WI No WW1?

This question has probably been asked many times, but I haven't seen it yet so I thought I might as well see what you all think.

What do you think would happen if WW1, as we know it, does not happen? Lets say that the Great War is delayed until the mid 30s. How would the nations of Europe and the world look like? How would the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire develop with an extra 20 years?
 
If all the structural factors leading to war didn't ignite one then the march toward a bi/tripolar world will proceed apace. The US will continue to march toward supremecy, Germany toward European dominace and Russia will outpace the other middle powers of France, AH and Britain. I think the march to superpower was inexorable, and at some point a war would have to be fought to enforce this point.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I don't really see this as a possibility, Nationalism was at a high mark and germany was itching for a fight to prove it was the new industrial king of europe. I see a war between Germany and Russia happeing quite a short time later, prolly 1918 or about that. Germany felt that eastern europe was its domain, and Russia stood in the way. Russia was also developinging at a quick rate, and its my personal opinion that had their industial revolution continued much of the anti czarism would be subdued.

If the war doesnt start cause of them look to russia's south, the rotting corpse of the ottomans (which laughably lasted longer than the russian empire) would be the cause. Russia wanted those regions and would get tehm. There would be war no matter what, the question is who, when, and why,
 

Deleted member 1487

Nope it was 1914 or nothing. The Germans pushed for war so hard because they thought it was the last time that they had a military advantage, any later and the Russians would have a developed rail system that would make the Schlieffen plan unworkable, and history showed us that by 1914 it was already too late.
 
This question has probably been asked many times, but I haven't seen it yet so I thought I might as well see what you all think.

What do you think would happen if WW1, as we know it, does not happen? Lets say that the Great War is delayed until the mid 30s. How would the nations of Europe and the world look like? How would the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire develop with an extra 20 years?

German Empire: The economic development would be a continuation of the last decades: Further industrialization, bigger cities, and less population in the rural areas. The colonies would see stronger settlement (especially Namibia) but would still be a drain of money. The agriculture will lag behind the other European countries because it was largely run by the nobles who didn't want to modernize.
This economic trend would of course affect the demographic and social constitution of Germany. As there would be more and more workers the SPD would gain more and more influence. As the foundation of the Weimarer Republic showed IOTL there was strong disagreement with the way the Empire was ruled (mostly against the three-class-election system in Prussia, and the power of the Emperor). Of course without WWI there wouldn't be a revolution, and the Emperor Willhelm would block any change. But as the power of the progressive forces will increase due to the demographic changes he will have to give in somewhere in the 20ies, and there will be a slow increase of the power of the Reichstag.
The military will also change a lot: A few years form 1914 the German offensive plans will become unworkable, as Russia modernizes. As a result Germany would be forced to adopt a defensive strategy.

Russian Empire: Russias social and economical Developement will be similar to Germany's, only a decade behind. Russia will rapidly industrialize and as a result get a bigger urban population. This will also cause attempts to democratize the government. As 1905 had shown the Zar was not as capable to supress those revolutions as he used to be, so another succesfull revoltion is possible. Of course such a revolution could result in a similar outcome as IOTL, but without the war this is unlikely. Rather there will be a Kerensky government which will pave the way for other reforms. An important question will be what to do with the various minorities in Russia.
Russias military strenght will rapidly increase. Due to better industry and railroad system it will be able to support bigger armies and move them faster around. This would result in a resumption of the Expansion in China, Persia and the Ottoman Empire. This again will lead - under the assumption that there is no revolution and Civil War - in the late twenties to a break up of the alliance with England and possibly France. With Germany looking less dangerous Russia will see no use of a continued alliance.
 
Well, I think that in Fashoda we were about to watch a World War with France and Britain on opposing sides (I don´t know what Germany would do if so happens). What I mean is that without the "shot that really changed the destiny of Europe", which took the life of the Austrian heir does seem reasonable to think that soon there would be a war. The only thing we have to resolve is where and with what opponents
 

MrP

Banned
I disagree with this idea that there was an inevitability to the war. Loads of the British Cabinet resigned over OTL, Kaiser Bill kept trying to find last minute excuses, &c, &c. The problem arises with military timetables and the escalation they enforce, specifically with Germany having one plan. As soon as Russia began her mobilisation, Germany had to mobilise so as to attack France so she would have enough men to deal with Russia after. A-H only ordered partial mobilisation in an effort to keep Russia quiet. But the Russian partial mobilisation knocked over the apple cart, and everything went mental. No Serbian crisis and there's every chance that a later crisis would see a cooler look at things.

For instance, the German General Staff might well revise its opinion of Russia's mobilisation capabilities and plan for a defensive two front war with long-term storage capabilities. So in the event of a future crisis, if the Kaiser asked for only partial mobilisation against Russia, it wouldn't mess up the current plans.

Anyway, if there is no war, you'll see a substantial reduction in the prevalence of the automobile compared to OTL. On the UK mainland, you won't see nationalisation of the railways, so they'll remain as numerous independent (and extremely profitable) companies.

Germany's going to be substantially richer and still a scientific colossus. Well, everyone will be richer, what with not spending gold on war, obviously, but G will have a larger chunk of international finance. Russia will probably have a signally larger fleet, which will be worrying the British. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see a Russo-Ottoman war at some point, even barring a major conflagration.

If the war doesnt start cause of them look to russia's south, the rotting corpse of the ottomans (which laughably lasted longer than the russian empire) would be the cause. Russia wanted those regions and would get tehm. There would be war no matter what, the question is who, when, and why,

AHP's going to kill you when he sees this. :p
 
No Poland
Trotsky not assassinated
No Yugoslavia
Slower Aeroplane development
No Kuwait
Damascus -Mecca Railroad completed
No Japanese South Seas
Berlin- Baghdad Railroad completed
No Independent Rhodesia.
 
The most intriguing possibility is the emergence of an alternative to Anglo-American democracy. People often forget that WWI didn't simply beget fascism; it also sounded the triumph of democracy over other forms of governance. Conservative German historians have long argued that the kaiserreich would've democratized but for WWI. I think it's more nuanced than that. That it had to change is undeniable, but that it would take on the Anglo-American or even French model is to assume too much given the sheer divulgance of traditions in Germany. I think we're morely likely to see some form of mixed governance in Germany, where Reichstag shares power with the bureaucracy-- a bureaucratic constitional government. Given where things were headed, I don't see the kaiser holding on to power for very long after 1920's, but I can easily see the military and the Prussian bureaucracy take the reins of power from the kaiser and forge on ahead with a more sophisticated mixture of Turkish generals and genuinely democratic legislature.
 
If the war doesnt start cause of them look to russia's south, the rotting corpse of the ottomans (which laughably lasted longer than the russian empire) would be the cause. Russia wanted those regions and would get tehm. There would be war no matter what, the question is who, when, and why,

Many always saying OE was a rotten corpse, sickman bla bla bla but I really doubt they can prove that argument at all.... :rolleyes: Really, how can you deemed a nation which managed to persist being invaded from two sides of its borders for 3 years as a "Sick man", "Rotten Corpse" ?

Now obviously you don't know anything about Ottoman Empire. Why bother forcing yourself to be seen so confident on the subject that most likely you are even reluctant to learn, if not to even think about ?

Seriously, why so many people out there are so reluctant to view Ottoman Empire empirically, and objectively ? I thought it has been some decades since we've already released our Ottoman history as an academic subject from the Euro-centric biased informations, no ? But people seems to be just don't aware of it, if not "willing to not aware". This is disturbingly amazing !!!
 
AHP's going to kill you when he sees this. :p

Actually, it was too stupid to even react to.

That the Ottoman Empire outlasted Russia despite 12 years of continuous war while Russia collapsed into revolution after just three should be a sign that there was something not so laughable about the Ottoman Empire.

By this period, relations between the Russians and Ottomans were actually pretty good, and I don't see that necessarily changing.

If the war hadn't intervened, it's hard to say what would happen to the empire. Probably there would have been a reaction against the Young Turk regime, which was alienating a lot of the population, but especially after the Balkan Wars, although poorer without the European territories, the empire was much more sound strategically without having to deal with the liability of a long an indefensible strip of Balkan territory.

Little known to most, the Powers had forced a "reform" on the empire just before the war that would have established two inspectorates in the East that had European directors and were to have equal representation between Christians and Muslims in government and legislature. As Christians only formed about 1/6 of the population of these places, this would have been bad news, and probably ended up with the destruction of the empire, as the first sign of conflict would have brought on Russian intervention - although in retrospect the Ottomans would have held their own militarily - there is only so much force that can be projected into Anatolia from the Caucasus due to logistical issues, and by 1915 or so the Ottoman army would have been fully restructured, and about three times as powerful as it was when it entered the war. And that's without consideration that the Baghdad RR would be completed, greatly magnifying the empire's powers of resistance. Also, the Hijaz RR would have been continued to Mecca and Jiddah, and a line in Yemen built, so Arabia would be a lot more solidly held.

From there things could get really messy. Any power in control of Eastern Anatolia can completely dominate the Middle East. Syria, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia are indefensible against a power there. This could lead to very serious problems within the Entente, although the German regime of the time was probably not capable of exploiting these differences.
 
Germany's economic reach into the OE with the Berlin-Baghdad railroad is going to introduce a whole new frontier for the Germans to compete against the Entente.

If the OE's army has been reconstructed along German lines, and the Young Turks are becoming unpopular, do you think that the OE's next regime comes from the ranks of the new Army? German trained and educated, with recently completed railways to effectively govern, and a unified military culture keeps the OE's multi-ethnic character from becoming a problem (Not Arabs, Turks or Armenians, they are soldiers first sort of thing). The new Army might not have been around long enough to serve as a good powerbase for an Army regime though.

I know that AHP thinks that Arab nationalism wasn't a real issue in the OE, but it might be a real issue in Egypt. The Egyptian regime is going to need to start looking for something to legitimate themselves as the 20th century continues. I don't think that "no WWI" means "no development of native nationalism in European colonial empires". Arab nationalism could look like a good way to slice off the oil-rich bits of the OE to the Brits as the century progresses.

The OE's railroads are going to make it able to access (and defend) the Arabian oil reserves as well. This could well serve as the flashpoint in an alt-Great War. Tensions build up between the (Army regime) OE and the (legitimacy-seeking, cynically pro-Arab Nationalism) British-backed regime in Egypt, with charges from the OE that the Egyptian regime is encouraging Arab nationalists. The Army regime needs a war to justify its continued refusal the re-implementation of (insert year) Constitution, while the Egyptians needs legitimacy (and the King has visions of Ali and a vague notion of 'Arab Empire'), the Brits want the oil. The Brits back the Egyptians support of an Arab revolt, the Germans back the OE.

Possible?
 
Top