What would it be like if the World Wars never happened? - Better? Worse?

[UntimelyDhelmise]

This question has been brewing in me for a while. One thing that jumps to mind is that technology would be half as advanced as it is now if even that much. "Traditional" wars would still be a thing assuming big bombs didn't get invented. Video games and the internet as concepts wouldn't exist. If mankind did reach the moon by now, it would've been significantly later. All the current leftist bullshit would be gone as there would be no Boomer generation to kickstart it. Religion would likely still have a strong standing in general society. Lots of other stuff too not off the top of my head.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

I would have a lot more family, but no home country. Mixed feelings about that.

 

[Toolbox]

Planes in general would probably be much less advanced, at least by a few decades. I'd say jets would be underdeveloped versus what we have.

 

[Coolio55]

Pretty much none of us would exist. Everything would be so different there would be very little points of comparison except in broad strokes like technological advancement.

 

[Tim Buckley]

6 more million jews, yikes.

 

[Rebel Wilson]

Europe was so ready for war by 1914 I don't think there was any way a continent wide war wouldn't occur. Germany knew there was a deadline beyond which Russia would be too powerful to oppose, and Britain would continue to prop the Ottomans against Russia and Austria for as long as possible.

A continent wide war was inevitable but if by some historical quirk one didn't happen, Austria and the Ottomans would still have collapsed, and the Tsar would likely have been forced to abdicate, not necessarily leading to the Soviet Union. The borders of Europe might be virtually the same as they were in 1930 with a hundred million more bodies. Decolonization would have happened as well. Beyond that I dunno.

Planes and space wouldn't have progressed but spy technology like radios and were evolving.

 

[HumanHive]

WW1 was inevitable, but Kaiser Willy fucked up the Anglo-German alliance.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

Here's an unpopular opinion: the World Wars were a necessary result of rapid technological advancement and corporate consolidation, which lead to shifts in finance and cultural norms.

The only way the World Wars would not have happened is if Bayer, IBM, Daimler Chrysler, and a whole bunch of other companies never had the means to amass that kind of capital. We'd be living sedentary existences in predominantly agricultural societies. No medicine, no microchips, no cars, no semiconductors, no satellites, no nuclear, no electricity.

Every one of these technologies spawned the other. The presence of one of them lead to advancements in the other.

Technology changes the environment where it's employed. Impossible to ignore the geopolitical ramifications of increases in efficiency.

 

[thick internet digit web]

Here's an unpopular opinion: the World Wars were a necessary result of rapid technological advancement and corporate consolidation, which lead to shifts in finance and cultural norms.

The only way the World Wars would not have happened is if Bayer, IBM, Daimler Chrysler, and a whole bunch of other companies never had the means to amass that kind of capital. We'd be living sedentary existences in predominantly agricultural societies. No medicine, no microchips, no cars, no semiconductors, no satellites, no nuclear, no electricity.

Every one of these technologies spawned the other. The presence of one of them lead to advancements in the other.

Technology changes the environment where it's employed. Impossible to ignore the geopolitical ramifications of increases in efficiency.

woah an ancap in the wild

you're pretty uneducated about the whole history of wars if you think that is true, the 30 years war killed a good portion of germany's population and that was hardly due to the invention of the Z3 computer or some other bullshit.

 

[Comandante Marcos]

Pretty much ALL of technology as we know it is the result of the two world wars. Take those away and you get a much less technologically advanced world.

Automobiles probably never advanced much beyond the stage of the Model T and the early Mack trucks. Most travel is done by steam train, although it's possible that some sort of rechargeable battery along the lines of the early nickel-based batteries such as nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal-hydride powers the boiler flues after people realize that steam engines use too much wood. Electricity exists, but only in the major population hubs of the US Northeast and Great Lakes. And even then it's mainly used to power lights and a handful of small appliances. (California is a backwater populated mainly by cows. Los Angeles is a town of 2,000 people that keeps getting washed away by desert cloudbursts. San Francisco is the biggest city in America outside of the Northeast/Great Lakes, although at 200k people that's not saying much.)

Most Americans still live on farms, and some are lucky enough to have Edison turbines powered by windmills, although admittedly they only power a few light bulbs and a handful of other little things like an iron. There might be a primitive form of radio, along the lines of the early Westinghouse RC sets, but powered by batteries since there was never any desire for AC-powered radio. The few radio broadcasters that exist are there mainly to deliver news and farm/weather reports to the farmers and ranchers of the great hinterlands.

Politically, the great empires (English, French, German, Ottoman, Austria-Hungary) eventually fell apart as resources depleted. Europe eventually relinquished control of Africa and Asia, where warlords and tribal kings now rule. The former Ottoman Empire is a bunch of Bedouins throwing rocks at each other. In Europe itself, the empires had become too reliant on colonial inputs, and once those dried up the empires did too. Europe is a balkanized mess of warring kings and princes and dukes. Southern Poland eventually became a Jewish ethno-state, one about as stable as our Israel, which is saying a lot about how much of a mess the rest of the continent is.

The USA is still holding together, although there's a lot more decentralization, the central govt in DC is small and mainly exists to fulfill the eleven duties given to it by the US Constitution. In rural areas the biggest farms and ranches are basically laws unto themselves, although central authorities do check to make sure nobody gets too out of line. In the whole world the US is the most technologically advanced nation, which is saying that the rest of the world has progressed little out of feudalism. Japan is still a hermit kingdom ruled by the shoguns, China is constantly fighting itself. In all, except for a couple exceptions (US, maybe England) civilization never progressed past agrarianism. Whether that's good or bad depends on your POV. I think it would be a better place than now, personally.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

woah an ancap in the wild

you're pretty uneducated about the whole history of wars if you think that is true, the 30 years war killed a good portion of germany's population and that was hardly due to the invention of the Z3 computer or some other bullshit.

Yeah, but the 30 Years War wasn't a World War. You did not see total mobilization of multiple countries representing the bulk of the world's GDP.

Japan, for instance, would not have seen the upside in an alliance with Germany if all they had to offer was vegetables and colonialism.

It's hard to explain the impact of advances in Chemistry, Medicine and Electricity on the world of the early 1900s. Primarily economic, but they also meant the populations could travel further, stay healthier, and do more during the day. Huge impact on nation's ability to wage wars.

 

[Krystal]

The US would still have been stuck in the Depression, Europe, Japan, and the US would still compete for unclaimed islands for military bases or resources, and railroads and ships would still have been the main method of transportation all over the world. I'm just doing this based on events and how it affects early-mid 20th century instead of modern day since it's more fun. Forgot no one would be snubbed by Treaty of Versailles.
Edit: Britain would still be the superpower, Revolution in Russia wouldn't be as bad and possibly become constitutional instead of absolute. Germany would still be under Kaiser Wilhelm II and prepare against France if needed.

 

[thick internet digit web]

Yeah, but the 30 Years War wasn't a World War. You did not see total mobilization of multiple countries representing the bulk of the world's GDP.

Japan, for instance, would not have seen the upside in an alliance with Germany if all they had to offer was vegetables and colonialism.

It's hard to explain the impact of advances in Chemistry, Medicine and Electricity on the world of the early 1900s. Primarily economic, but they also meant the populations could travel further, stay healthier, and do more during the day. Huge impact on nation's ability to wage wars.

AS if the way the war was fought actually matters when we are discussing the cause of it. The 30 years war took place when most of europe was fighting each other, mostly with pretexts that would make Bush blush. Also, mobility wasn't a problem, as Britain, France, Spain and others were colonialising and fighting every country on the planet.

It's pretty well known that the direct cause of WW2 was Hitler's Lebensraum policies, and that he wanted to annex the whole of Europe to create a second Holy Roman Empire of which he would be the ruler of, so technology is hardly the main leading cause.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The alternative to a "world war" is just more localised wars between few countries, with only the invention of the Nuke causing wars between developed countries to stop (and replaced by proxy wars). But it's hard to know if there would have been as much technological advancement without the necessity of world spanning war, or whether those kind of wars would have even been avoidable due to the rise in communism and nationalism.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

AS if the way the war was fought actually matters when we are discussing the cause of it. The 30 years war took place when most of europe was fighting each other, mostly with pretexts that would make Bush blush. Also, mobility wasn't a problem, as Britain, France, Spain and others were colonialising and fighting every country on the planet.

It's pretty well known that the direct cause of WW2 was Hitler's Lebensraum policies, and that he wanted to annex the whole of Europe to create a second Holy Roman Empire of which he would be the ruler of, so technology is hardly the main leading cause.

Well, I put forth a hypothesis. It's a view supported by Neil Postman, amongst others.

Lebensraum probably would not have gotten off the ground as a possible future direction for Germany without confidence in the technological superiority to carry it out. The 30 Years War was about the average lifespan of most people in Europe at the time, I don't think anyone would be able to conceive of territorial expansion on that scale in the absence of the means to carry it out.

Policies don't happen in a vacuum. Nobody was talking about policies for permanent settlements on the moon before we had the means to get there.

But what do I know.

 

[Sage In All Fields]

If the world wars hadn't happened boomers wouldn't have happened so we'd be much better off

 

[thick internet digit web]

Well, I put forth a hypothesis. It's a view supported by Neil Postman, amongst others.

Lebensraum probably would not have gotten off the ground as a possible future direction for Germany without confidence in the technological superiority to carry it out. The 30 Years War was about the average lifespan of most people in Europe at the time, I don't think anyone would be able to conceive of territorial expansion on that scale in the absence of the means to carry it out.

Policies don't happen in a vacuum. Nobody was talking about policies for permanent settlements on the moon before we had the means to get there.

But what do I know.

That argument is just nonsense. The British Empire took over countries continents away and conquered nearly 30 percent of the land surface of the earth. The Mongols also captured a ridiculously large section of Asia too, of which Europe is a small size compared to. You don't need tanks or Pervitin to conquer a few countries.

 

[Ivan Shatov]

That argument is just nonsense. The British Empire took over countries continents away and conquered nearly 30 percent of the land surface of the earth. The Mongols also captured a ridiculously large section of Asia too, of which Europe is a small size compared to. You don't need tanks or Pervitin to conquer a few countries.

They sure did. Over a period of centuries.

Technological advancement made it a lot faster (and profitable) to go somewhere and conquer the natives.

If you're saying Germany would have been as successful without amphetamines, radios in their tanks, and electricity on the engines for their planes... dunno if I can argue with that kind of big brain logic. But persuade me.

 

[thick internet digit web]

They sure did. Over a period of centuries.

Technological advancement made it a lot faster (and profitable) to go somewhere and conquer the natives.

If you're saying Germany would have been as successful without amphetamines, radios in their tanks, and electricity on the engines for their planes... dunno if I can argue with that kind of big brain logic. But persuade me.

Over a period of centuries, yes, but that was to conquer lands that were thousands of miles away and then maintain the logistics for holding dozens of colonies, a very difficult task to do compared to ruling over a bit of Europe which would have been very easy because of direct land logistical links and close proximity.

Either way, with or without tanks or radios or whatever, it would have still been possible, Germany would have been in a position where they could have managed it and it would have been ruled by the same power hungry neurotic psychopath who would have sacrificed everything to take it over. It wouldn't have been as quick but the social and political policies that caused it would be the same and would still lead to a massive war.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Europe was so ready for war by 1914 I don't think there was any way a continent wide war wouldn't occur. Germany knew there was a deadline beyond which Russia would be too powerful to oppose, and Britain would continue to prop the Ottomans against Russia and Austria for as long as possible.

A continent wide war was inevitable but if by some historical quirk one didn't happen, Austria and the Ottomans would still have collapsed, and the Tsar would likely have been forced to abdicate, not necessarily leading to the Soviet Union. The borders of Europe might be virtually the same as they were in 1930 with a hundred million more bodies. Decolonization would have happened as well. Beyond that I dunno.

Planes and space wouldn't have progressed but spy technology like radios and were evolving.

If WWI didn't happen or happened differently (like a decade later) then I could see WWII and the Cold War not happening. The Tsarist government in Russia would be more prepared since the country was rapidly trying to catch up before the war started, which is why Germany wanted to take out France before Russia could fully mobilize.

The Russians more or less thrashed the Austro-Hungarian forces from the start and if Germany hadn't caught a lucky break and BTFO'd the Russians at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes fairly early into the war then the economic collapse and military mutinies wouldn't have been a thing and the Bolsheviks couldn't have taken over. I do think Russia may have had a revolution but it'd likely be less bloody and lead to a more liberal government with the Duma in control and the Tsar allowed to stay as a figurehead alongside the Russian Orthodox Church

The Middle Eastern and Balkan wars would've probably happened since Austria was a ticking time bomb of an empire barely held together by bubblegum, Scotch tape, and prayers. Franz Joseph was a strong old-school leader but once he was dead, the countdown to collapse would begin for Austria-Hungary.

The Ottomans were in worse shape and were mainly propped up by the European powers to serve as a counterbalance and a stabilizing force in the Middle East. The Ottomans also had a lot of enemies who'd love to take them out. The Russian Empire was probably the biggest foe and the one that posed the biggest threat, and you also had smaller countries who were weaker but closer to Ottoman territory and with more recent grievances like Greece and Serbia.

Austria-Hungary also had a rocky relationship with the Ottomans but they both had a common enemy with Russia and a common ally in Germany in the years leading up to WWI. Italy also had some enmity with the Ottoman Empire and also Austria-Hungary (which is why they were part of the Entente in WWI despite being a founding member of the Triple Alliance that became the core of the Central Powers)

If the Kingdom of Italy gained prestige and territory by defeating a weakened Ottoman Empire, it could be a major issue in the Middle East or the Balkans and lead to regional disputes

Basically, the Ottomans and the Austrian empires were going to collapse no matter what while Russia and Germany would probably retain their monarchies (though if the Romanovs did stay on the throne, they would be figureheads like the modern Windsors) and both would continue to industrialize.