The World Wars Paradigm

When do you think it's reasonable to have two World Wars similar to OTL?


  • Total voters
    88

Thande

Donor
That's fair enough, but I'm talking about the specific paradigm of the two world wars that are commonly called the World Wars. I'm not arguing about whether the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars etc. count as world wars.

I'm talking about whether technological advance necessitates a pattern seen in OTL, with a bloody stalemated industrialised war and a harsh peace, followed a generation later by a war of revenge.
 

Straha

Banned
I'd say its one of the more likely setups since human nature is what it is. The first of the massive industrialized wars can be explained as people not knowing the power of the new technolgoies and the second would be to settle the scores from the first.
 
If all of Europe is divided between several big powers who don't like each other, at leats one WW is inevitable (some people even say that the Seven-Year War counts as a WW), If the losers want revenge, because the winners impose a peace treaty too harsh, but don't completely destroy their ability to fight and win a war, a second WW is almost inevitable. If there are no nukes invented yet, even a third one could follow.
 
The 70 war was written in the peace treaty of 66 ( cannot remember how it was called out of hand )

WWI was written in the frankfuhrt treaty.

WWII was written in the versailles treaty ( which in turn stemmed from frankfuhrt + entente victory ).

So, if your PoD butterflies away the 66 and 70 wars, it's very difficult to get two WW similar to OTL. OTOH, if you still get the 66 and 70 war, it's very easy to justify two WW; they may differ from OTL or be similar, depending on the details.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Max Sinister said:
If all of Europe is divided between several big powers who don't like each other, at leats one WW is inevitable (some people even say that the Seven-Year War counts as a WW), If the losers want revenge, because the winners impose a peace treaty too harsh, but don't completely destroy their ability to fight and win a war, a second WW is almost inevitable. If there are no nukes invented yet, even a third one could follow.
Could one at a stretch say that there is a similar relationship between the Seven Years' War and the greater ARW, or perhaps the Napoleonic Wars, as there is between WW1 and WW2?
 
I don't think so - the 7yr war was a war between monarchs, the ARW and the French Revolution Wars were a battle between monarchies and republics, and later Napoleon took over and fought those who wanted to restore the old order. Two very different things. Noone in France wanted to fight to win America or India back.
 

Thande

Donor
Max Sinister said:
I don't think so - the 7yr war was a war between monarchs, the ARW and the French Revolution Wars were a battle between monarchies and republics, and later Napoleon took over and fought those who wanted to restore the old order. Two very different things. Noone in France wanted to fight to win America or India back.
Well in that respect, couldn't you say the same about Nazi Germany in relation to Wilhelmine Germany - I mean, it wasn't as though getting the pre-WW1 colonies back was one of their stated aims...
 
Germany wanted revenge. But who in France wanted revenge for some war a king had lost 30 years ago? It was more "fight the enemies of the revolution and the republic!".
 

Thande

Donor
Max Sinister said:
Germany wanted revenge. But who in France wanted revenge for some war a king had lost 30 years ago? It was more "fight the enemies of the revolution and the republic!".
OK, but what about the greater ARW as the WW2 analogue to the Seven Years' War? I think French support for the American rebels could certainly be seen as revenge for the defeats of the Seven Years' War...
 
Max Sinister said:
I don't think so - the 7yr war was a war between monarchs, the ARW and the French Revolution Wars were a battle between monarchies and republics, and later Napoleon took over and fought those who wanted to restore the old order. Two very different things. Noone in France wanted to fight to win America or India back.

The decisive factor in the RAW was a war between two monarchies definitely waged to avenges the loss in earlier wars. India was definitely a major theater in that war.

The revolutionary wars were started by an invasion of France which was to put back a monarchy on the throne of France but also to restaure Austria preheminance in europe, which was lost in previous wars. Uk intervened in part to maintain - and restaure - its domination against France.

Lots of links.
 

Redbeard

Banned
What exactly is a world war? If a number of global powers fight each other very briefly? Or what if some strong European powers fight each other fiercely and for long time, but not outside the European continent?

Basically I think "rerunning" history will never produce the same result - just imagine all humans after a certain date being concieved a splitssecond later or earlier - i.e. different spermcells winning the race and different humans populating the earth...:D

WWI started traditionally as yet another duel between powers that had duelled so many times before and in that context probably would have started some time or another anyway. But to have a WWII anything like the OTL one it need to drain also the victors pale. We have on this board have had many exampes of plausible PoDs giving an early and clear victory (one of my favourite sbeing the Russians taking Berlin in 1915) but anyway pushing the "inevitable" WWI by some years will alone be significant. If happening in 1905, not that unlikely, France will probably be run over before you can say "guano". If happening in 1923, Germany will probably see Russians in Berlin before Christmas. In each case the most significant PoD probably will be the absense of OTLs pacifism and modernism - the belief in God, King and Country (or whatever it is called around the world) is unshaken - la belle epoche goes on.

Already this will prevent a WWII type of conflict, as a Germany type of upstart probbaly never will be allowed past the reoccupation of the Rhineland and certainly never with Anschluss or Munich as Mussolini will not be allowed past Abyssinia or Japan with her China policy.

It will certainly not be a peaceful world, there will be plenty of wars, a lot of civil wars and revolutions too, but as long as they don't end in the total carnage of WWI the old regimes/Empires will stay in power. But WWI being fought in 2014 and with nuclear weapoins might have the OTL one appear merciful. Another TL might be one of the old Empires gradually dominating Europe and its overseas possession while USA simultaneously develops its strength. That is bound to end in a World War, but my guess is a mainly naval war and thus probably without the cruelty and carnage of the OTL world wars - unless of course it is fought with ICBMs and nukes...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Linked wars a generation or a little less apart are very common. Think of the first two Punic Wars (World Wars) or the Israeli war of independence ’48 and the Six Day war of ’67 (modern war). The Punic wars in particular have been taught with the parallel between the Two World Wars in mind. (The Romans imposed a very harsh peace on the Carthage w/o paying enough attention to keeping Carthage down just like the WWI Allies did on Germany, even though this laxity was for different reasons. Leading to a much worse Second Punic War –Hannibal)

That said of course the OP has his point, the 2 world wars and the Post-war aftermath lend themselves to a story arc and even a morality tale so that is why they will always continue to be popular regardless of their suitability to the POD in question.
 
It's really going to depend on POD & butterflies (to cop out entirely:p). Presuming a POD of the U.S. not entering WW1, to have Nazis in power & WW2 20-5yr later is improbable, & having somebody else (SU? Werhmacht?) start it is a stretch, IMO. It's intellectually lazy. (Yes, it's easier that way, which IMO is why it gets done...)
 

boredatwork

Banned
A single large modern industrial war in europe? sure.

Two, a generation apart, both featuring Germans & friends vs Anglo-Franks & friends?

No - that is just copying over OTL to play "here's how it should have gone if only so-and-so was as smart & clever & full of 20-20 hindsight as me".

Similar things that bug me are:

there will always be a Hitler,

we'll always have Dixie,

where there is life, there is stalinism,

etc.
 
Last edited:
A lot of timelines, even those with a fairly early POD, seem to have a paradigm similar to OTL - two devastating world wars separated by about a generation (~20-25 years).

Now, what do people think of this? Is it realistic, even inevitable? If a long period of peace between superpowers precedes a war using new weapons and methods of industrialised warfare, will it ultimately lead to a bitter slaughter, therefore a heavily penalised peace treaty upon the losers, and so a war of revenge a couple of decades later?

Or do you think it's a ridiculous projection of OTL on ATLs?

Discuss.
I think that sometime or antoher in any history, allainces will flip out and have an epic war. The loser will be treated horribly, due to human nature, and gat angry.
Now, I believe there are two options.
1.Hitler way. A despot tajkes power in the loser, and leades them to anogther war.
2. The Winners Way Two of the winners in the First War get fiesty and form sperate allainces and go to war again.
 

General Zod

Banned
I think that sometime or antoher in any history, allainces will flip out and have an epic war. The loser will be treated horribly, due to human nature, and gat angry.
Now, I believe there are two options.
1.Hitler way. A despot tajkes power in the loser, and leades them to anogther war.
2. The Winners Way Two of the winners in the First War get fiesty and form sperate allainces and go to war again.

Very true. And if we look a wider perspective, one might see that as soon as we see a group of competing, well-structured nation-states or multinational empires emerge from feudal chaos, we are going to see a pattern of major continental or world wars erupting between them on a 1-2 generation cycle, until the nukes makes it impossible.

Going back from WWII:

WWI

1853-1871 European Wars

French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars

Seven Years War

War of Austrian Succession

War of Spanish Succession

And so on.

I think that using the 1-2 generation cycle, either because one or more losers attempt a rematch, or because the victors fall to strife, is safe in any TL.
 
Last edited:
If there was an option to have the PoD in July 1914, I might have said yes. However, with a PoD in the 19th century, I do not think a WW1 equivalent to one in OTL was inevitable, and it is impossible to project a 2nd World War without knowing something about how the first one comes out. (I agree with those who say that the 1939-1945 European War pretty much a direct follow-on to WW1) This is not to say there might not have been two (or more) large wars involving major powers in the 1st half of the 20th century, but that wars based on the OTL alliances would not be predictable
 
Just to split hairs, I think that it would really depend on how the first war turned out. The problem with WWI was that it not only bashed up the European state system, it didn't really provide a terribly effective way to manage the new order afterwards. To give it credit, the LoN did do some good work in the 1920s, but it seemed to rely too much on...well, just hoping that everyone would continue to play along. When it turned out that every major power in Europe was unable or unwilling to enforce the status quo, the League failed and the war was on.

Oddly enough, I've noticed that in most published AH with a POD set in the 1914-1925 period, while peace may reign in the west for decades, it's a dead certainty that Germany and Russia will fight each other at least once before the year 2000. I'm still not entirely sure what that means.
 
That's a strange question. Personally, I think some form of the first world war is inevitable if a small number of states consolidate most of the world among themselves and need/want more expansion(What I see as the real reason for WW1). However, the sides of said conflict are ridiculously easy to change, as many IOTL were alliance of politics at the time(I.e. it made more sense for Germany to align with Russia to get Austria, but some people in power there preferred to side with a fellow german state in A-H). Also, a full fledged WW2 is very avoidable, though I think some sort of conflict with extreme racism and xenophobia is destined to come up at some point, it just might be a very large rebellion in one country that shows the rest of the world how bad this is, kind of like how the ACW showed the US just how bad racism/slavery could be(unfortunately, we screwed up the chance to eliminate it right after).

Of course, this is all my opinion, so there's a good chance I'm wrong.
 
Of course, this is all my opinion, so there's a good chance I'm wrong.

If only everyone on this board (including me sometimes) would be so humble. We are by definition projecting events which did not occur in OTL, and if one presumes there are an infinite number of timelines from the PoD, there is a 100% chance we are wrong in at least one of them - probably most of them.
 
Top