What if World War 1 never happened?

This is just mainly a question that's been on my mind, and I thought I may as well ask here! Are there ways the Great War would've could've been avoided and how would this affect the world?
 
Good things

-less deaths for a start
-Hitler never comes to power

Bad things

-without Nazism, racism remains respectable for longer and colonies stay colonies for at least 20 years longer
-women don't have the chance to prove they can work as well as the men so it will be longer before they get the vote
-probably no nukes invented so another World War in the future is still possible
 
Good things:

- Europe will be more developed and economically in better condition.
- No Bolshevik Revolution - No Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
- No Holocaust.
- More stable Middle East.
- Generally Europe remain quiet peaceful altough there is probably some local wars.

Bad Things:

- Colonialism and imperialism will be around longer and possible decolonisation might be much bloodier.
- Racism and ultra-nationalism would remain acceptable when there is not Holocaust.
- Black Civil Right Movement in USA would happen much later when there is not WW2.
- Women rights wouldn't be so advanced as in OTL when they can't prove that they can do same what men have traditionally done.
- Military leaders think that it is possible combine new technology and tactics of Napoleonic Wars. So any war would be even worse.
- Without horrors of world wars people have much more glorified picture about warfare.
 

DougM

Donor
Yes it could have been avoided.
SORT OF.
WW1 was realy just another of the various little wars that we see in Europe for hundreds of years. The problem is the thing that turned it into a world war vs a “Balkans war of 1914”. Is a strange group of circumstances.
You had the stupid agreements between different counties. But the real reason this went out of control is that Germany France and England ALL either wanted Revenge or thought that if they did not fight the war very soon that they would find themselves in a position that they can’t win in.
Germany was convinced that the way Russia was building up its infrastructure it would soon get to the point that Russia would be able to mobilize fast. As fast (or at least close to as fast as Germany). This was a HUGE danger to Germany as it was surrounded with France on one side and Russia on the other. And Germany knew that if Germany was ever in a war with anyone then France would attack in hopes of nipping A-L back. The only way Germcould see it winning against a two front war is to be able to knock out France fast (as it had done before). But to do this they have to do it while Russia is mobilizing. And Germany was convinced that this was going to become impossible in only a few more years.
England meanwhile was concerned about the German Navy buildup. Today we are pretty sure that Germany was not going to be able to keep it up much longer but back then it looked to England (and realy they are the only ones who’s opinion mattered) that in a few years the German Navy would be able to give the Royal Navy a run for its money. So England was convinced that it was only getting weaker in relation to Germany so it was now or never.
France on the other hand was just more then willing to join ANYONE that was willing to go to war with Germany. As France wanted A) Revenge and B) it wanted A-L back.

So everyone (well France Germany and England) was convinced that they were getting weaker while the other side was getting stronger and that it was best to fight NOW while they were in as good a position as they ever would be again vs later when the power of balanced shifted to the other side. And without those three then you don’t have a world war you just have a Balkans war.

-If the asasination is avoided or delayed a couple years the war won’t happen (at least as we know it) as the “window” will have closed. But odds are AH finds a different excuse to go to war at some point as it WANTED one.
-If Germany is not paranoid that is HAS to fight France and Russia NOW while Russia is weak it could have been avoided
If England is not paranoid that it has to fight Germany NOW because it believes that the Germans are building up thier Navy to fast then they would have stayed out of the war.
If the US government had not let Big Buisness/big banking have its way, and if it had not allowed them to invest/loan (whatever you want to call it) so much to England and France then the pressure to go to war to protect its economic interests.
If Somehow the Propaganda/news out of Europe to the US is not controlled by England then the American People are not as inclined to accept the declaration of war and thus the US may stay out of it.

So in order to avoid ANY war you need to delay or eliminate the Flashpoint (and avoid them for the next few years)
But to avoid the dog pile that was WW1 you just need to have Germany and England not be so paranoid that they rush into the war because they are scared of the future.

So if it is avoided now I think we see a continuation of the small local wars that have been a feature of history for hundreds of years.
I also think that you see England and the rest of Europe staying in a position of dominance for a few decades more. As the cost of the war in both money and human lives hurried the decline a lot.

The other change you will see is that without the World War (part 1 and 2) you will I believe see a lot more wars in general, I think that the horrors of the two world wars (and of course the powerful weapons development from them) was such that for a long time people and countries tried to avoid war. But if you don’t have WW1 this distaste of war doesn’t happen. So I think you will see a lot more little wars.
 
Last edited:
This is really a huge topic.

The July Crisis of 1914 could very much have been avoided, though it should be noted that it was the only the latest of several similar arguments and its more plausible to have a great war start earlier.

One thing I think historians miss is that it was Russa (and to some extent Turkey), not Germany or Austria-Hungary that was the powder keg or bull in the China shop. The Russian government was both most likely to fall to revolution, given that IOTL it was the first great power to fall to revolution and no one else had gone through anything like 1905, and embarking on a massive military build-up that would have by far made them the biggest military power in Europe, including a large and modern navy. Part of the problem with the July crisis was the (understandable) thought held by German military and political leaders that if they didn't go to war now, Russia would get too strong if they went to war later.

If something like the Russian revolution still happens, that has a big effect on the balance of power in Europe and what other countries do. It would be like the French revolution in that way. If the Tsars hold on and Russia becomes the biggest military power in Europe, they could start a war of conquest but probably what happens is the diplomatic alignments change to reflect the new balance of power, my guess is the British would switch sides.

Avoiding World War I itself is not difficult and would have huge repercussions. Having no general and really destructive wars in Europe in the twentieth century is not impossible, but really hard.
 

DougM

Donor
I assume that Russia and AH are both still going to be interested ina power play in the Balkans.
WW1 was basically a squabble between AH and Russia as to who would be most influential/powerful in the Balkans.
And under normal circumstances that would have played out as a typical little Eurpean war that happened a lot back in the day.
Unfortunately France was still POed a boy AL. Germany was scared that Russia was modernizeing and it was stuck between Russia and France and would end up in a two front war. And England was worried that someone would build a bigger navy then them.

Add to this the stupid way that England treated other countries and it is pretty much England’s own fault that other countries wanted a big navy. If England uses a navy to dominate you or your neighbors it may be logical to want your own navy to prevent that. Add in that the technology of the time results in the Dreadnaught /big gun battle ship. Thus pretty much starting the navy battleship race over with everyone being at 0 and you create an opritunity for other navies to catch up to England. And being as England was paranoid about that and you have a very bad combination.

WW1 is like a modern passenger jet crash. Seldom does it involve only one thing going wrong to get the crash it needs a number of things all happening at the same time. Prevent one of those things and no crash. WW1 was the same way. Many things contributed to it. Ranging from international politics to internal politics of the major powers to technology. It takes ALL of this going sideways to get WW1.
Frankly if someone posted a thread with the build up /reasons for WW1 (assuming it didn’t happen) most people would not believe it and would call it a wank.

And when you consider that basically those powers were all but destroying themselves in the bargain and it looks really unlikely to have happened. Don’t get me wrong a war in Europe was inevitable and it was going to happen soon but to have it ALL go up at the same time? It is like those old bar room brawls you see on TV when two people get in a fight and then everyone joins in. Usually that doesn’t realy happen but in WW1 it did.
 
Some people Argue might have happen later with a super Russia scaring the british. Or might not happen as all nation Will get bogled down internal issue...So maybe?
 
Good things:

- Europe will be more developed and economically in better condition.
- No Bolshevik Revolution - No Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
- No Holocaust.
- More stable Middle East.
- Generally Europe remain quiet peaceful altough there is probably some local wars.

Bad Things:

- Colonialism and imperialism will be around longer and possible decolonisation might be much bloodier.
- Racism and ultra-nationalism would remain acceptable when there is not Holocaust.
- Black Civil Right Movement in USA would happen much later when there is not WW2.
- Women rights wouldn't be so advanced as in OTL when they can't prove that they can do same what men have traditionally done.
- Military leaders think that it is possible combine new technology and tactics of Napoleonic Wars. So any war would be even worse.
- Without horrors of world wars people have much more glorified picture about warfare.
Regarding the.bad things
1) decolonisation could also be much more managed and orderly
2) racism and ultra nationalism are arguably acceptable right now, despite some legal restrictions, and usually wars increase nationalist sentiment
3) that's likely, there would also be a much diminished great migration of African Americans, diminishing their overall importance, but maybe we would still have some black majority states. Earlier adoption of TV could have an impact on the issue tho
4) even before ww1 women suffrage was already in place in some European countries and us states, it would have been implemented in most states by the 1950, even earlier compared to otl in countries that were dominated by authoritarian regimes
5) most modern infantry tactics were already known in 1914 and even used in some instances, massive reforms are always difficult, especially in a field like the military.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Even if World War I never happens, nuclear weapons will still be developed eventually. Sooner or later all of the Great Powers of Europe would have them. Without the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would be no nuclear taboo either. The concept of M.A.D. won't exist. So if a war in Europe does break out some time, nukes would get used by both sides on the first day.
 
Even if World War I never happens, nuclear weapons will still be developed eventually.
How and why? i see the theory and science is there..but the push? USA spend a good part their GDP under a war to get it, and other needs espionage and cooperation to get it too. Here there not might be that push, a manhattan project might take like a decade rather 4 years, still depends....why some magic weapon rather invest in navy or army?
 
How and why? i see the theory and science is there..but the push? USA spend a good part their GDP under a war to get it, and other needs espionage and cooperation to get it too. Here there not might be that push, a manhattan project might take like a decade rather 4 years, still depends....why some magic weapon rather invest in navy or army?

There was already much of knowledge about radiation and structure of atoms. So there will be inevitably going even further and finally someone will understand that nuclear bomb would be possible. Of course development would happen much later but it would still happen. I just can't see that nukes never would been invented.
 
There's another easy-to-describe, hard-to-accomplish way to avert any kind of general European war: change the alliances so that one side is unquestionably stronger.

With a pre-1900 POD this is simple: find a way for Germany to choose Russia instead of Austria-Hungary and you're set (maintaining the Three Emperor's League is even better, but requires multiple PoDs). Austria-Hungary doesn't want any part of fighting the Russo-German Alliance because they're so easily invaded, and even if their allies eventually win, the Hapsburgs lose. Italy isn't going to get involved because there's nothing to gain - the Germans can offer bits of France (or Austria-Hungary if the Hapsburgs get dragged in anyway), and that's a far better deal than a few colonies.

An alliance of France, Britain, Japan, and the Ottomans is possible, but that leaves Germany with only one front, and Russia with only two - easily handled for both nations. Adding Austria adds another front for both, but only temporarily, and likely brings Italy into the Russo-German side.


Post-1900, the easiest way is for somebody to smash the Kaiser in the face with a clue-by-four so he doesn't openly challenge the Royal Navy. Minus that provocation, the British interests are twofold: avoid a continental hegemon (Germany + Austria-Hungary + Italy vs. France + Russia looks closer to even the longer Russia has to modernize and reform) and protect their colonial interests, which makes the Russians more of a concern than the Germans.

With Britain as a committed neutral (so long as nobody wins too hard) there might be a European war, but the Triple Alliance is going to win fast enough that it'd be another normal European war, rather than a massive World War.


A trickier way is for the Ottomans to decisively win the Balkan Wars - if they're strong enough to defend their interests, then the most volatile flashpoint is neutralized. The alliance system still offers the possibility of eruption, but giving Austria-Hungary and Russia a mutual enemy means they're less likely to poke each other and start the ball rolling.
 
This is really a huge topic.

The July Crisis of 1914 could very much have been avoided, though it should be noted that it was the only the latest of several similar arguments and its more plausible to have a great war start earlier.

One thing I think historians miss is that it was Russa (and to some extent Turkey), not Germany or Austria-Hungary that was the powder keg or bull in the China shop. The Russian government was both most likely to fall to revolution, given that IOTL it was the first great power to fall to revolution and no one else had gone through anything like 1905, and embarking on a massive military build-up that would have by far made them the biggest military power in Europe, including a large and modern navy. Part of the problem with the July crisis was the (understandable) thought held by German military and political leaders that if they didn't go to war now, Russia would get too strong if they went to war later.

If something like the Russian revolution still happens, that has a big effect on the balance of power in Europe and what other countries do. It would be like the French revolution in that way. If the Tsars hold on and Russia becomes the biggest military power in Europe, they could start a war of conquest but probably what happens is the diplomatic alignments change to reflect the new balance of power, my guess is the British would switch sides.

Avoiding World War I itself is not difficult and would have huge repercussions. Having no general and really destructive wars in Europe in the twentieth century is not impossible, but really hard.
I could see Russia having many 1905 like revolutions for a decade or two which they put down brutally or by concessions they back track on after things chill out. This eventually leads to a very large revolution by the 30s or 40s which is a socialist and communist leaning one. Russia will industrialized by 20s but probably be full of sweatshop like factories and have a very large poor urban class. Most industries are either foreign controlled or run by incompetent aristocrats. Germany could chip away at Russia during this revolution and create a Baltic and Polish puppet kingdom. Japan maybe takes some of the Far East of Russia. Also Ethnic Russians will also be much much larger in numbers. Central Asia could be majority Russian so could more parts of Ukraine. This would probably help them keep more land when things go bad. A tsar Russia will be a paper tiger that is vulnerable to unrest. It will have a large industry and a large military but the military will probably be poorly trained, corrupt, and not organized well. Much of the military might have to stay at home to keep order within Russia. Furthermore, Jews would be fleeing the country in larger and larger numbers.
 
Russia probably ends up developing like a latin american country. perhaps we have a *Russian civil war like Mexico's own OTL revolution in that time period, but with a government that's vaguely populist-nationalsit like OTL's PRI coming out of it instead of bolsheviks

Say a *Russian Reovlution in 1917 ANYWAYS
 
If the major European nations were kept from each other’s throats, there was still a major incident.

Would the Armenian Genocide put the ‘Christian European powers’ united v the Islamic Ottomans in another ‘crusade’ / world war on religious grounds rather that political differences?

Also if WW1 were avoided would the great flu pandemic have occurred?
 
If the major European nations were kept from each other’s throats, there was still a major incident.

Would the Armenian Genocide put the ‘Christian European powers’ united v the Islamic Ottomans in another ‘crusade’ / world war on religious grounds rather that political differences?

Also if WW1 were avoided would the great flu pandemic have occurred?

1. At least it would give to Russia excuse go against Ottomans if other don't.
2. Probably not. It was introduced by American soldiers and one of major reason for its high mortality was that general health and immune system was quiet poor due the war.
 
The biggest impact is multiple great powers into the whole 1900s.
Industrial power: Army power:
1- US/Germany 1. Germany
2. Russia/Japan 2. Japan
3. Britain 3. Russia
4. France. 4. France
5. Italy. 5. Britian
6. Italy
7. US
Navy Power: Trade & Resources:
1. Britain 1. Britain
2. Japan 2. US
3. US 3. Russia
4. France 4. France
5. Germany 5. Italy
6. Italy 6. Germany
7. Russia 7. Japan
More industrial labor and production would stay in western countries due to less countries existing and empires controlling large parts of the world.

A lot more Europeans and Asians settling in Africa. Some places in Africa even get European majority. This includes Libya and Namibia being very likely. South Africa, Algeria, and Rhodesia get much larger European populations. Kenya, Tanzania, Italian Eritrea, and Italian Somalia could gain European settlers.

China is divided up into a few nations while other parts are under control of one of the main powers.

US is one of the top industrial powers but besides a large defensive navy the have a small military. The United States mostly sell manufactured goods to everyone but stays mostly to the Americas in regard to politics and military. The US has a much more noticeable presence in Latin America. The US does a noticeable presence in the Pacific and Far East too.

Racism and race relations progress differently and at a different rate. Racism will be around a bit longer but will still slowly lessen like otl. Segregation and other racial laws will end in most places between 60s and early 90s but you would not see affirmative action types laws.

Europe experience large emigration due to overpopulation and discrimination in some places like pogroms in Russia. This probably gives Americas, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand more European immigration. The amount varying depending on immigration laws.

Less social security nets but lower global average poverty. The worst places on Earth are like Brazilian or Latin American slums but nothing is as bad like OTL starving people and famines in Africa. Africa looks more like Latin America in regards to poverty and crime.

A lot less languages but multiple international languages spoken. Also a lot ethnicities that currently exist probably don’t in this world due to population differences demographics. A lot of African groups could be different or gone. If Germany got parts of Austrian empire they could turn Czechs areas majority. The Austrians maybe could do that by themselves if the got enough Germans to move there. Russians could also maybe overrun a group with birth rates still high and not having a bunch of Russians die
 
Top