WI: No World Wars?

You are aware that these funding has to be taken from elsewhere?
Not in that huge amount.

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.


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.
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.

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.

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.)
For sure some minorities were sensitive for these issues.
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.
 
What? If it weren't for the massive social upheaval and the ingenuity of war, our technology would stunted.
If it weren't for the war, Igor Sikorsky would have had an airline going in 1914, which in addition to the trophy races would have ensured a steady rise in aeronautical science at the very least.
 
@louge60

I think we should agree to disagree, though not radically so.

Generally, I agree to expect a deceleration of the social changes which occured throughout the 20th century.

I also agree the de-colonialisation will take place in a slower way, and might not be as thorough as in OTL.

I also conceded from the start, that the technological development ITTL might be slower, though not markedly so (except for a handful of fields which might really suffer). If this timeline's 2013 has a general tech level worse than the late 90s of OTL, I would be very much surprised.

On the issue of the Great Depression, I do not expect a continued boom throughout the first half of the 20th century. Economical crises will occur, but the way the Great Depression evolved had a lot to do with the way the post-WW1-financial currents (reparations/US loans to Germany/repayment of Entente debt to the US) bound all major economies to each other. ITTL, crises will be rather in the sense of periods of stagnations, similar to the 1970s or the late 1870s/1880s in Europe.
 
What about population exchanges between Germany and (Congress) Poland?
Without the wars, why the hassle? Some "völkisch" elements in Prussia sponsored the idea, but never got really far with it.

Besides, there was a constant population move running throughout the 20th century, shifting East German and Polish people mainly into the industrial cities of Berlin and the Ruhr district, sometimes forced, sometimes voluntary.
 
@louge60

I think we should agree to disagree, though not radically so.

Generally, I agree to expect a deceleration of the social changes which occured throughout the 20th century.

I also agree the de-colonialisation will take place in a slower way, and might not be as thorough as in OTL.

I also conceded from the start, that the technological development ITTL might be slower, though not markedly so (except for a handful of fields which might really suffer). If this timeline's 2013 has a general tech level worse than the late 90s of OTL, I would be very much surprised.

On the issue of the Great Depression, I do not expect a continued boom throughout the first half of the 20th century. Economical crises will occur, but the way the Great Depression evolved had a lot to do with the way the post-WW1-financial currents (reparations/US loans to Germany/repayment of Entente debt to the US) bound all major economies to each other. ITTL, crises will be rather in the sense of periods of stagnations, similar to the 1970s or the late 1870s/1880s in Europe.

Hörnla,in a timeline like this the word key is "a little more slow in some fields ",not "stagnation" or "immobility",but only "a little more slow in some fields".
I think that our timeline is more dystopic of this ATL: The price to pay for avoid the greatest tragedies of XX century is a slight gap of 20 or 30 years in some technologies,and relatively less politically correct societies (and a different pop culture,of course).
I think that is a reasonable price.
 
Hörnla said:
That's why I don't say it doesn't happen, but it gets delayed. The total wars gave a whole new level of social acceptance to female work, they had to. And although avantgarde states introduced female suffrage before 1914, it is no coincidence that those reforms came directly after WW1 in many countries: USA, UK and Germany, in the case of France one war later.
I'll agree with that, to an extent. It's not like women did no work before 1914, just there were restrictions. Technology making it possible for women to do more jobs (like, frex, electric cars, or electric starters), & changes in the workplace making sheer strength less significant, play a part, too. Add better birth control a bit sooner...& how far from the OTL schedule are we? Maybe less than you think. (Also, maybe, more than I do.;))
Hörnla said:
The areas were you quote women as better suited than men are the same as OTL, so I do not see a reason why less challenged military apparata will allow, or even promote, the service of women more than in OTL.
Agreed.
Hörnla said:
I still regard the Holocaust as rather a worst-case-scenario for Jewish people.
Fair point. So what happens if it's more Armenian Genoicide? Or Rwanda? And can (does!) happen again & again? TTL, that might be so.
Hörnla said:
With a 99% chance, oblivion.
I don't think so. He was a persuasive speaker. Making him into van Meegeren (or Caffery:p) doesn't seem like a big stretch.
Delvestius said:
- Advanced Medicine
- Computers
- The Internet
- Rockets
- Space Exploration
- Synthetic Fibers
- Communications
- Nuclear Power
- Robotics

These are just a few of the many other things that would not have been invented or discovered if it were not for war.
Nonsense. Medicine doesn't stop developing in peacetime. Computers were useful for ballistics & statistics, war or no (& would've been used in peacetime crypto as machine cyphers became more common in any event). Rockets have been around since the 1800s, & Goddard was developing liquid fuelled versions from the '20s. Space exploration has been a dream since before WW1. Synthetic fibres predate WW2 (& the likes of Bakelite predate WW1: the idea was to replace ivory in pool balls, for a start). Nuclear power, & nuclear weapons, were already in the '30s credible as status symbols, so likely to happen anyhow.

I'm not seeing a connection between robotics & war, & I don't even know how "communications" depended on war in any form...:confused::confused:
lounge60 said:
No,because the technological development (thanks to the enormous fundings for research) caused by 40 years of cold war was simply amazing.
And if the money isn't going into Cold War research, it damn sure is going somewhere else: consumer products. (The talent, too.):rolleyes:
lounge60 said:
a totally different 1950s America,without the post war boom and the jobs in military-industrial complex
Yes, the recovery from the Depression is going to take longer. It's also very likely the fall isn't as hard nor the hole as deep.
lounge60 said:
Think only to the effects to aeronautics and space research.
And why do you think commercial aviation won't push for rapid changes, to gain advantage? Who says the 747 wouldn't have happened in the '50s? Or a jet airliner in the '40s?
lounge60 said:
Considers also the importance that the United States leader of free world had on politics and socials change in Europe.
Why do you presume the U.S. doesn't still become the leading economic power on the planet? (Second to capitalist China, perhaps?:cool:)
 
Last edited:
And why do you think commercial aviation won't push for rapid changes, to gain advantage? Who says the 747 wouldn't have happened in the '50s? Or a jet airliner in the '40s?
IMO this is actually quite likely, Sikorsky's Ilya Muromets' (yes, the name is Muromets, not Muromet) were due to start service in 1914, which would undoubtedly have started an airliner race.
 
Leaders on Africa after decolonization would be completely different. It could be for better or worse (I don't see the colonies much better after a longer period of imperialism but perhaps there would be more leaders educated on the metropoles). Overall, I'll expect a much more stable Africa if colonization goes peacefully. If the Europeans decide to hold into their colonies, Africans may have a harsher time without USSR/US backing and if they achieve independence their countries may be even get off worse than OTL. But I really expect that most European powers will let them go by the 70s or 80s. Algeria and Lybia will be a whole other matter (Namibia and South Africa too).

Racism will continue, sure, and will be harsher than OTL. But once mass communication sets in (and I'm thinking it would set roughly at the same time as OTL, maybe a bit earlier without economies/scientists getting screwed up) people will get closer together (remember, Vietnam was hugely protested as it was the first televised war). If free press is common, Jim Crow laws and mass discrimination will have opponents at the very least. And Europe was trending to a more progressive streak, so anti-semitism and racism will slowly dilute (just think of French and German urban culture). It won't be anything like OTL, though: A lot more of racist policies may survive but not beyond the 80s or 90s.

Politically, I'm interested in what countries may have sucessful *Communist revolutions (I'm thinking Spain and whichever countries come out from A-H, if they ever dissolve. China and other Asian states, perhaps). Fascism will not arise in my opinion: It would be replaced by a more vanilla authoritanism, and a strong goverment would be very much favored than OTL. Military rule may be less popular in Latin America without a huge comunist threat. Multipolarity will remain on the world: Germany and the UK will reign supreme, followed by France, Russia and the U.S. (which would be more isolationist). India may be even more powerful than OTL, and China may either get completely screwed or avoid warlordism. Overall, not a better or worse, but very different world: many people would still pass a bad time, but society may be more advanced in many senses.
 
[...]

I think that is a reasonable price.

I think I agree, though I am a bit more uncomfortale that I would be evicted from that timeline (probably any timeline with a pre-1944 POD). But as a fan of the fin-de-siecle-world, I would like it to develop in a less ruptured way.


[on Hitler]
I don't think so. He was a persuasive speaker. Making him into van Meegeren (or Caffery:p) doesn't seem like a big stretch.

He was, but it took a special set of circumstances to make even him realize that. Without the experiences he made in 1918/19, he wouldn't have imagined political activity for himself.

Why do you presume the U.S. doesn't still become the leading economic power on the planet? (Second to capitalist China, perhaps?:cool:)

It already was the leading economic power in 1914, and would most probably have continued to grow in importance. The climax in the mid-century wouldn't have been that impressive, but the 20th century would clearly have seen a marked rise in the importance of the USA. It is hardly avoidable IMHO.

China's fate depends on many factors. How that region fares.....is up to personal taste of a timeline-writer. :)
 
Personally I'd think tech would be farther ahead, by quite a bit. The idea that war drives progress it a little antiquated. As it was pointed out: all the resources, education, and talent placed and lost in the wars would be placed elsewhere. Talent is an important factor here. Without the wars, Europe would certainly be a tad more crowded. This creates some problems that have to be resolved, mainly feeding and housing. Likely leading to industrial farming being developed sooner. And just like that, another population boom happening earlier. The extra people, once again starting in Europe, has to go somewhere. Notably settler colonies, likely in Africa - once again noting how some colonies would definitively be more tied culturally and politically to their colonizer than in OTL. Heavier immigration into the Americas and Australia as well.

And you can take it from there and basically extend it into more talent, education, resources, and labor put into developing new consumer technology earlier. War would keep pace, as it there would be enough small wars to release the steam to prevent the world wars from happing. And because the world would still have its problems.

Nescessity is the mother of invention, sums up war technological progress.

You'd be surprised how much the other way it also goes. It is very much a chicken and the egg thing.

Invention is as much the mother of necessity, as necessity is the mother of invention. Curiosity is father to both.
 
War doesn't do good things for technology per-se, but it does get the big ones into production, and develops a lot of infrastructure (a number of modern airports got their start as wartime coastal patrol bases). It also pushes what might be called specific development, certain engine models for example get pushed faster in wartime than they ever would in peacetime.
 
Last edited:
Top