No World Wars: A Much Better Fate for OTL Third World?

Let's say in an ATL, where through the series of pure lucks and coincidences, the World's great powers manage to avoid a general war in 20th century. Over time, their interlocking systems of alliances are faded out. The four empires that in OTL were destroyed by First World War (Kaiserine Germany, Tsarist Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman Empire) gradually evolved into more liberal and democratic forms of governments, somewhat similar with their British and French counterparts. In East Asia, China eventually managed to modernize and industrialize itself, with strong helps and support from United States, who want to have a good counter for European and Japanese influence in East Asia and Pacific (proven by the fact that Chinese new republican government and constitution closely resemble that of the United States). Japan, though, successfully assimilated (or "Nipponified") both Korea and Taiwan to become integral parts of Japanese nation. Meanwhile, the United States becomes an economic and industrial great power of its own, although never to be a military superpower like it's in OTL.

Now, question: in this ATL, how would be the condition of OTL Third World, better or are they doomed to become backward regions like in OTL?

EDIT: So...certainly no WWI, WWII, Cold War, Russian Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Holocaust, Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Islamist Extremism, Terrorism, and most possibly no Arab-Israeli, Indian-Pakistani, and North-South Korean conflicts...
Is this the best of all possible world?
 
A lot of people over history have argued that WWI & II had to happen. At some point in human history both these wars were bound to happen.

Japan and China could never just coexist. Either Japan would get an excuse like OTL or China would demand the return of territory they see rightly as theirs. The German Empire could only have grow stronger, eventually it would be forced into war or the GB and France would be forced to act. The Liberalisation of the empires would takes at least another 100 years in the OTL. The USA for instance would struggle in developing China as it was already an isolationist it would no have to deal with the same issues the European Empires had in trying to keep China in their influence.

If anything in this TL the first and Second World War would and probably would be much worse than OTL. Sure it would be a lovley dream world but that's all it could ever be.

EDIT: The Third World nations remain int he same condition. Without the wars things just stagnant.
 
Last edited:
No, the ATL Third World would see a lot longer era of colonial rule which in practice was mostly legalized rape-loot-pillage of so-called "inferior" peoples by their so-called "superiors" whose colonies were to put it bluntly kleptocracies.
 
Hmm, it depends on the governments in power. Whether the socialists or liberals come to power is the question, because we know the conservatives would rather keep Empire colonies. The program that a socialist or liberal would want is one of uplift and independance to create a strong ally in that region. I think it would depend on the series of events. The great powers can focus much more on attention to colonies due to no world wars in Europe. Japan could be a strong British ally, and that could be why China was built up by the States. Interesting aspect though.
 
If we're looking for a better fate for, say, Africa there's two main things to change.

The first is the rapid pull-out of the colonial regime caused by being broke and because American cowboys in intelligence and diplomacy didn't understand much (to wit: the terrible choices of Christians In Action in the Cold War). Now setting aside morality plays about the Europeans they did run all the important things and a rapid pull-out collapsed the functioning elements of the government. Phased over ten years with gradual hand-over and so forth would have been much better.

The second is something most people overlook: all African countries agreed that their colonial borders were inviolate and enforced by all countries in Africa. Instead of being able to fight wars externally and split up countries into more logical groupings they spent the next sixty years fighting civil wars.

Quite obviously fighting a war on the border and having to build hospitals and roads and factories to better conduct the war is much better than fighting an internal civil war and blowing your raw resources on buying guns from the First and Second Worlds.

ETA: Actually third would be Western economic policies. It's terribly difficult to develop a modern economy without massive tariff barriers at least for a few decades (compare Japan and South Korea to most of Africa, or even much of Latin America) and so once the above two items are met the African nations would then have to follow a Japanese model of development in the face of the massive American-European pressure towards Western-favoured "free trade".
 
Last edited:
Certainly Africa would have had a far better chance if it hadn't been for rival superpowers scrambling to bring former colonies into their respective spheres of influence. But a lot of Africa's problems have been caused by decisions taken post independence, as Electric Monk says above many African countries argue that colonial era Borders often don't make for viable states, but one of the very first decisions of the OAU was to declare those borders as permanent.

Many African countries could have made far more of themselves, for example Ghana. At independence it had a budget surplus, a well educated civil service, decent infrastructure and plentiful natural resources, at the time it was expected to develop fairly quickly. Sadly Nkrumah lost the plot almost from day one leading to the familiar story of corruption, despotism, coups and decline. It has made great progress over the last 20 years but that just shows how much better it could have been if it had been properly governed.

Whether prolonged colonialism would have been for the better is a difficult question to answer. I think it would have needed a big change in attitude on the part of the colonial powers to ensure that the administration and infrastructure of the colonies was up to the task. Ironically if it hadn't been for the WW's then the colonial powers might have felt strong and confident enough to try and hang on forever.
 
Electric Monk said:
The first is the rapid pull-out of the colonial regime caused by being broke and because American cowboys in intelligence and diplomacy didn't understand much (to wit: the terrible choices of Christians In Action in the Cold War). Now setting aside morality plays about the Europeans they did run all the important things and a rapid pull-out collapsed the functioning elements of the government. Phased over ten years with gradual hand-over and so forth would have been much better.


Even if the Americans back off and the Europeans somehow get the cash they'll still have to deal with Soviet backed independence movements which in a TL where Europeans attempt to maintain control which will probably be as successful as their counterparts in Indochina and Algeria.

Electric Monk said:
The second is something most people overlook: all African countries agreed that their colonial borders were inviolate and enforced by all countries in Africa. Instead of being able to fight wars externally and split up countries into more logical groupings they spent the next sixty years fighting civil wars.

A good point not to mention that these nations a kept there tribal/ethnic identities rather than make the transition to national identities. I think that the borders could remain similar if they make the move to adopt national identities.

Electric Monk said:
Quite obviously fighting a war on the border and having to build hospitals and roads and factories to better conduct the war is much better than fighting an internal civil war and blowing your raw resources on buying guns from the First and Second Worlds.

Agreed but a successful trade arrangement through African unity would accomplish much the same for much less the price.

Electric Monk said:
ETA: Actually third would be Western economic policies. It's terribly difficult to develop a modern economy without massive tariff barriers at least for a few decades (compare Japan and South Korea to most of Africa, or even much of Latin America) and so once the above two items are met the African nations would then have to follow a Japanese model of development in the face of the massive American-European pressure towards Western-favoured "free trade".

True though this could be mitigated through the reduction of subsidies in the First-World which would allow cheaper African agricultural products a fair chance and increase production reducing the amount of food aid from outside Africa needed to respond to crisis's that arise.
 
Even if the Americans back off and the Europeans somehow get the cash they'll still have to deal with Soviet backed independence movements which in a TL where Europeans attempt to maintain control which will probably be as successful as their counterparts in Indochina and Algeria.


Question. What Soviets? In this TL, the Russian Empire never fell because of its ability to concentrate on itself, not fight a great war.
 
A good point not to mention that these nations a kept there tribal/ethnic identities rather than make the transition to national identities. I think that the borders could remain similar if they make the move to adopt national identities.

And external war would help a lot with that. National identities don't come out of nowhere, after all. But I suppose chopping up countries along semi-reasonable lines in a peaceable division scenario could work. There'd be at least twice as many countries though, unless somebody puts together a good federal structure for sections here and there.

Agreed but a successful trade arrangement through African unity would accomplish much the same for much less the price.

Yep. Your version is just less likely. Possible, especially if Africa is a whole bunch of small countries with democratic or working authoritarian (i.e. no single dictators) governments. But of course gobbling up small countries is the easy route for an expansionist country: South Africa could have a field day.

True though this could be mitigated through the reduction of subsidies in the First-World which would allow cheaper African agricultural products a fair chance and increase production reducing the amount of food aid from outside Africa needed to respond to crisis's that arise.

Heh. No way in hell are American or European politicians ending subsidies without drastic change there. Which is why I went with the proven success of tariff barriers of their own. In addition African raw resources under stable regimes (democratic or otherwise) are excellent leverage especially if China is doing better earlier.
 
A lot of people over history have argued that WWI & II had to happen. At some point in human history both these wars were bound to happen.
I would say that the First World War had to happen, but the Second didn't become inevitable until the Treaty of Versailles was signed. A different treaty could have butterflied away WWII. Getting rid of the War Guilt clause, and reducing the reparations, would be a good start. If WWI had been shorter, the treaty that ended it, no matter who won, would have been different.
 
Top