NationStates Jolt Archive

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?Then something else would have started WWI. The Great War was an accident waiting to happen.

Then something else would have started WWI. The Great War was an accident waiting to happen.

yup. Europe was a powder-keg of alliances waiting for a spark.

Then something else would have started WWI. The Great War was an accident waiting to happen.

Let's just say it didn't.

The leaders met and resolved everything, keeping with the Congress of Vienna.
What would have happened?

Then something else would have started WWI. The Great War was an accident waiting to happen.

Yes, but the people who fought it would've been changed, leading to more changes.

If WWI didn't happen as a whole, the response would be: America would be isolationist. There would've been no WWII nazi-style. Russian revolution wouldn't have happened like it did. British Empire would presumably be bigger. There would be any more wars in the southern Europe area. (WWI kind of resolved 99% of them) Lots of things.

If WWI happened but not because of Franzy, well, let me think on that one.

Details, please.

And the rule of this thread: NO WWI!

Cocks would have happened. *nods*

Let's just say it didn't.

The leaders met and resolved everything, keeping with the Congress of Vienna.
What would have happened?WWI was pretty much impossible to prevent. The secret alliances system and nationalism in the countries was looking for a vent. Something would have sparked it off. The massive changes that would be necessary for WWI to never have happened are much too complicated for any good scenario to be realistic. Everyone was spoiling for war, the leaders, the people, the militaries.

Basically, if it hadn't happened, it would have happened sooner or later. The players might have been different and teams rearranged, but a Great War in Europe that spread to the colonies was pretty much inevitable.

Let's just say that the alliances dissolved and nationalism died down.

Let's just say it didn't.

The leaders met and resolved everything, keeping with the Congress of Vienna.
What would have happened?

Hmm. No rise of the Nazi party probably. Not sure whether the commies could have taken over Russia. Without WW2 probably China would have remained non commie as well. So no cold war either. Between all that, I'd say less advancement in technology, but while I hold there would probably be some less, the powder keg of alliances probably would have pushed things forward anyways.

I'd say sooner or later Japan would have started something though, which, without everyone occupied with Germany probably would have led to a royal beatdown.

Believe it or not, I also think it's possible US would be somewhat more socialist. I'll explain if need be.

Let's just say that the alliances dissolved and nationalism died down.Then we would be living in an era of peace to this day. ;)

Hmm. No rise of the Nazi party probably. Not sure whether the commies could have taken over Russia. Without WW2 probably China would have remained non commie as well. So no cold war either. Between all that, I'd say less advancement in technology, but while I hold there would probably be some less, the powder keg of alliances probably would have pushed things forward anyways.

I'd say sooner or later Japan would have started something though, which, without everyone occupied with Germany probably would have led to a royal beatdown.

Believe it or not, I also think it's possible US would be somewhat more socialist. I'll explain if need be.

Please do.

To quote Captain E Blackadder

"The politicians in Europe devised a way to ensure peace, by building up two massive opposing militaries, each acting as a deterrent to each other. The problem, was that this was complete and utter bollocks."

Please do.

All right. Without the commies in control of Russia and China, there wouldn't be a major communist power. As a result, the US (probably less industrialized, incidentally. The world wars played a pretty big role in us becoming a world power) wouldn't have a major communist 'foe'. So no massive stigma attached to communism and communist policies. See?

All right. Without the commies in control of Russia and China, there wouldn't be a major communist power. As a result, the US (probably less industrialized, incidentally. The world wars played a pretty big role in us becoming a world power) wouldn't have a major communist 'foe'. So no massive stigma attached to communism and communist policies. See?

Good.

So we got

"sick Man" Ottoman Empire still existent
US isolationist and socialist
Monarchy in Germany

What else?

World War One and World War two effectively ended most of the Royal Households in Europe and played a major role in ending European colonialism. Without either war (and with no WWI I don't think we would have had a Nazi led WWII) it is possible we could see a modern day equivalent of the huge European global Empires.

Good.

So we got

"sick Man" Ottoman Empire still existent
US isolationist and socialist
Monarchy in Germany

What else?

Russia's a mess. No shock there. Britain is still a superpower, probably. Japan's in complete shambles after the allied invasion is forces to fight island to island to force a surrender.

China's more or less isolationist, except for the bits that the major powers have carved out for themselves.

Oh yeah, and less French jokes.

Middle East is a wee bit calmer between the lack of terror breeding grounds in Afghanistan and no Israel.

Hitler's probably off in art school...

No World War One? Well for starters Austria-Hungaria would have most certainly invaded Serbia at some point anyway. Russia would have most certainly supported Serbia. Germany would have most certainly supported Austria-Hungary. France would have most certainly supported Russia. Germany would have most certainly invaded France through Belgium. Britain may or may not have supported Belgium. Wait... isn't that what World War One was? It probably would have happened the same anyway. The only things which are uncertainly would be the reactions and descisions of Great Britain, Italy and the Ottoman Empire and other Balkan countries (Romania and Bulgaria).

With no war at all breaking out though. Germany would have continued to expand industrially and militarily, leaving all other contenders, except perhaps the USA, in the dust. There is no way that Great Britain or France minus Alsace-Lorrance could have seriously threatened Germany.

Details, please.

And the rule of this thread: NO WWI!

Absolutely none? Then read my above post. I'll get to the details further on. Along with Russia having no revolution, Communism and all sub-sections of it (Socialism, Marxism, Feminism even) would probably have never become popular in the world. Monarchy might still be popular in the world, but it was on the way out even before WWI, and democratic states would take root. America might have become more bluntly imperialist then it is today, simply saying "Fuck you Mexico." and invading it, probably leading to the U.S. dominating the western hemisphere, leading to totalarianism in the U.S., which will then to revolutions. Expect Benedict Arnold masks to making an appearance instead of Guy Fawkes masks, Congress instead of Pariliament blowing up, and Lady Liberty instead of that one statue blowing up. I would suspect that, in American tradition, corporations might be a big ruler in the AE (American Empire), and therefore it MIGHT be a communist/socialist/etc. revolution. But the chances are like every totalarian state it'll probably be some form of Anarchist revolution, probably an Anarcho-Communist revolution as said before. Chances are America would be smart enough not to attack the Eastern Hemisphere, as you have to remeber without WWII, America wouldn't be such a power as it is today. Ok, that's it with the Western Hemisphere. Chances are the Southern European area would be in constant turmoil, with East Europe trying thier best to just stay out of the conflicts. When the atom bomb eventually comes around (which it will) chances are it will be in Southern Europe. Expect that area to be a disaster zone. Africa really wouldn't have changed much... It would probably just be dominated by the British, whom would still have an Empire. There'd still probably be mass poverty, even with it being in large empire such as Britian. Britian and France would probably eventually become mortal enemies again, leading to a massive war between the two eventually. Would be mini-WWI. France might call on the rest of Europe to fight back against the giant, and they might respond. Either way Britian would win. It would simply be too large. This would lead to Britian's domination of the "middle hemisphere" (Africa and Western and Middle Europe). There might be some kind of "Eastern European Union" consisting of obviously Eastern Europe, the remains of Southern Europe, and Scandinavia. It would probably just be an attempt to keep Britian from growing any larger. Now on to the middle east. It would probably be much more peaceful than it is now, without Israel being there and all. Britian would probably be forced out due to Muslim turmoil earlier on. There would probably an "Islamic Union", consisting of the Middle East, a few islamic Far East countries, and the Near east. Eventually the EEU and the IU would probably fight against Britian's dominance, leading to a full WWI (It was bound to happen man). Britian would lose, as their empire would be too large to maintain. This would lead to a radically different European spectrum, possible consisting of several Muslim states, along with Africa being purely Muslim. The Far East (Asia) would probably eventually fall to Japan's imperialism. Without a doubt. Without America fighting against them, Japan would dominate all. Japan would also be smart enough not to attack the AE, so there would be no war between them. They would conquer Australia with ease. There would probably be a few revolutions, but the Japanese would easily put them down. So the world today would be: AE dominating Western Hemisphere. Europe largely Muslim, Britian severly weakened. Africa all Muslim. Eastern Europe same as always. Southern Europe devestated by radation. Middle east peaceful. Asia dominated by Japanese. Who knows what could happen now. WWII between AE and JE (Japanese Empire)? Britian becoming Germany-ish, leading to them fighting back against Europe in WWII? Muslims become extreme and attempting to create a world caliphate, leading to another member for WWII? I would explain past that, but I only feel the need to explain up to the current time frame.

Ok, now I look the picture of 'no-WWI' from the view of Northern Europe.
Sweden would be Sweden. There haven't been any fighting since 17th century. Also Norway would be the same as now.
But Denmark would be smaller than nowadays: the South-Denmark became danish after the WWI.
There would be probably no Finland. Finland became independent along with the Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland after the Russian revolution.

And I have to say also that without the WWI there would be more European monarch-states and more imperialism.

Austria-Hungary would fall apart and there would be a war. So Germany and Austria would be on one team, and the Balkans on the other. People in the US might have started accepting communism, and eventually gone commie themselves. Tsar would have been overthrown in the 1930s, maybe, and replaced by a Kerensky-style democracy. Lenin and Stalin would have taken over and Russia would go socialist. US may take the place of Russia, and Russia, China in this world.

Absolutely none? Then read my above post. I'll get to the details further on. Along with Russia having no revolution, Communism and all sub-sections of it (Socialism, Marxism, Feminism even) would probably have never become popular in the world. Monarchy might still be popular in the world, but it was on the way out even before WWI, and democratic states would take root. America might have become more bluntly imperialist then it is today, simply saying "Fuck you Mexico." and invading it, probably leading to the U.S. dominating the western hemisphere, leading to totalarianism in the U.S., which will then to revolutions. Expect Benedict Arnold masks to making an appearance instead of Guy Fawkes masks, Congress instead of Pariliament blowing up, and Lady Liberty instead of that one statue blowing up. I would suspect that, in American tradition, corporations might be a big ruler in the AE (American Empire), and therefore it MIGHT be a communist/socialist/etc. revolution. But the chances are like every totalarian state it'll probably be some form of Anarchist revolution, probably an Anarcho-Communist revolution as said before. Chances are America would be smart enough not to attack the Eastern Hemisphere, as you have to remeber without WWII, America wouldn't be such a power as it is today. Ok, that's it with the Western Hemisphere. Chances are the Southern European area would be in constant turmoil, with East Europe trying thier best to just stay out of the conflicts. When the atom bomb eventually comes around (which it will) chances are it will be in Southern Europe. Expect that area to be a disaster zone. Africa really wouldn't have changed much... It would probably just be dominated by the British, whom would still have an Empire. There'd still probably be mass poverty, even with it being in large empire such as Britian. Britian and France would probably eventually become mortal enemies again, leading to a massive war between the two eventually. Would be mini-WWI. France might call on the rest of Europe to fight back against the giant, and they might respond. Either way Britian would win. It would simply be too large. This would lead to Britian's domination of the "middle hemisphere" (Africa and Western and Middle Europe). There might be some kind of "Eastern European Union" consisting of obviously Eastern Europe, the remains of Southern Europe, and Scandinavia. It would probably just be an attempt to keep Britian from growing any larger. Now on to the middle east. It would probably be much more peaceful than it is now, without Israel being there and all. Britian would probably be forced out due to Muslim turmoil earlier on. There would probably an "Islamic Union", consisting of the Middle East, a few islamic Far East countries, and the Near east. Eventually the EEU and the IU would probably fight against Britian's dominance, leading to a full WWI (It was bound to happen man). Britian would lose, as their empire would be too large to maintain. This would lead to a radically different European spectrum, possible consisting of several Muslim states, along with Africa being purely Muslim. The Far East (Asia) would probably eventually fall to Japan's imperialism. Without a doubt. Without America fighting against them, Japan would dominate all. Japan would also be smart enough not to attack the AE, so there would be no war between them. They would conquer Australia with ease. There would probably be a few revolutions, but the Japanese would easily put them down. So the world today would be: AE dominating Western Hemisphere. Europe largely Muslim, Britian severly weakened. Africa all Muslim. Eastern Europe same as always. Southern Europe devestated by radation. Middle east peaceful. Asia dominated by Japanese. Who knows what could happen now. WWII between AE and JE (Japanese Empire)? Britian becoming Germany-ish, leading to them fighting back against Europe in WWII? Muslims become extreme and attempting to create a world caliphate, leading to another member for WWII? I would explain past that, but I only feel the need to explain up to the current time frame.

Paragraphs are your friend. And are you trying to tell me that WW1 and WW2 aren't a big part of what made the US a major player? I maintain that we would have remained isolationist, and possibly slightly more socialist.

I really don't see why freedom-fighter/terrorists/Sons of Liberty would blow up the Statue of Liberty...

Absolutely none? Then read my above post. I'll get to the details further on. Along with Russia having no revolution, Communism and all sub-sections of it (Socialism, Marxism, Feminism even) would probably have never become popular in the world. Monarchy might still be popular in the world, but it was on the way out even before WWI, and democratic states would take root. America might have become more bluntly imperialist then it is today, simply saying "Fuck you Mexico." and invading it, probably leading to the U.S. dominating the western hemisphere, leading to totalarianism in the U.S., which will then to revolutions. Expect Benedict Arnold masks to making an appearance instead of Guy Fawkes masks, Congress instead of Pariliament blowing up, and Lady Liberty instead of that one statue blowing up. I would suspect that, in American tradition, corporations might be a big ruler in the AE (American Empire), and therefore it MIGHT be a communist/socialist/etc. revolution. But the chances are like every totalarian state it'll probably be some form of Anarchist revolution, probably an Anarcho-Communist revolution as said before. Chances are America would be smart enough not to attack the Eastern Hemisphere, as you have to remeber without WWII, America wouldn't be such a power as it is today. Ok, that's it with the Western Hemisphere. Chances are the Southern European area would be in constant turmoil, with East Europe trying thier best to just stay out of the conflicts. When the atom bomb eventually comes around (which it will) chances are it will be in Southern Europe. Expect that area to be a disaster zone. Africa really wouldn't have changed much... It would probably just be dominated by the British, whom would still have an Empire. There'd still probably be mass poverty, even with it being in large empire such as Britian. Britian and France would probably eventually become mortal enemies again, leading to a massive war between the two eventually. Would be mini-WWI. France might call on the rest of Europe to fight back against the giant, and they might respond. Either way Britian would win. It would simply be too large. This would lead to Britian's domination of the "middle hemisphere" (Africa and Western and Middle Europe). There might be some kind of "Eastern European Union" consisting of obviously Eastern Europe, the remains of Southern Europe, and Scandinavia. It would probably just be an attempt to keep Britian from growing any larger. Now on to the middle east. It would probably be much more peaceful than it is now, without Israel being there and all. Britian would probably be forced out due to Muslim turmoil earlier on. There would probably an "Islamic Union", consisting of the Middle East, a few islamic Far East countries, and the Near east. Eventually the EEU and the IU would probably fight against Britian's dominance, leading to a full WWI (It was bound to happen man). Britian would lose, as their empire would be too large to maintain. This would lead to a radically different European spectrum, possible consisting of several Muslim states, along with Africa being purely Muslim. The Far East (Asia) would probably eventually fall to Japan's imperialism. Without a doubt. Without America fighting against them, Japan would dominate all. Japan would also be smart enough not to attack the AE, so there would be no war between them. They would conquer Australia with ease. There would probably be a few revolutions, but the Japanese would easily put them down. So the world today would be: AE dominating Western Hemisphere. Europe largely Muslim, Britian severly weakened. Africa all Muslim. Eastern Europe same as always. Southern Europe devestated by radation. Middle east peaceful. Asia dominated by Japanese. Who knows what could happen now. WWII between AE and JE (Japanese Empire)? Britian becoming Germany-ish, leading to them fighting back against Europe in WWII? Muslims become extreme and attempting to create a world caliphate, leading to another member for WWII? I would explain past that, but I only feel the need to explain up to the current time frame.

Good job. That is entirely accurate, IMO.

Anyone up for PMT?

Paragraphs are your friend. And are you trying to tell me that WW1 and WW2 aren't a big part of what made the US a major player? I maintain that we would have remained isolationist, and possibly slightly more socialist.

I really don't see why freedom-fighter/terrorists/Sons of Liberty would blow up the Statue of Liberty...

Meh. I was lazy. And I was saying that WWI and WWII is what made America a major player, in international politics. Without it, America would've been more concerned about what it could get where it already was, which is Canada and everything south. And without WWI, there would've been no Great Depression, leading to bigger corporations. I don't think there would've been more socialism. And the Sons of Liberty would blow up the SoL because it symbolizes the totalarian government. It would have been completely corrupted to the point to where it symbolized all the evils man could do, not freedom.

Meh. I was lazy. And I was saying that WWI and WWII is what made America a major player, in international politics. Without it, America would've been more concerned about what it could get where it already was, which is Canada and everything south. And without WWI, there would've been no Great Depression, leading to bigger corporations. I don't think there would've been more socialism. And the Sons of Liberty would blow up the SoL because it symbolizes the totalarian government. It would have been completely corrupted to the point to where it symbolized all the evils man could do, not freedom.

Hmm. Maybe, except that WWs also played a major role in building up our industry to the point where we could be a major player. Mexico we could probably beat any which way (we have before. :p) and Canada on it's own, but I imagine that invading Canada would get Britain involved.

If we assume that Mexico fell first, leading to totalitarianism, we get the delicious irony of the Sons of Liberty working with the British.

Hmm. Maybe, except that WWs also played a major role in building up our industry to the point where we could be a major player. Mexico we could probably beat any which way (we have before. :p) and Canada on it's own, but I imagine that invading Canada would get Britain involved.

If we assume that Mexico fell first, leading to totalitarianism, we get the delicious irony of the Sons of Liberty working with the British.

If we went southward first, then swung upward, Britian would stay out of our affairs, besides of course clandistenly lending supplies to the Sons. Why risk everything for a country that is mostly ice and snow? And that would be such delicious irony. It's so delicious I can taste it.

If we went southward first, then swung upward, Britian would stay out of our affairs, besides of course clandistenly lending supplies to the Sons. Why risk everything for a country that is mostly ice and snow? And that would be such delicious irony. It's so delicious I can taste it.

Tastes like tea... the good kind loaded with sugar.

If we went southward first, then swung upward, Britian would stay out of our affairs, besides of course clandistenly lending supplies to the Sons. Why risk everything for a country that is mostly ice and snow? And that would be such delicious irony. It's so delicious I can taste it.

Somebody should write a story. Someone e-mail Harry Turtledove immediately!

Tastes like tea... the good kind loaded with sugar.

It'd be kind of stupid to have a "boston tea party" in a totailarian government, though.

"NO TAXES WITHOUT REPRE-Wait... What's that sound?" *Machine gun fire*

I think it would have to be something much more drastic then just tossing Imperial goods away. Maybe blowing up the harbor?

Somebody should write a story. Someone e-mail Harry Turtledove immediately!

Amen, He is the best!

Anyone here ever read the Southern Victory Timeline. It is so choice.

Meh. I was lazy. And I was saying that WWI and WWII is what made America a major player, in international politics. Without it, America would've been more concerned about what it could get where it already was, which is Canada and everything south. And without WWI, there would've been no Great Depression, leading to bigger corporations. I don't think there would've been more socialism. And the Sons of Liberty would blow up the SoL because it symbolizes the totalarian government. It would have been completely corrupted to the point to where it symbolized all the evils man could do, not freedom.

So you're saying that WW1 (and WW2) gave the US a unifying point, where internal differences were put aside in response to an external threat, and without that stimuli, the democratic process in the nation would have sprialled inwards on itself and become a totalitarian state, conquering the rest of the continent?

In part I disagree with you.

I think that there would eventually be a unified North American continent, not through conquest but through a (present day) EU-style treaty.

This would come about mostly in reaction to the strength of the British Empire, and its collapse.

The way I see it, the British empire was on its way out with or without WW1. The difference is that without WW1 (after which the british people were tired of war), there would have been much more resistance from the british. I think it would have been the British vs. All its colonies, which the british would have lost. However, even if the US did not take direct action, it would look for alliances in fear of another 1812.

I also disagree that the Bomb would have first been developed in Eastern europe. I think it would have been developed by independant (probably German or American) businesses and maybe even sold to the eastern europeans. (Most of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were German and American and had there been no WW2, they would have been working for independant firms instead of the US government)

I do not know if the russian revolution would have gone off as planned. Keep in mind that the depression (a result of WW1) would not have happened, and without the extreme poverty, the revolutionaries would not have gained the support that they eventually recieved.


While this is fun, it is ultimately futile. we're missing the most important thing: individuals. nations as a whole are easy to generalize, but individuals make all the difference. Hitler wrote the Mein Kamphf while sitting in a hospital bed being treated for chemical burns from the battlefields of WW1. without that experiance, who knows what could have happened? Alternitavely, for all we know, there was a soldier who died in WW1 that could have become the American president that leads the nation to invade europe and allies with a budding Islamic rebellion inside the Ottoman Empire. but maybe not.

Then something else would have started WWI. The Great War was an accident waiting to happen.
More like a disaster of global proportions than an accident...
Let's just say it didn't.

The leaders met and resolved everything, keeping with the Congress of Vienna.
What would have happened?
Umm..WWI
Details, please.

And the rule of this thread: NO WWI!
But that's a near impossibility.
WWI was pretty much impossible to prevent. The secret alliances system and nationalism in the countries was looking for a vent. Something would have sparked it off. The massive changes that would be necessary for WWI to never have happened are much too complicated for any good scenario to be realistic. Everyone was spoiling for war, the leaders, the people, the militaries.

Basically, if it hadn't happened, it would have happened sooner or later. The players might have been different and teams rearranged, but a Great War in Europe that spread to the colonies was pretty much inevitable.
It was the age of military romanticization.
Let's just say that the alliances dissolved and nationalism died down.
Ha! Never.
Then we would be living in an era of peace to this day. ;)

Yeah, something like that.;)

Somebody should write a story. Someone e-mail Harry Turtledove immediately!

Give me Kim Stanley Robinson's E-mail and I'll e-mail him.

It'd be kind of stupid to have a "boston tea party" in a totailarian government, though.

"NO TAXES WITHOUT REPRE-Wait... What's that sound?" *Machine gun fire*

I think it would have to be something much more drastic then just tossing Imperial goods away. Maybe blowing up the harbor?

I imagine there would be a lot of circulating revolutionary reading material. Plotting in basements. Then someone would organize a protest and it would be squished. Then things turn violent, about the same time the Brits start shipping in explosives.

I can almost imagine Liberty being replaced with Justice...

If we went southward first, then swung upward, Britian would stay out of our affairs, besides of course clandistenly lending supplies to the Sons. Why risk everything for a country that is mostly ice and snow? And that would be such delicious irony. It's so delicious I can taste it.

Britain would've got involved to protect Canada in exactly the same way as they moved to defend the Falklands.

Without WWI happening in 1914 both Britain and Germany would have continued to the massive increase in arms manufacture, primarily the Navys. WWI would have happened, it would just have been later and with bigger guns.

Britain would've got involved to protect Canada in exactly the same way as they moved to defend the Falklands.

Without WWI happening in 1914 both Britain and Germany would have continued to the massive increase in arms manufacture, primarily the Navys. WWI would have happened, it would just have been later and with bigger guns.

Insert over literallness.

They would have attacked Argentina?

Britain would've got involved to protect Canada in exactly the same way as they moved to defend the Falklands.

Without WWI happening in 1914 both Britain and Germany would have continued to the massive increase in arms manufacture, primarily the Navys. WWI would have happened, it would just have been later and with bigger guns.

I maintain that had the arms race continued for another decade, Germany may very well have had more than a fighting chance at victory.

Insert over literallness.

They would have attacked Argentina?

:eek: Dear gods, I should hope so!

Insert over literallness.

They would have attacked Argentina?

Yep! Catch them when they ain't looking!:D

So you're saying that WW1 (and WW2) gave the US a unifying point, where internal differences were put aside in response to an external threat, and without that stimuli, the democratic process in the nation would have sprialled inwards on itself and become a totalitarian state, conquering the rest of the continent?

In part I disagree with you.

I think that there would eventually be a unified North American continent, not through conquest but through a (present day) EU-style treaty.

This would come about mostly in reaction to the strength of the British Empire, and its collapse.

The way I see it, the British empire was on its way out with or without WW1. The difference is that without WW1 (after which the british people were tired of war), there would have been much more resistance from the british. I think it would have been the British vs. All its colonies, which the british would have lost. However, even if the US did not take direct action, it would look for alliances in fear of another 1812.

I also disagree that the Bomb would have first been developed in Eastern europe. I think it would have been developed by independant (probably German or American) businesses and maybe even sold to the eastern europeans. (Most of the scientists on the Manhattan Project were German and American and had there been no WW2, they would have been working for independant firms instead of the US government)

I do not know if the russian revolution would have gone off as planned. Keep in mind that the depression (a result of WW1) would not have happened, and without the extreme poverty, the revolutionaries would not have gained the support that they eventually recieved.


While this is fun, it is ultimately futile. we're missing the most important thing: individuals. nations as a whole are easy to generalize, but individuals make all the difference. Hitler wrote the Mein Kamphf while sitting in a hospital bed being treated for chemical burns from the battlefields of WW1. without that experiance, who knows what could have happened? Alternitavely, for all we know, there was a soldier who died in WW1 that could have become the American president that leads the nation to invade europe and allies with a budding Islamic rebellion inside the Ottoman Empire. but maybe not.

No, I'm saying that in both World Wars, America was forced to go over seas to help out other people, and therefore become allies with them, leading them to a more peaceful and international agenda, thereby leading them off the path of Western Hemispheric dominance, of which would've led them to totalarianism.

America would've been too aggressive for "treaty".

Believe me, the British Empire fell largely due to both World Wars. Without either happening, they would've been massive.

War drives weapon development. There would've been plenty war in Southern Europe. This development would eventually come upon the atom, long before the independent contracters would've.

And didn't I say that the Russian revolution would've been entirely different?

We aren't looking at every single individual. Just groups of people. So yeah...

No, I'm saying that in both World Wars, America was forced to go over seas to help out other people, and therefore become allies with them, leading them to a more peaceful and international agenda, thereby leading them off the path of Western Hemispheric dominance, of which would've led them to totalarianism.

America would've been too aggressive for "treaty".

Believe me, the British Empire fell largely due to both World Wars. Without either happening, they would've been massive.

War drives weapon development. There would've been plenty war in Southern Europe. This development would eventually come upon the atom, long before the independent contracters would've.

And didn't I say that the Russian revolution would've been entirely different?

We aren't looking at every single individual. Just groups of people. So yeah...

not all of that was aimed at you, sorry if I made it seem that way.

WW1 and WW2 were what bushed the US to be the power that it is today.

the Civil war ended in 1865, and WW1 started in 1914, so you're saying that with 50 years of no encouragement to develop weaponry (no arms races to speak of, and the US wasn't involved in the alliance web of Europe), the US would have reached a point where we could invade the rest of the continent, and be powerful enough to give pause to the British Empire? Without the Industrial boom from WW1 and 2, US could not do anything remotely like it.

So when India, Australia, South Africa, and Canada decide they've had enough of British Imperial rule, there is a war. it involves the British Empire fighting a war on nearly every continent and in every ocean of the world. Britian will lose, but not after doing lots and lots of damage. they might even win in the beginning, and when the South African or Australian rebellions fail, what do you think the US's reaction is going to be? They would have to find alies, lest they find themselves rolled up in the momentum of the British vs. colonies war.

The World wars caused the revolutions in the colonies. It's true.

So, no WWI= BE be big.


Let's see: lessenign power in southeastern Europe would make it easily conquerable by the BE, then the Eurpoean continent would be united.

So we'd have america; britain, its colonies, and europe; mideast+africa; and asia as empires.

Seems about equal.

N+S america vs. British empire+Europe vs. Africa+middle East vs. Russia, China, Japan, Korea, 'Nam, and the Pacific.

Ripe for WWIII. Or a 1984 scenario.

The World wars caused the revolutions in the colonies. It's true.

So, no WWI= BE be big.


Let's see: lessenign power in southeastern Europe would make it easily conquerable by the BE, then the Eurpoean continent would be united.

So we'd have america; britain, its colonies, and europe; mideast+africa; and asia as empires.

Seems about equal.

N+S america vs. British empire+Europe vs. Africa+middle East vs. Russia, China, Japan, Korea, 'Nam, and the Pacific.

Ripe for WWIII. Or a 1984 scenario.

Nah. Russia's a mess. Germany/Austrohungary is maintaining enough power to keep the British from just rolling over them. Cold warish thing. US Impearilism in Latin America could make for a good. Japan got rolled over after trying to take control of the Pacific (everyone else forgot their differences for about five minutes, and then started plotting mid-war) and is a shambles.

Nah. Russia's a mess. Germany/Austrohungary is maintaining enough power to keep the British from just rolling over them. Cold warish thing. US Impearilism in Latin America could make for a good. Japan got rolled over after trying to take control of the Pacific (everyone else forgot their differences for about five minutes, and then started plotting mid-war) and is a shambles.

Let's see...

S Eur is n00ked. That is easy to take. A push north would not be too hard (east of Germano-Hungary), and from there, GH is surrounded.

And Germany always loses when surrounded. (Same with everyone, really...)

I'd like to point out that at any given point in time, Russia has always been a mess for one reason or another.:p

Believe it or not, I also think it's possible US would be somewhat more socialist. I'll explain if need be.I can see that. WWI was what gave them the excuse to deport Emma Goldman and other anarchists. There would also likely have been no Palmer Raids, so the IWW wouldn't have been crushed, and would likely have continued to grow.

I'd like to point out that at any given point in time, Russia has always been a mess for one reason or another.:p

True...

That is why I think it would be absorbed into The Japanese Empire.

Then there would be 5 "states": Britain, UEA (US but an empire), Europe, The middle east and Central Asia (The -stans), and Japan.

I'm interested to know, what is with the idea that Britain would have attempted to take over Europe. Britain had no interest in Europe at the time and was much more concerned with its overseas territories and dependents. Britains only interest in Europe was maintaining balance.
A balanced Europe, it was surmised, would be less likely to go to war than an unbalanced one, and so Britain would not have been even remotely interested in getting involved in Europe unless, as happened in WWI, a treaty was called upon that Britain felt it was required to support.

True...

That is why I think it would be absorbed into The Japanese Empire.

Then there would be 5 "states": Britain, UEA (US but an empire), Europe, The middle east and Central Asia (The -stans), and Japan.

Some of it, maybe. The far east. Japan always wanted that anyway. They thought it should belong to the true rulers of Asia: themselves.:p

Some of it, maybe. The far east. Japan always wanted that anyway. They thought it should belong to the true rulers of Asia: themselves.:p

Well, I am hoping to logically alter the world so that either:

1) A few superstates are formed
2) the world's politics are radically different
or
3) something so radical happens it would be good as an RP.

I kinda wanted to make an RP based on this... whatever we come up with.

Well, I am hoping to logically alter the world so that either:

1) A few superstates are formed
2) the world's politics are radically different
or
3) something so radical happens it would be good as an RP.

I kinda wanted to make an RP based on this... whatever we come up with.

That's why I play HOI 2.:p

But yeah, a few superstates with century long wars every five hundred years or so wouldn't be too bad....

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?

Well, if World War I never occurred (highly unlikely, given historical conditions), I think the world would have become much different.

First off, there would not have been a World War II, i.e., a struggle between the old order and totalitarianism.

The US would have remained isolationist, and the growing socialist movement in the US would have probably coalesced into a significantly powerful third political movement in Eugene Deb's Socialist Party of America. Their would have been some revolutionary change in the US social scene, but nothing on the same scale as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

Britain would have maintained the strength of its colonial empire, and probably expanded it further into China, competing with the French, Dutch, and Germans for control of an ever diminishing number of unconquered overseas nations. Colonial activity would probably have expanded into South America, provoking tension with an ever growing anti-imperial socialist movement in the US.

Much of the world would have continued to languish under colonial domination, and the prevailing social order in Europe would have probably been maintained. There would have been no League of Nations or any other State sanctioned attempts at internationalism.

The Russian Empire would remain mired in poverty and would have probably become the next target of European colonialism if no modernization came about. Like wise, the Ottoman "sick man of Europe" would have probably also become a target of colonialism. It's dominions in Mesopotamia, Persia and Arabia would have probably been carved up by Britain, Germany and France.

Overall, it's not a world particularly better or worse than the outcome of World War I. It would just be different.

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?

the band franz ferdinand would be called something else.

the Civil war ended in 1865, and WW1 started in 1914, so you're saying that with 50 years of no encouragement to develop weaponry (no arms races to speak of, and the US wasn't involved in the alliance web of Europe), the US would have reached a point where we could invade the rest of the continent, and be powerful enough to give pause to the British Empire? Without the Industrial boom from WW1 and 2, US could not do anything remotely like it.

So when India, Australia, South Africa, and Canada decide they've had enough of British Imperial rule, there is a war. it involves the British Empire fighting a war on nearly every continent and in every ocean of the world. Britian will lose, but not after doing lots and lots of damage. they might even win in the beginning, and when the South African or Australian rebellions fail, what do you think the US's reaction is going to be? They would have to find alies, lest they find themselves rolled up in the momentum of the British vs. colonies war.

We obviously couldn't have fought and won with Canada at the beginning of American western imperialism. If we did Britian would be there in a split second. We would take over everything south of us first, then head back up north when we have enough power to take Canada and to keep Britian away. And America would be to isolationist to join any war early on, if a war between Britian and it's colonies ever did happen. You have to realize the only reason the colonies rebelled was because they knew Britian was weak from fighting the Germans.

Mikesburg's AH 20th Century (sans WWI):

Firstly, we need a reason for WWI not to have happened. That's not highly plausable, but not out of the realm of possibility. The Chancelor of Germany prior (and during most of) WWI was actually hellbent on trying to reach a state of detente with Great Britain. However, he was often defeated by the militant aristocracy of his own nation. Perhaps the biggest reason for outbreak of war in Europe was due to Germany's rising power, and the fact that it was surrounded by enemies. The military planners felt that the best defense, was a good offense. If they brought one enemy down fast, they could hold off or defeat another one.

What if the Chancellor was more successful?

My Timeline:

Across Europe, the tension between the Great Powers is higer than ever, however, there is another growning tension, between rich and poor, labourer and capitalist. So, the German Chancellor works with the aristocracy in Germany, and his counterpart in Great Britain (and later France, Russia, and so on.) They agree on the following;

- A Quasi-Union amongst the Great Powers of Europe; an agreement in principal not to fight amongst each other on European soil. (Not unlike previous naval agreements.)
- Regular inspections amongst all of the great powers to see that there is no excessive military build-up between them.
- The rest of Europe divided up amongst the great powers.
- A general crackdown on the rise of socialism and class-war in Europe.

This eventually leads to small wars throughout parts of Europe, and an increasing colonialism throughout the world. This has several key effects;

- Many people emigrate to the United States to flee the pogroms and crackdowns of Europe. Many of these people have socialist ideas.
- A European confrontation with Asian powers, Japan in particular.

By the 1930's, socialist demonstrations and riots lead to an eventual socialist party gaining power in the US. The government, heavily influenced by traditional parties and capitalist supporters, declare martial law. Great Britain, and the European Empires Pact take a keen interest. Great Britain offers 'help' in the form of troops to the besieged Capitalist side of the American Revolution, which ignites more hatred and fervour from the common American People. The American Capitalist side relents, and the American Socialist Union is born. The first act, is to incite revolution in Mexico, and an invasion of Canada, in response to the British support of the 'reactionaries'.

This essentially, becomes a different World War.

This triggers general unrest throughout the Empire Pact territories. Trench warfare has less impact in a territory as vast as the US, and as such, although the Americans suffer horribly in the first few years of the campaigns, general unrest sweeps the factories and common people in the European home nations as well.

By the late 40's, the Empires Pact signs a treaty of Detente with the American Socialist Union, agreeing in principal that the western hemisphere shall be the domain of the Americas, and concentrate on maintaining order at home, and in other colonies. Meanwhile, the American Socialist Union covers all of North America, and makes inroads into South America.

Thus begins a 'cold war' between the Americas and the Empires Pact as both factions try to influence the developing world. The E.E.P. develops nuclear weapons first, as it's arms industry is more robust. They begin to use this as a nuclear 'stick' to repress African, Asian and Middle-Eastern colonies. Meanwhile, the America's eventually catch up in the arms race, but by increasingly arming themselves, they run into many of the problems that the Soviet Union would have.

The problem, is that this world has two essentially economically stagnant philosophies; Fascism, and Communism (stalinesque). The rise of true democratic capitalism is stifled by socialism and the cold war in the America's, and the rise of democracy and socialism is crushed by fascism in Europe.

Economic Collapse becomes inevitable, as both sides arm themselves for an eventual confrontation. When the Collapse starts, war breaks out, and second world war, much worse than the first begins. This war, in the late 50's, is nuclear. At first, the war is conventional and fought in Asia, South America, the Middle-East, and the 'high seas'. The first nuclear weapon is detonated by the Empires Pact in the middle-east. Once the first tactical weapon is used, it becomes less unsavoury to use it, and both sides begin to use them abroad.

The first nuclear weapon used on a European City (not by missile, but by terrorist) ignites a counter strike in America. Neither Side is willing to unleash a total nuclear arsenal, and a cease-fire is signed. Revolution breaks out in Europe, and the colonies become independant, many adopting socialist agendas. Revolution also breaks out in the Americas, although one more keen on decentralization, and economic liberalization.

By the mid 60's, the United Nations is born. By the late 60's, a peace movement breaks out through the western world. The developing world is locked in it's own conflicts, after decades, and sometimes centuries of colonialism has left them in flounders.

By the 1970's, the Asian nations begin to make their presence felt, and by the 1980's, a socialist-globalized economy starts really taking root.

Hows about this? WW1 doesn't happen. I'll leave the reason to your imagination. As a result, Austro-Hungary gradually increases control over southeast Europe until it holds it in an iron fist. As a result, we get a generation of Germans brought up as the overlords of the Serbs, Bosnians, etc, and viewing themselves as superior.

Cue the Russian revolution, several years later than it actually happened. It fails, and Vladmir Lenin is publicly hung, which proves to be a mistake, as it makes him a martyr. So Russia's in turmoil.

Great Britain and France, meanwhile, are viewing both Russia and Germany with suspicion. Germany because it continues to build up it's power while helping to crush southeast Europe (cause and effect) and Russia because, well, it's Russia. So they enter into a secret pact to deal with the two of them.

Austria, meanwhile, is finding southeast Europe difficult to handle. They are faced with two choices. Either pull out, or find somewhere to get more resources. With the superiority they feel, there's only really one option. Cue invasion of foundering Russia.

Stalin rises to power in Russia, pushes back German advances through Russian 'tactics'. Germany is faced with an enormous front, and the continuing drain of southeast Europe, and after years of attrition warfare, including several direly Russian winters, is forced to settle. At this point, during the transition of southeast Europe to Russia, Britain and France pounce. A three way war begins, between the USSR, the crippled Central Powers and the Anglo-Franco Pact.

Meanwhile, what is viewed of the sucess of Russia against the agression of Germany spurs socialism to new heights in the US. The Canadian-US border becomes almost completely uncontrolled due to friendship between the nations, and immigration from Mexico is extremely high.

The result of the immigration, in concert with the social reforms is a Great Depression, paving the way for the rise of a powerful, centralized, pro-business government. New Mexican-American immigrants are considered second class citizens for a period of years, while Canada gradually grows away.

Meanwhile, in Europe, fighting has ceased with the Central Powers divided between the USSR and the AFP. Peace is uneasy, and both sides continue to build up their forces, handily plundering the German scientists, including an Albert Einstein who ends up working for the AFP.

The US continues to grow Authoritarian, especially towards lower classes, leading to a political group called the Sons of Liberty. The Sons of Liberty organize political protests, picketing, unions, etc.

Project Nova begins in Versailles.

First US-Japanese war begins. Inconclusive skirmishing occurs in the Pacific. Under wartime powers, authoritarianism grows, and power is further centralized. After a similarly inconclusive peace treaty is signed, powers not returned to Congress.

Sons of Liberty organize a protest march. Tanks are deployed. Not fun.

USSR develops manned military rockets. Oddly enough, there aren't many volunteers.

Second US-Japanese war begins when US attacks Japanese islands. Canada, feeling nervous due to their imperialist erstwhile compatriots grows even closer to Britain.

Sons of Liberty commit unsucessful assination attempt on JFK. AFP begins covertly shipping weapons to SoL through Canada.

AFP completes Project Nova and now has nukorz!!!!!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :upyours:

Sorry. N00b attack...

So yeah, the world is a massive powder-keg.

<snip>

So you're saying the world will essentially be the same, just with a few things switched around?

More like a disaster of global proportions than an accident...

Umm..WWI

But that's a near impossibility.

It was the age of military romanticization.

Ha! Never.


Yeah, something like that.;)Yeah. It took WWI and WWII to teach Europe that war sucks. I can't imagine anything less than total destruction to bring about a change in mentality. WWI couldn't really be prevented, only postponed.

All of these theories are well-thought out.

it's pretty much a consesus that the US will still be a power, albeit authoritarian, and Russia will still be a h**lhole [bleeped for all of you anti-cursing people].

Britain will be pwns0r and Mexico gets pwned.

That is preety much what is common between the theories.

Let's get some more theories! Perhaps we can get a full story from 1910-2010.

So you're saying the world will essentially be the same, just with a few things switched around?

Well, three superpowers instead of the Cold War's two, plus a quasi-superpower in Japan. Heavily authoritarian US, complete with terrorists, if you want me to continue, I imagine that the AFP and US will eventually clash, ending with the atomic bombing of... somewhere in the midwest, and the USSR will take over Japan, China, and most of Asia, bringing us back to two and a Cold War dominated by the sole nuclear power that is the AFP, gradually leading to a one world government...

I'd like to point out that at any given point in time, Russia has always been a mess for one reason or another.:p

Yeah, its very very dangerous to underestimate Russia simply because they are messy. *cough *the mongolians, *cough* the turks, *cough* the sweeds, *cough* Napoleon, *cough* Hitler.

Yeah, its very very dangerous to underestimate Russia simply because they are messy. *cough *the mongolians, *cough* the turks, *cough* the sweeds, *cough* Napoleon, *cough* Hitler.

I think the Mongolians did all right, though...

Yeah, its very very dangerous to underestimate Russia simply because they are messy. *cough *the mongolians, *cough* the turks, *cough* the sweeds, *cough* Napoleon, *cough* Hitler.

-Teh Mongolians are from Mongolia. it's the disk between Russia and China
-The Turks are from Turkey, where Constantinople is
-Swedes are KINDA Russian, but who said they were anything vital? :p
-Napoleon is ITALIAN, not Russian. Or French.

Well, three superpowers instead of the Cold War's two, plus a quasi-superpower in Japan. Heavily authoritarian US, complete with terrorists, if you want me to continue, I imagine that the AFP and US will eventually clash, ending with the atomic bombing of... somewhere in the midwest, and the USSR will take over Japan, China, and most of Asia, bringing us back to two and a Cold War dominated by the sole nuclear power that is the AFP, gradually leading to a one world government...

Still, it's kind of hard to believe that most everything will be the same without WWI happening as it did. No WWI means no fire for communist Russian revolution, meaning no USSR (by the time there would be enough fire the Bolsheviks would've probably been wiped out). Without Germany to fight, Britian and France would've gone back to their old rivalries... Meh. I'm not going to reexplain it. Read my massive post.

-Teh Mongolians are from Mongolia. it's the disk between Russia and China
-The Turks are from Turkey, where Constantinople is
-Swedes are KINDA Russian, but who said they were anything vital? :p
-Napoleon is ITALIAN, not Russian. Or French.

I believe he was talking about people who tried to invade Mongolia...

True...

That is why I think it would be absorbed into The Japanese Empire.

Then there would be 5 "states": Britain, UEA (US but an empire), Europe, The middle east and Central Asia (The -stans), and Japan.

You are mistaken, The Japanese got their asses kicked by the Russians in a little known war right before world war two in the late thirties, a large Japanese army entered mongolia with the intension of stealing from Russia with little resistance (from their experiance beating the Russians in the early 1900's), In reality, they got totally obliterated, its the main reason in WW2 Japan refused to invade Russia with Hitler.

I believe he was talking about people who tried to invade Mongolia...

um...people who invaded Russia...you mean. :p

*Shudders* DAMN YOU JOLT! DAMN YOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU!

I think the Mongolians did all right, though...

They were actually able to hold on to Russian territory for an extended period of time. The only invaders that did not underestimate not only the russian winter, but also the tenacity and endurance of the Russian army, Though at the time it wasnt exactly all a "Russian Nation", but they were kicked out eventually.

They were actually able to hold on to Russian territory for an extended period of time. The only invaders that did not underestimate not only the russian winter, but also the tenacity and endurance of the Russian army, Though at the time it wasnt exactly all a "Russian Nation", but they were kicked out eventually.

Yup. Noone got the point that s was hella cold there. (Still is but...)

Dumb idiots. you gotta know where you're going.

Confucius Carlos had something to say. It went like:

"Ninja who not know place, gets sumo ass in the face!"

Haven't seen it reading through part of this thread. But if no WWI as OP is proposing. Possible a second Mexican-American war would have taken place. WWI drew the heat off of the cross border attacks. Remember that General Pershing invaded Mexico in 1915 with 10k troops to chase around Pancho Villa. I think that without the diversion of WWI a possible escalation between the US and Mexico would haved ensued. I know that they were chasing Pancho Villa. But a simple newspaper campaign of blaming the Mexican government for not reigning in there frontier could have sparked a full scale war. Just look no farther than the Spanish-American war for a newspaper inspired war. We could very well be talking about our southren border with Guatemala as a problem today.

Details, please.

And the rule of this thread: NO WWI!

Eventually, they would have been another World War for totally different reasons. You're forgetting about the Far East and Japan's ambitions.

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?

First of all, Ferdinands assassination had little to do with WWI. Originally, Austria-Hungary was going to invade Serbia anyway, as they had designs on the entire region. After the 1st, and 2nd Balkan wars, they'd realized their mistakes, and were ready to move against them yet again, however the problem was Russia, which they knew would get involved (The Russians considered Serbia to be their national "Little Brothers"). Russia, it just so happens, was part of the Triple Entente, which was an alliance between the UK, France, and Russia. So, Austria got Wilhelm II of Germany to say that if it came to war with Russia, they would help. Thus you had the Schiefflen Plan, or the plan to invade France, beat them in 40 Days, then focus on Russia, as it was expected to take them about 40-50 days to mobilize their 3.2 Million man army, but by the time they'd done it, Germany would control France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, while Austria held the Balkans. They would easily beat Russia, and then all would be well. However, as you know, things didn't quite work out that way.


Anyway, the point is that many plans for war in Europe had been in design since the 1905 Russo-Japanese War and the subsequent 1905-1906 Russian Revolution! (More realistically a military coup by pissed off Generals)

Read the Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman. It explains the world from 1890 to 1914. Then read the Guns of August, which explains the out break of the war. After doing so, you'll realize that there was nothing which could have prevented that war.

Eventually, they would have been another World War for totally different reasons. You're forgetting about the Far East and Japan's ambitions.

Japan was part of the Entente in WWI, and didn't gain much of anything from the war. They weren't really going after territory until the 1930s. The 1905 Russo-Japanese war was the exception, where they gained Manchuria (And pissed off the Russians ;))

The only thing that happened in the Far East during WWI was Spee's Cruiser "Offensives" if you could really call it that. Basically, he used Cruisers to harrass British Shipping because he realized he could never get his ships home to Germany. He was eventually defeated (BADLY) around the Falkland Islands sometime in 1915 or 1916. I'm not sure what the Mings did about the German holdings in China, but the British took all of the German Micronesian colonies, and their South Pacific Islands holdings. The Japanese took some, but most of their battles were Naval, as I don't think they really had any land battles in the war. At least no major ones.

In the Middle East, you had the Ottoman's who wanted to gain their old territories of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. Persia wanted to expand again, but really never did anything other than send Jihadist volunteers along with Afghanistan. The head of the Young Turks called for a Jihad against the British and French, and used that as a recruiting tool for more soldiers. It was effective in its own right, but not too impressive.

I think I just about covered everything about Asia in WWI....

Haven't seen it reading through part of this thread. But if no WWI as OP is proposing. Possible a second Mexican-American war would have taken place. WWI drew the heat off of the cross border attacks. Remember that General Pershing invaded Mexico in 1915 with 10k troops to chase around Pancho Villa. I think that without the diversion of WWI a possible escalation between the US and Mexico would haved ensued. I know that they were chasing Pancho Villa. But a simple newspaper campaign of blaming the Mexican government for not reigning in there frontier could have sparked a full scale war. Just look no farther than the Spanish-American war for a newspaper inspired war. We could very well be talking about our southren border with Guatemala as a problem today.

That would have required that the Revolutionaries won. Had they won, I think a 2nd Mexican-American war is PLAUSIBLE, but not Likely. Pancho Villa crossed into American territory to piss us off, and because he probably wanted Texas etc. However I don't think they would've caused problems greater for us to handle.

I would not be here...
Dear mother would have never meet that nice Obersturmbahnfurher...
Nay, I do not feel alone.

I would not be here...
Dear mother would have never meet that nice Obersturmbahnfurher...
Nay, I do not feel alone.

And my uncle vincent wouldn't have been shot 9 times and gassed twice...then again, he wouldn't have met his lovely Belgian wife either ;)

they would not be ANZACs
And us Australians would not be known as good fighters when it cames to it

they would not be ANZACs
And us Australians would not be known as good fighters when it cames to it

Gallipoli!

Gallipoli!

I had a great grandad who fight there as a light horse man

I had a great grandad who fight there as a light horse man

Awsome!

Awsome!

thanks
iam told they had to shot they horse after the war and i was all so told he help bury the dead

Yeah. It took WWI and WWII to teach Europe that war sucks. I can't imagine anything less than total destruction to bring about a change in mentality. WWI couldn't really be prevented, only postponed.
Precisely. Now for the rest of the world....And probably Europe again.:p
Yeah, its very very dangerous to underestimate Russia simply because they are messy. *cough *the mongolians, *cough* the turks, *cough* the sweeds, *cough* Napoleon, *cough* Hitler.
What you mean to say is that it's easy to estimate the Russian winter....and how much gold they had centuries ago.:p
I think the Mongolians did all right, though...
Until the Russians realized what they could do with the tribute they refused to pay....
Still, it's kind of hard to believe that most everything will be the same without WWI happening as it did. No WWI means no fire for communist Russian revolution, meaning no USSR (by the time there would be enough fire the Bolsheviks would've probably been wiped out). Without Germany to fight, Britian and France would've gone back to their old rivalries... Meh. I'm not going to reexplain it. Read my massive post.
Umm, but there's no way Germany would have stayed out of any fight. War was a German playground, you know.:p
You are mistaken, The Japanese got their asses kicked by the Russians in a little known war right before world war two in the late thirties, a large Japanese army entered mongolia with the intension of stealing from Russia with little resistance (from their experiance beating the Russians in the early 1900's), In reality, they got totally obliterated, its the main reason in WW2 Japan refused to invade Russia with Hitler.
Yeah, they were vastly outnumbered and faced the famous Soviet General Zhukov.
They were actually able to hold on to Russian territory for an extended period of time. The only invaders that did not underestimate not only the russian winter, but also the tenacity and endurance of the Russian army, Though at the time it wasnt exactly all a "Russian Nation", but they were kicked out eventually.
It was pretty much the Russians realizing they could buy enough mercenaries instead of paying tribute to drive off the Mongol invaders.
Gallipoli!

Synonymous with blunder....

Synonymous with blunder....


And British arrogance.

And British arrogance.

British arrogance? Never heard of that before... :p :p :p :D ;)

British arrogance? Never heard of that before... :p :p :p :D ;)

LOL!!

Nice!

LOL!!

Nice!

Hey, I had to. (It's a law, you know.) ;)

I heard a funny joke about Britain, France, italy, Germany, and Belgium...

Anyone wanna hear it real quick?

Hey, I had to. (It's a law, you know.) ;)

I heard a funny joke about Britain, France, italy, Germany, and Belgium...

Anyone wanna hear it real quick?

Go right ahead man

'Kay. Here's how it goes:

"Various European countries have responded to the recent terrorist threat.

Britain has elevated their status from "ignorance" to "A Bloody Nuisance". They only have to more levels to go: "Talk About It Over tea Time" and "Ask The US for Help"

Now for france. France has also raised their status from "panicked" to "frightened".
Their two remaining levels are "surrender" and "cooperate". Furthermore, their white flag factories were bombed, effectively killing all of their military power.

Now Italy. Italy has also raised their status to "Choosing a side. They have "Planning Inneffective military Operations" and "Change Sides" left.

also, Germany was efected. They are now at "Dress in uniform and march while singing military songs." They have "Invade a neighbor" and "lose" left.

And finally comes Belgium. They are still on holiday, as usual, and only hope that they are not pulled out of NATO, as that would destroy their economy."

That's the joke.

'Kay. Here's how it goes:

"Various European countries have responded to the recent terrorist threat.

Britain has elevated their status from "ignorance" to "A Bloody Nuisance". They only have to more levels to go: "Talk About It Over tea Time" and "Ask The US for Help"

Now for france. France has also raised their status from "panicked" to "frightened".
Their two remaining levels are "surrender" and "cooperate". Furthermore, their white flag factories were bombed, effectively killing all of their military power.

Now Italy. Italy has also raised their status to "Choosing a side. They have "Planning Inneffective military Operations" and "Change Sides" left.

also, Germany was efected. They are now at "Dress in uniform and march while singing military songs." They have "Invade a neighbor" and "lose" left.

And finally comes Belgium. They are still on holiday, as usual, and only hope that they are not pulled out of NATO, as that would destroy their economy."

That's the joke.

Haha! Nice

it is good.

Back to determining the effects of no WWI from 1914-1918 between the Entente and the Alliance.

it is good.

Back to determining the effects of no WWI from 1914-1918 between the Entente and the Alliance.

You mean the Entente and the Central Powers. The Entente was with France, Britain, and Russia ;)

You mean the Entente and the Central Powers. The Entente was with France, Britain, and Russia ;)

Uh, yeah...

Central Powers=/= alliance

The problem was that the war wasn't set off by just the assassination. Serbia and Austria-Hungary were already mad as hell at each other, and so were Germany and France. Those nations were pretty much looking for any excuse they could find to declare war. They had even been prepping for it, what with Germany having developed the Schlieffen Plan and France Plan XVII (which, according to the WWI class I took in college, was among the most insane plans ever devised.) In order to prevent WWI, some earlier war would have to go differently.

The problem was that the war wasn't set off by just the assassination. Serbia and Austria-Hungary were already mad as hell at each other, and so were Germany and France. Those nations were pretty much looking for any excuse they could find to declare war. They had even been prepping for it, what with Germany having developed the Schlieffen Plan and France Plan XVII (which, according to the WWI class I took in college, was among the most insane plans ever devised.) In order to prevent WWI, some earlier war would have to go differently.

We've been over this before.

Anywhos, there'd be less French Military jokes.

Good.

So we got

"sick Man" Ottoman Empire still existent
US isolationist and socialist
Monarchy in Germany

What else?
The Ottoman Empire was destined to break down.

There had already been two Balkan Wars by World War One within a couple of years - there's no reason that they couldn't have reunited after the second and finally forced the Ottoman Empire to break down without a World War one, it being a seperate issue and all.

And British arrogance.
Yes, that, too.:p
British arrogance? Never heard of that before... :p :p :p :D ;)
Ask the Germans about Market Garden.;)
'Kay. Here's how it goes:

"Various European countries have responded to the recent terrorist threat.

Britain has elevated their status from "ignorance" to "A Bloody Nuisance". They only have to more levels to go: "Talk About It Over tea Time" and "Ask The US for Help"

Now for france. France has also raised their status from "panicked" to "frightened".
Their two remaining levels are "surrender" and "cooperate". Furthermore, their white flag factories were bombed, effectively killing all of their military power.

Now Italy. Italy has also raised their status to "Choosing a side. They have "Planning Inneffective military Operations" and "Change Sides" left.

also, Germany was efected. They are now at "Dress in uniform and march while singing military songs." They have "Invade a neighbor" and "lose" left.

And finally comes Belgium. They are still on holiday, as usual, and only hope that they are not pulled out of NATO, as that would destroy their economy."

That's the joke.
ROFLMFAO!
Haha! Nice

Indeed it was.

We've been over this before.

Anywhos, there'd be less French Military jokes.

We'd have found someone else. Or the jokes would have taken on a more mocking tone toward European pacifism....:eek:

Back
Unto
Making
Predictions

Back
Unto
Making
Predictions

Clever, but not m0d-friendly.:p

Clever, but not m0d-friendly.:p

So? Back to predicting stuff...

Without World War One or Two, U.S. would even itself out -- it does that anyways. Europe would be ed at itself. Ottoman Empire would fracture but still exist. Possible split up of Germany again. Chinese love monkeys.

That's what I think.:mp5:

Delicious irony! No further predictions are needed. Let's concentrate on getting someone to write it.

The British Empire would not have lost so much money finacially and could have afforded to keep it's empire together longer. Tho it wouldnt have the middle east,Papua (or new Guniea) or some land in Africa since they belonged to either Germany,Ottoman empires.

Germany would be a Industrial power but could not compete for Empire. This was one of the reasons why they wanted war.

Russia would still have a monarch, tho that can be debated since there were many other problems with Russia WW1 just put a spark at the fuse to the keg.

United States would not be able to claim all the glory for winning the war both 1&2 even tho Britain&Russia shed more blood. They would also have no reason to butt into other peoples business.

Eastern Europe wouldnt be so screwed up due to the adsence of Communism. It would have been as rich as Western Europe (tho it would be heavily influenced by Tsarist Russia).

Japan would still be a small useless Empire that wouldnt be taken seriously, Because the European powers could keep it in check. Sure Russia tried but Russia was in no shape to fight any kind of war at 1905.

Besides if war did not break out in 1913 (or 1912) it would have happened sooner or later.

Yes, that, too.:p

Ask the Germans about Market Garden.;)

ROFLMFAO!


Indeed it was.

market garden yes it was ww2 but what in hell was he on
was he think he was back in ww1

Big
Underestimated
Minarian
Post

So? Back to predicting stuff...
Awwww, do we have to, ma?:p
market garden yes it was ww2 but what in hell was he on
was he think he was back in ww1
Captitalization and punctuation are your friends. They don't bite.:(
Big
Underestimated
Minarian
Post

Dude, not cool.:rolleyes:

Awwww, do we have to, ma?:p

Captitalization and punctuation are your friends. They don't bite.:(


Dude, not cool.:rolleyes:

Point 1: Yes
2: They just slowly nag you to death.
3: It was cool and you know it.

Point 1: Yes
2: They just slowly nag you to death.
3: It was cool and you know it.

No, it really wasn't.

No, it really wasn't.

It was, IMNVHO (In My Not verily Humble Opinion), but...

Back on topic.

What would have happened if WWI never occured?
Let's say Ferdinand wasn't murdered. Then what?

Then he would have given birth to John Connor, who would go on to lead a revolution against the machines.

It was, IMNVHO (In My Not verily Humble Opinion), but...

Back on topic.

No, I think the topic is pretty much exhausted.

No one has talked about S America in this thread. With out WWI could have anything been different in S America? Also no one has said anything about Spain and the fact that if no WWI there would have not been Nazi help for the fascist in Spain.

No one has talked about S America in this thread. With out WWI could have anything been different in S America? Also no one has said anything about Spain and the fact that if no WWI there would have not been Nazi help for the facist in Spain.

Refer back to my post on the subject. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11731686&postcount=52)

Noone really thinks about the Iberians or the South Americans... why, I'm not sure, but they aren't big players in the 20th century...

If there had been no WW1 (that's a BIG "if") Britain would probably still be the paramount world power. Without their huge looses in WW1 they would have been able to hold onto their colonies (at least into the forseeable future). They would probably have taken advantage of the crumbling Ottoman Empire to secure colonies in the middle east, thereby controling a large portion of the oil supply, and thereby the world econemey for years to come.

The major world powers would still be the european powers, colonialism would still be the order of things. The US would be a economic power (although not quite as industrialized), but would not be a major world power and certainly not a superpower.

East Asia would not be the economic power that it is today, China still be in turmoil and India either a british colony or a fledgling new nation.

Believing that World War I could be prevented without a prior war having been halted doesn't make sense.
Understand that many smaller wars were likely to break out.
Maybe they could have stayed as separate wars for some time, though alliances got in the way.
Perhaps the war would have gone differently if there had been no assassination.

Something like 50,000 New Zealanders wouldn't have been killed or wounded, thats what would of happened.

look if it did not happen then it would happen at a later date

look if it did not happen then it would happen at a later date

That's been covered, thank you.