Both World Wars don't occur - political & ethnical effects?

[Alixanther]

Let's discuss what would have happened if both world wars phase out of existence.

Where would the world politics would have headed towards?

What effect would have had on people on Europe and North America? How about other continents?

Which empire emerges prevalent? Which one bites the dust?

How about ideologies? Do we still get the same political trends or we might met new and strange ones?

What about the modern technology in the hands of emperors and kings? Are they doomed to repeat the same mistakes they made at some time in their past?

How is going the world demographics evolve without the trench carnage and - most of all - without the deadly influenza plague? Is poverty becoming prevalent and fuel further population growth which, in turn, lead to yet more poverty, fuels more population growth and so on and so forth?

Could this be a path of moderation and wisdom? Or it becomes a path of dark excesses and consequences?

[maltesefalcon]

You should read the guidelines on this forum.
This post will likely be locked by moderators soon if you don't inject some hypotheses to your own questions.

Pretty broad topic- probably will lock in any case.

[Alixanther]

Okay. Then I'll go first.

Political consequences (just some):
Austria-Hungary, Second Reich and Imperial Russia still exist.
France no longer suffer from the manpower loss that plagued after WW1. Therefore, Maginot line never gets constructed.
Britain never gets to hold the German colonies abroad. Slight less projected power for the British Empire.

Ethnic consequences (just some):
European countries fuel a new wave of migration towards less populated areas (like U.S. or Australia or whatever) because they never got killed in the first place (neither by bullet nor by virus strain). They bring their customs and culture along, the melting pot "syndrome" occurs sooner and is more profound.
Because some of the areas targeted to be inhabited by European ethnics might be already inhabited by native populace, a general trend of fighting the caucasian colonists could take place. The frictions may range from cultural split to open war. This might trigger a general uprising towards independence of (not only, but mostly) British colonies sooner than expected in OTL.

Russia gets industrialised without the bloodshed of the war, the revolution, the communist purges. As a consequence, they get to that point a bit later but, once there, they're also a bit stronger. The percentage of European population in Imperial Russia is higher still. They tend to spread towards the Far East but also into border areas, tempted by local trade.

Ideological consequences: communism and other anarchist / fringe ideologies remain marginal, having no global influence on the world population. Major religions still bring the masses towards an orderly obedience, if only a religious one.

Technological and scientific consequences (just some):
Because the war does not occur and the Second Empire is alive and well, most of the German scientists remain there as Germany stays on top of the most scientifically advanced countries. On the contrary, some of the scientists of other countries (British Empire, U.S. and Russia) might come to stay and dwell here.
On top of that, there's no further incentive for any scientist to leave Germany based on ethnic grounds - NSDAP never gets to power in a Second Reich.
As a consequence, the Atomic Bomb gets invented in Second Reich. Therefore, Second Reich becomes first Superpower on Earth. Once other European countries get the bomb, the power of the Second Reich diminishes dramatically (they might even lose their "superpower" status) but they still enjoy their technological advance.
What happens in the (brief) historical interval between the invention of the A-bomb in Second Reich and the invention (or stealing) in other countries is probably a short but heated struggle to stay ahead strategically and diplomatically, using the projected power of the A-bomb. Don't forget that Second Reich still manages to enjoy some colonies of its own, therefore a bit less dependency on foreign assets and resources.

U.S. is mostly negatively affected in this alternate take, mainly because they don't get rich selling war material in WW1 neither getting the A-bomb first in WW2. Nevertheless, they might be equally rich, since they could benefit from trading with flourishing empires, not broken states (after WW1) which also led to the interwar crisis. So, less money in the short term might become more money in the long term.
Also, since European colonies on other continents still exist and need development, U.S. could play big and place investment after investment into these. Financial takeover could be a bitch, even (or maybe especially) to big armed empires.

[Carl Schwamberger]

To flail at a few items at random...

France no longer suffer from the manpower loss that plagued after WW1. Therefore, Maginot line never gets constructed.

The 'Maginot Line' or CORF project and other lesser fortification projects interwars were a continuation of a long line of fortification construction. Post 1871 France had a number of modernization projects on its frontiers. The offensive strategy of the years just before 1914 had slowed the fortification construction, but there were a variety of economic, military, and political reasons to continue modernizing the border forts.

Russia gets industrialised without the bloodshed of the war, the revolution, the communist purges. As a consequence, they get to that point a bit later but, once there, they're also a bit stronger. The percentage of European population in Imperial Russia is higher still. They tend to spread towards the Far East but also into border areas, tempted by local trade.

Industrial development in the Russian empire, under its quasi capitolist economy might not len as heavily towards the Stalinist heavy industry model, but would be a bit sounder and better balanced. More consumer goods & better housing for the rural population and fewer food shortages.

As a consequence, the Atomic Bomb gets invented in Second Reich. Therefore, Second Reich becomes first Superpower on Earth. Once other European countries get the bomb,

Just as likely atomic energy develops in France or Italy, or all three. Some historians, like Ken Rhoades, describe the US as being a decade behind Europe in physics. The US universities had been much more focused on boilerplate engineering, chemistry, agriculture, or management since the mid 19th Century.

U.S. is mostly negatively affected in this alternate take, mainly because they don't get rich selling war material in WW1

The US 'getting rich' from the Great War is a misinterpretation of where much of the money went. The largest of the 'war profiters' would be called multinationals these days. The profits from the war contracts were just as likely to be reinvested outside the US as in it. there were also severe losses in US industry in 1919 after the war contracts were abruptly canceled from November 1918. A very large part of the preparation for 'war production' had not yet started or had just started. That is industry had expended a enourmous amount of captil retooling factories, expanding factory floor spance, ect... & had that market vanish before the investment was paid for. For several reasons US industry was paid slim advance payments for the preperation for war production. It was required to pay for much or most of the retooling/expansion out of its own reserves or credit. An investment that never paid off for many US businesses, whos owners & investors remained bitter over for the next two decades. Like most other nations post 1918 the US had a unhealthy level of 'excess' debt. Not nearly as much as Germany or most other European national economies, but enough to offset the theoretical war profits.

[Baltasar]

I wonder what would've happened differently for both wars not to happen.

[South]

Good morning Alixanther,

Did you forget of the new empire arriving; Japan ?

Did Napoleon's warning to "Beware the sleeping giant, for when..." not warrant a footnote ?

The US did experience the "virus strain".

Russia was industralizing prior to, during and after the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. The Americans helped with the Trans Siberian Railroad.

Any significance to the Royal Navy converting from coal to petroleum circa 1905? The Trucial States and the Hashemites arrive on the scene.

Any significance to the December, 1913 US creation of a central bank to shift financial wealth from Europe's London to New York City?

Did the 1914 Panama Canal change some trade patterns?


Warm regards,

Bob

[James A Pratt III]

Russia the country 's economy was booming and it was on it's way to being a economic superpower ect. politcaly the country was a quasi-constitutional monarchy which was probably going to get better without WW I as time goes on. Also note Russia in many other fields culture, law ect was doing quite well. The Russians in 1914 had just started a major defense build up which when completed in 1917 would have made them a military superpower. All this was swept away with WW I and the Communist seizeure power.

Germany Kaiser Wilhelm II if WW I didn't happen might find himself pushed into a more figurehead position as the 20th century went on.

Austria_Hungary Franz Ferdinand as Emporer no doubt would have made a number of major changes that would have brought the Austro-Hungarian empire in the 20th century.

[Baltasar]

Russia's industry was financed largely by France prior to WWI. Without a war, would the French continue to pump money over to the Tzar?

[James A Pratt III]

I would say yes, a lot of this money I believe was in loans. I should also point out in 1913 Russia was in great shape fiscally.

[Baltasar]

That kinda contradicts the neccessity for getting loans in the first place, doesn't it? IIRC France made a huge financial effort to improve Russias economy in the decades prior to world war one. Without that fiscal effort, where would Russias economy be? Do you happen to have any documents regarding this?

Politically, the Tzarist Russia wasn't too far from the old system which was in place during the Crimea War. Which was more or less a cleptocraticy where the Tzar was the de facto single ruler.

[sunbury2]

Well this forum would not exist and we wouldn't be able to discuss this subject

[stg 44]

I would say yes, a lot of this money I believe was in loans. I should also point out in 1913 Russia was in great shape fiscally.

What do you mean by 'great shape'? Low debt or a balanced budget? This then doesn't factor in the pre-war 1914 military expansion plan that was approved before the war and spent huge sums to expand the army by 1917.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Russia's industry was financed largely by France prior to WWI. Without a war, would the French continue to pump money over to the Tzar?

Short answer is yes. The longer prediction depends on how you interpret the economic and political trends. I'd guess French investment would continue at those levels for at least five to ten years. I'd also not be suprised if it ceased increasing, or declined in the 1920s.

[James A Pratt III]

The economic information I got was mostly from the books:
The Russian Revolution R Pipes
The Eastern Front 1914-1917 Norman Stone

The Russian economy was growing at a impressive rate pre-WW I. The Roble was reguarded as one of the soundest currency in the world at the start of WW I

[Carl Schwamberger]

What sort of trajectory was the Germany economy on? Assuming the same naval programs as OTL would the construction through 1920 or beyond had any negative effect? Or, was a reduction in naval construction more likely?

Was the British economy fundamentally sound? Or had the empire reached some sort of tipping point, with its former advantages no longer sufficient, and to many 'captains of industry' stuck trying to do business as they had in 1880 or 1890?