Long term affects of no WWI/WWI analogue

[IDKusername]

Maybe if you combine this with a less militarized Europe (more specifically Germany) and a greater desire for co operation it could be very interesting. Maybe The British and French grant Germany several colonies to satisfy its expansionism.
I also reckon that the major European powers would still start to pick the Ottomans apart, and with stronger European powers the Turkish Nationalist movement is put down. probably by the 40's the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East has still been carved up but with Russia as a major player.
In the long run the lack of a war leads the European powers to concentrate on Internal issues and expansionism outside of Europe we would probably see a world divided up between European powers but with large nationalist tensions and perhaps looser colonial rule. The US would probably keep itself to itself and there would MUCH less globalization. Probably a more racist and sexist society as well.
Life would be great if you were a Western European but pretty shitty if not.

 

[Sideways]

Austria-Hungary - The problem with just taking it over is that Hungary had a level of military parity with Austria, and in fact in some ways may have been able to exceed it. The Empire was already unstable in 1914, it's just that the Empire played different factions to its advantage.

Russia - Again, the 1905 revolution had happened already,and things were unstable. Without a general European war, a revolution is still possible.

Germany - I believe the SDP were starting to do well in elections, the state had a strong motivation to fight some kind of war. It may end up getting involved in Russia against Communism.

Communism - has several opportunities to advance, I think. Arguably the war meant the Russian revolution was badly timed and premature. It is possible that the revolution in Russia would happen as Austria collapsed and with a Germany where socialists had increasing power.

Fascism - Proto-fascists and eugenicists already existed. It could well grow in a different way. maybe some kind of neo-Boulangism in France.

 

[Snaut]

The Ottoman empire actually has a pretty good chance of survival. Their loses in the Balkan wars will actually be a huge long-term improvement as it removes the vast majority of the minorities that caused such headaches during the nineteenth century. As to the Arabs, in 1914 Arab nationalism was in its infancy at best, with the majority content to be remain part of the Empire. It was only when Britain and France started stirring the pot, promising them a pan-arab nation, that things changed. Without foreign influence, and with the ongoing Young Turk reforms, I think that we'd see a resurgent Ottoman empire by the early to mid 1920s.

Austria-Hungary is both the easiest and most difficult to reform. By 1914 everyone (except the Magyar elite) knew that the Duel Monarchy system was becoming increasingly unworkable and a change was needed. The only thing in question was what should replace it. Emperor Karl I envisioned a federation, with each nationality having their own state, ruling itself while military matters, and national domestic and foreign policy was directed from Vienna. Considering that in 1914 most people within the Habsburg realm seemed content, I think such a federation could work, though with some obvious difficulties.

Any attempt at reform would trigger a objections from Budapest and threats of civil war, so realistically the best thing to do would be to send in the army to secure the Hungarian capital and major cities, then announce the reforms. When the Hungarians freak out, the army is already in place to restore order. Plus removing the Magyar magnate power would be very popular for minorities and the common within the Transleithian half of the empire. Remember that both were denied voting rights, while the Austrian half had universal suffrage. While this would by no means be an easy process, I'm convinced that Austria could come out of this intact and strengthened, maybe even to the degree that they aren't dependent on Germany for any foreign policy decision.

I wonder how German attempts to project influence towards the Middle East (Berlin-Baghdad railways and all that) would work out in this timeline. After the formation of the Entente this will remain the path of least resistance. Britain won't like this, so even if the Arab genie does not escape the bottle itself in time (perhaps an Ottoman renaissance in the 1920s turning decidedly sour in the 30s or 40s), London may decide to help it out. A-H is not only dependent on Germany for protection from Russia but also in the way of that grand design, so I can't see Germany taking kindly to Vienna's attempts at an independent policy. Breaking it up into smaller parts (including a full-sized Hungary turning to Germany since Austria is trying to meddle there?) might be considered worthwhile, even if Russia is to get Galicia from the collapsing empire as a consolation prize.

Meaning no creation of weak states in the east that easily falls to either German or Communist actions.

You mean the Russian Empire?

(And obligatory nitpick: the victorious powers did not "create" those "weak states in the east" as much as recognize the fact that they gained independence themselves, did they?)

 

[Anaxagoras]

Russia - Again, the 1905 revolution had happened already,and things were unstable. Without a general European war, a revolution is still possible.

Without the pressures of the war itself, one can hope that the eventual revolution in Russia would be much less violent and ideological than it was IOTL. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy under the Romanovs would eventually be formed.

Specifically, no WWI means that Nicholas II can't leave St. Petersburg to take (symbolic) command of the armies and therefore the influence of Rasputin doesn't get out of control.

 

[trajen777]

Germany
1. Have lost the Naval race and have started to come to terms with Britain (the weeks before of war the British navy was in Germany)
2. Germany Kaiser evolves into a Britain type of Monarchy (already in progress and was a promise to the people as they entered the war)
3. German economy continues to grow
4. Germany Stays in check with France and Russia
Britain
1. Falls out of Alliance with Fr and Russia as Russia military grows - perhaps gets ties closer to Germany
2. Does not have the devastation of ww1 ww2 -- keeps its empire closer together -- India becomes independent -- or all of the colonies get some reps in Parliament??
France :
1. Keeps alliance with Russia
2. Basically sames as to day
USA :
1. Isolationist
2. Very strong econ power -- was already number 1
Russia
1. Spins towards revolution -- becomes dismantled
Japan
1. Anex More of China

 

[phx1138]

Russia either gives support to the murder of Royals or backs down: the Tsar chooses the later. So no Great war.

Regrettably, you need to change Austria's view, not Russia's: the Serbs gave the Austrians about everything they'd demanded, & Austria still DoW.

What would the long-term affects of avoiding this pointless conflict be? Would nations like the Austrian, German, Russian and Ottoman Empires still exist? Would communism, socialism and fascism ever rise to power? What about the colonial empires? With no massive war would they remain relatively intact? Would the US ever rise to become the dominant world power? Would India remain part of the British Empire? Basically what does this site think the world today would look like without the world wars.

Off the top of my head, I'd say no Armenian genoicde, no Holocaust, no nuking of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, no Korean or Vietnam Wars, & no Sov occupation of EEur, plus the U.S. would be segregated much longer (no black vets, no Holocaust), & anti-Semitism & racism would be much more acceptable (same reasons).

Worse still, you'd probably have many more countries with the Bomb, possibly even a major nuclear exchange in the late '40s-early '60s period (depending on exactly when the Bomb was first completed & by who; my guess is, the Brits get there first, but TTL, it might be Germany)

Would the U.S. still be the dominant power? Yes: the economic eclipse of Britain was already in progress by 1914 & wouldn't stop. The difference might be less, without Britain suffering the damage of war & the privation of Lend-Lease (& Winston's giveaway of Britain's tech), but... You'd also have (mainland) ROC & Germany as major competitors, with IMO Russia a "second-tier" player, along with Japan & maybe Korea & Vietnam.

Burma's likely to be a member of OPEC.

India was leaving anyhow, so no change there. France probably still controls IndoChina & Algeria & elsewhere.

There's probably a lot less war in Africa, & a fair bit less tension & terrorism in the Mid-East (no U.S.-SU conflict-by-proxy).

Fair chance there was no Space Race.

You've also butterflied away a whole genre of films (the "crazed Vietnam vet"), along with "Magnum, P.I." (as OTL, anyhow; something like it, using the old "5-0" sets & studios, probably still does get made). You've also butterflied away Bolan (tho, again, probably he's replaced by somebody else, like, say, Joe Copp). It also butterflies away "Tour of Duty" (which I liked).

aerial observation (balloons) and machine guns

You're vastly overstating the impact of MG. The real killers were HE shells, the fast-firing howitzers (thanks to hydraulic recoil mechanisms), typified by the French M1897s, & field telephones (able to put indirect fire on target).

It's also been argued the airplane, by making secret movement of armies impossible, made the trench stalemate inevitable. Not least because there was no way to add enough armor & move fast enough to overcome the threat of arty & MG until IC engines were coupled with armor & tracks...

Without WWI, the American economy doesn't enter the upswing, while most economies of Europe entered a downswing. Without this upswing, the Great Depression may or may not take place either.

Possible, but it's not just an "upswing": it's driven by war demand, which helps boost overproduction. Now, there may well be an economic bubble anyhow, & so a Crash, because the Fed was busy screwing around & not thinking straight ("permanent prosperity").

There's one thing almost certain not to happen, tho. Without the demand for more agricultural production, the marginal land that got put in production OTL isn't, so... (Does that butterfly the Dust Bowl entirely? IDK: there were so many idiots trying to farm the Oklahoma Panhandle...)

 

[Salamander]

India was leaving anyhow, so no change there.

Not quite. OTL, India remained in the Commonwealth on achieving Independence, still is in fact. Which is what becoming a Dominion meant. By the 1930's it was the British Commonwealth and Empire.

You're vastly overstating the impact of MG. The real killers were HE shells, the fast-firing howitzers (thanks to hydraulic recoil mechanisms), typified by the French M1897s, & field telephones (able to put indirect fire on target).

It's also been argued the airplane, by making secret movement of armies impossible, made the trench stalemate inevitable. Not least because there was no way to add enough armor & move fast enough to overcome the threat of arty & MG until IC engines were coupled with armor & tracks...

Which is why I went on to say that: "the Great Powers went to war with weapons far more powerful than their high commands realised"

 

[kalamona]

Austria-Hungary - The problem with just taking it over is that Hungary had a level of military parity with Austria, and in fact in some ways may have been able to exceed it. The Empire was already unstable in 1914, it's just that the Empire played different factions to its advantage.

Nope, the military parity only existed (well, lets call it parity) between the Honvéd and the Landwehr - the joint army surpassed both combined.

 

[Keb]

Nope, the military parity only existed (well, lets call it parity) between the Honvéd and the Landwehr - the joint army surpassed both combined.

To add to this, the Honvéd in particular was badly under-equipped with very limited artillery and machine gun numbers, much more so than the entirety of the AH military which was under-equipped (and under-funded, AH was the only nation that didn't massively increase its military budget in the lead-up to WWI) in comparison to, say, Germany or France.

The thing about the Honvéd is that Budapest really didn't feel like spending money on a military. What they actually wanted was the benefits of independence without the need to actually pay for stuff like full independence required (such as, say, funding an army).

 

[Johnestauffer]

In general, one area that would be significantly altered would be the development of weapons.

Warship design would not benefit from the lessons learned at Jutland and might be more vulnerable to damage.

In most cases, there would be continued development of most weapons. The rate might be lower than if WW-I had occurred, but the need to remain at least as capable as their neighbors would spur development, although some of the lessons learned in war would not be included in their designs (think of a early cold war environment)

The role of the US might change. Not having been involved in WW-I, the US could become more isolationist.

Countries might bankrupt themselves trying to keep up with their potential enemies.

No WW-I would simply postpone the inevitable. At some point, the situation would explode, and war would occur.