What if WW1 never happened??

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
This is quite ASB, since the two blocks had been preparing for war for ages, but if Franz Ferdinand isn't shot in Sarajevo, and somehow the Central Powers and the Entente avoid pissing eachother up, could we perhaps have some kind of international conference in the early 20s to ease tensions?? How would the Empires of the East survive without the World War? Could Russia, A-H and the Ottomans reform into more stable, perhaps at least when it comes to A-H; more federal state structures?? Would the Central Powers and the Entente be able to kkep their block intact, or would they shamble and new alliances being formed?? What would happen in Russia, would the Empire ever be able to reform, or would tensions increase until eventual collapse??
 
This is quite ASB, since the two blocks had been preparing for war for ages, but if Franz Ferdinand isn't shot in Sarajevo, and somehow the Central Powers and the Entente avoid pissing eachother up, could we perhaps have some kind of international conference in the early 20s to ease tensions?? How would the Empires of the East survive without the World War? Could Russia, A-H and the Ottomans reform into more stable, perhaps at least when it comes to A-H; more federal state structures?? Would the Central Powers and the Entente be able to kkep their block intact, or would they shamble and new alliances being formed?? What would happen in Russia, would the Empire ever be able to reform, or would tensions increase until eventual collapse??

Now, this is an enormously interesting question with wide implications. It seems likely to me that something, quit possibly involving Bulgaria, would have been cooked up in 1915, which is an interesting enough scenario in itself but not what you're talking about.

The one thing I can say for sure is that the Ottomans don't bally well need to make themselves more stable! They were doing perfectly fine until they decided to secure their place in history near the top of the "stupidest decisions of our century" list and joined the war. If they're on the winning side of a war or more likely just do the sensibly thing and keep out, the Ottomans remain a functioning, stable, centralised state. What threatens their stability, anyway? Without the war, political Arab nationalism is going to take decades... to be a semi-credible fringe movement, most likely. Even OTL, as I understand it, the revolt was more-or-less the Jazeera Arabs "revolting" and then simply helping Britain to invade the Mashriq. And with the Arabs content, the only people willing to use violence and radicalism against the Ottomans are the Dashnaks. Hopefully the Armenians can eventually re-establish contact with reality and become a party for the protection of their rights as a minority rather than a terrorist organisation planning to annex vast tracts of Muslim-majority land to a hypothetical Armenian statel, but even if they don't, without a war with Russia they can do Sweet Fanny Adams to seriously threaten the empire. The Ottomans, in fact, will have a bright century ahead, what with sitting on an absurd portion of the world's oil supply.
 
Germany slowly, very slowly shifting to constitutional monarchy with a chancellor elected by the Reichstag. Wilhelm II. is around until 1941, at least he's no warmonger, but he will resist to give up his right to appoint the chancellor.
Austria-Hungary falling apart within the next ten years after 1914, leading to some more smaller Balkans wars.
Russia goes through a cycle of revolutions and ends up as the dominant European power, either ruled by the bourgeois parties or the Mensheviks.
France loses power and influence when with the rise of Russia attention shifts east.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Now, this is an enormously interesting question with wide implications. It seems likely to me that something, quit possibly involving Bulgaria, would have been cooked up in 1915, which is an interesting enough scenario in itself but not what you're talking about.

The one thing I can say for sure is that the Ottomans don't bally well need to make themselves more stable! They were doing perfectly fine until they decided to secure their place in history near the top of the "stupidest decisions of our century" list and joined the war. If they're on the winning side of a war or more likely just do the sensibly thing and keep out, the Ottomans remain a functioning, stable, centralised state. What threatens their stability, anyway? Without the war, political Arab nationalism is going to take decades... to be a semi-credible fringe movement, most likely. Even OTL, as I understand it, the revolt was more-or-less the Jazeera Arabs "revolting" and then simply helping Britain to invade the Mashriq. And with the Arabs content, the only people willing to use violence and radicalism against the Ottomans are the Dashnaks. Hopefully the Armenians can eventually re-establish contact with reality and become a party for the protection of their rights as a minority rather than a terrorist organisation planning to annex vast tracts of Muslim-majority land to a hypothetical Armenian statel, but even if they don't, without a war with Russia they can do Sweet Fanny Adams to seriously threaten the empire. The Ottomans, in fact, will have a bright century ahead, what with sitting on an absurd portion of the world's oil supply.

Not even the Dashnaks had any considerate influence on Ottoman Armenians before the war, so I get you points about the Ottomans. Even better if the Young Turks fall, and some kind of parliamentarism is restored (although I doubt it would be very democratic, but democracy don't always bring stability).
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Germany slowly, very slowly shifting to constitutional monarchy with a chancellor elected by the Reichstag. Wilhelm II. is around until 1941, at least he's no warmonger, but he will resist to give up his right to appoint the chancellor.
Austria-Hungary falling apart within the next ten years after 1914, leading to some more smaller Balkans wars.
Russia goes through a cycle of revolutions and ends up as the dominant European power, either ruled by the bourgeois parties or the Mensheviks.
France loses power and influence when with the rise of Russia attention shifts east.


I get your points about Germany, reforms will happen, but it will be painfully slow.

I think the Habsburgs can be saved if they reform, they'd have to renegotiate the Ausgleich agreement and allow more autonomy to the regions, and probably offer the Magyars even more carrots (an own army, complete self determination and united with Vienna only through a loose personal union??). But the Habsburg Empire would be the most unstable part of Europe.

Russia, a hard one. Nicky II were quite unwilling to compromise (one step forward, three steps back). And his son wouldn't have a long lifespan, would probably die before Nicky himself, so some succession issues could appear (would Nicky's daughters be declared heirs, or would the throne pass to his cousins). Agreeing that the Empire would have hard times to survive.

France; might acctually turn radical somehow?? The bitterness over their weakening position and needs for revenge upon the Germans could lead to some self- destructive behaviour??
 
A World without War..

It is indeed one of the most interesting of questions. There were considerable socio-economic and political pressures building up within most of the major European powers though particularly so within the autarchies of Germany, Russia and Austra-Hungary.

One of the reasons for conflict was to seek to reduce these pressures via a victorious war which would stabilise and even strengthen the existing political and social infrastructures while, through the acquisition of territory, improving and strengthening the economic infrastructure.

It was the failure of war which acted as the catalyst for fundamental social change within the autarchies and even the victorious powers did not see the status quo ante bellum maintained.

So, while it could be argued that the absence of war would slow the pace of change, it would be wrong to say that these changes would not happen in any form.

Russia, indeed, had endured one revolutionary upheaval following the defeat of 1905 and the post-1905 settlement was coming under increasing pressure given the weakness of Nicholas II. One could imagine a situation in which social unrest leads to a coup against Nicholas and his replacement by his brother at the head of a more hardline Government which would try to keep a lid on the situation and would of course fail.

Within the autarchies, therefore, it's a choice between a relatively peaceful transition to a more democratic and representative form of Government or a more violent upheaval following a final period of hardline rule.

I think Austria-Hungary is likely to disintegrate, either by agreement or otherwise, and while this would lead to renewed conflict between the constituent elements, it's also possible to imagine relatively stable Slovene, Croat, Czech and Hungarian states breaking away from Vienna in the same way as the former Warsaw Pact states broke away relatively peacably from Moscow in 1989 in OTL.

Russia is, I suspect, more likely to go down the violent route and while I don't envisage a Bolshevik Revolution which was fostered by the particular circumstances of the war, a more or less left-wing Government could emerge from the wreckage of Tsarism. The record of revolutionary upheaval is mixed with America offering a more positive example than say France. I could well envisage a brief period of quasi-democratic rule before a more or less despotic Government emerges which could be nationalist but not communist.

Italy might well transition to something democratic without too much trouble but Germany is much harder to call. I suspect (though I have little evidence) that a stable transition is the most likely outcome though I'm far from certain.
It's certainly one to discuss further.

Britain would probably see the maintenance of the Conservative-Liberal duopoly though with Liberal and Labour converging. As for America, less of a global player but still growing in wealth and status.
 
It was WW1 which opened the cracks in the system of empires that dominated the world. If Europe somehow missed this cataclysm, the old imperial systems would survive much longer. Germany and Austria-Hungary would probably liberalize somewhat, while Russia might not.

However, the growing contradictions between heriditary monarchs, evolving parliaments, and the cost of maintaing overseas empires would place severe strains on the imperial systems. While wars involving direct conflict among the European powers in western and central europe might be avoided, I would suspect conflicts would continue along the margins of the empires. This, together with the continued rise of independence movements and the relative liberalism of the British, French, and American colonial empires would lead to these main western powers being increasingly bogged down in conflicts against national liberation movements wanting full independence rather than liberalized colonial rule. They might gradually abandon their imperial pretentions when the cost in money and manpower to maintain them became political issues back home. Quite likely this would lead to wars between the Japanese Empire and one or several Euro-American powers as Japan attempts to fill the vacuum. London. Paris, and Washington might well come to terms with independent - but allied and puppet - former colonies. Having them come under the control of Japan would be another thing entirely. The Ottoman Empire would still probably be reduced, but more gradually. It would not be unthinkable that a reduced Ottoman Empire - one which still held the oilfields of Mesopotamia either directly or thru local spin-off states - might still be an important player - especially of some sort of "Kemalist" reform still occured. Assuming Imperial Russia could survive the "Red" revolutions - which I think is very likely in a world without WW1 - it might be the dominant world empire by the mid-20th century - I tend to think a vast continental empire would be cheaper easier to maintain than a vast maritime empire such as Britain's. Without WW1 (and WW2) the USA would probably remain largely detatched from international relations, perfectly happy to lord over client states in Latin America and not be bothered at all with Europe. I would only see the Americans directly allied with a European power if the enemy was Japan in the Pacific.

There would probably never be a UN or organization like it. Rather, there might evolve a system of annual summits among the major powers (Russia, UK, France, Austro-Hungary, Italy, Germany, Japan, the USA, and perhaps one or two others) where border disputes could be mediated, military balances agreed to, and trade relationships etc. discussed. Sort of an intermittant Security Council without the rest of the UN to mess things up.

The USA and Russia might still become the "superpowers" in this world, both because of their large continental populations and the abundant resources in the contiguous areas they dominate. Presuming nuclear weapons do not exist (which I think is at least possible), the world power structure would not become nearly as bi-polar as in OTL, but the USA and Russia would have tremendous influence.

Terrorism would be the only means for the have-nots to get the attention of the empires. It would increase, and assuming technology in travel and communications developed roughly along the same lines as in OTL (allowing perhaps for somewhat slower development of some military technologies), national liberation movements would be able to strike anywhere, not just in their own homelands.
 
Last edited:
The one thing I can say for sure is that the Ottomans don't bally well need to make themselves more stable! They were doing perfectly fine until they decided to secure their place in history near the top of the "stupidest decisions of our century" list and joined the war. If they're on the winning side of a war or more likely just do the sensibly thing and keep out, the Ottomans remain a functioning, stable, centralised state. What threatens their stability, anyway? Without the war, political Arab nationalism is going to take decades... to be a semi-credible fringe movement, most likely. Even OTL, as I understand it, the revolt was more-or-less the Jazeera Arabs "revolting" and then simply helping Britain to invade the Mashriq. And with the Arabs content, the only people willing to use violence and radicalism against the Ottomans are the Dashnaks. Hopefully the Armenians can eventually re-establish contact with reality and become a party for the protection of their rights as a minority rather than a terrorist organisation planning to annex vast tracts of Muslim-majority land to a hypothetical Armenian statel, but even if they don't, without a war with Russia they can do Sweet Fanny Adams to seriously threaten the empire. The Ottomans, in fact, will have a bright century ahead, what with sitting on an absurd portion of the world's oil supply.

What you have mentioned about the Ottomans, and specifically the continued and stable existence of the Ottoman Empire is this: as no WW1, it retains control of Palestine: no British Mandate, probably less significant influx of Jews as a result, and thus no state of Israel further down the line.
 
What you have mentioned about the Ottomans, and specifically the continued and stable existence of the Ottoman Empire is this: as no WW1, it retains control of Palestine: no British Mandate, probably less significant influx of Jews as a result, and thus no state of Israel further down the line.

From reading Fromkin's 'Peace to End All Peace' I get the impression that the continued reforms and centralization by the Young Turks may have caused problems since power was predominately with the Turkic population and not the Arabic.

Without the Great War Austro-Hungary would have puttered along as it always has and slowly modernized. It wouldn't have fallen apart.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The Young Turks could potentially create many problems for the Ottoman Empire, but I have a feeling that there dictatorship would not survive for long without WW1.
 

King Thomas

Banned
I can see the Empires lasting 20 to 30 years longer. Perhaps with no Holocaust anti-semitism in Europe survives a bit longer too.
 
The UK is going to have some troubles too. Home Rule in Ireland had some troubles with the Ulsters saying over their dead bodies, and the rest of Ireland happy to oblige. The two political parties were lined up behind each faction (Conservatives with Ulster, Liberals with Southern Ireland). Then there are just the regular militants, labor riots, suffragettes, etc. IOTL when the Great War broke out all these problems were put on the back burner while they addressed the big issue, but without it you might see a civil war in Ireland and a lot of troubles in Great Britain.
 
Not even the Dashnaks had any considerate influence on Ottoman Armenians before the war, so I get you points about the Ottomans. Even better if the Young Turks fall, and some kind of parliamentarism is restored (although I doubt it would be very democratic, but democracy don't always bring stability).

That's certainly not true. The Dashnaks totally dominated every aspect of Armenian life by 1914. That will continue to be a very messy situation.

Without the war, the Young Turks wouldn't last. The Young Turks didn't get rid of parliamentarism, but the war led to autocratic rule. That would have been extremely hard to maintain without war. In fact, one of the reasons the Dashnaks were so "uppity" in this period is because the CUP was dependent upon them electorally. Over time, it became obvious their interests were someone incompatible, with one trying to strengthen the Ottoman Empire, and the other trying to destroy it and all.
 
From reading Fromkin's 'Peace to End All Peace' I get the impression that the continued reforms and centralization by the Young Turks may have caused problems since power was predominately with the Turkic population and not the Arabic.

Without the Great War Austro-Hungary would have puttered along as it always has and slowly modernized. It wouldn't have fallen apart.

Fromkin is a putz. The "Young Turks" were actually overwhelmingly not Turks. In fact, very few of them were. There were actually more Kurdish Young Turks than there were Turkish Young Turks. Balkan Muslims were predominant, and there was also a significant Arab element to the movement. The first generation of Young Turks actually contained only one actual ethnic Turk among them. Ataturk wasn't even a Turk.

To someone like Fromkin who has no idea what he's talking about, it's easy to misunderstand the Young Turk's desire for centralization as Turkish nationalism, because part of their program was to impose Ottoman Turkish as the language of state throughout the empire. There was no ethnic nationalist component to this, it was just the official language of the empire and they wanted to standardize.

I'm sounding harsh on Fromkin, but his work is uttely Western-focused - he displays very little knowledge of the Middle East from the Middle East's perpective, i.e he writes about the Ottomans based on what Europeans thought at the time, which is not really being a good historian.

Anyway, imposition of Turkish did create rancor in the Arab provinces, and would have led to problems if not moderated, which it would have been. The CUP in general was not popular in the Arab parts of the empire, which is another good reason why their tenure would likely have ended.
 
Much of the same ... A lot would depend on the sequence of events. For example the two alliances would go through major changes when (not if) Russia and especially AH disintegrate or revolutionize in Russia's case. Which comes first impacts the other states and their actions. Speaking of just those two nations ...

Say AH slow begins to fall apart, probably around the time Franz J. dies. First the Balkans begins to pull away, and without the long standing monarch even Hungary attempts to establish itself in her own right. Germany would attempt to support her weak ally but there is not much she would be able to do from the outside. No matter what I can't see Austria asking or letting German troops in. I can't see any type of full blown civil war as I think the groups and states within the AH empire would all declare independence like dominos leaving Vienna with few options militarily. She might place or send troops to some vital parts of the region such as Triest and the Adriatic coastal regions. Germany would likely attempt to keep the new Hungary & Czech states tied to her in different ways. Italy would probably applaud the fall of her Northern as much as the Entente powers licking her lips the whole time. I think Germany would be forced into a total reevaluations of her position after all this. She already suffered from paranoia of encirclement (rightly so if you ask me) and I think this would make such a fear so much that her high horse diplomacy would have to begin a change. Perhaps opening the door to some relation changes to other countries (namely the UK and Russia). Without the baggage of having to support the Hapsburgs foreign policies in the Balkans and the sudden total isolation ... real changes with other powers (excluding France) might be possible. The changes in AH might and probably would spill over into Russia and lead to her own downfall as well ... possibly eroding/destroying the alliance of Republican France and a new 'Red' Bolshie Russia. So much could happen ...


Now lets say Russia falls into Revolution first. Again I don't think any of her allies are going to be able to offer much resistance to the internal struggle or assistance to the Czar outside of some monetary assistance or sanctuary when he's forced (if able) to escape. You have to think that at the very least Finland and a large Polish state might be created out of the revolution. I don't think any of the other states would be able to achieve any kind of real independence. The alliance with France would be extremely strained and I believe would most likely be broken or at the very least 'interrupted' for years as the chaos settled in the East. Diplomatic ties with the UK would redouble their efforts and I'm betting a real sense of fear/worry is going to be sweeping the French press and people. Germany would be able to hold down Posen and her small parts with larger Polish populations. I'm sure she would have some cautious optimism at first, but I think the Russian revolution is only going to herald the twilight of the Hapsburg Empire. German optimism will quickly turn into concern as events unfold. Oddly I think the German and British positions will be pretty similar in the end.

Either way the two alliance system is going to fade away or be swept out by the massive changes in the geo-political system of Europe. Now to think on Germany, France, Turks, Italians, and the Brits ...
 
Top