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

The biggest difference would be banking. The largest impact of WW1 was the obscene amount of debt nations got into, dozens of orders of magnitude larger than their GDP, which banks essentially used to acquire perpetual ownership of nations. Fractional reserve banking wouldn't exist. The gold standard would still be universal. Nations would have small deficits and only temporary debts.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Fek
Mhm, probably worse, if anything. Social and moral issues, ethics and so on were the main things that got pushed to the side and changed. Women's right to vote in Britain, the Russian revolutions, genetics would be more active, think trying to 'breed' the best type of human, that sort of shit. Ireland would perhaps still be in the commonwealth, India may still be part of the empire, America may still be further back in civil rights movements and so on. What the wars did mostly, was brings man inhumanity to man to the forefront. Held a mirror up to people and they hated what they saw, technology would be further back as well, like others said, nothing sees a boom forward in advancement like a good war.

Hard to say how mainland Europe would look, if Austria-Hungary would have managed to survive or not really depends, would the Ottomans die a slower but death all the same? They might have managed to keep tabs on all the Jihadi fucks if they had stayed around, or held more southern land when they broke up at least. It's a nice what if question, I'll give you that. And a great tool for would-be historical fiction writers.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Erischan
I forgot post WWI boom caused the Depression in the first place. So instead, the US would probably still be in its isolationist period enforcing big stick diplomacy when needed.
 
WW1 was inevitable, but Kaiser Willy fucked up the Anglo-German alliance.
the anglo german alliance was NEVER going to happen. Germany was a rising power challenging an established power and 9 times out of 10 those two powers end up at war. British industrialists had too much to gain from defeating Germany in war. Anyone who thinks that the Joseph Chamberlain idea of "the pan-teutonic alliance" is a dumb fucking idiot and also delusional. Joseph Chamberlain had noble intentions but he was too oblivious of the factors pulling Germany and Britain apart.

How was Germany supposed to be a weltmacht without a big navy? (I support the entente btw)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li
the anglo german alliance was NEVER going to happen. Germany was a rising power challenging an established power and 9 times out of 10 those two powers end up at war. British industrialists had too much to gain from defeating Germany in war. Anyone who thinks that the Joseph Chamberlain idea of "the pan-teutonic alliance" is a dumb fucking idiot and also delusional. Joseph Chamberlain had noble intentions but he was too oblivious of the factors pulling Germany and Britain apart.

How was Germany supposed to be a weltmacht without a big navy? (I support the entente btw)
There was a perfectly good Anglo-German alliance before the lead up to WW2. Broke down because “muh place in the sun”, which made the Brits decide to ally with the French and Russians to contain the Germans. And don’t forget, at the time Russia, Japan, and the US were all rising powers; yet Britain allied with all three in WW1.
 
There was a perfectly good Anglo-German alliance before the lead up to WW2. Broke down because “muh place in the sun”, which made the Brits decide to ally with the French and Russians to contain the Germans. And don’t forget, at the time Russia, Japan, and the US were all rising powers; yet Britain allied with all three in WW1.
the British and the German never signed an official alliance. informal alliances don't exist. Russia wasn't a rising power and the US and Japan were half the world away to be of any relevance to British interest. Germany was directly was directly building their navy to oppose the British while Japan and the US were busy having an arms themselves.

Russia was an established power, it had exist like 300 years but Germany had only existed for like 40
 
the British and the German never signed an official alliance. informal alliances don't exist. Russia wasn't a rising power and the US and Japan were half the world away to be of any relevance to British interest. Germany was directly was directly building their navy to oppose the British while Japan and the US were busy having an arms themselves.

Russia was an established power, it had exist like 300 years but Germany had only existed for like 40
Lol, “Russia not a rising power”.
 
The toothbrush mustache would have never fallen out of style.
 
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
That was actually what happened in the first February Revolution after the Tsar abdicated and the provisional government was installed. It's worth noting that the political party with the most appeal amongst the Russian populace was the non-bolshevik communist-leaning Social Revolutionaries, going by the results of the 1917 election (results which the Bolsheviks hadn't expected and immediately shut down after they realised the votes weren't in their favour).

Speculating what 'could have happened' with respect to Russia if WWI hadn't happened is a lot hazier than it is with, say, Germany or France, because there's a lot of 'what ifs' and covers a period of political change that went on from at least 1905 to 1923. That's also what makes it particularly engaging.
 
Speculating what 'could have happened' with respect to Russia if WWI hadn't happened is a lot hazier than it is with, say, Germany or France, because there's a lot of 'what ifs' and covers a period of political change that went on from at least 1905 to 1923. That's also what makes it particularly engaging.

One interesting "what if?" scenario I saw once was a link then I once found at the lolcows of AlternateHistory.com. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine saved that one describing a point of divergence where an anarchist named Jean-François Sipodo had killed Edward VII who wasn't king yet which aborted the "Entente Cordiale" between UK and France. https://web.archive.org/web/20050418113030/http://www.quarryhouse.free-online.co.uk/ed/ASHATW.htm

There's also a vlog who talk another scenario about an Anglo-German alliance. Had these scenarios happened WWI would had been very different.
 
Back