WI: No Second World War

Archibald

Banned
I tend to think the nuclear business may be different, too.

to make a long story short: there are three fissile materials on hand
- uranium 233
- uranium 235
- plutonium 239

The raw material as found in nature is thorium-232 and uranium-238.

Because of WWII and the Manhattan project, the uranium-238 was chosen to build Little Boy (U235) and Fat Man (P239) atomic bombs.

Now the third fissile, uranium 233 - it is obtained from thorium 232, but (AFAIK) no bombs can be build from that cycle. I saw on wikipedia that this one was discovered in 1946 only.

We can still dream that, had there been no WWII and no Manhattan project, the thorium cycle may have been chosen first... who knows.

As for the space race, no WWII already results in a different Kennedy hierarchy, perhaps with Joe president in 1952 or 1956. No JFK in 1960, no soviet threat - no impetus for Apollo... and God know what happens to Wernher von Braun.
On the other hand, no atomic bomb first means no ICBM, and that's not a bad thing, since they were all for performance and little for cost savings. Purpose-build civilian rockets can't be that bad.
 
erent Kennedy hierarchy, perhaps with Joe president in 1952 or 1956. No JFK in 1960, no soviet threat - no impetus for Apollo... and God know what happens to Wernher von Braun.

Kennedy doesn't matter to this. He did set the course for the OTL space program as it turned out to be, but that would be affected by butterflies anyway. Kennedy did not care about space to any special degree. The purpose of the Moon race was either to foster cooperation with the Soviets as part of a detente effort to calm the Cold War (possibly make it end, though that was always unlikely) or to defeat the Soviets and show American superiority and win a PR coup. That was it. The idea of John Kennedy as the pioneer who pushed for space because he knew how great it was is a myth born of not understanding what really happened (due to that information not being available until I think the 90s) and because of an over idealization of Kennedy as whatever we want him to be.

What matter s to space is nothing to do with the Kennedy family. It has to do with the circumstances of history and the dynamic internationally. With the atomic bomb nor the V2, there are no rockets built to carry payloads to enemy cities in case of a war. There is therefore no launching vehicle to lift a capsule or probe or other payload into orbit or space. There is also not a greater Soviet Union which has conquered Eastern Europe to reap the scientists and tribute of those regions and of Germany (nor does the US from the other side, for that matter).

Space exploration will be very dull if it is for exploration only. Most people will view it as a science fiction dream and a waste of money, I would dare say. What you would probably end up with is organizations like the NACA asking for money to look into rocketry and building rocketry, which may come and may not come, and likely never come in great amounts. The idea of putting a man in space would be out of bounds and a pipe dream for a very long time, most likely. The rocketry would also have to evolve and catch up to that.
The military would be another matter. Sending men into orbit or space for spy satellites and military bases would be much different because the military is always something the public is willing to spend on. At the same time, you have the problems of if the military develops rocketry, the capacity and sophistication of it, and when it develops the rocketry.

Then again, you could have something like a nation launch a space program, spurring other nations to commit to their own space program. I think it would have to come from a totalitarian regime. Democratic governments would be slower. Totalitarian regimes are willing to spend money on projects such as that just to show off glory and out of propaganda, and damned any criticism or expense. Maybe an alternate, non-expansionist Nazi Germany could do the trick.
 
The UK probably keeps Malta, a few more islands in the Caribbean, Singapore and Hong Kong. France keeps a few more places around the world as well including Algeria North of the Atlas mountains. Italy keeps Libya. Spain keeps parts of Morocco, depending on the POD you might be able to avoid Franco. Portugal keeps its at least one of its colonies in Africa as a overseas department with seats in the Portuguese parliament. The Dutch could keep Western New Guinea and its Caribbean possessions but I think thats a little less sure. Other than India and parts of the Middle East you see de-colonalisation delayed by anywhere from 5-15 years.

The UK is the first to get atomic bombs, alloy tubes were far far along the line and I'd put money on the first British bomb by late 40s early 50s. Additionally the UK is likely to keep far more of a presence at the technological forefront given that Churchill essentially gave away huge British innovations for very little during WW 2 (French orders of American aircraft for example). A certain jewish physicist stays in Germany. The UK, Germany, the USA and the Soviet Union compete in space. Oxford becomes the computing capital of the world not California. Without WW 2 you could see British industry modernise and become equivalent to the German one today (2 nd biggest in Europe after the German colossus probably).

On the down side social policies are probably far behind what they are today I doubt you'll council housing or the NHS and the class divide will be far more pronounced. You might see the UK government favouring the French attitude to immigration (absorption basically) rather multi-culturalism. I doubt theres any form of the EU or EEC. You could see the French and British entering a common market and working together to preserve the empires. Without the shock of WW 2 you're likely to see the UK deluding itself that its a superpower for longer into the 80s but on the other hand it will be the very very much more powerful than in OTL.

Germany once it gets past the inherently initially unstable nature of its constitution (and if it avoids the worst of militarism and revanchism) will boom. Big time. Your probably going to see a Germany with 120 million people, the 3 or 4 th biggest economy in the world and aligned strongly with central Europe (inc Poland) against the commies. Just think of all the industry that will spring up along the Rhine in the East (in what is now Poland) both of which contain massive amounts of coal.

The Soviet Union probably fights a war with Japan and wins leading to the threat of a communist China (which the UK and France will fight via proxy). You could see a slit China. I wonder if you might be able to see the Soviet Union reform as well. Without the massive psychological damage done during WW 2 they won't spend 20% of their GDP every year getting ready to fight Barbarossa Mrk II. You could very well see a Soviet Union that manages to stick it around till today being the number 2 economic power (esp without losing 20 million people).

Basically a multi-polar world with a larger population in Europe and Asia more technically advanced than we are. My guesses for the economic and military world powers:

Economic:
1. USA
2. Soviet Union
3. Germany
4. UK and Commonwealth
5. France
6. Japan
7. Poland/Italy
8. Brazil/what ever remains of China/India?

Military:
1. Soviet Union
2. UK and Commonwealth
3. United States
4. France
5. One of the Chinas?
6. Italy
7. Poland
8. India?

EDIT: No UN so you'll see the League of Nations being used as a tool for colonialist powers until the 70s or so when the influx of African and Asia nations will make it less Europe central.
 
Last edited:
-Electronics tech 10-15 years behind
-Rocketry tech 20-30 years behind
-Medical tech 5-10 years behind
-Computers about 10-15 years behind
-Agricultural tech changes somewhat
-USSR in far better shape technologically and industrially though not as united with at least two more purges under Stalin
-Overall economic recovery from Depression in late 1940s
-Germany and UK are tech leaders followed by USA, USSR, France
-Italy in much better shape though still a second-tier power
-India and Philippines independent in late 1940s
-Decolonization in mid-late 1970s
-No space race and possibly a world war to contain Communism in the 1950s
-China fragments into half a dozen nations, north and west likely Communist, the rest fascist style dictatorships
-Japan probably will become economic hub for East Asia and seek to use economics to dominate instead of outright conquest
-Jet engine development slowed but only somewhat in Europe, much slower to catch on in USA
-German likely to dominate continental Europe as trade/educational language
-No European Union until at least decolonization if at all
-Poland and Ukraine much more populated, likely more powerful economically
-Israel might not exist
-No "greatest generation" united by warfare means US industrial development is probably slower into 1950s
 
It is entirely possible, and likely in my opinion, that the entire decolonisation process is more competently managed. The British Labor Party was committed to significant Indian concessions in the 1930s

So was the Conservative Party. The Government of India Act 1935 promised responsible government for India. Churchill's isolation in the 1930s was in substantial part due to his reactionary position on India.
 
I agree with Fenrisulfr.

Without Germany to worry about, the USSR can devote a lot more time and attention to China. With the Japanese Border incidents as Cassus Belli the Soviets dont have to limit themselves to aiding and arming/training the Local Communists/Nationalists. They can go for direct conflict in Manchuria and further while linking up with the local Anti Japanese to drive them out.

We could see Manchurian and Korean SSR's in place with a moredecisive and speedy Revolution succeeding in China.

Depending on how relations develop we could even see a closer relationship between the USSR and PRC with a Soviet emulated Industrialisation and development programme in the PRC.

More unlikely but still an interesting outcome could be a direct Chinese SSR or Balkanised Sub states as multiple SSR's.
 
I tend to think the nuclear business may be different, too.

to make a long story short: there are three fissile materials on hand
- uranium 233
- uranium 235
- plutonium 239

The raw material as found in nature is thorium-232 and uranium-238.

Because of WWII and the Manhattan project, the uranium-238 was chosen to build Little Boy (U235) and Fat Man (P239) atomic bombs.

Now the third fissile, uranium 233 - it is obtained from thorium 232, but (AFAIK) no bombs can be build from that cycle. I saw on wikipedia that this one was discovered in 1946 only.

We can still dream that, had there been no WWII and no Manhattan project, the thorium cycle may have been chosen first... who knows.
.

The problem with thorium, is that it needs a fissile starter, either u235 or pu239, to generate the u233 needed to actually produce energy. So you still have to go the uranium route first.
 
I'm not quite sure about the "Imperialism never falling" part. Many European colonies were already seething with discontent. The Nazis found a number potential allies in the Middle East not because of some super-admiration for the Nazi regime itself, but because of the general dissatisfaction with British rule there. The Indian National Congress was already gaining popularity in the 1930's. European powers could conceivably keep a lid on third world independence aspirations for a few decades more, but sooner or later, something has got to give.

Yeah, really it was WWI that broke the Imperialist system. WWII just gave it the final push over the edge.
 
Then again, you could have something like a nation launch a space program, spurring other nations to commit to their own space program. I think it would have to come from a totalitarian regime. Democratic governments would be slower. Totalitarian regimes are willing to spend money on projects such as that just to show off glory and out of propaganda, and damned any criticism or expense. Maybe an alternate, non-expansionist Nazi Germany could do the trick.


th


I wouldn't worry about that - without 20+ millions dead and countless billions of dollars of infrastructure and industry destroyed, the Soviets should have plenty of cash to start a space race.
 
Do you think we could see a Red Alert scenario? Soviets becoming strong enough to eventually challenge rest of Europe?
 
No second world war as in no conflicts at all during the 1939-1945 period? Does the second sino-japanese war still happen in 1937? What about Nazi germany and anschluss? Do they still manage to annex Austria and Czechslovakia?

Unless if after the first world war, Germany is completely dismanteled as a nation and Japan changes it's imperialistic outlook completely, you would probably still end up with a major global conflict. It's more probable that you could avoid World War 2 if something happens in the past that prevents World War 1.
 
th


I wouldn't worry about that - without 20+ millions dead and countless billions of dollars of infrastructure and industry destroyed, the Soviets should have plenty of cash to start a space race.

The Soviets would also be not the masters of half of the world, conquerors of Eastern Europe which they could drain for funds, and would be missing droves of Nazi scientists. The latter problem would also affect the United States should it grow any interest in space, though there's probably a lot of domestic and potential domestic scientists.

I would also guess there is potential that rather than rockets and capsules, space planes could be the route that is gone.
 
Hollywood would not be filled with exiled germans, I think that would change the movie industry there quiet a bit, or not?
 
Do you think we could see a Red Alert scenario? Soviets becoming strong enough to eventually challenge rest of Europe?

Maybe...but Stalin was very paranoid and defensive-minded. It's entirely possible that without Hitler, Stalin would have remained tucked into the Soviet Union, constantly worried about having to face down an outside attack by the West.

...so kinda' like North Korea. Probably not nearly as horrible, though.
 
Maybe...but Stalin was very paranoid and defensive-minded. It's entirely possible that without Hitler, Stalin would have remained tucked into the Soviet Union, constantly worried about having to face down an outside attack by the West.

...so kinda' like North Korea. Probably not nearly as horrible, though.

I tend to have the view, supported only by emotional take and not by any evidence I know of, that Soviet Russia without WW2 would be isolated from the world and the black sheep of the global community, very introspective and introverted under the paranoia of the Stalinist leadership and technologically and infrastructurally handicapped.
 
I tend to have the view, supported only by emotional take and not by any evidence I know of, that Soviet Russia without WW2 would be isolated from the world and the black sheep of the global community, very introspective and introverted under the paranoia of the Stalinist leadership and technologically and infrastructurally handicapped.

Eh, I think there'd still be a lot of independence/national liberation movements that would align with the USSR, because as OTL it's the only anti-Western game in town.
 
Eh, I think there'd still be a lot of independence/national liberation movements that would align with the USSR, because as OTL it's the only anti-Western game in town.

With a more populated, non-decimated, non-controlled-by-US-or-USSR Western world to counter it.
 
Top