No WW1 or equivalent war for the 20th century. (W.I)

What if there was no WW1 or equivalent war in the 20th century? despite the improbability of it. How would this affect the (inevitable) fall of the European empires? would this delay it or speed it up. Without the brutal reality of WW1 how would this affect the European mindset towards war?.
My personal thoughts is that Europe would hold onto some vestiges of empire and fund guerrilla wars in each others colonies. Tech would definitely be less advanced.
 
Beginning in 1913 Germany and Britain were negotiating to divide Portugal's colonial empire between themselves, without WW1 this would likely continue although I don't know the breakdown of the spoils.

I imagine this, and how the empires of the CP were divided up after OTL WW1, is indicative of the times and gives an idea of the direction the Europeans would take. I imagine the failing Ottoman, Persian and Chinese empires would have the strong colonial European powers clawing for scraps, with rising Germany and imperial Britain getting most of the spoils.
 
What if there was no WW1 or equivalent war in the 20th century? despite the improbability of it. How would this affect the (inevitable) fall of the European empires? would this delay it or speed it up. Without the brutal reality of WW1 how would this affect the European mindset towards war?.
My personal thoughts is that Europe would hold onto some vestiges of empire and fund guerrilla wars in each others colonies. Tech would definitely be less advanced.
Assuming no war Tech would be more advanced rather than less. Big wars like that produce a burst of application of existing tech and a slowdown/halt in basic research. Many of the most promising young men who become future scientists/engineers get killed, and young men get drafted rather than going to school. Huge debts are run up that have to be paid off at the same time as war damage has to be fixed, leavig less money for other things. And for more visible military tech, you get rapid advancement during the war, then you have a massive pile of war surplus that doesn't get replaced for a long time afterwards

Of course why of it matters. Given the alliance system as extant in 1900, a general war was likely to occur at some point. So why does this not happen. Lots of coincidences keeping wars small. Some large scale plague kills enough people to stop that. Europe gets scared into MAD by early nerve agents. All of them have very different results
 
africa stays colonial for 50-200 more years longer than otl
Beginning in 1913 Germany and Britain were negotiating to divide Portugal's colonial empire between themselves, . . .
or . . . just maybe, an earlier, bigger version of East Asian Miracle (1960 - present) ?

BlogImage_AsianTigers_051817.jpg


https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/tigers-tiger-cubs-economic-growth

I mean, if this is what we got with two world wars and a very serious cold war, it's certainly a live possibility we see a lot more economic success given a less serious cold war.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz has said the East Asian Miracle resulted from a variety of factors coming together, and that economists have very much disagreed and argued about what the biggest factors are.
 
Last edited:
I like the early east Asian miracle idea. Of course only Japan, China and Thailand are independent. I can almost see China with the best potential if someone could rule and unify the place. Perhaps with an American or German benefactor that prevents others from poaching territory.
 
... I can almost see China with the best potential if someone could rule and unify the place. Perhaps with an American or German benefactor that prevents others from poaching territory.

The ugly truth is the US & Germans were not operating in Chinas best interests. The US Open Door policy was aimed as much at Chinese protectionism/nationalism as it was at European Concessions & exclusionary treaties. The US naval expeditionary force sent to Shanghai in the 1927 was there to help keep the KMT out & protect US business interests from KMT efforts to return control of this economic center to Chinese control.

Conversely Japans Twenty One Demands may not have been made had the Europeans not been distracted by the Great War & its after effects.
 
The ugly truth is the US & Germans were not operating in Chinas best interests. . .
So, for example, we might end up with one American and two German companies purchasing Chinese coal, with the price being more game theory and unspoken agreements not to “rock the boat,” rather than a truly competitive market. When what China really needs is value-added stuff, especially manufacturing.

sometimes you get lucky,

Sometimes the public pronouncements can carry a while, sometimes a price war develops among previous oligopoly “competitors.” And/or like the economist guy was saying about the East Asian Miracle itself, sometimes the confluence of factors come together, a perfect storm in a good way.
 
1914 is a perfect storm, even if you simply have FF drive past his assassin, you have the Ottomans taking delivery of warship the Greeks planned to intercept. The Great Powers need to avoid falling into a war but if they do, from 1915 on the gears begin to turn. First the UK general election likely sifts power to the Conservatives and Irish Home Rule becomes a messy domestic distraction. Russia is still rising, her Army will be soon strong enough appearing top deter Germany and her Navy will be next, renewing the threat to Britain. French politics will shift left and the socialists will pursue rapprochement and the bulk of French foreign investment is in Russia, an autocratic regime at odds with Republican ideals, and Germany will be likewise shifting left, the SDP will gain a majority and force reforms in coalition with the other liberal minded parties. Russia herself will face revolution if reforms do not come. And we assume FF can hold the Empire together once he gains the throne. As 1919 looms each great state faces domestic issues that can lead to foreign adventurers or will alter the policy, politics and visions of each, spinning them off from the tracks they were on.

If we see all this keeping us away from another big war and nothing pushing us into one, maybe lesser wars bleed off the pressure or inner collapses wreck the alliances and leave us unbalanced enough no one bothers, then overall it is on track to just carry on. I will argue the 20th century is a German century, not because they are the richest, biggest or omnipotent, but because they continue disrupting the balance and realigning the settled ways forward, just as the USA did post WW2, Germany is an industrial power depending upon importing materials and exporting goods, the world must be is market place and its incentive will be to break into markets as both buyer and seller. And I would add that the century will be just as dependent upon events in Russia, whatever happens in Russia will be a huge impact on this time. Russia will either evolve into the peer power or implode and warp into something else. The British Empire will slowly fade and crumble, its core ideals from British thought is at odds with the reality of imperial rule and the common British citizen will likely no longer sacrifice to maintain rule over distant peoples. But this will still be an imperial century, Europe will rule much of the world right through into modern day, plenty of "peace keeping" and freedom fighting to destroy and change things. My opinion is that the Germans will "best" run their Empire, it is smaller and to make it of value they need to build it, investing and developing it further than any other power has incentive to. I believe the French continue to underinvest and so do the British, but the British do a better job at instilling local administration that can perform better when "independence" arrives. Germany will be seeking ways to hasten the collapse of other empire's hold, not the same as championing independence but the USA might, especially if protectionism begins.

China should remain effectively divided and weak, exploited as each power seeks advantages that have nothing to do with helping China. We might see a more de facto warlord like paradigm as each power backs the local governors to expand regional rule, weaken the central hold, developing what is needed to access mineral wealth and facilitate trade. The great cities of China feeling more like HK, foreign run, Chinese at heart, truly exotic outposts of predatory capitalism. Germany will butt heads with the UK in China, the USA will but heads with everyone, Germany will butt heads with the USA in South America as well as the British, Russia will butt heads with Britain in Persia, Japan in Manchuria, etc., etc., etc. Mercantilism will force diplomacy, and we should see the Ottomans rise up as the world shifts to oil, but chained by debts, deals and outside influencers. Russia will become a serious player in oil, more so if it gains the Manchurian oil, Britain stays a player with Persian and Ottoman oil in its stead, also the DEI and then Canada and North Sea, Germany is the only great power, aside from Japan who has no real oil. It might be curious how warfare responds to getting or keeping oil, akin to the 20th century often seen as wars about oil. France and Italy will be aggressive in exploiting oil in Algeria and Libya, perhaps that indeed becomes modern colonialism. A united Islamic OE with control over so much of the most vital commodity? An interesting page to write upon.

A golden age for airships from the 1920s through 1940s until heavier than air aircraft develop, much of it driven by commercial needs rather than military advances, does Germany leverage its Zeppelin to an aerospace dominance? Does its military pursue rocketry or electronics to give them another corner? Do they pursue nuclear power given the relative lack of oil? Of all the powers they need science more to stay wealthy and strong. Thus my idea that it is a German century, German industry must develop if Germany is to avoid doom, it will have a super power Russia on one side and a global Empire on the other, France may fall away as a real threat but the USA is still an economic giant and competitor, Japan may leverage its connection with Britain to continue developing, retaining Korea and Formosa, it might become a true peer in the top 5. So Russia, Britain/Empire, Germany/Europe, USA and Empire of Japan are the poles. This will be an unbalanced multi-polar world, some alliances may endure, Germany plus A-H, UK plus Japan, the British Empire more coherent as a trade bloc and defense alliance, Russia and the USA strong enough to go it alone and against any, no return for China, little independence for Africa, a wealthy Islamic state with reason to distrust and dislike Europe, re-alignments possible, France to Germany, South America too, Japan going it alone, the USA differently partnered to the UK or Germany or Japan? I would say the world without a Great War is dangerous, different and interesting, equal parts familiar, unfamiliar, golden past remnants and new advances unexpected, a bit like how one sees Steampunk keep the past and bleed it with the future. I would argue that it should be open to so many butterflies that it looks more unlike what we expect than what we know from OTL can guide us. 100 years from 1914 to 2014 is a long dimly lit path with curves, highs and lows, a path as much what occurred in the 100 years prior as unreal compared to our own 100 years.
 
Early in 1914, Pyotr Durnovo advised Nicholas II to distance Russia from the U.K. and build an alignment with both France and Germany.

If the Great War is avoided, and a Leftward-turning France is willing to move closer to Germany, then perhaps just such a “Continental Bloc” could be formed.

Durnovo’s belief, if I recall correctly, was that a French-German-Russian alliance would ensure peace in Europe, because Britain would never be able to wage war on the continent under those circumstances, but the power of the British navy would likewise prevent any successful invasion of Britain.

Durnovo’s memorandum was remarkably prescient, down to predicting that Italy would side against the Central Powers, the circumstances in which Romania would join the war, and why Russia might lose the war even if Britain and France won it. For these reasons, I’m willing to believe that, if Durnovo considered a given scenario plausible, then it probably was.
 
Durnovo’s memorandum was remarkably prescient, down to predicting that Italy would side against the Central Powers, the circumstances in which Romania would join the war, and why Russia might lose the war even if Britain and France won it. For these reasons, I’m willing to believe that, if Durnovo considered a given scenario plausible, then it probably was.

Apart from Russia losing as Britain and France win, I'm not sure the other things would count as stunningly prescient. Italy had been on the outs with the other Triple Alliance members at least since 1908, and Romania was growing increasingly Francophilic in spite of its royal family's inclinations.

Anyways, Durnovo considering an arrangement workable is one thing. He'd still have to convince Nicholas to go along with it. And from what I know of contemporary Russia, that may have proven unpopular.
 
Top