Ramifications of no WWI

What if Gavrilo Princip had not assassinated the Archduke of
Austria-Hungary on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo?

This isn't exactly AH, since I'm not presenting a story so much as a
set of counterfactual events. I know others have thought of this scenario (or similar), and I'm liking joea64's ATL story so far. But my interest is more broad -- how did this one event shape the world we live in today?

Let's assume for this scenario that Gov. Potiorek did remember to tell the driver (Leopold Loyka or Lojka) to keep going straight on the Appel Quay. Princip doesn't see them, no assassinations take place, no precipitating event for WWI. (As opposed to joea64's scenario, where Potiorek is in the line of fire instead of Archduke FF.)

Of course, the causes of the Great War were very complicated,
including intricate (and sometimes secret) alliances, perceptions of
the loss of the balance of power, and misfortunes of bad timing, etc. For
example, on August 1, the tsar of Russia responded to a telegraph from
the king George V of the UK stating that he "would gladly have accepted your proposals [of keeping peace] had not the German ambassador this
afternoon presented a note to my Government declaring war." At any
rate, the tensions were such that a war of some kind may have been to
some degree inevitable. However, I'm thinking that the immediacy of the
assassination lent itself to over-hasty alliances and declarations,
and the "World" portion of the phrase "World War" might never have
come to fruition without it.

But let us imagine an optimistic scenario: Potiorek tells the driver
to continue on the Appel Quay, avoiding Princip's assassination. The
Black Hand makes no more attempts on the Archduke's life. (The
architect of the attempt, Col. Dragutin "Apis" Dimitrijevic, was
acting somewhat independently of the Black Hand's leadership -- who
realized that the act would lead to war, and tried to recall the
assassins when they found out about the plot.) Given a larger time
frame, the great European powers circumspectly limit the ramifications
of their treaties, and Britain and Russia enter the war later if at
all. The USA's original policy of non-involvement holds, the Lusitania is not
sunk, and the US doesn't enter the war; President Wilson does not
outline his Fourteen Points, and the Treaty of Versailles does not
bankrupt Germany. Therefore, a vengeful nationalism does not grow up
in Germany, no Nazi party exists, and Hitler lives and dies in
relative bohemian obscurity.

However, without World War II, the US sees further incredible
ramifications: without the entrance of Black soldiers in the war, the
seeds are not sown for renewed perceptions of racial equality,
resulting in an absent (or at least severely muted and therefore
mainly ineffectual) Civil Rights movement. Without the "Rosie the
Riveter" phenomenon (women taking domestic jobs previously reserved
for men), the Feminist movement is stillborn, or at least kept in
permanent infancy. And finally, with no US "baby boom" or post-war
economic boom, the commercialism and youth-oriented culture never
arises in America, and never spreads from thence to the corners of the
world. Can anyone truly imagine what a non-materialistic (or at least
much less so) America in the 21st century would look like?

Also, consider these side remifications: If Britain had not entered
the war, a young man named J.R.R. Tolkien would not have had occasion
or opportunity to conceive his new mythology that we came to know as
Middle-Earth in the "Lord of the Rings." If Russia (or Germany) had not entered the war, it is possible that the Tsar may not have been assassinated, or at least not for several more years. And finally, if Germany had not given rise to the Nazi party, Albert Einstein may never have come to America.

All this because Gen. Potiorek simply forgot to tell his driver to
keep going straight.

Any other ramifications I didn't think of? Love to hear your thoughts!
 
Europe remains a hotbed of tension between Triple Alliance and Triple Entente powers - without the war I don't think you can have a strong "pacifist" wing in any of the nation's ruling political class.

Religion probably continues to dwindle as it fails to cope with a rapidly modernizing society, but it remains a core value. Take away mass deaths in pointless offensives and probably people will continue to think or hope that there's something beyond our mortal existence.

Art (literature and painting mostly) won't develop a "dark" side as rapidly or as widely than in the 1920s-1930s.

Communism remains a valid idea, and for some an ideal, but neither Fascism nor Technocracy will find a favorable terrain to develop. The old bourgeois order will prevail wherever civilization is upheld.

Monarchy remains the "normal" form of government - oh sure, nations such as France, the United States, or Switzerland will insist a democratically-elected head of state is the way to go, but well, you know these people.

The US will remain Europe's provincial cousin - the one that gets richer and richer, but whom you don't invite often because of his curt manners and nouveau riche mindset. It's bad enough you have to invite the French or the Swiss from time to time, but at least there's no shortage of anecdotes to trade with them, when it's time for cognac and cigars.
 
The German and British empires end the Portuguese one, and, perhaps subsequently, the same powers or other ones extinguish that of Spain. Colonies are gradually modernized, and rebellions, when they arise, are usually suppressed by force. Russia collapses eventually, causing problems for Austria-Hungary and an Anglo-German partnership commits to propping up the Ottoman Empire and in the process begin to forge an understanding regarding their rival naval interests.
 
Isn't it more likely that Austria-Hungary collapses than Russia? It seems to me that while there will be unrest in Russia, it requires the privations of war to turn that unrest into revolution.
 
Isn't it more likely that Austria-Hungary collapses than Russia? It seems to me that while there will be unrest in Russia, it requires the privations of war to turn that unrest into revolution.

Pray tell how many times Austria-Hungary rather than Russia was on the verge of revolution.
 
Sans-World War I, I think all three of the empires that collapsed are likely to manage some level of survival. Russia is likely to have the trickiest time of it, on account of Nicolas II's opposition to making any reforms, but he won't be around forever. Big empires generally don't collapse without the pressures of war to weaken them.
 
Pray tell how many times Austria-Hungary rather than Russia was on the verge of revolution.

I agree with you. Until the defeat and collapse of the Imperial and Royal Army in the field 1917/18 the Austro-Hungarian Empire is doing better than the Russians.
 

Typo

Banned
I agree with you. Until the defeat and collapse of the Imperial and Royal Army in the field 1917/18 the Austro-Hungarian Empire is doing better than the Russians.
Russia wasn't' going to collapse without a war, if the Tsar falls then something like the Provisional government was going to last without a war. I have no clue why you think A/H was doing better considering how they were brought onto the verge of collapse by the Russians.
 
Last edited:

Typo

Banned
The German and British empires end the Portuguese one, and, perhaps subsequently, the same powers or other ones extinguish that of Spain. Colonies are gradually modernized, and rebellions, when they arise, are usually suppressed by force. Russia collapses eventually, causing problems for Austria-Hungary and an Anglo-German partnership commits to propping up the Ottoman Empire and in the process begin to forge an understanding regarding their rival naval interests.
The colonies were already screwed by this stage, the Europeans might keep some of the smaller and more profitable ones, but the rise of nationalism and the rule with consent deal was breaking down with or without the war.
 
Europe remains a hotbed of tension between Triple Alliance and Triple Entente powers - without the war I don't think you can have a strong "pacifist" wing in any of the nation's ruling political class.

Religion probably continues to dwindle as it fails to cope with a rapidly modernizing society, but it remains a core value. Take away mass deaths in pointless offensives and probably people will continue to think or hope that there's something beyond our mortal existence.

Art (literature and painting mostly) won't develop a "dark" side as rapidly or as widely than in the 1920s-1930s.

Communism remains a valid idea, and for some an ideal, but neither Fascism nor Technocracy will find a favorable terrain to develop. The old bourgeois order will prevail wherever civilization is upheld.

Monarchy remains the "normal" form of government - oh sure, nations such as France, the United States, or Switzerland will insist a democratically-elected head of state is the way to go, but well, you know these people.

The US will remain Europe's provincial cousin - the one that gets richer and richer, but whom you don't invite often because of his curt manners and nouveau riche mindset. It's bad enough you have to invite the French or the Swiss from time to time, but at least there's no shortage of anecdotes to trade with them, when it's time for cognac and cigars.


LIKE.
(Sorry for quoting the whole thing, btw) Some wide ranging thoughts there. My reactions: I agree no real pacifism could come without the war, but I think (perhaps naively) that the probably-inevitable war in the Balkans might provide a cautionary tale to the rest of them: think Cuban Missile Crisis making both US and USSR back off a bit, and eventually come to terms.

Religion and Art definitely remain more optimistic, didn't see that side of it at all at first. Kudos. No Bauhaus movement, no T.S. Eliot; also, no Vatican II. I think religion would actually remain fairly strong, although certainly modernization would see a slight weakening; with no world-wide disillusionment or discrediting (Pope's silence during Holocaust), Western Christianity remains much more prevalent.

The "you know those people" sentiment -- priceless! Definitely US would not have the world cache it enjoys now, without two major victories in the World Wars. I agree, just another pseudo-European power, probably growing much more closely allied to the old world each year, but only somewhat less independent in thought, spirit, innovation. (Remember, Twain, Edison, and others all came before.) Still, the lack of vast manpower (no baby boom) and subsequent free time would prove a drag on American contributions to technology, I think.
 
The colonies were already screwed by this stage, the Europeans might keep some of the smaller and more profitable ones, but the rise of nationalism and the rule with consent deal was breaking down with or without the war.

The decolonisation it's unavoidable, but without WWI and WWII the movement will be severely reduced. From one side the colonial power are still undisputeted master of all they see, they were not humbled by the japanese or bankrupted by a continental civil war nor used the colonial troops in Europe for manpower shortage, on the other side the two world war were very important to the various colonies to form their national identity, basically akin to the use of black soldiers during WWI in relation to the civil right movement.
 
Russia wasn't' going to collapse without a war, if the Tsar falls then something like the Provisional government was going to last without a war. I have no clue why you think A/H was doing better considering how they were brought onto the verge of collapse by the Russians.

AH isn't as revolution prone as Russia in the early 20th century. The Habsburg realms worked - to a degree, for sure, but they basically shuffled along.

Without WWI there wouldn't (most likely) be a Provisional Government since the Duma would just (or should just) exert itself. On top of that it would be unlikely that the Tsar would be gotten rid of rather than just made a total figurehead or forced to abdicate.
 

Typo

Banned
The decolonisation it's unavoidable, but without WWI and WWII the movement will be severely reduced. From one side the colonial power are still undisputeted master of all they see, they were not humbled by the japanese or bankrupted by a continental civil war nor used the colonial troops in Europe for manpower shortage, on the other side the two world war were very important to the various colonies to form their national identity, basically akin to the use of black soldiers during WWI in relation to the civil right movement.
Yes, of course decolonization certainly gets delayed, another wildcard is that without the World Wars the military revolution which allowed partisan warfare to become far more effective than it was before might simply not happen.
AH isn't as revolution prone as Russia in the early 20th century. The Habsburg realms worked - to a degree, for sure, but they basically shuffled along.

Without WWI there wouldn't (most likely) be a Provisional Government since the Duma would just (or should just) exert itself. On top of that it would be unlikely that the Tsar would be gotten rid of rather than just made a total figurehead or forced to abdicate.
Probably, of course the likely hood of the Bolsheviks ever taking power without the war is basically nil
 
In a world without WW-I, we had same Volstead act and proibition?

And without WW-I had the crash market of 1929 and the great depression?

For exemple i have read about dust bowll :
. WorldWar I increased agricultural prices, which also encouraged farmers to dramatically increase cultivation. In the Llano Estacado, the area of farmland doubled between 1900 and 1920, and land under cultivation more than tripled between 1925 and 1930. Finally, farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that encouraged erosion. For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), which both deprived the soil of organic nutrients and increased exposure to erosion.
 
Probably, of course the likely hood of the Bolsheviks ever taking power without the war is basically nil

True, but keeping the reds out does not automatically fix a long broken Russian Empire. By 1914, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire began to benefit from significant levels of development and manageable expanses of territory. Russia in 1914 his essentially neither.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Africa is still ruled by whites into the 2000's. Feminism will still take off, but much later and slower then in OTL.
 
Top