The World Would be Better Off Today If . . .

[Snake Featherston]

None of the above. The best-case POD is Britain does not annex Egypt in 1881. As a result the Second Imperialism becomes a global China, with direct rule confined to parts of Asia but most influence economic. This renders the major economic growth that spurred the pre-WWI arms race a much slower process, meaning that the World Wars are measurably delayed and the impact of colonialism is merely bad, not catastrophic. As a result, spared the horrors of colonialism and with European wars much shorter and less brutal due to economic and logistical limits in the absence of the big direct-rule Empires, by 2011 the world is measurably better-off.

 

[Meadow]

While no Wilson doesn't mean no WWII, no Holocaust and no Cold War, it does mean the fucktarded chain of events that led to them loses a vital link.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Trying at any and all costs to avoid a war caused World War II. Are you not familiar with the term appeasement? If Hitler had been contested by France or Britain in 1934, 1935, 1936, or 1938, the war would have been over before it had the chance to escalate.

And if it leads to war at any of those points the USSR has sufficient power to bury the Reich and is the biggest winner of them all. In 1935-8 the Soviet military's equipment was far more numerous and higher quality than that available to the Reich. Soviet-wank is not ultimately any different than Nazi-wank save that Commissars do not shoot entire towns and call it good.

 

[Mikestone8]

And the ERE was at least as technologically advanced and probably more so as Western Europe up to the 13th century.

Indeed it was, but not dramatically ahead. Indeed, the same area had been a good deal further ahead of Western Europe in Hellenistic (ie Pre-Roman) times than in Medieval ones.

A surviving imperial Roman government was no particular stimulus to progress in the East, and there's no obvious reason why it should be any more of one in the west. Quite simply, until very recent times, technological advance was glacially slow under any and all regimes. It was glacially slow before the Roman Empire, under the Roman Empire, and after the Roman Empire. There is simply no reason to think that any likely change of political regime would have accelerated it in any noticeable way.

If anything, the lack of an over-arching imperial government in Western Europe was probably a benefit in the long run. If any European ruler wanted to outlaw ocean voyaging (as a Chinese Emperor did in the 15C) those wishing to engage in it need only move to another country down the road. If European rulers didn't always encourage innovation, at least they lacked effective power to prevent it.

 

[Elfwine]

Indeed it was, but not dramatically ahead. Indeed, the same area had been a good deal further ahead of Western Europe in Hellenistic (ie Pre-Roman) times than in Medieval ones.

A surviving imperial Roman government was no particular stimulus to progress in the East, and there's no obvious reason why it should be any more of one in the west. Quite simply, until very recent times, technological advance was glacially slow under any and all regimes. It was glacially slow before the Roman Empire, under the Roman Empire, and after the Roman Empire. There is simply no reason to think that any likely change of political regime would have accelerated it in any noticeable way.

If anything, the lack of an over-arching imperial government in Western Europe was probably a benefit in the long run. If any European ruler wanted to outlaw ocean voyaging (as a Chinese Emperor did in the 15C) those wishing to engage in it need only move to another country down the road. If European rulers didn't always encourage innovation, at least they lacked effective power to prevent it.

This *up to the last paragraph, which I am in partial disagreement with) is why I didn't vote for a surviving Roman Empire as an improvement. There are ways one could easily construct it surviving and thriving as leading to improvements (working on a timeline with Snake Featherston's help, currently in the sketching out ideas phase, where that happens - using Roman Empire to mean the so-called Byzantine state), but "Rome survives" does not mean "the world is better off". Something has to happen where Rome does better than the OTL replacements.

And the better here (my timeline) is not technological, which occurs at more or less the same pace as OTL.

So all in all, while I'm as big a fan of Rome's triumphs as anyone else, And also argue against both "Rome would mean greatness!" and "Rome would mean stagnation and tyranny!".

But since you're taking care of the former, that leaves the latter in need of rebuttal.

I have to second Snake here for the "The world would be better off today if..." though.

 

[Ke$ha IRL]

no option for "communism wins"? seriously?

 

[Anaxagoras]

no option for "communism wins"? seriously?

Seriously. Besides which, a "communism wins" TL would be ASB.

 

[A.M. Turtle]

no option for "communism wins"? seriously?

While it would not be the worst thing ever it certainly would not be the best option possible.

 

[Elfwine]

While it would not be the worst thing ever it certainly would not be the best option possible.

If we're seriously proposing things like Alexander the Sociopathic living to a ripe old age, Communism Triumphant (even if that means Soviet Conquest) has to be put as at least no worse.

 

[Rex Romanum]

Where is there the slightest evidence of that? It lasted until 1453 without producing anything noteworthy in the way of democracy, freedom and modernisation. Why should giving it another five centuries have been any more likely to do so?

Well, good sir, then I'm pretty sure you have missed some threads and discussions about successful Roman Empire, mainly here, here, here, and here.

And anyway, I think most of people here seems to have missed the best post in this thread, too:

I think we could agree that the US , Canada , and most of the European states turned out to be just fine in OTL ( or are about to ). These states have a high standard of living and the citizens enjoy many rights.
The same can be said about Australia , New Zeeland and Japan.
Other far-eastern states are also wealthy , though their citizens don't have so much rights as the Americans and Europeans in their own countries.

So , if we want to find a POD that makes the world better , we should find a POD that changes the future of Africa , the Arab world , Central Asia , and , if possible , of Russia , South America and China.

I voted for the survival of the British Empire ( not in the form of the 1770's , in the form of the 1930's ) because I think it would have been better for the African nations that were British colonies , and maybe for the Arab world .

And this post too:

That's a great point. We are really splitting hairs to try to tamper with the West when so much of the rest of the world needs so much more work!

Africa needs to evolve in a way that prevents the "national liberation movements" seizing power when the Europeans leave and starting the cycle of dictatorship and coup. POD could be that the Europeans aren't forced out of the continent, but rather the colonies develop their independence slowly in stages, like Canada did from 1840 to 1982.

The Muslim world needs a healy competition of ideas and a tradition of peaceful transfer of power rather than simply the choice of repressive moarchies, secular dictatorships, or Islamist theocracies. POD could be Arab independence well before the Cold War started (or after it ended) and issues of Soviet - American rivalry and the Arab-Israeli dispute complicated things.

Russia need to avoid communism, or have it fail and be discredited early on, before Stalin started killing millions. A slow transition from Tsarist autocracy to a constitutional parliamentary system would help. But it needs to start well before 1917!

China is the same as Russia: reforming the old system before it collapses and allows extremists to take over is key.

South America needs go for true democratic revolutions in the mould of the US and France, not shifting power from Spain and Portugal to local elites. OR stay with Spain and Portugal and have a POD where they reform democratically.

 

[Ke$ha IRL]

there's an option for the indefinite continuation of the british empire, an organization perfectly steeped in horrible crimes against humanity, but the success of a egalitarian political philosophy is just craa-aaa-zy! Couldn't put that on the list!

 

[Emperor of Halton]

1st British Empire or 2nd?

I think he means the 2nd one.

 

[PaganMonarchist]

there's an option for the indefinite continuation of the british empire, an organization perfectly steeped in horrible crimes against humanity, but the success of a egalitarian political philosophy is just craa-aaa-zy! Couldn't put that on the list!

Communism has murdered millions and never did anything to better the human race. Long live the Tsars!

 

[Elfwine]

Communism has murdered millions and never did anything to better the human race. Long live the Tsars!

Dear God, please tell me you're not serious.

The Tsars did more harm with less good. I'm not saying the Soviet Union was a great thing, but it did move things forward - both in terms of the nation and the lot of the people.

An Anti-Soviet Socialist Monarchist Byzantophile

 

[Nassirisimo]

Communism has murdered millions and never did anything to better the human race. Long live the Tsars!

Yaaaay, reactionairy repressive monarchys rule!!!
Seriously, why can't we just say long live the Mensheviks instead?

 

[Damu]

but the success of a egalitarian political philosophy is just craa-aaa-zy! Couldn't put that on the list!

There was never a clear point in time in which communism seemed to be winning. And even if it did, it would most likely have split up in dozens of competing factions fighting over all sorts of dubious ideological reasons like they did in OTL, only this time on a global scale.

 

[kasumigenx]

I like Monarchies actually but without Taxation..

 

[PaganMonarchist]

Dear God, please tell me you're not serious.

The Tsars did more harm with less good. I'm not saying the Soviet Union was a great thing, but it did move things forward - both in terms of the nation and the lot of the people.

An Anti-Soviet Socialist Monarchist Byzantophile

Considering that Russia only exists because of the Tsars, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

Btw, what option did you vote for?

 

[Elfwine]

Considering that Russia only exists because of the Tsars, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

That, with very few exceptions, they were awful, for both the state and the people.

Communism was an improvement over their misrule.

I'm not against monarchy, just incompetent autocracy (as distinct from competent autocracy).

Btw, what option did you vote for?

None of them. None of those in and of themselves would necessarily mean a better world than ours.

So I'm seconding this:

None of the above. The best-case POD is Britain does not annex Egypt in 1881. As a result the Second Imperialism becomes a global China, with direct rule confined to parts of Asia but most influence economic. This renders the major economic growth that spurred the pre-WWI arms race a much slower process, meaning that the World Wars are measurably delayed and the impact of colonialism is merely bad, not catastrophic. As a result, spared the horrors of colonialism and with European wars much shorter and less brutal due to economic and logistical limits in the absence of the big direct-rule Empires, by 2011 the world is measurably better-off.

I'd like to see a world where the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire continues to thrive and grow and think it could be a better world, but it existing isn't necessarily an improvement.

 

[Rex Romanum]

I like Taxation actually but without Representation..

I've corrected it for you.