World Economy with no WW1

Assume that WW1 is averted - no assassination to provide a spark, and no other point of conflict rises to the level to ignite a war. There are smaller wars in the Balkans, but nothing major. None of the major powers collapse in the time frame we're discussing. The world, as a whole, stays mostly at peace through 1945.

Some of the economic costs:
- The powers involved spent roughly $200 billion (1913 USD) on the war.
- The GDP of every continental participant, except Italy, fell dramatically, by up to 40%.
- Total death toll is just under 20 million, out of ~1.8 billion (1913)
- The Russian Civil War adds another 8-10 million deaths, and even worse short-term economic disruption (industry down by ~80%, agriculture down by ~66%).

With all of that considered, and with all due consideration that economics is not exactly an easy science to predict... what might the economy from 1918-1945 look like in this scenario?
 
More consumers, more globalized trade, more development of the colonies. More of everything.

Some things are rather easy to predict - Iraqi oil fixing the Ottoman problems, A-H passing France in economic size, Russia eclipsing the UK and Germany, Germany keeping and increasing its technological lead becoming to the electronics industry what the USA was IOTL etc.
 
OTOH Sweden and Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Spain did rather well out of being neutral. As did the USA up to 1917. That will be butterflied away. And Irish Home Rule will play out completely differently. See my comments on Gonzo's timeline "Killing Home Rule with Kindness". Home Rule practically inevitable by 1914 but all could have gone (relatively) peacefully and constitutionally
 
Inevitable as you cannot possibly hold on to 35% of the world 's manufacturing in a single country. Could be less actual decline without the loss of the country's best and brightest young men not to mention the maimed, blinded and PTSD (shell shock) cases. Moseley, the younger Gladstone, the Grenfells, Neil Primrose, Edward Horner, Charles Lister, Raymond Asquith, the Charteris brothers , Vere Harmsworth , Thomas Kettle and many more besides
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Two things, that jump on my mind at first :
  1. Gold Standard
  2. Great Depression
Without the economical downcomings post-WW 1 as well as the Great Depression the Gold Standard would - at least for FAR LONGER STAY being the main currency/financial/economical policies determining factor.

Without the economical downcomings post-WW 1 as well as the Great Depression "new" economics, i.e. deficite spending, "social politics", and a damn awfull lot of further scientific economical "discoveries", discoveries and developments in economy, that seems "standard" to us today wont happen.


Second thing, that almost as fast comes to my mind :
The US would NOT become THE SUPER MAYOR CREDITOR of everybody it became after WW 1 IOTL.
It would, perhaps for a long(er) time stay the big international debtor it was IOTL before WW 1.
(Quite a history changer IMHO)
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Inevitable as you cannot possibly hold on to 35% of the world 's manufacturing in a single country.
Well, the share decline was inevitable, but the technological decline was a big problem. For example, the introduction of mass production techniques, which IOTL were firstly applied in munition manufacturing during the war, would be delayed significantly.

The underlying weaknesses in optical, machinery, organic chemical and electrical industries, which were reversed to some extent during the war IOTL, would remain unsolved, maybe for decades.

The lack of mass unemployment (and also the Great Depression) as a result of no ww1 would delay/butterfly away the rise of Keynes, and also delay the shift away from laissez-faire and towards interventionism.
 
I think you are being somewhat pessimistic in that part of the causes for British decline were deep seated and endemic but part were situational. During 1919-1933 Britain lacked serious external threats to spur military spending and state sponsored technological research. Not going to be true if Germany is not defeated, Austrian Empire has not collapsed and Russia not descended into chaos.Secondly a significant number of businesses were being run by men who had lost their sons in the war and had no strong imperative to reinvest in their businesses for the longer term. Which will also change if there is a next generation to pass on to. Finally, the post war shipping, aircraft and arms glut are avoided and these industries have more incentive to modernise as they actually have profits to safeguard and money to reinvest with short to medium term prospects of making more.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Secondly a significant number of businesses were being run by men who had lost their sons in the war and had no strong imperative to reinvest in their businesses for the longer term
This was partly because of a problem that Britain's economic structure was still dominated (far more than the US and Germany) by small family businesses and lacked large managerial corporates like US Steel, GE or Siemens.

Without the war, the OTL progress of aircraft development is out of question.

During 1919-1933 Britain lacked serious external threats to spur military spending and state sponsored technological research
Before 1914, Britain was heavily dependent on Germany for khaki dye for military uniforms, ball bearings, electrical equipment, advanced drugs and optical instruments. They could not figure out such problems until 1916-1917.
 
This was partly because of a problem that Britain's economic structure was still dominated (far more than the US and Germany) by small family businesses and lacked large managerial corporates like US Steel, GE or Siemens.
Um...ever heard of the mittelstand? Medium sized family owned companies in niche markets are far bigger contributors to the German economy than Siemens is.

Without the war, the OTL progress of aircraft development is out of question.
On what basis? Every major power had an air corps before 1914 and there is already a significant degree of development between the Wright brothers and Bleriot. And Sikorsky, Fred Handley Page and a chap whose name I forget at the Gotha works already planning big planes that can carry bombs and passengers .

Before 1914, Britain was heavily dependent on Germany for khaki dye for military uniforms, ball bearings, electrical equipment, advanced drugs and optical instruments. They could not figure out such problems until 1916-1917.
Fair point but assuming ICI and Wellcome have fairly similar trajectories to OTL the drugs and dyes will be an area where we catch up to a large extent and Pilkingtons could probably development the optics once the Admiralty or War Ministry start throwing some money in that direction.
 
Sorry! Parts of my comments on a quote from what you said appeared within the quote for some reason. I am not unsympathetic to your line of argument but I think that you are slightly too inclined to regard British decline as inevitable and practically unavoidable. There are significant inherent problems I agree but I don't think that things would have gone exactly the same way without WWI or had Britain been a neutral power. Look at long established businesses history. Guest Keen or Lloyds Bank are not the same businesses they were 100 years ago. They have significantly reinvented themselves .
 

Driftless

Donor
What's the trajectory for Russia with no WW1? There was plenty of unrest before the war and the war itself may have deferred further eruptions within the country.
 
Top