No World War I

[yourworstnightmare]

World War I would be very hard to avoid, considering most nations were just waiting for some kind of crisis to happen, so the war could begin. Germany, Russia, France and even Britain were looking for a Casus Belli. Especially the Germans thought they needed to start a war soon, or the small window they had when they were stronger and better prepared than the French and the Russians would close. But let say Archduke Franz Ferdinand isn't killed. The assassination attempt was already very much based on luck, and let's just say Princip never runs into the Archduke and there is no Austrian casus belli on Serbia. Let's just say the Germans don't find a reason to start a war, and in 1916 the German High Command realize they don't have an advantage over France and Russia anymore, and the Great War just don't happen. What happens to the nations and empires of the world in such a TL.

Could you quickly pen down what you think happens in the following decades in the following countries:

1) Austria- Hungary
2) Germany
3) Ottoman Empire
4) Russian Empire
5) United Kingdom
6) Italy
7) France
8) USA
9) Japan

 

[Pellegrino]

Interesting question, and one with no clear answer.

Austria-Hungary: I think it could survive, although it would face a rather unusual challenge in the form of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Ferdinand was considerably more liberal than most of the ruling class in A-H, and in fact I read that he favored a triple monarchy to give more autonomy to the Slavs (he apparently favored a Autro-Hungarian-Slavic Empire). I think that could have the opposite effect than what he intended though since (a) the Slavs are more diverse than he realized (how would the Serbs or Croats handle being part of a Slavic “monarchy” with the Czechs and Slovaks?) and (b) there are numerous other ethnic groups that would demand greater autonomy as well, such as the Romanians. In a nutshell, if he survives and takes the crown I think his good intentions might backfire, and Austria-Hungary splits up as a result of his benevolent reforms. However, he also would be one who would not be violently opposed to a loose federation (a la Yugoslavia post WW2) so it might survive in that form.

Germany is a tricky one. It clearly had an identity issue in 1914 and I wonder at what point the lack of colonies would finally create a conflict. Bismarck thought colonies were a waste of time, but by 1914 Germany was clearly upset they missed out on the chance to carve up more of the world. I think what might happen is that this insecurity creates a bizarre situation where Germany becomes what the USSR became in the 1950s and 1960s: a supporter of independence movements for many of these colonies. Although the colonial era ended because of WW2, I could see where Germany starts sending weapons to Algeria, or India, or Vietnam in support of independence movements not so much for ideological reasons, but because they are jealous and they decide that they can negate the benefit of having colonies for France and Britain by making it to expensive to maintain. This could easily spiral out of control into another WW1 with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand as the spark being replaced by the assassination of some Governor General of Rhodesia or India or something like that.

Ottoman Empire: I think the OE was on its last legs by 1914, and that the only thing propping it up was the other world powers couldn’t agree on how to carve it up. I think without WW1 we see it slowly disintegrate, with Syria and Armenia bolting first, followed by Palestine and Transjordan. However, I think that the status quo still keeps the great powers from picking up the scraps. Although Britain and Germany would love to have colonies in the Middle East, the careful balancing act prevents that from happening and we have these countries emerge and thrive without serious threat from the European powers of re-colonization.

Russia: Similar to Ottoman Empire. I think the monarchy was badly damaged from the Sino-Russian war and was doomed to collapse. But I think that without the unpopular war with Germany in 1918, the democratic Russian government that eventually overthrows the czars faces minimal threat from the communist.

UK: Enters a cold war with Germany that last the better part of the century, eventually Germany wins by bleeding the British economy with 1000 Afghanistan’s across the empire. Although the British Empire collapses, however, the United Kingdom remains a strong world power, just one that couldn’t afford to keep up with the Germans.

Italy: Really no idea. I think that they don’t get Ethiopia without the fascist in charge, so they can focus more on the one colony they have in Libya (not sure what would happen to Albania here). As a result many Italians immigrate to Libya and it soon becomes a Northern Ireland type situation: where the Italians make up the majority but the Arabs have a very valid claim to a return of their country. Unlike Algeria, Libya had a very low population, and it wouldn’t have taken much for this to happen. As a result, they are able to hold onto Libya, unlike France with Algeria. Plus closer ties to Germany help with this as well. As a result Libya would be a very volatile part of Italy. I predict that Libyan terrorist/freedom fighters would have assassinated at least one Italian head of state and Italy would replace Israel (which wouldn’t exist in this ATL) as the most hated country in the Islamic world.

France: Same as the UK, with a cold war with Germany eventually bleeding the economy dry as the empire collapses.

USA: Much more isolationist. Basically, it sympathizes with the UK and France because both are democracies, but also sympathizes with Germany’s anti-colonial stance. As long as Germany doesn’t rattle any cages in the Philippines, I would think that cordial relations exist between the US and Germany as well between the USA and France and the UK. And I see the USA making a killing selling weapons and agricultural products to both sides, helping it emerge as the major economic power in the world by 1940.

Japan: Like Germany, it had an identity crisis that pretty much defined its foreign policy for much of the early 20th century. But unlike Germany, central control over the military was much more tenuous. In Japan, young, radical officers began calling the shots, and Generals were becoming more and more leery about trying to stand up to them. As a result, I think Japan stumbles into a war, most likely with the USA. Germany is unwilling to let itself get dragged into the conflict (especially if it is against the USA) and as a result we don’t quite see WW1. If Japan targets Britain or France, I see Germany supporting Japan, but not going so far as to declare war. And if they start a fight with Russia over Kamchatka or something, it might remain a regional war that the rest of the world watches with interest, but has little desire to enter. All three scenarios I think lead to a Japanese defeat eventually, and Germany and the USA ensure that Korea emerges from that scenario as an independent country.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Interesting question, and one with no clear answer.

Austria-Hungary: I think it could survive, although it would face a rather unusual challenge in the form of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Ferdinand was considerably more liberal than most of the ruling class in A-H, and in fact I read that he favored a triple monarchy to give more autonomy to the Slavs (he apparently favored a Autro-Hungarian-Slavic Empire). I think that could have the opposite effect than what he intended though since (a) the Slavs are more diverse than he realized (how would the Serbs or Croats handle being part of a Slavic “monarchy” with the Czechs and Slovaks?) and (b) there are numerous other ethnic groups that would demand greater autonomy as well, such as the Romanians. In a nutshell, if he survives and takes the crown I think his good intentions might backfire, and Austria-Hungary splits up as a result of his benevolent reforms. However, he also would be one who would not be violently opposed to a loose federation (a la Yugoslavia post WW2) so it might survive in that form.

This is an old myth that keeps appearing on this site for some reason (wikipedia). FF was not liberal at all, he was an arch-conservative that wanted to have 1 united empire and no parliament. The popovichi plan was just a proposal given to FF that he rejected. The triple crown idea was abandoned in 1907 because it would have created more problems in governing the empire, rather than less.

His plan was to force the Hungarians to re-write their constitution to eliminate the control of the Hungarian nobility over Hungary and the Empire. He planned on achieving this by refusing to be crowned by the Hungarians until they did it and threatening Plan U (the occupation of Budapest) and toppling the government and forcibly implementing universal suffrage in Hungary if they did not, probably seizing the Hungarian nobility's large landholdings in the process.

If anything FF would create short term violence and then longer term stability, plus increased military spending and the elimination of the Honved. The Hungarian nobility would hate him, but they were only 5% of the Hungarian population. The danger would be the rise of peasant parties and socialists, plus demand for truly universal suffrage in Austria (i.e. elimination of proportional representation based on tax brackets), which would see the Socialists sweep to power in Vienna, something FF and the Austrian nobility feared.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

This is an old myth that keeps appearing on this site for some reason (wikipedia). FF was not liberal at all, he was an arch-conservative that wanted to have 1 united empire and no parliament. The popovichi plan was just a proposal given to FF that he rejected. The triple crown idea was abandoned in 1907 because it would have created more problems in governing the empire, rather than less.

His plan was to force the Hungarians to re-write their constitution to eliminate the control of the Hungarian nobility over Hungary and the Empire. He planned on achieving this by refusing to be crowned by the Hungarians until they did it and threatening Plan U (the occupation of Budapest) and toppling the government and forcibly implementing universal suffrage in Hungary if they did not, probably seizing the Hungarian nobility's large landholdings in the process.

If anything FF would create short term violence and then longer term stability, plus increased military spending and the elimination of the Honved. The Hungarian nobility would hate him, but they were only 5% of the Hungarian population. The danger would be the rise of peasant parties and socialists, plus demand for truly universal suffrage in Austria (i.e. elimination of proportional representation based on tax brackets), which would see the Socialists sweep to power in Vienna, something FF and the Austrian nobility feared.

Austria as a military junta ruled empire would be dystopic, and probably fail hard, as Socialists, Liberals, Czechs, Magyars and Slavs would suddenly have one thing in common, they all hare Franz Ferdinand.

 

[mowque]

France/Russia and Germany are going to come to blows. The very fact that a strong Germany existed is enough to upset the balance of power. War will come. Granted, this does not have to be a world war.

 

[Thande]

France/Russia and Germany are going to come to blows. The very fact that a strong Germany existed is enough to upset the balance of power. War will come. Granted, this does not have to be a world war.

In my opinion, although this is an oft held view, it may not actually be true (or at least not on a short timescale). Let's say the various Balkan crises in 1914 don't result in war, or at least not a war any less localised than the ones earlier that decade. If peace lasts until 1916, then Russia has now completed its military modernisation process and France+Russia outmatches Germany+Austria-Hungary. Therefore, if the Austrians go gung ho in the Balkans, the Germans will be reluctant to support them. An awkward state of affairs will thus last until either the Central Powers make some breakthrough that resettles the balance, or the international alliance structures shift to equalise the power blocs again. Perhaps some kind of world war is inevitable, but IMO it could easily be delayed a decade...allowing things like military aircraft and submarines to become already established and fitted into pre-war doctrines, albeit not necessarily in effective ways...producing a very different kind of war altogether.

 

[mowque]

In my opinion, although this is an oft held view, it may not actually be true (or at least not on a short timescale). Let's say the various Balkan crises in 1914 don't result in war, or at least not a war any less localised than the ones earlier that decade. If peace lasts until 1916, then Russia has now completed its military modernisation process and France+Russia outmatches Germany+Austria-Hungary.

(Are you following me from thread to thread?)

The bolded bit...we might know that. Heck, I have troop, steel and money stats on my bookshelf. But did they at the time? Did they truly understand all of the data and use it? Are geopolitical programs always played out like the math suggests? I agree with your post (it may be a long time), but I think you ascribe a bit too much control and order to the various leaders.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

From what I have read the Germans did know they needed a war before 1916, that's why they actively sought a Casus Belli, and were more than happy when they found one with Austria- Hungary and Serbia.

 

[Snake Featherston]

1) This is the kicker as the rise of Franz-Ferdinand and the renewal of the Ausgleich is the most probable trigger for a late WWI on an OTL-style model. There are no simple answers to these problems, either.

2) Germany would be actually stronger economically and materially the more time passes, to a point where it has a virtual hegemony in Europe of a financial-economic nature.

3) It quite probably experiences a resurgence of a military sort, with the CUP reducing the Sultan to a figurehead. Outside of its military it doesn't function all that well, giving it something of the characteristics of the late USSR.

4) Tsarism is bound to collapse by the 1920s, but the end of the Romanovs in such a context does not mean "Good-Bye Nicky, who cares Kerensky, oh hai Lenin" as per OTL. The result would probably be a precursor of Putinism at the most optimistic, a Russian version of fascism in the worst case.

5) Benefits most.

6) Benefits least, as it's going to have severe internal issues, WWI or no WWI.

7) Strongly benefits from the absence of heavy losses and the ruinous devastation inflicted to its industry.

8) Remains a Great Power but is unlikely to ever become a World Power.

9) See 8. Arguably benefits most after UK in some ways.

 

[Pellegrino]

This is an old myth that keeps appearing on this site for some reason (wikipedia). FF was not liberal at all, he was an arch-conservative that wanted to have 1 united empire and no parliament. The popovichi plan was just a proposal given to FF that he rejected. The triple crown idea was abandoned in 1907 because it would have created more problems in governing the empire, rather than less.

His plan was to force the Hungarians to re-write their constitution to eliminate the control of the Hungarian nobility over Hungary and the Empire. He planned on achieving this by refusing to be crowned by the Hungarians until they did it and threatening Plan U (the occupation of Budapest) and toppling the government and forcibly implementing universal suffrage in Hungary if they did not, probably seizing the Hungarian nobility's large landholdings in the process.

If anything FF would create short term violence and then longer term stability, plus increased military spending and the elimination of the Honved. The Hungarian nobility would hate him, but they were only 5% of the Hungarian population. The danger would be the rise of peasant parties and socialists, plus demand for truly universal suffrage in Austria (i.e. elimination of proportional representation based on tax brackets), which would see the Socialists sweep to power in Vienna, something FF and the Austrian nobility feared.

There has been several reputable sources who claimed he was planning to reform the dual-monacrchy:

BYU:
"Another source of F.F.'s lack of popularity was the reforms he intended to enact when he became Emperor. Recognizing growing the strains and pressures of nationalism among the many ethnic groups within Austria-Hungary, F.F. proposed to replace Austro-Hungarian dualism with 'Trialism,' a triple monarchy in which the empire's slavs would have an equal voice in government with the Germans and Magyars. Another possible variation F.F. was exploring was a form of federalism made up of 16 states. While such radical reforms might have saved the empire, they were not popular among those with vested interests in the existing structure."

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/bio/f/franzfrd.html


Spencer Tucker's book World War I:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Y...=onepage&q=World War I Spencer Tucker&f=false

To be honest, it is hard to know what he really planned, and you may be right. Although there is a lot of evidence of him being a reformer, there is also evidence to show he was quite the opposite. So much of his life is now the stuff of myth and legend. I am sure there is some report out there that says he was born 1942 on the sacred Baektul Mountain under a double rainbow.

 

[Snake Featherston]

In my opinion, although this is an oft held view, it may not actually be true (or at least not on a short timescale). Let's say the various Balkan crises in 1914 don't result in war, or at least not a war any less localised than the ones earlier that decade. If peace lasts until 1916, then Russia has now completed its military modernisation process and France+Russia outmatches Germany+Austria-Hungary. Therefore, if the Austrians go gung ho in the Balkans, the Germans will be reluctant to support them. An awkward state of affairs will thus last until either the Central Powers make some breakthrough that resettles the balance, or the international alliance structures shift to equalise the power blocs again. Perhaps some kind of world war is inevitable, but IMO it could easily be delayed a decade...allowing things like military aircraft and submarines to become already established and fitted into pre-war doctrines, albeit not necessarily in effective ways...producing a very different kind of war altogether.

Would two years really make a difference in the internal weaknesses of Russia that led to its collapse IOTL? Russia actually had quite splendid records by the standards of WWI, the best after Germany itself, and this did absolutely nothing to forestall the fall of the Tsar. Nor did Kerensky make a better effort at leading Russia in WWI. I don't see how two more years answer political crises.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There has been several reputable sources who claimed he was planning to reform the dual-monacrchy:

BYU:
"Another source of F.F.'s lack of popularity was the reforms he intended to enact when he became Emperor. Recognizing growing the strains and pressures of nationalism among the many ethnic groups within Austria-Hungary, F.F. proposed to replace Austro-Hungarian dualism with 'Trialism,' a triple monarchy in which the empire's slavs would have an equal voice in government with the Germans and Magyars. Another possible variation F.F. was exploring was a form of federalism made up of 16 states. While such radical reforms might have saved the empire, they were not popular among those with vested interests in the existing structure."

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/bio/f/franzfrd.html


Spencer Tucker's book World War I:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Y...=onepage&q=World War I Spencer Tucker&f=false

To be honest, it is hard to know what he really planned, and you may be right. Although there is a lot of evidence of him being a reformer, there is also evidence to show he was quite the opposite. So much of his life is now the stuff of myth and legend. I am sure there is some report out there that says he was born 1942 on the sacred Baektul Mountain under a double rainbow.

The Austrian History Year Book, which has had a number of articles about FF, and the following are much more reliable sources:
http://www.amazon.com/Archduke-Sarajevo-Romance-Tragedy-Ferdinand/dp/0316109517

http://www.amazon.com/Habsburg-Mona...TF8&qid=1344542549&sr=1-1&keywords=robin+okey


He was a reformer, but not in the liberal direction.
He assembled a team of intellectuals to put forth ideas. One was the Trialistic Empire, which FF abandoned as a goal in 1907. Another was the federated Empire (United States of Austria), which FF never accepted as a viable option, though it was discussed by his reform group.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Would two years really make a difference in the internal weaknesses of Russia that led to its collapse IOTL? Russia actually had quite splendid records by the standards of WWI, the best after Germany itself, and this did absolutely nothing to forestall the fall of the Tsar. Nor did Kerensky make a better effort at leading Russia in WWI. I don't see how two more years answer political crises.

But as you yourself have said elsewhere, does Germany know that those internal political issues exist? Or will they look at the numbers and ignore the discontent burbling under the surface?

 

[Clandango]

But as you yourself have said elsewhere, does Germany know that those internal political issues exist? Or will they look at the numbers and ignore the discontent burbling under the surface?

Castrating Serbia and keeping them fueding with the Bulgarians, keeping Montenegro puny, having the Russians continue their cultural war on Ooland, as well as spliting the Ukranians in East Galicia from the Poles while the Hungarians rig linguistic polls in their half of the empire to stem the rising tide of non-Magyars may suggest that the Austrians would be a somewhat lesser evil to everyone. Certainly no Pan Slavism from outside the country.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Well at least the Krakowian Poles saw only on good thing with Vienna, that it was not St. Petersburg.

 

[Snake Featherston]

But as you yourself have said elsewhere, does Germany know that those internal political issues exist? Or will they look at the numbers and ignore the discontent burbling under the surface?

They'll look at the numbers, and then reality provides them with an interesting example of the gap between fears and reality. They'll certainly be planning for the Russia that the numbers and reforms indicate *should* exist over the one that *does* exist.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

World War I would be very hard to avoid, considering most nations were just waiting for some kind of crisis to happen, so the war could begin.

Not true. There were some military jingo types, but most everyone else quite rationally considered war to be a probable calamity.

Germany, Russia, France and even Britain were looking for a Casus Belli.

Germany, yes. Russia no. Russia had just gotten beat up in the Russo-Japanese War. France no. They knew Germany outweighed them. Britain no. Britain had no interest whatever in war with any Continental power. They preferred making money.

Turkey no. They had been crushed in the Balkan Wars. Italy no. Too weak to challenge anyone else. Austria-Hungary no. At most they wanted to use force to crush Serbia. Most A-H pundits and intellectuals worried or hoped that political collapse was imminent, and a war would only bring it on.

Especially the Germans thought they needed to start a war soon,

Some Germans. But even as big a jingo as the Kaiser flinched at the brink in 1914. I don't think there was a majority for just going to war; the war situation had to be ginned up.

the Great War just don't happen. What happens to the nations and empires of the world in such a TL.

1) Austria-Hungary

Massive political crisis when the Ausgleich comes up again, especially if FF is in power instead FJ. How it boils out is anyone's guess, though I would expect that a truncated Empire may survive.

2) Germany

Continued economic growth. At some point pressure for political liberalization becomes irresistible. The Kaiser lived to 1940, and he's incapable of compromise - but it may be forced on him.

3) Ottoman Empire

Some level of internal reform. The monarchy staggers on. Arab nationalism may start to disrupt the Asian possessions. I don't think there would be a massacre of the Armenians. Russia would intervene, with world approval, and the Turks know it. Turkey does not get the sort of drastic shake-up Kemal imposed, so it remains backward - but it doesn't get the smashing that it got it WW I either. (Turkey had the highest proportion of military dead to total population of any belligerent except Serbia.) That's got to help.

4) Russian Empire

Rapid economic growth, but serious political problems due to Nicholas and the camarilla. Further democratization may be demanded by 1920 or 1925. If Alexei succeeds to the throne, his illness will weaken the monarchy. (Even Bolsheviks may feel sorry for him, but the system has put a manifestly unfit person in power.) No Revolution for quite a few years.

5) United Kingdom

An immediate crisis over Home Rule in Ireland, which OTL was defused by Irish Nationalists saying they would wait till after the war. (Which ultimately killed them; the Irish Republicans rose instead.) The government could pass a Home Rule bill, but Ulster Unionists threatened to oppose it by force ("Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right!") There were threats that the British army would not enforce Home Rule (the Curragh "mutiny"); there was even talk in some Conservative/Unionist circles of extra-political action in Britain.

6) Italy

Idunno, but almost certainly no Fascism.

7) France

Millions of men not killed and land not ravaged. Economic growth?

8) USA

Wilson may not be reelected in 1916. (TR the warmonger was an albatross for the GOP OTL. In peacetime, not so much.) There will not be a war-export boom in the US. The massive program of economic controls created by Wilson for the war won't happen, nor the extravagantly nationalistic propaganda campaign and war hysteria generally. No American Protective League chasing down defeatists and sedition. No Red Scare. Possibly no Prohibition - ISTM to have been sold in part as a wartime efficiency measure.

The U.S. having avoided involvement in a hugely disappointing overseas war will not dive into Isolationism in response. If there is a major world crisis further on, the U.S. could get into it.

9) Japan

Japan doesn't acquire Micronesia. The drift toward militarism may continue.

-------

Other critical things.

The Battleship Race - how long does it continue?

ISTM that at some point, countries are going to get tired of spending huge sums on battleships that never get used. This happened in the early 1920s, and may happen earlier. The Kaiser may be an obstacle.

China

OTL, the disorder after the Chinese Revolution happened while the Great Powers were all busy with the Great War, or its aftermath, or when they were exhausted or beaten. ISTM that if Europe is at peace, the Powers will be much more likely to intervene in China. Japan of course was not affected by the War; I don't know how much Japan meddled in China, or wanted to; but Japan is much less likely to get its way.

Them's my thoughts.

 

[Tocomocho]

Rapid economic growth, but serious political problems due to Nicholas and the camarilla. Further democratization may be demanded by 1920 or 1925. If Alexei succeeds to the throne, his illness will weaken the monarchy. (Even Bolsheviks may feel sorry for him, but the system has put a manifestly unfit person in power.) No Revolution for quite a few years.

Disagree, there are plenty of examples in History of a weak and obviously unfit monarch leading to rebellion and the end of the monarchy or at least that monarch's dynasty. The Edwardian Age alone has the examples of Persia (1905), Portugal (1910) and China (1911).

My interpretation is pretty much a Captain Obvious one: Just because the Sarajevo Crisis does not happen it doesn't eliminate conflict in Europe. As others have pointed out already, the next assured ones would be a crisis in Ireland in 1914/5 and an internal one in Austria-Hungary in 1916/7 coinciding with the death of Franz Josef and the negotiations for the renewal of the Austro-Hunagrian compromise. This one could very well spiral into a continental war if Italy, Serbia, Romania and even Russia take the opportunity of internal unrest in AH to push for territorial claims, while Germany would obviously back the AH emperor. Hell, in September 1914 alone we have a deep crisis/civil war in Albania that most of us have not heard about because WW1 had already broken out!