italian military about the current situation. So Italy was a true neutral 1914 and unlikely to declare war soon. But I agree with the rest of the scenario. A short WW1 or re-reun of the war 1870-71 would result in a "real" WW1. The only way to avoid "WW1" is to avoid any war with humiliating ends.

b) WW1 wasn't only a gigantic loss of human life and wealth, it was also the suicide of a trans-national "culture" that spanned the whole world, from St Petersburg to New York. When this culture dissapeared/lost credability a lot of "given" things like limits on the right to vote, open borders, currencies backed by gold and so on lost their automatic power. Communism and fascism became viable alternatives to semi-democracy run by aristocratic ministers (or what we should call the system pre 1914?),

So a lot of the changes from 1914 and onwards would take far longer time. Democracy was probably a given, but female votes weren't. The governments would likely be far smaller, without having to run "war socialism" during four years. The Spanish Flu would problably not occur - 50 million lives saved.

And things like the wristwatch and trenchcoat would not have been introduced.

What MIGHT happen is that war simply follows the course of being a quick affair that's indeed over by Xmas.

Imagine "WW1" where Germany grabs Paris and France sues for peace by December--and with France quickly beaten, Italy and Russia sue for terms.

The 1914 Incident would probably see small adjustments in the borders and humiliate France and Russia. Italy will be profoundly distrusted after its opportunistic betrayal of its allies.

If wars continue to operate of being over in a few short months, the balance of power can change without causing massive death and economic damage.

This pattern continuing into the 1950s with the last of these wars seeing Germany fielding a couple of nukes to win the war even faster might work.

All that needs to happen here is any matchup in Europe involves badly mismatched political alliances--one side is always clearly dominant and the other is clearly recessive. If Russia-France-Italy is clearly inferior to AH-Germany, Germany and Austria would have the power to push in ways that Russia, France and Italy can not.

Italy probably rues the day it even defected from the Central Powers.
 

General Zod

Banned
Good point. I didn't think of that.

Never mind. The key to no WWI is build a coaltion of great powers that looks so powerful that the rivals dare not a general European war until globalization and democratization diminish the appeal of old-fashioned aggressive imperalism on the masses and ruling elites (no Great War butterflies away fascism and communism that would restoke it substantially) and eventually the nukes make it impossible.

Or, as others said, the power balance is so mismatched between the dominant power block and their rivals that any war is over in a few months, continuing the pattern of 1800s European wars, so you have gradual power adjustments as necessary, but no social-economic displacement. Some wars are still likely, as daring or stubbornly revanchist powers try their luck.

However, it's not that simple to conceive of any such coalition: the Russo-German-Italian Alliance is a possible good example, as it would the Anglo-German-Austrian-Italian one. In both cases, you would need a Bismarck alive and even more talented and successful than ITOL to organize the coalition. ;):p Even so, there is no garantee that a general european war lasting a year or two could not happen, depending on the vagaries of generalship.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
1914 was the year everything went to hell. Butterflying away WWI is the best imaginable POD, in my opinion. Life would be a big party- the whole world would be like one big jazz club.
 
1914 was the year everything went to hell. Butterflying away WWI is the best imaginable POD, in my opinion. Life would be a big party- the whole world would be like one big jazz club.

The idea that interests me of "getting rid" of WWI is that the 20th century would look totally different, and more peaceful probably. I do still see a Pacific War, and Russia is a wildcard. Will there still be revolution eventually? Will they seek more power in the middle east/Balkans? I see some slow reform, with no major push to exoand their shpere of infuence. Unless they were allied w/ Germany, that is.
 
I am really looking for the effects if Germany/Italy/Austria/Ottmans/Russian still were ruled by kings as the world entered the 20th century, and there was no major shift to Democracy(and facism and communism). This could also be achieved by a smaller WW1, or a CP victory scenario. This stems from the idea that WW1 was the start of the bloodest century in human history. If there is no communist revolution and bad WW1 to lead to a WW2, I think we would of had a less bloody century. Is this true?

Nothing in life is inevitable. WW1 could have been avoided....though given the personalities involved, this is hard to see now.

Germany: Germany would have continued to have been ruled by the Hohezollerns and would have evolved into a federal constitutional monarchy - very similar to present day Canada.

The political left was actually on the rise in pre-1914 Germany, they were early adopters of things like old age pensions.

Pre-WW1 Germany was considered a cultural and scientific leader and this would have continued.

"Kaiser Bill" would probably still have pissed the rest of the world off and may have gotten Germany involved in a war with someone but the odds are at least even it would not have been a global conflict.

Italy: Italy may or may not have avoided a fascist revolution. Remember, they were on the winning side and the fascists took power during a period of relative global prosperity. So I think Mussolini would probably have still popped up even in a non-WW1 world. Of all the countries you mention, I think Italy would be the least changed. They probably would still have fought a war against Austria.

Austria: the Hapsburg empire was done, war or not. Eventually there would have been a war in the Balkans and/or a political disintegration of the empire. Serbia, Romania would both have been enlarged at the empire's expense. Hungary would have split off and simply been a larger, more powerful version of its present day self with some subject minorities....very similar to its historical past.

Austria itself might exist as an independent country as we know it today, or it might end up in Anschluss with Germany...the final act of German unification that started with the Austrian defeat by Prussia in 1866. (In this case, war with Italy obviously would probably not have happened - or perhaps defeat at the hands of Fascist Italy might have been the final straw).

No matter how any of the scenarios played out, there would have been minor, almost continual wars in the Balkans just as there were in the 19th century and just as there have been in the 20th.

Ottoman - the Ottoman Empire was also done. It was an extremely sick and rickety institution. Possibly a coup or maybe a war with either Russia or the minor Balkan countries, or maybe even Fascist Italy, would have finished her off.

Russia - probably would have still experienced upheaval and revolution. The tsar and feudalism had to go. But, without Lenin in the picture (he would be stuck in Switzerland in exile without WW1) ANY possible outcome would have been better than what we got (communism). The Soviet Union, IMO, was pretty much the worst case scenario.

Without WW1, both the "Roaring Twenties" and the Depression would have been much less significant. I think there still would have been a serious economic downturn sometime in the 20's or 30's.

There would still have been wars and disasters. But without WW1 there would not have been either communism or the nazis (two sides of the same coin of evil).

There would have been no holocaust, therefore probably no Israel, and possibly as a result less strife in the Middle East today. (The Arab countries would probably have found something else to fight about, though, and the conflict over oil in a world where colonialism lived on would drive conflict in that part of the world).

There would never have been a cold war...though possibly things like the race to the moon would have taken the form of a race among multiple powers. I could see Germany being a participant in such a race, along with the US, Russia, France, Britain, Japan and probably a farcical effort by Mussolini's Italy (which would not come close to succeeding).

Nuclear technology would have been developed outside of a wartime setting, maybe in Germany instead of the United States (or maybe both at the same time). It's possible a treaty banning the use of nuclear weapons may have been signed.

The British Empire would have lived on, which would have been both good and bad. It might impede positive progress in some ways and would probably have lead to much more serious warfare in India (even compared to what actually happened)....but OTOH it would have prevented a number of disasters that actually did happen in ex-British colonies (most notably, I think, in Africa).
 
My favorite personal favorite example is Antonio Sant'Elia. In a world where Sant'Elia lived, we might still have architecture as a viable art form.

Keep in mind that while the WWs sped up military technology, war has a tendency to disproportionaly kill the most potentially innovative and productive members of society: young males in their late teens and early 20s. Without wars, there would have emerged more Edisons and Tesla like figures, which might have actually accelerated science on the long run.

I.E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley
 
My favorite personal favorite example is Antonio Sant'Elia. In a world where Sant'Elia lived, we might still have architecture as a viable art form.

Great point. I didn't touch on that, but it is very true.

On the other hand....who knows how many sociopaths and run-of-the-mill criminals met an early end on the battlefield? Hard to say if it balances out or not.
 
Regarding the question at hand, I think that there's great difficulty in generating a scenario that doesn't just postpone (and thus probably make worse) the conflict. This past summer I read Tiges' history of the Russian Revolution, and as I understand it it wasn't just the matter of Nicholas II not understanding the situation of Russia's military or the possible consequences of the war. Evidently, the consensus in Moscow was that 1905 didn't really have origins that deep in terms of dissatisfaction with Russia's economy and society--after all, the elites thought, how could the peasants not love their batiushka-tsar? So all that was felt needed to draw out the poison of defeat by the Japanese was a larger victory against Germany and the Ottoman Empire. This also explains why Stolypin's land reforms were not continued and reinforced after his murder.

So really, my sense of the tsarist regime's psychology (and I think this transcends any one tsar) is that it felt war was the best way to continue the regime, especially if the long-desired capture of Constantinople materialized. So deep is this obsession with the idea of a validating military victory that after the February Revolution Lvov and Kerensky follow Nicholas right off that cliff by continuing the war despite its deep impopularity with ordinary Russians.

I don't know as much about the pre-war psychology of the other major capitals, and frankly I probably should read the Guns of August before I say anything even about it, but my sense is that all players in 1914 are systemically underrecognizing their risk and obsessed with militarism as an alternative to reform and responsible government.

I was going to say that in these circumstances the one way to defuse the situation is to for some event to reveal the weakness of one of the major players so that they exempt themselves. Except this would actually propell the war forward: if for instance Russia's inability to supply its troops in a conflict gets made public, Germany then has all the incentive it needs to pursue immediate war.

So unless events change Europe in this period so much as to be unrecognizable, I think it's inevitable.

But yes. Thinking of underrecognizing risk:

If one thinks as Bear Stearns as Austria-Hungry, Lehman Brothers as the Russian Empire, and AIG as Germany, well, the simile writes itself. The only question now is whether our world is in the Influenza outbreak stage of things, or whether matters are just getting going good and we have two or three more years of collapse ahead of us.
 
That reminds me of a theory that I had regarding the novels of P.G. Wodehouse: that they took place in a TL without the World Wars.
I completely agree.
And i tell you that this is one of my preferite timelines.

iu.jpg
 
Or who knows? Some horrifying bastard survives who figures out how Vaudeville can thrive on television. Someone who leads a successful international effort to ban Ulysses (which might not be so bad, because then people would actually read it). That's always the thing with these scenarios. I guess I'm just an optimist about my fellow human beings. On average, we're pretty reasonable for a species.:)

Despite er, um, the counterevidence of the subject matter of the actual thread.


Great point. I didn't touch on that, but it is very true.

On the other hand....who knows how many sociopaths and run-of-the-mill criminals met an early end on the battlefield? Hard to say if it balances out or not.
 
Nothing in life is inevitable.

Austria: the Hapsburg empire was done, war or not. Eventually there would have been a war in the Balkans and/or a political disintegration of the empire. Serbia, Romania would both have been enlarged at the empire's expense. Hungary would have split off and simply been a larger, more powerful version of its present day self with some subject minorities....very similar to its historical past.

Austria itself might exist as an independent country as we know it today, or it might end up in Anschluss with Germany...the final act of German unification that started with the Austrian defeat by Prussia in 1866. (In this case, war with Italy obviously would probably not have happened - or perhaps defeat at the hands of Fascist Italy might have been the final straw).

The Austro-Hugarian Empire was no where near collapsing in 1914. Things did start to fall apart until their armies were defeated in the field. The Empire could have kept going.
 
The Austro-Hugarian Empire was no where near collapsing in 1914. Things did start to fall apart until their armies were defeated in the field. The Empire could have kept going.

Maybe. I would say that the Hapsburgs were "nowhere near" collapsing in the same way the financial markets were "nowhere near" collapsing last January.

They were done.
 
you need to have one alliance that's too powerful to defeat like General Zod said. My personal favourite is a Russo-German-Italian alliance. After the disbanding of the Three Emperor's League Germany for some reason chose to shackle itself to the corpse that was Austria-Hungary. If they had chosen Russia instead you would have gotten a combination that IMHO was nigh invincible.
I would say an Anglo-Japanese-French alliance would be more than a match for a German-Russian-Italian one.
 
Simply make the High Seas Fleet less then what it was. Maybe a treaty that allows a 20 ship Baltic fleet, and a 30 ship North Sea fleet. That allows the 78 ships in the UK to remain powerful and Germany gets to enjoy thoughts of not having to bother with a blockade from France, while blockading Russia.

From there things go rather easy. No large scale anti-German feeling, no British remarks of naval "luxury" which when translated into German becomes a very offensive sexual remark making military planners consider the UK a defacto French ally.

Now the obvious issue of what to do with Belgium comes around. Germany will go through it, nothing could stop them if and when a war occurs. Yet without decades of large scale anti-German feeling perhaps the UK continues the splendid isolation it so enjoyed. Now a quick French fight, followed by a longer Russian one and it ends with a short conflict that is a strictly European war. With the UK gone you also loose Japan, Canada, South Africa, India, and various other nations going to fight.

So then the real question becomes with such a history how does history go forward? Perhaps a few minor wars as always, but the machine gun stay large, the bolt action rifle does the same. Cars come mainstream a little later then OTL but over all millions are not dead and tens of millions are not wounded.
 
Maybe. I would say that the Hapsburgs were "nowhere near" collapsing in the same way the financial markets were "nowhere near" collapsing last January.

They were done.

They were done in by outside forces directly related to the Great War. Without the defeat of the Imperial and Royal Armies in the field the Austro-Hungarian Empire could have continued on.
 
Top