Ramifications of no WWI

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.

Not to mention that a lot of the anti-colonial guerrilla groups got their start because of the circumstances surrounding the World Wars. Most of the guerrilla groups in Southeast Asia only really got their start due to Japanese occupation in World War II, and it was their successes that really inspired the large-scale revival of guerrilla warfare. That's not to mention that without two world wars to leave all the colonial powers utterly exhausted it's going to be a lot harder to break their will, and guerrilla wars are at least as much about the will to keep fighting as they are about actual military strength.

Not having two world superpowers that are both fairly anti-colonial (if somewhat hypocritical on this policy at times) will help a lot too.
 
I've long wondered what the avoidance of World War I would do for the development of Islam and Muslim populations across the globe.
 
Well, with regard to Britain, the Irish Home Rule Act of 1914 will get pushed through Parliament despite Ulster's protests. It was originally supposed to go into effect in 1914, but the Great War delayed it. Without the Great War, the Act will get pushed through, though it will (most likely) get amended to keep Ulster under Westminster rule while keeping the rest of Ireland under the Home Rule Act.

Also, no Balfour Declaration in 1917, so the Zionist aspirations to establish a Jewish state in Israel would be dealt a severe blow. While many would remain sympathetic to the Zionist cause, it would be seen as a sort of "pipe dream".

I have no doubt that Jewish immigration to Israel would continue, but I don't see an independent Jewish state until the Ottoman Empire collapses (if at all). If we're assuming it does, it'll collapse around the 1920s or 30s (without intense reformation).
 
Another thought is Japan, Does Japan still launches its war of aggression against China if you have no WWI in the 1910s? Could a war Between Japan and China become the flash-point for a WW1 in the 1930s (assuming you have something like the Rape of Nanking happen here as well)? If Japan Launches its war of aggression against China, is there a major shakeup of the alliances in Europe?
 

Typo

Banned
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.
Considering the fact that Russia had the same type of economical growth that China has today far above both Austria and the Ottomans I'm not sure what you mean by development. As for manageable territory do keep in mind that of the three empires Russia is the only one which managed to pull everything together after their collapse (and the only one which could have easily done even better). So I'm not quite sure how Ottomans and Austrians had more manageable territory.
 

Typo

Banned
Another thought is Japan, Does Japan still launches its war of aggression against China if you have no WWI in the 1910s? Could a war Between Japan and China become the flash-point for a WW1 in the 1930s (assuming you have something like the Rape of Nanking happen here as well)? If Japan Launches its war of aggression against China, is there a major shakeup of the alliances in Europe?
Without WWI, the Chinese nationalist movement (i.e 5/4 protests) gets derailed, and if the depression gets butterflied away then something like the Rape of Nanking probably doesn't happen. If something like Yuan Shika managing to keep China from fragmenting as per OTL either because of foreign support or butterflies, then China will not be as attractive a target.
 
Considering the fact that Russia had the same type of economical growth that China has today far above both Austria and the Ottomans I'm not sure what you mean by development. As for manageable territory do keep in mind that of the three empires Russia is the only one which managed to pull everything together after their collapse (and the only one which could have easily done even better). So I'm not quite sure how Ottomans and Austrians had more manageable territory.

While Russia was growing quickly, it was from a very low level. Austria grew more in absolute numbers, and thus the gap actually increased in the years before ww1.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
My take on Europe with no WW1.

1. Democratization continues. Most Western European countries would adopt universal suffrage and a parliamentarian system before 1925. In Germany the road will be bumpy, but they will get there, the Kaiser will have to give up some of his powers. The Junkers would not be amused.

2. The empires of Eastern Europe

a) Russia
Will have to take on reforms for the empire to survive. I can see a very reluctant Czar in this case. A strong democratically elected Duma with real power is a must though. The Russian people won't wait forever. Social reforms will also be important. Here the Czar and the aristocracy will be even more reluctant. But the people won't wait forever...

b) Austria- Hungary
While it in Russia very much would be about the rights of the Russian people, in the Habsburg lands it will be about the rights of the different nationalities. The dualist system won't survive forever, but both the Germans in the empire, and especially the Magyars were quite fond of it. However if the different groups (at least the larger of them like Czechs and Poles, minor groups can be screwed over) don't get some form of autonomy the empire won't survive.

c) the Ottoman Empire
If they can get out of the dictatorship fast and start a Third Constitutional Era they will be fine. The worst thing they can do is cling to the rule of retards with nationalist rhetoric. Especially since it was not clear what a Turk actually was, and the less people think about that, the better.
 
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.

Did you intend for this to be funny, because it was to me:D
 
I've long wondered what the avoidance of World War I would do for the development of Islam and Muslim populations across the globe.

No Israel to poison things, one power in the Middle East which controls the Saudis, a moderate and secularist Caliph, and Islamic modernism.

The Ottoman Empire as a focus for decolonization efforts.
 
No WW1 also means no spanish flu, or at least a much milder form.
It has been reasoned that the fact that in the trenches only the severely sick got moved out, and the midly sick stayed, was the factor that evolved the spanish flu in such a deadly disease because this is the opposite from the normal situation where the severely sick stay home (and are not moved/mobile) and the less sick people keep going on, thus spreading the less intense variety.

So a spanish flu with a mild character will mean millions and millions of people will live(the spanish flu killed 50-100M or more), because the virus killed especially the younger this has massive consequences.

Edit: Abdul i think there might even be a chance there will be no Al saud's because if they had stayed as militant as they started to be around 1900 sooner or later the ottomans would have had to act against them.
And just the fact Mecca & Medina will be under ottoman control will make a huge difference, and you are right probably make things much more moderate & modernist (would this also mean almost no wahhabism?)
 
Last edited:
Considering the fact that Russia had the same type of economical growth that China has today far above both Austria and the Ottomans I'm not sure what you mean by development. As for manageable territory do keep in mind that of the three empires Russia is the only one which managed to pull everything together after their collapse (and the only one which could have easily done even better). So I'm not quite sure how Ottomans and Austrians had more manageable territory.

The Russian Civil War and its aftermath is not as simple as you make it sound and Imperial Russia was still largely a preindustrial state before the World War, so I'm not sure where your claim comparing it to modern China comes rom.
 
No Israel to poison things, one power in the Middle East which controls the Saudis, a moderate and secularist Caliph, and Islamic modernism.

The Ottoman Empire as a focus for decolonization efforts.

Will Ibn Saud and his descendants even be a factor if the Ottomans are free to back the House of Rashid in its efforts to control the central portion of the Arabian Peninsula.

More significantly though, a modern, forward-looking caliphate is probably a net plus, along with the corresponding avoidance of pan-Arabism.
 
The Taish[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ō[/FONT] Democracy in Japan would probably be delayed because democracy gained prestige from the victory of the democracies in WW1. However, the IJA would probably not develop the Total War school with its fixation on gaining control of raw materials.
Japan would not have grown so fast as OTL between 1914-8 and would not have been able to afford such a large fleet. However, there would not have been such serious recessions in the 20s.
 
Well you probably have the European powers holding on to their African colonies until the late twentieth to even the early twenty-first century. Some colonies in Africa that in OTL would had won their independence would become incorporated into European countries like Libya to Italy or Algeria to France. The Ottomans would be a stabilizing force in the Middle East as long as there is a continuation for reforms to be pushed and they'll become a wealthy regional powerhouse once oil is discovered.
 

Typo

Banned
The Russian Civil War and its aftermath is not as simple as you make it sound and Imperial Russia was still largely a preindustrial state before the World War, so I'm not sure where your claim comparing it to modern China comes rom.
Russia had incredible fast, though uneven growth comparable with China's today in terms of percentage of GDP, this is from Kennedy's work.

I'm not so sure why I make the Russian civil war and its aftermath sound simple, the point is that out of all the complexities the Russians manage to not only pull Russia proper back together but most of the Tsarist empire as well, and could have easily gotten even more of it back.
 
With no WWI, I would think that the 1918 Flu Pandemic is somewhat curtailed. My understanding has always been that one of the main reasons that the pandemic spread as miuch as it did, was all the troops leaving the European battlefields at the end of the war took the flu home with them.

So with a smaller spread of the flu in '18:

- a bunch of folks who died in OTL don't.
- any potential advances in immunization and epidemiology don't happen.
- probably some other stuff that doesn't come to mind right now.
 

Deleted member 1487

Russia had incredible fast, though uneven growth comparable with China's today in terms of percentage of GDP, this is from Kennedy's work.

I'm not so sure why I make the Russian civil war and its aftermath sound simple, the point is that out of all the complexities the Russians manage to not only pull Russia proper back together but most of the Tsarist empire as well, and could have easily gotten even more of it back.

One needs to be careful about Russian growth. AH had more real growth than Russia even prewar, but that was in the economy as a whole. Russian growth was focused on military related industries: metallurgy, infrastructure, ship building, weapons/equipment manufacturing, etc. Much if not most was funded by the French or foreign companies that operated subsidiaries in Russia. Much like China today Russia had little in the way of original R&D going on and had to import experts and modern machines to build anything modern. Even during the war the Russian industry was only able to expand as it did thanks to imports and the organization of industry by British and French experts brought in to correct the massive inefficiencies and waste going on. Pre-war the Germans were the largest group of foreign experts/foreign companies operating in Russia. It remains to be seen how Russia would have been able to operate in the world economy without the massive influx of foreign loans/experts that occurred during the war. If anything, as I've stated in other threads, Russia would be like Nationalist China-lots of uneducated peasants; a growing, beaten down, poorly paid industrial worker class; and the rich oligarchs that are intensely corrupt and have an incestious relationship with merchants/business.

AH is going to change in 1917 with the death of Franz Josef and the rise of Franz Ferdinand, as well as the issue of the Ausgleich renewal. Basically FF intended to break the Hungarians through implementing universal suffrage after taking Budapest in a quick coup after dismissing Tisza. Massive changes thereafter will see large changes for the better in AH, but long term there will be major issues in the Austrian half of the empire, as the people there will demand universal suffrage as well, with proportional representation of ethnicities and economic classes. Still they will continue to industrialize and probably would do so even quicker without the Hungarian nobility opposing any change in the feudal empire they had built up in their half of the empire. AH will probably be able to push off real reform to the Dual Monarchy because of economic growth. It'd also be interesting to see what happens when the Hungarians aren't able to maintain a protectionist policy for their grains; I suspect that many peasants in Hungary will end up with their own plots, which will be more productive than the large estates amassed by the very few powerful families like the Esterhazys. We might even see a native middle class emerge in Hungary as a result (OTL the middle class was only 25% Hungarian; it was mostly Jews, Germans, and Czechs-those groups educated enough to participate in early industrialization/trade in Hungary).

Germany has already sort of peaked, but has some growth potential left in the colonies. Cotton production and rubber were just starting to come online in East Africa, so there was potential to turn those profitable. The big change is going to come with the introduction of universal suffrage and governmental reform that would see the Junkers' influence destroyed and the ending of agricultural tariffs. Much of the reason for Germany being locked out of international markets for their industrial goods was due to the policy of protective agri-tariffs to maintain Junkers' latifundas in East Prussia. Without that agriculture shifts to more productive means and makes Germany more self sufficient in agricultural goods as a byproduct of trying to stay competitive in international trade.
 
Russia had incredible fast, though uneven growth comparable with China's today in terms of percentage of GDP, this is from Kennedy's work.
I want the specific citation not a vague claim from memory.
I'm not so sure why I make the Russian civil war and its aftermath sound simple, the point is that out of all the complexities the Russians manage to not only pull Russia proper back together but most of the Tsarist empire as well, and could have easily gotten even more of it back.

The problem with the Russian civil war is that it occurred at a time when forces favoring the old regime were weak and disorganized while the other side had resounding strength and managed to build popular support. Had every other country not been exhausted from the Great War, the Russian civil war would have been rather different, and the brutality that the sides in Russia were willing to employ went above and beyond what most other Europeans would have done. Furthermore, the non-Slavic portions of the Empire were more geographically isolated. In essence, the Bolsheviks won not because the Russian state had vitality and industry but because the timing and geography of the war aloowed it.
 

Typo

Banned
I want the specific citation not a vague claim from memory.
http://www.amazon.ca/Rise-Fall-Great-Powers/dp/0679720197
The problem with the Russian civil war is that it occurred at a time when forces favoring the old regime were weak and disorganized while the other side had resounding strength and managed to build popular support. Had every other country not been exhausted from the Great War, the Russian civil war would have been rather different, and the brutality that the sides in Russia were willing to employ went above and beyond what most other Europeans would have done. Furthermore, the non-Slavic portions of the Empire were more geographically isolated. In essence, the Bolsheviks won not because the Russian state had vitality and industry but because the timing and geography of the war aloowed it.
We are not discussing whether the Russian state had more vitality than the Austrian one or not, we are discussing whether the territories of the Russian empire was more "manageable". And as you pointed out, geography favoured the Russian empire.
 
Top