Not in that huge amount.You are aware that these funding has to be taken from elsewhere?
The research undertaken by healthy, undestroyed European economies in a peaceful 1914-50 (in Eastern Europe uninhibited by Communism, also) should correct the picture that much, that there will only be a small margin.
Infact i don't see a great gap with OTL in 20s and 30s technological development.
Well,maybe not a GREAT depression,but is probable that market speculation,without laws corrections can cause a serious economical crisis somewhere in 20s,30s or 40s.Also your example of 1950s America is already invalid in a world in which it perhaps doesn't suffer from the Great Depression in the first place.
As I wrote earlier, space research will be the main victim of this shift. But, come on, it is spectacular, but for the general technological level, it is comparatively fringey. Computing would still develop for a lot of other purposes and needs. And if we do not reach the moon, we wouldn't miss it. Come to think of it, we haven't been there since 1972!
I not agree.
The effects of space and military reserch in the cold war age were immense in each field,and have boost the technological development.
I see rather more productive, more liberal and more progressive European societies without the abdominations of National-Socialism, Fascism and Stalinism. Without the Iron Curtain. Without the bloodbaths of the trenches. Without laying waste to its cities. And without the destruction of Central European Jewish life. Also, the "age of extremes" delayed the globalisation and its positive effects by decades.
I see a more slow march of progressive ideas.
Not totalitarian or undemocratic societies,but politically moderates and socially a little more conservatives that in OTL.
Productive,for sure
If anything is an indicator have a look how Europe (as well as the USA) developed in 1900-1914 already. If that is not a good pace of technological progress, then what?
Infact,without WW-I ,WW-II and cold war i see a better world that in OTL,but only a bit less technologically developed in some fields.
For sure some minorities were sensitive for these issues.The idea that white men should rule non-whites just because they can was, philosophically, coming apart already.
Indians were already started to agitate for self-rule, and Britain was finding it morally impossible to stonewall. The concessions were already starting - on a very small scale, but the principle was becoming established. Among British intellectuals, rejection of imperialism was already becoming fairly common. (Something that really annoyed Kipling, who complained about it a lot in his writings.)
And this was before World War I.
When the U.S. annexed the Philippines in 1898, it was an extremely controversial action, and passed the Senate only on the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President.
OK, yes, the U.S. did in fact annex the Philippines, and McKinley was re-elected. But anti-colonialism is logically consistent with the American ideals of self-government and democracy. 1898 was a deviant episode for the U.S. (Not just the Philippines but also Hawaii.)
I don't have any direct information about French colonialism, but France even in the 1800s imagined its colonial subjects rising to peer status with the home population; note the French practice of granting representation in the legislature to colonies, which was contemplated even then. (Jules Verne made fun of it in The Barsac Expedition.)
I don't know about British Empire; is possible that India become a dominion or a set of kingdoms of Rajas under the British Emperor.
I don't see in anyway French or Italians leaves their colonies,or public opinion in Italy (unfortunately) protest because the Royal Air Force have gassed some Lybics or Somalis rebels.
Same,i have fear for France,Germany,Belgium,Portugal,Spain,and maybe Holland.
So in XX century colonials system for sure evolves,and some unproductive colonies can be in some form abandoned.
But colonial Empires ( at the most with other names) remain for very long.