Supposing the Edwardian world just keeps puttering on...

[hugh lupus]

Since when does something get smaller when you feed it more? Germany was always going to feel inferior because her Emperor had an inferiority complex. If it's not the army, it's colonies. If it's not colonies, it's the navy. If it's not the navy, it's steel output, scientific research, technological advancement, philosophy, music, etc. The Kaiser was notoriously jealous that Paris and not Berlin was the Continental Capital of Culture, along with his wholehearted embrace and endorsement of Pan-Germanism which is just as poisonous and disruptive as Pan-Slavism or any of the other racist Pan- ideologies.

There is no end because Germany entered the 20th century with a malevolent case of Victory Disease combined with an Executive Inferiority Complex. Only a war or a less-nutty monarch can dim these things.

Yep I agree I'm not sure If you have read it and this is in now way a plug but European problems are discussed at length in the ASB section under the thread 'US military ISOTed to 1900' Please do not let the forum type fool you ,the thread has evolved into what I hope and believe to be a serious look at that era.
And the Kaiser was a prime mover ,but he represented a seriously fractured country that could not help but be a dominent power regardless of that

 

[Wolfpaw]

Yep I agree I'm not sure If you have read it and this is in now way a plug but European problems are discussed at length in the ASB section under the thread 'US military ISOTed to 1900' Please do not let the forum type fool you ,the thread has evolved into what I hope and believe to be a serious look at that era.
And the Kaiser was a prime mover ,but he represented a seriously fractured country that could not help but be a dominent power regardless of that

Germany never was a dominant power, though not for lack of trying. Sure, it was a Great Power, but those aren't the same things. Everybody recognized that Germany was important; it was Germany that didn't feel important enough.

And prior to 1916, Willy was not a prime mover, but the prime mover of Germany; he ran that country tits to toes, enjoyed ignoring the Reichstag, dumped Bismarck, kept Chancellors as trained pets, he let foreign policy rot in favor of bombastic, bellicose, Pan-German nonsense, started the wasteful naval arms race because his interminable jealousy of his British cousins, the list goes on and on. With him at the helm collision was inevitable because Germany being Great wasn't good enough. Germany had to mirror the Kaiser's preferred title for himself: "All Highest."

 

[Roisterer]

Since when does something get smaller when you feed it more? Germany was always going to feel inferior because her Emperor had an inferiority complex. If it's not the army, it's colonies. If it's not colonies, it's the navy. If it's not the navy, it's steel output, scientific research, technological advancement, philosophy, music, etc. The Kaiser was notoriously jealous that Paris and not Berlin was the Continental Capital of Culture, along with his wholehearted embrace and endorsement of Pan-Germanism which is just as poisonous and disruptive as Pan-Slavism or any of the other racist Pan- ideologies.

Germany never was a dominant power, though not for lack of trying. Sure, it was a Great Power, but those aren't the same things. Everybody recognized that Germany was important; it was Germany that didn't feel important enough.

And prior to 1916, Willy was not a prime mover, but the prime mover of Germany; he ran that country tits to toes, enjoyed ignoring the Reichstag, dumped Bismarck, kept Chancellors as trained pets, he let foreign policy rot in favor of bombastic, bellicose, Pan-German nonsense, started the wasteful naval arms race because his interminable jealousy of his British cousins, the list goes on and on. With him at the helm collision was inevitable because Germany being Great wasn't good enough. Germany had to mirror the Kaiser's preferred title for himself: "All Highest."

So maybe a POD is have Willy meet with a nasty accident/disease? Or perhaps better, he overreaches domestically and discredits the monarchy at home, leading to an abdication and a determination to limit his successors' power?

Regards

R

 

[Wolfpaw]

So maybe a POD is have Willy meet with a nasty accident/disease? Or perhaps better, he overreaches domestically and discredits the monarchy at home, leading to an abdication and a determination to limit his successors' power?

He'd never abdicate short of revolution (and even then he was grudging). Nor was his son much better, but he certainly wasn't worse.

I say have Annie Oakley miss her famous shot in 1891 (the Kaiser could insist on keeping the cigarette in his mouth instead of being persuaded to hold it). Short-term diplomatic crisis for long-term gain.

 

[Lleibi]

Internet not exist,nothing facebook or twitter.
No mobile phones.

I don't think this is justified. Maybe the US army wouldn't be there to do it, but there's plenty of civilian ways to get there.

PCs are the natural evolution of joining computing machines used in science and the military with electronic typwriters with text-processing capabilities.

Connectivity between computers is just an extension to groups of individual computers of what parallel computing does within one computer. And allows for great flexibility when sharing resources and data.

Even if the army is not there to develop it, science definitely needs it.

Yes, in this scenario we probably will not have the CERN to develop internet, either, but it's very unlikely to think that the two scientific powerhouses, Germany and the British Commonwealth will not develop their own gigantic research projects. In fact, in the absence of large wars, i think the empires would duke it out in the scientific competition battlefield.

German is the language of the science.

I have my doubts. It's true that by the proposed PoD, Germany has by far the most powerful science, but Britain is coming right behind, and is about to have a great generation. English would also be used by the other countries of the commonwealth, specially the emerging colonial Indian science, and the United States, who sooner or later would emerge as well, with an autonomous, British-influenced science.

I'm not saying at all that English would be the language of science, no. Just that i see that there might not be a clear cut winner. Probably most of the important science journals would end up having editions both in German and English. Or maybe physics journals would become German-dominated while biology/medicine would be in English.

The wildcard in the science game would be the the Tzarist Russia...

It would be really amusing seeing all the politicking and alliance game of the pre-WWI played out in the science along the XX century... but of course, in science, nationality is a lot less relevant than it is for the military or civilians. Still, it didn't avoid a "scientific cold war" IOTL.

 

[HARRY]

After the Young Turk Revolution in 1908 the Ottoman Empire was held together under the rule of the Three Pashas until the under of WWI. It was though that they got on well together but there was far bit of bickering which could have resulted in a 3 way civil war or the long antiscipated collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Germany moves into protect its railway interests(Berlin to Baghdad line) in the north while France and Britain secure the Suez Canal. The German army then spends the next 20 years fighting insurgents in Turkey/Iraq until the Kaiser dies earlier then in our time as he didn't get to excise as much (wood chopping).

 

[Cash]

Without WWI and the Depression to bankrupt Britain, I wonder if the upper class and aristocracy with its servant-class culture would have persisted in their original form longer. Would Parliament be as eager to pass the inheritance tax laws that broke up many of the old estates and great manor houses?

Without WWI and WWII, the U.S. military would be a shadow of its current size, barring some large conflict closer to home, perhaps in South America. So I'm not convinced that the military impetus that gave us cellphones and the Internet would exist. Would Einstein and his fellow scientists still immigrate to the United States with the rise of Nazism in Europe or would Germany be the first nation to develop a nuclear weapon?

And too, without those wars and their effect on population numbers, what would the current population of the world be, in particular in Europe and Asia?

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

Without cold war the interest in space is relatively low.
Is probable that in this world the first satellite is launched by Germans in 80s,and in 2012 we have some satellites in orbit.
Maybe a space capsule with a man on board is launched in late 2000s,
but i don't see a race between Imperial British Commonwealth and Russian Empire,or between United States and German Federal Empire.
Maybe a international effort for geophysical year.

i'm calling bullshit on this.
in case you didn't know pretty much every great power was in a cold war with each other. Just not as intense. People were already trying to get to space in the 1800s (or at least theorizing on it) and just because theirs no WWI doesn't mean their is no wars.

i'd say we get into space around the same time but because they're are more (tho less intence) powers competing with each other humans will have a larger precense in space than OTL.

edit** and the russian empire wasn't gonna last much longer (just nitpicking)

 

[Viriato]

Without WWI and the Depression to bankrupt Britain, I wonder if the upper class and aristocracy with its servant-class culture would have persisted in their original form longer. Would Parliament be as eager to pass the inheritance tax laws that broke up many of the old estates and great manor houses?

Without the World Wars, the tax burden in most countries would have remained much lower. This would have contributed to the continued dominance of the aristocracy. Between 1930 and 1980, taxes on the wealthiest members of Western Countries were high and killed the aristocracy in not only Europe, but also in America. Many great estates and country homes were sold off or turned into museums. In New York, the great townhouses of the Vanderbilts, Astors, etc were demolished as were their summer homes in Newport. The consequence was that the top income taxes were often 70%, though income inequality decreased. Conversely, income inequality in many countries is now back to pre-WWI levels, leading to the rise of a new moneyed aristocracy.

WWI also killed off 1/5th of all the peers in England, greatly shaking up the system. The war, was the beginning of the end for their way of life. World War I also meant that many domestic servants found factory work (including women) and may of the men were killed off. Mechanization (central heating, domestic appliances) would have made the need for less servants arise, but perhaps we would still see great homes with numbers of liveried footmen. In America too, servants were far more common (though most were Irish and English immigrants).

The war changed the social order, shaking the self-confidence of the aristocracy in Europe and America. Prior to 1914, most wealthy American families sought to marry their daughters off to impoverished nobles in Europe (mostly in Britain). In Russia, the aristocracy was at the top of the pecking order as well. Perhaps, social mobility would have been much more reduced, as it would be harder to question the existing order of things. Wars definitely change society and challenge people's perceptions of themselves as well as of others.

Finally, the new world would still be flooded with European immigrants. You'd certainly have more Jews in the new world as emigration from the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary was increasing. So perhaps the United States could be 5% Jewish, instead of the current 2%. Italians and Slavs would be more numerous too, especially Poles.

With the stream of European immigrants still flowing, the first and second great migrations of blacks from the South to the Northeast, Midwest and California would have been blunted somewhat. This would have an effect on the South meaning that Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina might all still have black majorities. Also, the industrial cities may have many more Europeans for a longer time. This means that ethnic neighbourhoods such as Little Italys are replenished with new arrivals in mass numbers for a longer time. Also, it could mean no "white flight" and urban renewal in US cities.

With small government being the mantra in most countries, large public works projects might have never been built. For instance the US interstate highways. Railroads before the war were usually private, could their be "highway barons" who own private roads and collect tolls earning vast fortunes?

 

[Petike]

The issue of technological progress without the World War's has been discussed quite a few times

If I may add : See here fro related POD discussions.

 

[Lleibi]

If I may add : See here fro related POD discussions.

alright, sorry!

 

[Thoresby]

With small government being the mantra in most countries, large public works projects might have never been built. For instance the US interstate highways. Railroads before the war were usually private, could their be "highway barons" who own private roads and collect tolls earning vast fortunes?

That's a really interesting idea though not all Railways were privately built, I think in Australia and New Zealand and much of Europe you had state railway companies.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

That's a really interesting idea though not all Railways were privately built, I think in Australia and New Zealand and much of Europe you had state railway companies.

Quite.
Even in Canada CNR was a crown corporation. The CPR wasnt, but does serve as a fine example of early corporate welfare.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Without cold war the interest in space is relatively low.
Is probable that in this world the first satellite is launched by Germans in 80s,and in 2012 we have some satellites in orbit.
Maybe a space capsule with a man on board is launched in late 2000s,
but i don't see a race between Imperial British Commonwealth and Russian Empire,or between United States and German Federal Empire.
Maybe a international effort for geophysical year.

This is extremely unlikely. The development of the nuclear bomb will certainly spur the development of IRBMs, as they are non-interceptable (without quite advanced technology) and perfectly sized for the European theater. While lack of the V-2 will retard development, something not much more advanced would be quite useful for nuclear use within Europe, and natural development would then take over. IRBMs, if you didn't know, are very suitable for conversion into launch vehicles (for example, the extremely successful Delta series was, up to the Delta IV, based on the Thor IRBM). Being the first country to launch a satellite or a human will, like OTL, have significant prestige value (besides being an effective demonstration of national military capability), and the fact of multiple competing powers may actually drive competition faster than IOTL (because it takes more than two countries giving up to end the game). Moreover, there are a number of highly significant possible military and civilian uses for satellites that were obvious long before any were launched, such as spying, and hence a large incentive to engage in the research necessary to launch a satellite.

It is also worth noting that less than a decade after the first satellite launch, the first commercial satellites were being launched. Less than twenty years later, they were of significant commercial importance. Having by 2012 after a first launch in the '80s only "some" satellites is extremely unlikely unless there's been a nuclear war or some such.

Overall, there is no reason to suppose that a world evolved organically from the Edwardian environment would be significantly more backwards in space development than OTL, at least excluding human space exploration (which is admittedly the face of space), and many reasons to suppose that it might be more advanced, again excluding human space exploration. HSF is trickier to analyze.

 

[Thoresby]

Another thing is that if the "Edwardian world just keeps puttering on" the world is going to stay a pretty violent place. While the Major Powers had a relatively peaceful spell between the Russo-Japanese War and WW1 there were plenty of other wars going on, e.g. the Balkan Wars. If the "Edwardian world just keeps puttering on" that would mean a world in which rather than a global war of annihilation every generation until nukes come along you have constant minor and low level wars that never quite turn into a mega-war. So with constant minor wars I suspect military spending totaled up over the century would be very nearly as high as in our world, especially as a world without WW1&2 would be richer and thus able to spend more in real terms on peacetime militaries which keeping proportionate spending similar.

 

[Hörnla]

Major disagree here. 'Classical' architecture was already going out of fashion. There's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't see the rise of both the 'art deco' and 'modernism', indeed the likes of van der Rohe and Lloyd Wright were already making an impact.

I agree. Even in 1909 Vienna, the Looshaus (nicknamed "house without eyebrows)", a building which by now seems absolutely traditional and very aesthetic, caused such a scandal, that Emperor Franz-Josef vowed to never use the exit out of the Hofburg opposite it again (ironically, that exit had just been remade a few years earlier as an orgy of neo-classical architecture).

why no space race? i think with multiple powers competing for all those resources (and industrial powerhouse like germany still existing) we would see an even more escalating space race.
even if its like 2001: a space oddysey by now we'd probably be furthur into space.

No, I also agree that space exploration is one of the fields which would not benefit from a century of peace. 1) the development of V1 and V2 rockets by the Germans was fueled by WW2, also, these rockets helped to expand the rocket-programmes in the Soviet Union and the USA. 2) if nuclear weapons are delayed, the need for intercontinental missiles is delayed, too. Without a nuclear threat, there would be no "Sputnik shock". 3) Without the SU and the US emerging not only as major, but as superpowers past 1945, most of the "competing powers", even Britain or Germany, would rather find themselves unable to follow an ambitious space programme.
My guess at this timeline's development is that there is either a) a common global space programme which is by now as advanced as in OTL (but with the single developments having taken a lot longer - moon landing in the 80s, a shuttle concept in the 90s, ISS being a brand-new thing) or b) several national space programmes which are not much farther than OTL's Chinese ambitions.
But I agree that once the technology is there, satellites will be under way just like OTL. They are no prestige objects, but simply make sense (and are comparatively cheap).

There is no end because Germany entered the 20th century with a malevolent case of Victory Disease combined with an Executive Inferiority Complex. Only a war or a less-nutty monarch can dim these things.

It is amazing how it took this monarch 26 years to bring Germany to war.

Finally, the new world would still be flooded with European immigrants. You'd certainly have more Jews in the new world as emigration from the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary was increasing. So perhaps the United States could be 5% Jewish, instead of the current 2%. Italians and Slavs would be more numerous too, especially Poles.

If you amass such a high number of Jews in the US (15 million), I guess that you not only assume there is no holocaust, but also that Zionism ITTL utterly failed. More striking, though, would be the difference that, without both, Western and Central Europe would have a higher proportion of Jewish citizens still.

you have constant minor and low level wars that never quite turn into a mega-war.

Well, just like OTL.

 

[BlondieBC]

This question is a bit like blind men describing the elephant. Each person see a different part and focus based on their interests. In short, nothing is the same. Fashion, music, food, etc. To me the biggest points are


1) There will be no superpower (one clearly dominant power in each of the two major alliance systems). We stay in the great power area.

2) Technology is key. I see the atomic bomb being test and deployed in the 1930's. By the late 1940's, everyone has them. Since you want a peace analysis, I will skip the Germany (or whoever) gets it first and uses it to win a great war. So by about 1935, the map begins to freeze like OTL. The colonies were slowly move into trade blocks. Probably more like NATO and the EU (imagine USA not in NATO) than true colonial systems. So we have the USA block (most of Americans), British Empire (most of British Empire, but probably with few defections such as South Africa), French Zone. Italian Zone. Germany Zone (probably Berlin to Baghdad Axis with few colonies on side). Russian Zone.

3) Demographics. Demographics are destiny. Without WW1 and the follow up we have 300 million or so more people of European decent and AT LEAST 300 million fewer non-European descent. This is why they can keep the colonies. A lot of the details can vary, but we can be certain of some things. North Africa outside of Egypt is European and Christian majority. People will just accept Algeria as a part of France the same way we accept things conquered by the Louis. Libya is Italian, just like Sicily. Tunisia is French or Italian, probably blended. Morocco is European, probably most French. Some African colonies that are now black will be at least as white a South Africa. Some may be majority White. You might also see this to a lesser extent in Asia,but probably just some major cities. And over time, these zones will tend to blend into a national identity, at least where we get 30% plus white populations. So for example, you could get Angola and SWA as German majority, and just though of as "Metropolitan Germany" with majority white Germans. It may seem strange, but in 1910 the population was less than 3-4 million total blacks and Europeans had a tendency to massacre blacks or other natives. For example Libya's Arab population was flat from 1900 to 1950. So if only say 500K Germans move to GrossSWA and you get population growth for the Germans combined with mixed race couples, it is easy to see GrossSWA with 2 million "Germans" and 2 million of various natives. And it will happen elsewhere, you just have to figure where these immigrants go. You could easily end up with some Slavic hybrid nation somewhere - Uganda, German East Africa, Italian East Africa. Just whereever the population flows.

 

[Hörnla]

This question is a bit like blind men describing the elephant.

Absolutely.

2) Technology is key. I see the atomic bomb being test and deployed in the 1930's. By the late 1940's, everyone has them.

On what grounds? Would the lack of WW1 make Einstein, Meitner, Bohr, Fermi or Planck be smarter or think faster? By that much?
OTL, 1939 only saw the proof of nuclear fission actually EXISTING!

Now without being at war, which nation would devote that much capital into developing a bomb which
a- might not work at all
b- if it works, might destroy the planet instead of just a city

So, even in OTL's WW2, only the USA had the capability to actually pull that through. A four or five way nuclear race as in TL-191 is imaginable in peace-time, but it would work in slow-motion compared to the Manhattan project.

My idea for a realistic timeframe would be that closely around 1950, the first nuclear weapon is tested. First possesion of a nuclear bomb? Probabilities are: 50% Germany (frankly, the German scientific position in this field was amazing, especially if not weakened by emigration), 30% USA (very much depending on the political will to undertake the project), 15% Great Britain, 5% others.

3) Demographics. Demographics are destiny. Without WW1 and the follow up we have 300 million or so more people of European decent and AT LEAST 300 million fewer non-European descent.

I love demographic views at topics on that forum. But please calculate that number to me. If you had said 100 million, I would have bought it at once. 300 million seems totally exagerrated to me.

Example: Germany in 1910 had close to 65million inhabitants. For my model I assume the population growth of the period of 1925-33 (4.73% in 8 years) as typical for the period of 1910-1950. I round it up to 5% even.
1918: 68,25m (instead of 60.8 in 1919 OTL)
1926: 71,66m (instead of 62.4 in 1925 OTL)
1934: 75,25m (instead of 65.4 in 1933 OTL)
1942: 79,01m (in 1914borders instead of 79.4 in 1939 OTL - as Großdeutschland!)
1950: 82,96m (instead of 68,23 in FRG/GDR combined)

Since then, I would assume a population growth consistent with OTL. It SHOULD be even lower as this peaceful Germany would be richer and go through demographic transition earlier, also not have a post-WW2 baby-boom. However, this is probably offset by not having the very very low birth-rate in the Communist GDR.

So....Germany in OTL 2012 has 81.843 million inhabitants, that includes millions of immigrants, a tendency which might or might not happen ITTL. A rise by almost 20% in 62 years.
For the sake of argument, I allow the peaceful Kaiserreich a 30% rise.
That means 107.9 million Germans in 2012 ITTL.

That is an extra of 26 million Germans ITTL. Where are the other 274 million white people coming from? Take into consideration here, that Germany demographically suffered quite hard in both world wars. Not hardest, but it was hit more significantly than e.g. Britain.

 

[Thoresby]

1 million dead 18-30 year old males has a much smaller demographic effect than 300,000 dead 18-30 year old women. In Western Europe most of the dead were men so the demographic effect was limited, in Eastern Europe a lot more women and children died. While there will definitely be a lot more white people in general the big increase won't be in people of Western European descent but Eastern Europeans. There will probably be twice as many Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians plus 50% more Russians and that's just the bigger countries. Other groups like the Rusyns and Balkan Germans which got basically wiped out in the real world will still be around.

 

[Hörnla]

I agree, Thoresby, just look at the staggering numbers of people which died in the Soviet Union due to
-the Civil War
-Stalin's reign
-WW2

The Tsarist Empire had 181 million inhabitants by 1916. If we only assume a modest 1% rise per year, we would be at 462 million today.

Poland suffered huge demographic losses in WW2. Given a 1% growth 1938-46, and OTL development since then, it could be a nation of 60 million instead of 38 million.

Also, the population losses of Serbia in WW1 were huge alone.