The ideal 20. century ?

[Zurirach Adankar]

Improve the 20. century as much as possible. Make this century nice. PODs allowed after the 1. January 1900.
(As few war deaths, deaths, violence, horrible dictatorships, genocides as possible, while as much scientific progress as possible. As much fair and equal prosperity as possible)

 

[The Byronic Hero]

Improve the 20. century as much as possible. Make this century nice. PODs allowed after the 1. January 1900.
(As few war deaths, deaths, violence, horrible dictatorships, genocides as possible, while as much scientific progress as possible. As much fair and equal prosperity as possible)

That precludes Annie Oakley shooting Wilhelm in 1890.

We could have Franz's driver avoid a wrong turn thus preventing the Archduke's assassination. Bosnia remains tenuous but not impossible. Russia modernizes reducing Germany's desire for war. With a stronger Russia, and Germany backing off their naval expansion, the UK shifts their alliance to Germany thus creating balance on the continent. Economic growth leads to increasing calls for democracy in Russia which leads to the Duma acquiring greater authority over time. The growth of Liberals in Germany likewise reduces militarism. Without WWI, Japan's economy doesn't fluctuate as badly preserving their democratic gains, further reinforced by America's prevention as THE economic power due to Entente loans. So the US remains isolationist, Japan focuses on what it holds (including not sullying itself attempting to use WWI to acquire greater de facto control over China), money wasted on war crippling the Great Powers is instead invested in their states and territories, and the Great Powers turn to prestige projects vs war to prove themselves. Likewise, the Ottomans discover oil which allows revenue to modernize and stabilize. The Saudis aren't supported by the British under Lawrence stopping the rise of Wahhabism...it just keeps going.

 

[Don Quijote]

That precludes Annie Oakley shooting Wilhelm in 1890.

We could have Franz's driver avoid a wrong turn thus preventing the Archduke's assassination. Bosnia remains tenuous but not impossible. Russia modernizes reducing Germany's desire for war. With a stronger Russia, and Germany backing off their naval expansion, the UK shifts their alliance to Germany thus creating balance on the continent. Economic growth leads to increasing calls for democracy in Russia which leads to the Duma acquiring greater authority over time. The growth of Liberals in Germany likewise reduces militarism. Without WWI, Japan's economy doesn't fluctuate as badly preserving their democratic gains, further reinforced by America's prevention as THE economic power due to Entente loans. So the US remains isolationist, Japan focuses on what it holds (including not sullying itself attempting to use WWI to acquire greater detail facto control over China), money wasted on war crippling the Great Powers is instead invested in their states and territories, and the Great Powers turn to prestige projects vs war to prove themselves. Likewise, the Ottomans discover oil which allows revenue to modernize and stabilize. The Saudis aren't supported by the British under Lawrence stopping the rise of Wahhabism...it just keeps going.

All good points, but the last one isn't strictly accurate. The British encouraged a general Arab uprising, but under the authority of the Hashemites and not the Saudis. Admittedly they didn't do very much postwar to prevent the Hashemites' expulsion from Arabia, but nor did they back the Saudis.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

All good points, but the last one isn't strictly accurate. The British encouraged a general Arab uprising, but under the authority of the Hashemites and not the Saudis. Admittedly they didn't do very much postwar to prevent the Hashemites' expulsion from Arabia, but nor did they back the Saudis.

The Hashemites were WAY better than the Sauds. Supporting the former can only lead to better returns. I also see the British aggreeing to the Berlin to Baghdad route for better internal lines as well as to entice German alliance.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

Just for sci-fi indulgence, Tesla receives better funding?

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I'll take from my timeline, setting down Root, and say some Butterflies from the previous mention stuff lead to Taft not being unavailable and choosing to go on the Supreme Court in 1906. This leads to Bryan in 08 over a very conservative Republican who is chosen when Root waffles due to health. Teddy Roosevelt wins in 1912 and serve two terms.

Teddy Roosevelt doesn't find much need to be interventionist, sunsun like in my timeline there is no European War, but gets involved a little in Mexico. He isn't the racist Woodrow Wilson was so well there is an incredible movement in civil rights there is some as black troops, perhaps to Roosevelt surprise, wind up being the heroes of the small Mexican intervention. General Pershing is part of this and supports the Buffalo Soldiers under his command.

Come 1920, Democrats have still been out of office for all but four of 24 years and they control the House and Senate by now. James Cox wins the White House with Franklin Roosevelt as his vice president. Roosevelt has not been in the cabinet in this timeline but in his late 30s has been in Congress because of these butterflies. Cox is assassinated by an anarchist and Franklin Roosevelt becomes president in 1922 ironically the same way Teddy had. FDR, as he is known, is a supporter of equal rights and therefore makes the Washington DC area even more integrated then it had been, and this is helpful because there is no Wilson to roll things back. His Progressive policies allow for more improvements, and while there is lots of consternation among Southerners, especially after Roosevelt insists on federal intervention to help blacks in the Mississippi area in 1927, Roosevelt is popular enough that while he chooses not to run in 1928, the Democrats still win, albeit with a much more conservative yet not horribly racist presidential candidate, 7 term congressman and member of the Cox and Roosevelt cabinet Cordell Hull, who had the unfortunate experience to be president during a major recession, leading to many people making him the butt of jokes claiming America had gone to Hull. He did not roll back the advances in civil rights, what few there were, because of his relationship with FDR.

Meanwhile, because of the support of Franklin Roosevelt the New York Giants in 1921 had signed the first black player as a response to the Yankees grabbing Babe Ruth from the Red Sox. The integration of baseball begin slowly in the 1920s but picked up steam quite a bit as everyone wanted to compete against John McGraw.

Black Jack Pershing wound up running for president with the Republicans in 1932, with the support of Teddy Roosevelt, who was now over 70 and a senior Statesman. Pershing wound up serving two terms and America slowly grows out of its economic crisis. Pershing support of integrated military forces had grown from his time with the military since the intervention in Mexico and he used that to again slowly push civil rights forward.

I'll leave someone else to do more of America, but American society is slowly becoming used to black people working alongside whites in some areas, especially with the popularity of baseball

 

[DocJamore]

(As few war deaths, deaths, violence, horrible dictatorships, genocides as possible, while as much scientific progress as possible. As much fair and equal prosperity as possible)

The problem is that one persons ideal world is another persons dystopia. It is easy for us to imagine timelines worse than ours. It is harder to think of ones that could have gone better. You have to way the pros and the cons before saying "I would rather live in TTL than OTL". The World Wars were horrific but they sped up societal progress in so many ways it is hard to comprehend them all.

For example if we avoid WW1 than most of Europe could end up being run by Social Democratic legislatures who are also in charge of Imperialist Empires covering much of the known world. That is an odd situation and ideology is going to get compromised because it will be in the way of politics and cynicism. And this is one of the more ideal scenarios! Hardy a dystopia, hardly an ideal world, but certainly different.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

TR wins 1912, serves 2 more terms. No German wars and the US has universal healthcare after sometime in 1915-17.

 

[xie323]

Improve the 20. century as much as possible. Make this century nice. PODs allowed after the 1. January 1900.
(As few war deaths, deaths, violence, horrible dictatorships, genocides as possible, while as much scientific progress as possible. As much fair and equal prosperity as possible)

Hitler either becomes a famous architect or fades into obscurity. Avert WWI and make socialism a credible ideology not associated with totalitarianism(the latter would be easy to do without WWI as there would be no Bolshevik revolution, but the former is a bit harder)

Also, no Wilson and earlier acceptance of civil rights. US becomes a multiparty system(not sure how electoral college can be reformed to allow this or possible PoDs through)

China is united left leaning republic, no right wing KMT takeover, and does not fragment into warlord rule. Japan dosen't go militarist and gradually gives autonomy to Korea(perhaps with Chinese pressure).

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

To continue mine and pretty much concluded, President Hull, John Nance Garner, and other Southern Democrats who were more conservative in the cabinet from 1929 to 1933 discredited the southern wing of the party, especially because of the depression but also because of the racism in some of them. However, that didn't become a huge issue because the president himself wasn't as bad and therefore did not espouse turning back many of FDR's games.

The more positive point was that after Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt the safety net was there to help a lot of Americans through the Great Depression, which wasn't nearly as bad in this time line.

General Pershing was getting old so promised only to serve one term. Making things a United effort because of the Great Depression, and showing that he had a desire to have the top people around him, he actually appointed Franklin Roosevelt as treasury secretary to create jobs programs and ideas that would help. Since FDR is not president to push court-packing and other items, there is a little less fervor against the New Deal. Pershing vice president who succeeds him, Alf Landon, serve two terms and is defeated by a Missouri senator who wound up being elected in 1928 after being in the house for several terms having come in when President Cox was elected in 1920. Harry Truman would have started his political career at some point but started much earlier here and by the time he is elected in 1944 he is a seasoned veteran who serves 2 terms and is instrumental in pushing for desegregation. He is followed by Republican Thomas Dewey from 1953 to 1961, and it is under Dewey that the work began under Truman for desegregation is completed, with civil rights guaranteed not only economically and politically but also socially with the passing of the Fair Housing Act in 1957. Those some wish it would have been decades earlier, the animosity of some Southerners force them to take it slowly. However, the lack of majorviolence is a plus. This comes about partly because a book that might have been published and turned into the movie Birth of a Nation is not because of some butterflies associated with the first decade of the 20th century.

 

[Philip]

US becomes a multiparty system(not sure how electoral college can be reformed to allow this or possible PoDs through

If the several States allocate their electors by the statewide popular vote rather than en masse or by congressional districts, you would achieve this. Getting the state governments to agree to this is more complicated.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

... The growth of Liberals in Germany likewise reduces militarism. ...

The problem with this is twofold. A substantial part of German liberals were pretty expansionist in the colonial question in the late 19th and early 20th century and thus pretty militaristic themselves, especially since they regarded the expansion of the military as a way to reduce the stranglehold the old Prussian aristocracy traditionally had on the officers' corps, more than the conservatives, who for the latter reason were sceptical about any too significant military expansion. And just like in the UK, the liberals were becoming increasinglingly marginalised between the conservatives on the right side and the rising Social Democratic Party (Labour Party in Britain) on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

[Jukra]

If we assume no major wars in 20th Century I would also assume that eugenics would not be thoroughly discredited by Nazi Germany. Various race theories etc. would be popular and this would also have implications towards colonialism, too.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

The problem with this is twofold. A substantial part of German liberals were pretty expansionist in the colonial question in the late 19th and early 20th century and thus pretty militaristic themselves, especially since they regarded the expansion of the military as a way to reduce the stranglehold the old Prussian aristocracy traditionally had on the officers' corps, more than the conservatives, who for the latter reason were sceptical about any too significant military expansion. And just like in the UK, the liberals were becoming increasinglingly marginalised between the conservatives on the right side and the rising Social Democratic Party (Labour Party in Britain) on the left side of the political spectrum.

True but, first, there is no war to discredit the Liberals and strengthen the conservatives, nor worsening conditions to grant the SDP greater legitimacy. Second, I have a feeling both the SDP and the Liberals would find common cause and would expend more energy trying to break the power of the Junkers vs pursuing a two front war (part of the reason behind a growing navy while limiting army growth; the Junkers preserving their powerbase). Pursuing war strengthens the Junkers.

If Austria-Hungary collapses, watch Germany deal with absorbing the Austrian possessions, turning it into a satellite, preventing further Russian incursion, etc.

 

[Ratmancampidori]

The 20th century can be vastly improved, simply by making sure three leaders, Hitler, Mao and Stalin, never acheive any form of significant political power.

This can be acheived in several ways, but one way I can think of is by having Vladimir Lenin live a few more years by avoiding his attempted assasination.

He publicly reads Lenin’s Testimony and Stalin is removed as General Secretary, with Trotsky or a similar Soviet leader attaining his position.

This avoids the policy of Social Fascism, with Communist parties in Germany cooperating with Social Democrats to prevent Hitler from attaining power.

In China, with Trotsky in charge of the USSR Chen Duxiu receives support instead of Mao and a policy of cooperating with Nationalist China continues.

This most likely butterflies World War 2, while Communist parties are able to exert continued pressure throughout the rest of the world.

With the avoidance of World War 2 Europes colonies are released more slowly, hopefully allowing them to establish firmer democratic traditions
However it’s also possible that without World War 2 bankrupting countries like Britain they’d be significantly more willing to use extreme force to maintain control over countries like India.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were responsible for 80-120 million people, making the world significantly better off without them.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

True but, first, there is no war to discredit the Liberals and strengthen the conservatives, nor worsening conditions to grant the SDP greater legitimacy. ...

The SPD didn't really need worsening conditions to grow, it had been doing so since its' very founding all the way up to the German federal elections of 1912 with 34,8% of the popular vote and 110 out of 397 seats in the Reichstag and would have even gained significantly more if the electoral districs, that had remained unchanged since 1871, would have been redistributed and was therefore strongly in favour of a redistrubution.

The second strongest party was the Catholic Centre Party with 16,4% of the popular vote and 91 seats in the Reichstag, which would have significantly lost seats as a result of a redistribution of electoral districts and was therefore vehemently opposed to it, followed by the two liberal parties, the National Liberal Party with 13,6% of the popular vote and 45 seats and the Progressive People's Party with 12.3% of the popular vote and 42 seats, who would have slightly profited from a redistrivution and therefore tended to be somewhat in favour of it.

The German Conservative Party with 9.2% of the popular vote and 43 seats, was also vehemently opposed to a redistribution of electoral districts. So, assuming there would have been a redistribution of the electoral districts for the next federal elections and that the results would have continued to develop as they had done it might have been possible for the a SPD / FVP coalition to have a majority and block any bellicose budgets in the Reichstag.

 

[Zurirach Adankar]

True but, first, there is no war to discredit the Liberals and strengthen the conservatives, nor worsening conditions to grant the SDP greater legitimacy. Second, I have a feeling both the SDP and the Liberals would find common cause and would expend more energy trying to break the power of the Junkers vs pursuing a two front war (part of the reason behind a growing navy while limiting army growth; the Junkers preserving their powerbase). Pursuing war strengthens the Junkers.

If Austria-Hungary collapses, watch Germany deal with absorbing the Austrian possessions, turning it into a satellite, preventing further Russian incursion, etc.

German liberalism was divided into two fractions. National liberals and leftist liberals. National liberals wanted a powerful Germany with a free economy. More leftists liberals advocated for a more modern society and some reforms. Therefore leftist liberals could cooperate with a moderate SPD.

 

[Zurirach Adankar]

The SPD didn't really need worsening conditions to grow, it had been doing so since its' very founding all the way up to the German federal elections of 1912 with 34,8% of the popular vote and 110 out of 397 seats in the Reichstag and would have even gained significantly more if the electoral districs, that had remained unchanged since 1871, would have been redistributed and was therefore strongly in favour of a redistrubution. The second strongest party was the Catholic Centre Party with 16,4% of the popular vote and 91 seats in the Reichstag, which would have significantly lost seats as a result of a redistribution of electoral districts and was therefore vehemently opposed to it, followed by the 2 liberal parties, the National Liberal Party with 13,6% of the popular vote and 45 seats and the Progressive People's Party with 12.3% of the popular vote and 42 seats, who would have slightly profited from a redistrivution and therefore tended to be somewhat in favour of it, followed by the German Conservative Party with 9.2% of the popular vote and 43 seats, that also was opposed to a redistribution of electoral districts. So, assuming there would have been a redistribution of the electoral districts for the next federal elections and that the results would have continued to develop as they had done it might have been possible for the a SPD / FVP coalition to have a majority and block any bellicose budgets in the Reichstag.

If we have no WW1, and the SPD continues to grow a little bit, you need to make compromises with the SPD to pass new laws and budget in the Reichstag. Such compromises would further strengthen the role of the Reichstag. As a result you could see the SPD in government after few decades. (while the Kaiser doesn't need the Reichstag to appoint a chancellor and therefore also the government, a more powerful Reichstag would force him to include the strongest party in a government)

 

[VictorLaszlo]

German liberalism was divided into two fractions. National liberals and leftist liberals. National liberals wanted a powerful Germany with a free economy. More leftists liberals advocated for a more modern society and some reforms. Therefore leftist liberals could cooperate with a moderate SPD.

Indeed, the likely coalition governments would have been SPD / FVP + possibly Polish Party and Alsace-Lorraine Party on the centre-left side and Centre Party / NLP / Conservative Party on the centre-right side of the political spectrum. Even without the Great War we would still most likely have seen a split between the moderate majority SPD and the left wing / communist platform within the party with a KPD being born out of this. (It could only be named KPD ITTL since DKP is already the abbreviation for the Deutschkonservative Partei, i.e. the German Consevative Party)

 

[jerseyguy]

That precludes Annie Oakley shooting Wilhelm in 1890.

We could have Franz's driver avoid a wrong turn thus preventing the Archduke's assassination. Bosnia remains tenuous but not impossible. Russia modernizes reducing Germany's desire for war. With a stronger Russia, and Germany backing off their naval expansion, the UK shifts their alliance to Germany thus creating balance on the continent. Economic growth leads to increasing calls for democracy in Russia which leads to the Duma acquiring greater authority over time. The growth of Liberals in Germany likewise reduces militarism. Without WWI, Japan's economy doesn't fluctuate as badly preserving their democratic gains, further reinforced by America's prevention as THE economic power due to Entente loans. So the US remains isolationist, Japan focuses on what it holds (including not sullying itself attempting to use WWI to acquire greater de facto control over China), money wasted on war crippling the Great Powers is instead invested in their states and territories, and the Great Powers turn to prestige projects vs war to prove themselves. Likewise, the Ottomans discover oil which allows revenue to modernize and stabilize. The Saudis aren't supported by the British under Lawrence stopping the rise of Wahhabism...it just keeps going.

This ATL 20th century, while being less deadly overall, but will see much more low-level terrorism, proxy wars, and widespread political assassinations. The world wars of OTL were immensely bloody because they "tore off the band-aid" of several different ethnic fault lines/conflicts all at once.

This world would be better off in some ways, yet have more endemic, low-level conflict. Without the world wars, the violent strain of OTL marxism socialism probably wouldn't be able to take power in a large chunk of the planet; it would likely just be at the level of otl 1890s anarchist terrorism. The world would be more prosperous, and we'd still have the cultural heritage destroyed in Europe and China during the World Wars and Cultural Revolution, respectively.

Without the world wars, the geopolitical earthquakes and ethnic conflicts of OTL will occur as a series of smaller tremors that occur over a longer period. Conflicts like Romanians vs Hungarians in Transylvania or Poles vs. Ukrainians in Galicia would probably still happen, but as Northern Irish style Troubles, Catalonia-style separatist political drama, and ETA-style terrorism rather than open, ex-Yugoslav style warfare. A world with a smaller number of countries would be more peaceful, but politics in more places would resemble the messy compromises and dealmaking intrigue of places like OTL Belgium or Lebanon.

An alt-Sayyid Qutb may still arise in this alt 20th century, in the long run I think its impossible to avoid the emergence of something resembling OTL political Islam. Without a global vision of communist unity from OTL, the idea of united muslim world from Nigeria to the Raj resisting colonial rule may play a similar "internationalist" role in pushing for decolonization. The continued existence of an Ottoman Caliph who can declare "jihad" against one colonial power or another out of geopolitical self-interest could make Islamist more prevalent. OTL, Germany played a big role in resurrecting the concept of jihad from historical obscurity when it convinced the Ottomans to officially declare a "jihad" against the allies during WW1.

If tis world stays stable, Alexander Kojeve will probably become an earlier progenitor of Francis Fukuyama's End of History thesis. They both share a strong influence from Hegel, and Kojeve provides the foundation for a lot of Fukuyama's train of thought.