How do you think the world would have evolved if there had not been the World Wars?

[bob bobato]

In the narrative of the 20th Century both of the World Wars are treated as galvanizing events that shifted modern societies. Because of WWI, the story goes, there was a radical change in art and belief in the West, and because of WWII, technology and social advancement took a massive leap. And because of both of these wars, the US became a world power. However, I find that this is much too simplistic. Many things associated with the wars could easily be traced to pre-war sources.

It is said that WWI spawned the hedonism and modernism of the 1920s, for example, when women shod their clunky dresses and were given increased rights, movies and radio communications boomed, people reveled in their new cars, and jazz and modern art ruled the day. However, women's fashion was already changing dramatically before the war, there was already a progress towards suffrage, radio, film, and automobile technology already existed or was already in development,and jazz and modern art also already existed.These changes are not superficial. When you're dressing yourself in radical clothing or listening to music derived from somewhere other than Europe or painting Cubist rather than Impressionist paintings, that says quite a bit about your basic attitude.

So what do you think about it? I've spoken mostly here about cultural changes in the West, but that's only because that's what I'm mostly familiar with. This question is not so much a "what if" as much of a question on the continuity between the 19th and 20th century and the effect the world wars had on societal development. My own opinion is that the world today probably wouldn't be too much different. There'd be roughly similar tech, roughly similar culture, and roughly similar social values. At the same time, there'd probably be much stronger strains of naivete and romanticism, much less of a feeling of the horrors of war and the evils of prejudice, more stylistic conservatism and less of a focus on the modern, more inequality and more elitism, Western countries would have a firmer hand in world affairs allowing no pesky Iran or North Koreas or Venezuelas to prosper, and there would be a bit more of a tolerance for such autocratic measures as press censorship. And especially, there would be a rock solid confidence in Progress, backed up by a 140-year Belle Epoque.

 

[Traitorfish]

The collapse of the United Kingdom into civil war over the Irish Home Rule issue would have been interesting to watch, particularly if the reds decided to roll up their sleeves and pile in (which, given that they actually did so in the historical Irish conflict, was far from impossible).

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, I have to go with Traitorfish - generalized claims about the Western psyche and stuff aren't really my bag, and I'd rather talk about specific situations.

 

[Tahuti]

It is also possible that without the experience of past world wars, we may have had worse wars instead.

 

[Lord Baal]

It is also possible that without the experience of past world wars, we may have had worse wars instead.

Always possible, yes.

I agree with both Traitorfish and Dachs. It's impossible to predict the magnitude of such changes upon the face of the globe, but we could possibly predict some small changes in the immediate aftermath. Of course, we'd also have to ask the question of why WWI doesn't break out. Is it because Russia backs down and allows Austria-Hungary its way with Serbia? Does Austria-Hungary back down? Does Franz Ferdinand survive the assassination attempt? All these questions need to be answered.

 

[Communisto]

Britain collapsing over Irish Home Rule would have been sooooooooo great.

 

[History_Buff]

It is also possible that without the experience of past world wars, we may have had worse wars instead.

Why would it be different? Assuming the old empires manage to keep on keeping on for a decade or two, a WWI in 1924 doesn't look that different from one in 1914.

There's the obvious question of nuclear weaponry of course, but there's two problems there. First, they likely wouldn't have been created if there wasn't a huge war afoot. Second, their threat doesn't become less real if we're at peace. The true nuclear holocaust idea came about when the world was nominally at peace. I don't see why it would be any different had say, WWII not occurred, but the bombs had still been invented.

I suppose you could also argue that a non-America might have invented the bomb and gone on a war of conquest, but I don't think anyone else's economy could have withstood such an effort. Without the War, Hitler's Germany certainly couldn't have.

 

[Dachs]

I suppose you could also argue that a non-America might have invented the bomb and gone on a war of conquest, but I don't think anyone else's economy could have withstood such an effort. Without the War, Hitler's Germany certainly couldn't have.

Hitler's Germany would not have existed without a First World War

 

[History_Buff]

Well that too. I just find it far too difficult to imagine a world without both wars, hence my no-WWII remark. Also, that probably should have been one paragraph.

 

[Tee Kay]

I think this calls for an althis timeline...

June 28, 1914
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Gavrilo Princip choked on a sandwich outside Moritz Schiller's cafe...

(to be continued)

 

[Dachs]

ideally needs to be further back for maximum plausibility

 

[Tee Kay]

September 12, 1683

Kara Mustafa Pasha marched into Vienna.

 

[Dachs]

lololol screw you

 

[History_Buff]

June 28, 1434

Chinese Fleet makes landfall in Genoa.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You're doing it wrong.
Like this:
Wilhelm II never fires Bismark, thus not botching his complex plans to maintain the peace of Europe. Germany renews it alliance with Russia, effectively keeping France isolated.

SRS Answer: Actually, the best way to do it IMO would be a post-archy-duke-shooting-the-ostrich peace conference. The problems of that time don't seem to be particularly daunting, just no one could be bothered to deal with them.

 

[Antilogic]

lololol screw you

You can't win, can ya?

You're doing it wrong.
Like this:
Wilhelm II never fires Bismark, thus not botching his complex plans to maintain the peace of Europe. Germany renews it alliance with Russia, effectively keeping France isolated.

SRS Answer: Actually, the best way to do it IMO would be a post-archy-duke-shooting-the-ostrich peace conference. The problems of that time don't seem to be particularly daunting, just no one could be bothered to deal with them.

What do you mean by SRS answer?

Assuming the Archduke doesn't get shot, or Franz Josef croaks early (he was pretty old, actually died in 1916 if I recall)--would Franz Ferdinand enact these political reforms? How would the political landscape change as a result of an Austrian home rule plan?

While I haven't thought too much about this (and it's too late for me to do a more serious timeline), I have to assume that focusing on the Balkans is missing the big picture. Given the political situation, militarization, etc., a major coalition war was bound to occur over some provocation. Whether it was longer, shorter, more or less brutal, etc. we cannot say. The possibility of WW2 occurring in a similar fashion to ours, obviously, is affected.

 

[Dachs]

Assuming the Archduke doesn't get shot, or Franz Josef croaks early (he was pretty old, actually died in 1916 if I recall)--would Franz Ferdinand enact these political reforms? How would the political landscape change as a result of an Austrian home rule plan?

no, he'd already turned away from popovici by '14 on the grounds that federalism on those lines was comically impractical (it was) and on the grounds that the croats stabbed german liberals in the back in 1905 (they had) - therefore trialism was also a dead letter

he probably would've ended up abrogating the ausgleich in 1917 when it came up for renegotiation and tried the military solution which, absent a world war and with germany on-side, the austrians would almost certainly win

 

[Lord Baal]

Actually, Germany, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary had successfully averted several war scares in the decade leading up to WWI. There's no particular reason they could not have done so again.

The war was only a result of contingent events, after all. If Franz Ferdinand doesn't get killed, there's no need for Austria-Hungary to slap down Serbia like it did, therefore no WWI. Britain, without a foreign policy problem serious enough to distract the populace and keep the government from collapsing, goes into at least a brief civil war over the Home Rule question, with France and Russia building their railways up to the German border and tweaking their militaries. It makes for an extremely interesting situation, but not necessarily another war.

EDIT: Double-Post. Agree with Dachs on that. I doubt see Russia getting involved in stirring up nationalistic troubles in Austria-Hungary in 1916-17.

 

[Antilogic]

no, he'd already turned away from popovici by '14 on the grounds that federalism on those lines was comically impractical (it was) and on the grounds that the croats stabbed german liberals in the back in 1905 (they had) - therefore trialism was also a dead letter

he probably would've ended up abrogating the ausgleich in 1917 when it came up for renegotiation and tried the military solution which, absent a world war and with germany on-side, the austrians would almost certainly win

Huh, missed that part of the story.

So this is basically an Austro-Hungarian civil war scenario in 1917, or a Hungarian war for independence based on your perspective?

 

[r16]

we marching in Vienna would probably result we being thrown out of Vienna within a year or two .

coming forward in time , it kinda becomes self fullfilling like Adm Fisher saying the war would begin immediately after the Germans completed the Kiel Canal and Churchill calling exercises even before the Archiduke was shot , because you know the canal was ready . Something some people of the time say immediately won the war for Britain , even when Germans had no plans of any kind for a war cruise anyhow .

war was inevitable , however sad or bad . İt is bad to talk of certainities and now that safe internet is coming to Turkey next week , ı can't be sure if access to CFC will be available or by the situation of world ı will even exist as a physical entity . Yet ı think it is safe to assume the same exact battles would have happened .