The real killing fields were in the Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe. First from Stalin manipulating famines in the 1930s, then Hitler invading, then Hitler and the Nazis shifting the Holocaust into high gear.
So, we could ask what advancements were being made in these communities which were halted by all these killings, particularly Jewish, and other communities as well. Sad topic, but important.
The same region was also hard-hit by WW1 as well.
No Bolsheviks and no mass-killings due to invasions also mean Russia is very different. So different it's hard to imagine. For example, does the less turbulent 1914-1945 period mean Russia produces more science and technology, or did the Bolsheviks actually do some good for Russia in this area? (Almost certainly no Bolsheviks mean Russia is a much more important player in the
21st Century however, the Soviet collapse absolutely wrecked research and education in Eastern Europe and the FSU.)
The Middle East is likely to be more populous and developed as well. Not only did WW1 wreck the Ottoman Empire as a political entity, it wrecked the region's economy. In Persia, as much as half of the population died in the famine caused by bad weather and the Anglo-Russian occupation of the country.
As for technology:
Without WW1, the British experiments in solar power continue in Egypt, and we possibly have solar power spreading across the sunnier parts of the world as a major energy source in the 1930s.
Without WW2, the British adopt jet engines for their airplanes earlier (probably around 1943 or so) and television develops earlier and faster.
Without WW2, the French remain leaders in aviation technology, ramjet technology will be developed further and the French will be competing with the Germans to be the second largest jet engine manufacturers and innovators after the British.
Just what I can think of off the top of my head.
fasquardon