No WWI

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

So what happens to the world if both world wars are avoided? Presume that Wilhem II either doesn't get into power or isn't as much of a harcore militarist or whatever item you need for the scenario. How different is a no WWI world by now in terms of geopolitics?economics? culture?

[J. J.]

Germany was well on its way to a Constitutional crisis.  The SPD was, IIRC, the bigest single party in the Reichstag in 1914 (but a coalition held the majority).  It also great social service policies.

Franz Ferdinand was in favor of a triple monarchy, with the Slavs having a greater role. 

Ironically, Great Britain could have faced a near civil war of the Irish Question.

France would still be spoiling for revenge and was working on an effective military machine.

Russia:  The Czarina would have never lost her popularity and dragged down Nicholas II.  There was probably liberalization on the way, but very slowly.

USA:  Wilson not re-elected in 1916.

[afleitch]

Indeed; not only did the UK have the Irish question, but Home Rule for Scotland as well which should the hill have passed could have meant a Scotland that had more 'independece' than it does at present- perhaps even securing complete home rule within the Commonwealth before the middle of the century.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Perhaps something looking kidna like this for 2006?

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/2284/wilhemzb8.gif

Remember the euros DID consider splitting china after the boxer rebellion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's hard to tell quite what British politics would be like without WW1; historians tend to disagree over it more than is usual.
But some things to note:

1. Even as late as 1923 the Liberal Party polled about 30% of the popular vote; had all seats been contested, their share might actually have been higher.

2. The importance of all working class men getting the vote in 1918 can't be underestimated (it had a bigger political effect than women getting the vote IMO). It's a fact that has to be remembered whenever you look to by-elections held before and during the war to try to provide a guide to how things might have been.

3. Even if there was no World War it is possible that a major crisis of some kind (ie; a General Strike, war in Ireland and so on) could have had the same effect as the War did on the Liberal Party.
Btw, I don't buy into the idea that the Liberals were a weak party going into 1914. But I do think that they would always have struggled if faced with any crisis that would force them to either ditch many of their principles (as WW1 did) or increase class or sectarian tensions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps something looking kidna like this for 2006?

Doubt it. The writing was on the wall for European Colonialism as early as the late 19th century.

[afleitch]

2. The importance of all working class men getting the vote in 1918 can't be underestimated (it had a bigger political effect than women getting the vote IMO). It's a fact that has to be remembered whenever you look to by-elections held before and during the war to try to provide a guide to how things might have been.

1912-1913 had seen a few Labour defeats in by-elections, loosing Hanley to the Liberals, Bow-Bromley to the Tories and technically Chesterfield to Lib-Lab. All in all the Liberals and the Tories tooks scalps from each other. although the Conservatives had the momentum in late 1913 and 1914

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Things progess as in OTL except that the Austrians find the Serbian response to the July Ultimatum to be adequate.  This postpones the conflict, but does not end up preventing it as Serbian ultra-nationalists would soon either cause a coup d'etat or a revolt that leads to Austria-Hungary sending in the troops.  However, given more time for the crisis to play out, Russia is able to complete mobilization before the outbreak of hostilities, leading Germany to abandon plans to strike first in the West.  The Germans declare war on Russia after the Tsar invades Austria-Hungary.  France invades Germany, but Britain stays neutral though it does send the BEF to Belgium to guarentee Belgian neutrality against either French or German invasion.  1915 sees Italy honoring the Triple Alliance and declaring war on France, and Bulgraia joins in the fun as well. 1916 sees Rumania invading Bessarabia, which it will gain in the 1917 Treaty of Ghent that ends the war.  Germany gains Poland and Lithuania from Russia and French Equitorial Africa becomes German Equitorial Africa.  Serbia is split between Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.  Italy gains French Somaliland and Tunisia.  The Romanovs are forced to concede considerable reforms to quell the Rebellion of 1917-1918 but are able to survive.  Austria-Hungary has internal turmoil leading to an civil war in 1920's, and France mutters ominously about which are worse, Englishmen or Germans?

In short, while the outcome is different, this still is essentially a WW I that lays the groundwork for a WWII, so to avoid this we'll need to seek an earlier POD (point of divergence) for a WW I free history.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Perhaps something looking kidna like this for 2006?

Doubt it. The writing was on the wall for European Colonialism as early as the late 19th century.

The end of the empires was caused by europe's dual suicides of WWI and WWII. Even jsut remove one of thsoe wars and Europe isd able to keep its empires(more if you remove both)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Either Franz is only wounded or missed entirely by Princip.  There still is some stern diplomatic posturing by Austria, but not so far as to cause the collapse of the Serbian Kingdom or a war.  However from the viewpoint of the Black Hand, the execise still succeeded, trimonarchism is killed by the Young Bosnians for now, leaving the Dual Monarchy to continue as before.  Irish and Scots Nationalist provide the main excitement for the latter half of the 1910's.  In the U.S. Hughes win the EV, picking up CA, ND, and NH, but Wilson manages to retain a plurality of the PV.

The death of Franz Joseph in 1917 leads to a crisis as the Dual Monarchy prepares for having an Emporer who has a wife but no Empress.  (As a result of his morganatic marriage.)  For personal reasons, Franz Ferdinand is more concerned with reforming the Imperial nobility than the Imperial government, though obviously the two were interrelated.  Franz isn't all that worried about pleasing anyone, especially the Austrian nobility after all the snubs that that his beloved Sophie has had to endure, so he rams through some reforms, In doing so he manages to unite the Imperial elites in their disdain for him, but not so much that they are able to overcome their disdain for each other to undo his reforms.  Rather than a triarchy, he rearranges the emipire as a pentarchy with Kingdoms of Austria, Hungary, Lodomeria, Bosnia, and Bohemia underneath a renamed Danubian Empire which causes a bit of indigestion for Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

Of course, all this leaves the tinder in place for an eventual WW I, but when it would happen is hard to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1912-1913 had seen a few Labour defeats in by-elections, loosing Hanley to the Liberals, Bow-Bromley to the Tories and technically Chesterfield to Lib-Lab. All in all the Liberals and the Tories tooks scalps from each other. although the Conservatives had the momentum in late 1913 and 1914

True; if the franchise had not been extended and had WW1 not happend, then I think the Tories would have returned to power in 1916 or so. The Liberals were still a strong party, but the Liberal government had become unpopular with the middle classes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To achieve this feat, we'll make Rudolf a little less randy so that he and his wife, Princess Stéphanie of Belgium, don't become estranged and so that she can have nore than the one female child.  This would avoid the later entanglement with Baroness Mary Vetsera that led to, depending on which theory you believe, their double suicide, their murder-suicide, or their double murder.  Franz Josph might have abdicated in favor of Rudolf in the 1900's, which would have led to a liberalizing and inward-looking tendency in the Dual Monarchy.  If the Bosnian Crisis never happens, then the First and Second Balkan Wars that prvovided the kindling for WW I never happen.  Instead we get an Ottoman empire that has the breathing room to reinvent itself.

[Colin]

Perhaps something looking kidna like this for 2006?

Doubt it. The writing was on the wall for European Colonialism as early as the late 19th century.

The end of the empires was caused by europe's dual suicides of WWI and WWII. Even jsut remove one of thsoe wars and Europe isd able to keep its empires(more if you remove both)

Yes but you haven't taken into account the overreach of empire. Even by the 1960's, after years in places like Africa, the mark of the European colonizers was light in many areas. They controlled a lot of area on the map but not in any reality, in some places in French Equitorial Africa, for example, there was 1 resident commissioner for 3 million people. You seem to believe that countries can claim and conquer territory willy nilly without any actual consequences. This is one of the things I often hate about Altnerate History people love making huge ass empires and colonial regimes without providing for the fact of overextension, cultural differences, or a general malaise with colonialism. I've often thought that came about because it is much easier to create maps with huge empires on them than hundreds of tiny countries.

As for the map itself i could see no way that Russia becomes that large or that it takes over that much of Persia or Xinjiang. First with Persia you have the same problem that the British and Russians had in Afghanistan in OTL. You really couldn't conquer it do to native pressures and, until the discovery of oil by mid century, the lack of any natural resources that would make colonization or take over a likely option.

That again brings me to another fallacy people often have. They have countries conquering places that would be of no economical value to that nation. Even in the African colonies there were minerals and resources that were needed by the European nations.

Back to the map though. I don't see why the hell you have the US vassalizing Mexico and Central America, especially into something as badly named as a co-prosperity sphere. Why would that occur? Again I see some wanking for no apparent reason there. I can even consider the break up of China by the colonial powers since its an interesting idea that actually could have occured though I doubt the European powers would have given Japan anything more than Manchuria.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 THe empires are more like our world's british commonwealth/EU in terms of unity by now. They devolved for the exact reasons you mentioned.

2 Russia was only able to swing getting that much of china due to most of it being worthless desert. Iran was partioned most likely in the early 20th century.

3 Can't say I disagree with this position(despite being guilty of it)

4 The US under President hughes(no wilson winning reelection) gets bogged down deep in mexico for a while. That sand it eventually formalizes the vassal status of central america/the carib

[kashifsakhan]

Perhaps something looking kidna like this for 2006?

Doubt it. The writing was on the wall for European Colonialism as early as the late 19th century.

The end of the empires was caused by europe's dual suicides of WWI and WWII. Even jsut remove one of thsoe wars and Europe isd able to keep its empires(more if you remove both)

I think there would have been popular revolutions that would have basically destroyed the major european empires. Especially in India and Africa.

Also, i dont see Iran ever being part of a united India. Afghanistan maybe, but i dont see Iran being part of it.

There could however be a much larger arab country which could have parts of Iran in it. the countries that would be part of it would probably be Egypt, Jordan, Palestin/Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq,Kuwait, parts of Northern Saudi Arabia, and parts of western Iran.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, i dont see Iran ever being part of a united India. Afghanistan maybe, but i dont see Iran being part of it.

I could easily see the British snatching up the southeast corner of Persia since ethnically that's really the western quarter of Balochistan, not Persian plus it is majority Sunni.  The same can be said of other parts of Iran.  If Iran ever develops the degree of ethnic tensions that have flared up in places such as Yugoslavia or Iraq, the material is there for a nasty civil war of epic proportions.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

kashifsakhan

1 Ha. There may be revolts but without the world wars to cripple them/give europe the psot 1945 memes forget abotu sucessful revolts.

2 Only Baluchistan is part of The dominion of Bharat. Iran is parttioned.

3 Maybe or maybe not. In my map I presumed the ottomans stay together.

[12th Doctor]

So what happens to the world if both world wars are avoided? Presume that Wilhem II either doesn't get into power or isn't as much of a harcore militarist or whatever item you need for the scenario. How different is a no WWI world by now in terms of geopolitics?economics? culture?

You say that as though the war was Germany's fault.

[12th Doctor]

Anyway... there would have been a war eventually, it was really only a matter of time... and quite amazing that it didn't happen earlier.  Somethings that woudl not nessesarily happen, but I coudl see happening are:

1) As the United States and Great Britain expand for empire (which the United States would have sought again somewhere down the road, probably post a slight depression and the emergence of the new Teddy Roosevelt... or maybe even the same Teddy Roosevelt in the 1916 election) tensions grow between the two powers.  A short war... no more than a year or so... breaks out between the two powers.  The result in somewhat inconclusive, but a later treaty allows for the relaxation of the Monroe Doctrine, for the British only, Quebec as the 49th State and probably Irish home rule... since this woudl have undoubtedly led to a flare up over those tensions.  The powers are, there-after, amicable.

2) The United States and Japan woudl go to war eventually.  The Japanese had their eye on an empire, and lack of a WWI alliance between the two powers woudl only worsen the situation.  Sometime in the late 20's-early 30's a war would break out, the result of which, like the Anglo-American War, would be largely inconclusive.

3) Russia liberalizes, eventually becoming a functioning semi-Democratic government, with the Tzar as Head of State.  If this doesn't happen, then the country eventually collapses.

4) After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, sometime in the 1930's, various new Arab states pop up.  Some of them resemble the nationalist governments of Nassar and Saddam, others are run by Sultans while still others are run by theocratic regimes, which take hold quickly as there is no communist vs democratic struggle, simply Islam vs the West.

5) The collapse of the Ottoman Empire causes Russia to realign with Austria-Hungary and Germany.

6) After a series of colonial wars, the old alliance system becomes somewhat irrelevant, and the countries do eventually settle down peacefully.

7) Austria-Hungary collapses and splits into several different ethnically defined states, throughout which civil war and genocide is quite common.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... if Persia were partitioned like that, most likely Russia woudl go to war to have territory on the Gulr since it was part of the Russian dream to have ports on the Indian Ocean.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyway... there would have been a war eventually, it was really only a matter of time... and quite amazing that it didn't happen earlier.  Somethings that woudl not nessesarily happen, but I coudl see happening are:

1) As the United States and Great Britain expand for empire (which the United States would have sought again somewhere down the road, probably post a slight depression and the emergence of the new Teddy Roosevelt... or maybe even the same Teddy Roosevelt in the 1916 election) tensions grow between the two powers.  A short war... no more than a year or so... breaks out between the two powers.  The result in somewhat inconclusive, but a later treaty allows for the relaxation of the Monroe Doctrine, for the British only, Quebec as the 49th State and probably Irish home rule... since this woudl have undoubtedly led to a flare up over those tensions.  The powers are, there-after, amicable.

2) The United States and Japan woudl go to war eventually.  The Japanese had their eye on an empire, and lack of a WWI alliance between the two powers woudl only worsen the situation.  Sometime in the late 20's-early 30's a war would break out, the result of which, like the Anglo-American War, would be largely inconclusive.

Absent a World War I to bring the U.S. and the U.K. closer, the Amglo-Japanese treaty would have meant a war on the part of America against either Japan or Britain would have been a war against both Japan and Britain.

[jokerman]

World War I was bound to happen eventually.  I don't see how it could have been avoided.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

World War I was bound to happen eventually.  I don't see how it could have been avoided.

WWI was very likely but not inevitable. Remember 1914 wasn't the first crisis europe had in that period(the fashoda incident in 1898 came VERY close to WWI). It may not be the most likely outcome to avoid WWI but I see it as possible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the course of World War I might well have been different had it happened at another time.  For example had the British not in a position to seize the Sultan Osman I (renamed HMS Agincourt) and the Reshadiye (renamed HMS Erin) at the start of World War I, the Ottomans might well have chosen to remain neutral, at least at first, with entry into the War on the side of the Allies a remote but real possibility.  The only 100% certain pairings for WW I were Germany and the Habsburgs versus France and the Romanovs.

[AuH2O]

Without WWI there probably is no Great Depression, which is where the biggest changes would stem from. War with Japan unlikely and not inevitable at all, obviously Germany's government situation would have been much different. Russia was pretty screwed to begin with but the reds probably would have been stopped.