I saw a thread not too long ago about the effect of no world wars on technology and I thought it would be more interesting to see the socio-economic effects of no world wars on our world. It seems that very often the effects of history on the lives of everyday people is ignored so I thought I would throw out some ideas.
In a world without two world wars and only small proxy/colonial wars what would be the effect on the class system, women, minorities, etc?
For women, WWI was a watershed, especially in Europe. In France, the United Kingdom and Germany women for the first time began working in the factories in large numbers. Henri Barbusse commented on how single women were for the first time venturing on their own without chaperones and how shocking this would have been before 1914. Although we often see the 1960s as the sexual revolution, the 1920s were in essence it's precursor. After the end of the war people began to question the morality of the pre-war society and the decadence of Berlin and Paris of the 1920s would have unheard of in pre-1914 society.
Although women were gaining political power before 1914 with some countries already allowing women equal franchise (notably in Scandinavia). It seems that the lack of the world wars may have delayed women's suffrage in many countries. In Switzerland women did not get equal franchise until 1971 so perhaps more of Europe (especially the South and East) would evolved at the same pace.
Another thing I was thinking of was the class system. In 1914 the nobility was still quite powerful in some countries. Notably Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. It took wars and revolutions to take away the power of these groups, but how powerful would these groups be today without the wars? In OTL even in countries where revolution did not get them, taxes did. In OTL the postwar Labour government made taxes so high for the nobles that in less than a decade very few functioning manor estates still existed in private hands (the ones that did tended to function as museums).
As for the lower classes one thing that the first world war altered was the availability of a servant class. Prior to the First World War it was not uncommon for even middle class families to have at least one servant. One thing that I noticed growing up in Connecticut was that most of the homes built before WWI tended to have an attic floor which was reserved for servants, but with homes built after the war only the largest ones had servants quarters and those built after WWII had none. The role of labour saving appliances had an effect, however I have read that the end of the stream of migrants from Europe greatly reduced the number of maids available in the United States. Also with more women working in factories, it seems that far fewer women were willing to work as domestic servants since factories often paid better wages.
I touched briefly on migration above but what about the role of immigration. Between 1880 and 1914 the world experienced the greatest migratory event ever as millions of Europeans moved from Europe to the New World. The United States, Brazil and Argentina were the three largest destinations but the British Dominions also attracted a fair number of Europeans. By 1914 few border restrictions existed between countries and passports had become a thing of the past with Russia being one of the few countries that required them. What exclusions did exist on migrants tended to be directed at Asians. Other than that coming to America often meant buying passage on a steamliner and passing a simple health test to make sure infectious diseases were not being brought into a new country.
In the United States immigration was curbed by the nativist movement that had been strengthened by WWI. However, from 1919 until 1924 there was a series of three postwar recessions that seemed to have also had an effect on wanting to curb immigration to the country. A major effect of the halt of European immigration was the influx of African-Americans from the south to Northern cities due to the shortage of factory labourers. Prior to the war African-Americans had a difficult time competing against European immigrants for these jobs. Without the war do we see a steady stream continue to the Americas?
By 1914 the number of Germans emigrating to the Americas had begun declining due to the growing prosperity in Germany. In their place Italians and Eastern Europeans were emigrating in record numbers. Prior to the war because of the lax border controls, much migration was cyclical or temporary. For instance many Italians that migrated to the new world would often save up enough money to return back to Italy and often help others do the same. Prior to WWI half of all Italian migrants to the United States returned. After the war many who emigrated stayed often for fear of not being able to go back if they needed to. In Portugal this was similar for emigrants who headed to Brazil with many returning to Portugal quite prosperous and helping fund the voyages of relatives. After many source countries of such as Italy, and Germany significantly restricted the flow of workers abroad due to the losses from WWI. France for it's part lost so many people that it imported more than 2 million Poles, Spaniards and Italians to make up for the loss of manpower. Intereuropean migration had also begun as Poles from East Prussia streamed into the Rhineland to work in industries. In the 1890s more Italians migrated to France and Germany than to the Americas to work in factories.
Another thing I think of is the role of colonial/subject peoples. In OTL WWI and WWII were huge eye openers for many colonial peoples. For a great number of Africans and Asians it was the first time they saw the supposedley superior whites killing each other. WWI was also the first time that many actually got the opportunity to kill or attack whites themselves. Many of the nationalist movements were products of wars. The principal of the self-determination of peoples proposed by Woodrow Wilson in his fourteen points was taken seriously by many in the colonial world and they felt it included them.
Also without the wars, the colonial powers are not as politically shaken by war. WWI especially brought about the popularity of pacifism. It seems that before 1914 colonial powers were not afraid to put down rebellions with savage brutality that would have been thouroughly condemned in the post WWII world especially. I'm thinking specifically of the Maji-Maji uprising in German East Africa and the Herero uprising in German Southwest Africa. Also, without the wars the Europeans have much more capital to expend on colonial follies.
The economic system also changed dramatically due to the wars. Prior to WWI, London was the centre of the financial world. Britain was a creditor nation and British investment spanned the globe in not only its own empire but British capital also invested heavilly in the Americas and Europe. Britain was still the preeminent economic power. Although others were catching up fast, this did not mean Britain was stagnant, it was growing just not as fast as the United States, Germany, Russia or Japan. Without the war Britain would probably have a larger role on the world stage than it does in OTL. Although America and Russia were wealthy much of their wealth prior to the war depended on foreign investment, though over time this would have changed as their economies evolved.
One of the most notable things about the pre-1914 economic system was how laissez-faire it was. By 1914 tariffs between countries had all but become a thing of the past. The movement of goods and capital (as with people) was freer than even today. After 1918 countries began to erect tariff walls and it was not until the neo-liberalism of the 1980s and 1990s that they started to come down. One effect of this was that in Europe living standards rose at a rate much faster than today's. So without the wars could we see this global laissez-faire capitalism continue. Also taxes were much lower. Governments generally spent less and did less for people. The social state was largely a by product of the depression and WWII. Without it you have governments that do not tax very much and private enterprise play a much larger role. The downside of this is that you have a radical fringe in many countries (anarcho-socialists, bolshevists).
Finally another thing unique to the pre-1914 economic system was the use of precious metals to back up currencies. Before 1914 money was convertible with gold or silver. One of the effects I've noticed of this was that currencies were always worth the same amount. For instance 1 USD = 4s 1d or £1 = $4.86656. The Latin Monetary Union had the same currency value for all of its members. A side effect of this economic system meant that inflation was practically nonexistent. If you look at the cost of living in various countries throughout the 19th century you'll often see that in fact in most it actually decreased a little bit. Infation by the early 20th century was little more than 1%. It seems that WWI was the event that made nations feel the need to spend beyond their means permanently. As a by product central banks began to intervene directly in economies using money supply and inflation rates as tools to manipulate economic growth often for political means.
So in essence my summation of a world without the world wars is a world that would be more repressive socially. That is where women generally are not as free as today with the patriarchal system prevailing to this day. Traditional values and mores would generally be more prevalent and go unquestioned by more people since there were no giant events to literally shake the system. Although there would be progression I believe that it would be more gradual and steady than it was in OTL. Although there are no roaring 20s there is also no facist backlash and depression of the 1930s. Economically I believe the open system of movement of goods and people would continue and lead to a much more properous world. I'm not sure how long the gold standard could have lasted, however the lack of customs and smaller governments that tax less would inevitably led to more prosperity. The human and economic capital expended on the world wars alone would have made many countries more wealthy in the long run.
In a world without two world wars and only small proxy/colonial wars what would be the effect on the class system, women, minorities, etc?
For women, WWI was a watershed, especially in Europe. In France, the United Kingdom and Germany women for the first time began working in the factories in large numbers. Henri Barbusse commented on how single women were for the first time venturing on their own without chaperones and how shocking this would have been before 1914. Although we often see the 1960s as the sexual revolution, the 1920s were in essence it's precursor. After the end of the war people began to question the morality of the pre-war society and the decadence of Berlin and Paris of the 1920s would have unheard of in pre-1914 society.
Although women were gaining political power before 1914 with some countries already allowing women equal franchise (notably in Scandinavia). It seems that the lack of the world wars may have delayed women's suffrage in many countries. In Switzerland women did not get equal franchise until 1971 so perhaps more of Europe (especially the South and East) would evolved at the same pace.
Another thing I was thinking of was the class system. In 1914 the nobility was still quite powerful in some countries. Notably Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. It took wars and revolutions to take away the power of these groups, but how powerful would these groups be today without the wars? In OTL even in countries where revolution did not get them, taxes did. In OTL the postwar Labour government made taxes so high for the nobles that in less than a decade very few functioning manor estates still existed in private hands (the ones that did tended to function as museums).
As for the lower classes one thing that the first world war altered was the availability of a servant class. Prior to the First World War it was not uncommon for even middle class families to have at least one servant. One thing that I noticed growing up in Connecticut was that most of the homes built before WWI tended to have an attic floor which was reserved for servants, but with homes built after the war only the largest ones had servants quarters and those built after WWII had none. The role of labour saving appliances had an effect, however I have read that the end of the stream of migrants from Europe greatly reduced the number of maids available in the United States. Also with more women working in factories, it seems that far fewer women were willing to work as domestic servants since factories often paid better wages.
I touched briefly on migration above but what about the role of immigration. Between 1880 and 1914 the world experienced the greatest migratory event ever as millions of Europeans moved from Europe to the New World. The United States, Brazil and Argentina were the three largest destinations but the British Dominions also attracted a fair number of Europeans. By 1914 few border restrictions existed between countries and passports had become a thing of the past with Russia being one of the few countries that required them. What exclusions did exist on migrants tended to be directed at Asians. Other than that coming to America often meant buying passage on a steamliner and passing a simple health test to make sure infectious diseases were not being brought into a new country.
In the United States immigration was curbed by the nativist movement that had been strengthened by WWI. However, from 1919 until 1924 there was a series of three postwar recessions that seemed to have also had an effect on wanting to curb immigration to the country. A major effect of the halt of European immigration was the influx of African-Americans from the south to Northern cities due to the shortage of factory labourers. Prior to the war African-Americans had a difficult time competing against European immigrants for these jobs. Without the war do we see a steady stream continue to the Americas?
By 1914 the number of Germans emigrating to the Americas had begun declining due to the growing prosperity in Germany. In their place Italians and Eastern Europeans were emigrating in record numbers. Prior to the war because of the lax border controls, much migration was cyclical or temporary. For instance many Italians that migrated to the new world would often save up enough money to return back to Italy and often help others do the same. Prior to WWI half of all Italian migrants to the United States returned. After the war many who emigrated stayed often for fear of not being able to go back if they needed to. In Portugal this was similar for emigrants who headed to Brazil with many returning to Portugal quite prosperous and helping fund the voyages of relatives. After many source countries of such as Italy, and Germany significantly restricted the flow of workers abroad due to the losses from WWI. France for it's part lost so many people that it imported more than 2 million Poles, Spaniards and Italians to make up for the loss of manpower. Intereuropean migration had also begun as Poles from East Prussia streamed into the Rhineland to work in industries. In the 1890s more Italians migrated to France and Germany than to the Americas to work in factories.
Another thing I think of is the role of colonial/subject peoples. In OTL WWI and WWII were huge eye openers for many colonial peoples. For a great number of Africans and Asians it was the first time they saw the supposedley superior whites killing each other. WWI was also the first time that many actually got the opportunity to kill or attack whites themselves. Many of the nationalist movements were products of wars. The principal of the self-determination of peoples proposed by Woodrow Wilson in his fourteen points was taken seriously by many in the colonial world and they felt it included them.
Also without the wars, the colonial powers are not as politically shaken by war. WWI especially brought about the popularity of pacifism. It seems that before 1914 colonial powers were not afraid to put down rebellions with savage brutality that would have been thouroughly condemned in the post WWII world especially. I'm thinking specifically of the Maji-Maji uprising in German East Africa and the Herero uprising in German Southwest Africa. Also, without the wars the Europeans have much more capital to expend on colonial follies.
The economic system also changed dramatically due to the wars. Prior to WWI, London was the centre of the financial world. Britain was a creditor nation and British investment spanned the globe in not only its own empire but British capital also invested heavilly in the Americas and Europe. Britain was still the preeminent economic power. Although others were catching up fast, this did not mean Britain was stagnant, it was growing just not as fast as the United States, Germany, Russia or Japan. Without the war Britain would probably have a larger role on the world stage than it does in OTL. Although America and Russia were wealthy much of their wealth prior to the war depended on foreign investment, though over time this would have changed as their economies evolved.
One of the most notable things about the pre-1914 economic system was how laissez-faire it was. By 1914 tariffs between countries had all but become a thing of the past. The movement of goods and capital (as with people) was freer than even today. After 1918 countries began to erect tariff walls and it was not until the neo-liberalism of the 1980s and 1990s that they started to come down. One effect of this was that in Europe living standards rose at a rate much faster than today's. So without the wars could we see this global laissez-faire capitalism continue. Also taxes were much lower. Governments generally spent less and did less for people. The social state was largely a by product of the depression and WWII. Without it you have governments that do not tax very much and private enterprise play a much larger role. The downside of this is that you have a radical fringe in many countries (anarcho-socialists, bolshevists).
Finally another thing unique to the pre-1914 economic system was the use of precious metals to back up currencies. Before 1914 money was convertible with gold or silver. One of the effects I've noticed of this was that currencies were always worth the same amount. For instance 1 USD = 4s 1d or £1 = $4.86656. The Latin Monetary Union had the same currency value for all of its members. A side effect of this economic system meant that inflation was practically nonexistent. If you look at the cost of living in various countries throughout the 19th century you'll often see that in fact in most it actually decreased a little bit. Infation by the early 20th century was little more than 1%. It seems that WWI was the event that made nations feel the need to spend beyond their means permanently. As a by product central banks began to intervene directly in economies using money supply and inflation rates as tools to manipulate economic growth often for political means.
So in essence my summation of a world without the world wars is a world that would be more repressive socially. That is where women generally are not as free as today with the patriarchal system prevailing to this day. Traditional values and mores would generally be more prevalent and go unquestioned by more people since there were no giant events to literally shake the system. Although there would be progression I believe that it would be more gradual and steady than it was in OTL. Although there are no roaring 20s there is also no facist backlash and depression of the 1930s. Economically I believe the open system of movement of goods and people would continue and lead to a much more properous world. I'm not sure how long the gold standard could have lasted, however the lack of customs and smaller governments that tax less would inevitably led to more prosperity. The human and economic capital expended on the world wars alone would have made many countries more wealthy in the long run.
