What if WW1 never happened

[Kazanov]

Wrong.

The Haber process predates WWI by almost a decade, and its industrial upscaling predates it by a year. And these processes did not come about from thumb-twiddling, but because Europe and the US wanted to become less dependent on nitrogen imports.

So at best, no WWI delays the adoption by a decade or so. Or, since the trade networks for the inputs of the process are likewise not disrupted, they cut the whole thing off quicker.

So everything like on the current timeline but without so many socialist/communists and with more liberal-radical-sindicalists. The right wing remains more inclined towards Germany with some sectors still being aligned with the US

Our army was ideologically aligned with Germany from the 1890s until the end of ww2.

 

[Gurkhal]

Well, Lenin opposed the WWI - in Lenin's opinion it was an imperialistic conflict and those elitists of Russia just kept on sending the proletariat soldiers into the murderous trenches. What Lenin didn't foresee was that actually the WWI worked for the Bolsheviks' and the Marxists' advantage pushing their effort - the two Russian Revolutions in 1917, the Tsar Family abdicating the throne and finally the Bolshevik establishment of the Soviet Union in 1923. The disastrous Russian war effort in the WWI hurried the collapse of the Russian Empire - it would had happened even without the Great War, but Lenin's return and the Bolsheviks raise to power would had been postponed.

Before I write a post about this, what exactly do you mean with the highlighted part in your post? I thought I should ensure that I understand what you actually mean before I post something in response to this.

 

[Jopa79]

Before I write a post about this, what exactly do you mean with the highlighted part in your post? I thought I should ensure that I understand what you actually mean before I post something in response to this.

It is an answer for Wixelt. Meaning what history books and documents write about the actual events.

• Lenin didn't want Russian involvement in the WWI due to his believes it was only an imperialistic war not favoring the working-class ideologies about Marxism neither Bolshevism
• However, due to the poor performance of the Russian Empire in the war the WWI actually assisted Lenin's purposes - the unpopularity towards the Czarist reign grew stronger because the heavy Russian defeats in the war and this helped the Bolsheviks to gain power and finally establish the Soviet Union
• Without the WWI it would had been harder for Lenin to seize power, on the other hand the Romanov's reign would had to undergone huge reforms and innovations if they wanted to keep the power in Russia in the 1920's

 

[Gurkhal]

It is an answer for Wixelt. Meaning what history books and documents write about the actual events.

• Lenin didn't want Russian involvement in the WWI due to his believes it was only an imperialistic war not favoring the working-class ideologies about Marxism neither Bolshevism
• However, due to the poor performance of the Russian Empire in the war the WWI actually assisted Lenin's purposes - the unpopularity towards the Czarist reign grew stronger because the heavy Russian defeats in the war and this helped the Bolsheviks to gain power and finally establish the Soviet Union
• Without the WWI it would had been harder for Lenin to seize power, on the other hand the Romanov's reign would had to undergone huge reforms and innovations if they wanted to keep the power in Russia in the 1920's

I am well aware it wasn't directed at me. But I am interested in the subject so considers if I should join the discussion.

 

[Jopa79]

But I am interested in the subject so considers if I should join the discussion.

Sure, just "fall in" for the discussion

 

[IsadorBG]

Russia becomes an ever more overwhelming superpower than the USSR ever was thanks to not having to suffer three highly destructive wars in the span of a generation.
Nor suffer the forced March towards industrialisation and other communist crimes committed during the short relief in between.

This new reality would no doubt have a major impact on the European balance of power and alliances. Altough which ones largely depends on Russians greed.

 

[viale]

Would Tsarist Russia really go in that direction though? It seems Imperial Russia was heading in the same direction as Austria-Hungary, with increasing dissent among the workers and peasants due to the aristocracy not really caring about anything other than themselves. I don't know all that much about potential political alternatives to revolution in Russia. Were there elements, with any influence, working towards a more modern state in Russia at the time? Mind you some of the 19th century tsars seemed to really want progressive reforms but they all seem to have either died or been disposed of by the Russian elites before having gotten anywhere.(mind you I'm not saying the revolution was a good thing for the common Russian, or that the wars were good for Russian, just that it seems difficult to see Russia modernizing with the current power-holders still being there)

I suppose my question really comes down to whether any large scale industrialization process really could be feasible in a society where the aristocracy fights progress for their own wellbeing at every opportunity.

A potential conflict I could see emerging in a world without WW1 would be an emerging three-way chess game between Russia, Japan and the UK over Asia. This is based on Japan still going Co-prosperity Sphere and laying claims to much of East-Asia and moving towards Southeast Asia threatening the Raj, while Russia still seeks a warm water port in the Indian Ocean and wanting a rematch over 1905. And Britain clinging to its hegemonic power over India and Southeast Asia while seeing Russia and Japan encroaching on what they see as theirs.

I'm not sure who the other western powers would back, but it seems like a potential alternative powder-keg to a Balkan scenario.

 

[pithorr]

Would Tsarist Russia really go in that direction though? It seems Imperial Russia was heading in the same direction as Austria-Hungary, with increasing dissent among the workers and peasants due to the aristocracy not really caring about anything other than themselves. I don't know all that much about potential political alternatives to revolution in Russia. Were there elements, with any influence, working towards a more modern state in Russia at the time? Mind you some of the 19th century tsars seemed to really want progressive reforms but they all seem to have either died or been disposed of by the Russian elites before having gotten anywhere.(mind you I'm not saying the revolution was a good thing for the common Russian, or that the wars were good for Russian, just that it seems difficult to see Russia modernizing with the current power-holders still being there)

I suppose my question really comes down to whether any large scale industrialization process really could be feasible in a society where the aristocracy fights progress for their own wellbeing at every opportunity.

This.
Also, the tsarist regime was not so ruthless to use terror, in absolutely incredible amount, for the enforced industrialisation.

 

[Denkt]

I think ww1 would happen but a delay of a few deacdes can make a quite big impact on the poltical situation.

• Ottoman Empire in 1914 supposedly had a small population and would only see its population growth later on while the European powers had already had their population growth. A more populated Ottoman Empire could have done better, not because it did bad in ww1 consider its situation.
• Russia, Ottoman Empire and others would probably be more industralized relative to the earlier industrial powers.
• USA would be alot more powerful.

Basically a later ww1 could see a relative more powerful Ottoman, Russia and USA which could be pretty impactful on the course of ww1. Obviously that assume Russia and Ottoman Empire survives and the World is passive for a few decades.

Given that neither Russia nor Ottomans was pushovers in ww1, more powerful versions of them can greatly effect the course of the war. A more powerful USA I don't know what impact that would have on the diplomatic situation.

 

[bz249]

I think ww1 would happen but a delay of a few deacdes can make a quite big impact on the poltical situation.

• Ottoman Empire in 1914 supposedly had a small population and would only see its population growth later on while the European powers had already had their population growth. A more populated Ottoman Empire could have done better, not because it did bad in ww1 consider its situation.
• Russia, Ottoman Empire and others would probably be more industralized relative to the earlier industrial powers.
• USA would be alot more powerful.

Basically a later ww1 could see a relative more powerful Ottoman, Russia and USA which could be pretty impactful on the course of ww1. Obviously that assume Russia and Ottoman Empire survives and the World is passive for a few decades.

Given that neither Russia nor Ottomans was pushovers in ww1, more powerful versions of them can greatly effect the course of the war. A more powerful USA I don't know what impact that would have on the diplomatic situation.

What would the UK do under such circumstances? They were about to win the Naval Race right in 1914...

 

[Denkt]

What would the UK do under such circumstances? They were about to win the Naval Race right in 1914...

If you are strong you want to keep your lead, if you are weak, you want to gain the lead. UK, France and Germany was maybe the leading Powers in Europé while Ottomans and Russia was maybe eventually going to catchup or even surpass them if nothing is done. But maybe UK, France and Germany had already reached their economic and population peak relative others so time would work against them.

Argubly France peak was during the Napeolonic wars due to its massive population advantage and the fact there was not a powerful Germany next to it but it did not the massive population growth of Germany or UK.

Obviosuly the leading Power is not going to want a strong Ottoman and Russia, they already had serious trouble with the "weak" ww1 version of these countries and we know what happened in ww2 when Russia had become more powerful and we have no idea what a more powerful ottomans could have done but maybe done stuff like capture Egypt and thus close the Suez Canal.

I suspect ww1 situation is similar to today between USA and China with a nation that have already reach or is past its peak and the other have much more potential if given the time to develop.

 

[IsadorBG]

Would Tsarist Russia really go in that direction though? It seems Imperial Russia was heading in the same direction as Austria-Hungary, with increasing dissent among the workers and peasants due to the aristocracy not really caring about anything other than themselves. I don't know all that much about potential political alternatives to revolution in Russia. Were there elements, with any influence, working towards a more modern state in Russia at the time? Mind you some of the 19th century tsars seemed to really want progressive reforms but they all seem to have either died or been disposed of by the Russian elites before having gotten anywhere.(mind you I'm not saying the revolution was a good thing for the common Russian, or that the wars were good for Russian, just that it seems difficult to see Russia modernizing with the current power-holders still being there)

I suppose my question really comes down to whether any large scale industrialization process really could be feasible in a society where the aristocracy fights progress for their own wellbeing at every opportunity.

A potential conflict I could see emerging in a world without WW1 would be an emerging three-way chess game between Russia, Japan and the UK over Asia. This is based on Japan still going Co-prosperity Sphere and laying claims to much of East-Asia and moving towards Southeast Asia threatening the Raj, while Russia still seeks a warm water port in the Indian Ocean and wanting a rematch over 1905. And Britain clinging to its hegemonic power over India and Southeast Asia while seeing Russia and Japan encroaching on what they see as theirs.

I'm not sure who the other western powers would back, but it seems like a potential alternative powder-keg to a Balkan scenario.

I am not sure really I understood the question.

If the question is whether an authoritarian regime such as Tsarist Russia could become a superpower, well that did not prevent the USSR to become one, nor China to be in process of becoming one.

If the question whether Russia was industrializing, well the answer is evidently yes. Russia had started large scale reforms and industrialisation in the 1860' following the disastrous Crimean War.

During the 50 years that separates 1860 and 1910, Russia had achieved over 10% gdp growth yearly. And even more strikingly between 1880 and 1914 its economy grew over 5% MORE than Germany or the United States in the same period. (and the gap is even larger if compared to the UK or France)

So there was no doubt that Russia was catching up and catching up Fast. And there were no real reason in 1914 to believe that this trend was stopping anytime soon.

I already said it before in the numerous "Germany did nothing wrong in WWI" threads we have in this particular forum. But one of the main reason why the Central Powers were so deadset on having the war happens in 1914 was their paranoia that should the war be delayed by 20 years, they would find themselves unable to win against a far stronger Russia let alone a two front war with France. (to be fair the paranoia was vindicated in WWII)

As for minorities I don't find the Austro-Hungarian comparison pertinent. Unlike the Hapsurg, The Tsars had little trouble keeping their minorities in check, and the real issue for the Autocrat at the turn of the century were the aspirations of the Russian people for better governance/representation.

Aspirations that were fueled by the humiliations the Empire suffered in the latest war but tempered in part by the well performing economy.

 

[LlywelynII]

How would it look like then? Obviously this means avoiding WW1 from any other scenario that could arise, and keeping it civil in Europe till 1936. I assume the ottomans and austria-hungary would collapse regardless of what happens with eventually Yugoslavia being created.

Yugoslavia would've just been the Serbian Empire.

In any case, the major change to the world wouldn't've been anything in Europe itself. China had just finally gotten rid of the Qing Empire and was a basketcase; without Europe committing suicide and losing all interest in playing its factions against one another, it would've been firmly carved into spheres of influence before it could get its act together:

Note that this map understates Russian claims in both Manchuria and Xinjiang and doesn't note well that Korea and Taiwan were already held by Japan. Also weird of them to mention Hangzhou and Chongqing and not the major international settlements at Tianjin, Shanghai, etc.​

Decolonizing China would've eventually happened: for all the talk of its atheism, there's 3000 years of nearly religious love for their land, its reunification, and tossing foreign rulers at the first available opportunity. Martyrdom for that cause is nearly as big a thing as it is in Islam, even without the promise of much of an afterlife. But without Mao spiking their birthrate, without Deng bringing in the One Child Policy, without He Kang and China's teams of Norman Borlaugs' focuses on improving rice output and engineers' focuses on major dams, without active American/Soviet support of its war efforts, development, etc., you might've been looking at the late 20th and early 21st century as a long boil of terrorism and reciprocal massacres amid dystopian quality of life and still-ongoing triennial floods of the Yellow River plains.

As far as the Eurocentric part of this goes, the intersection of the NS and EW trunk lines at Wuhan would've risked becoming a second Fashoda as Britain tried to maintain its hold on the Yangtze basin and France tried to push north across the mountains from Guangdong into entire provinces underlain by coal fields. Sichuan, Hebei, and Xinjiang would've been other powderkegs.

 

[Yakman]

Yugoslavia would've just been the Serbian Empire.

In any case, the major change to the world wouldn't've been anything in Europe itself. China had just finally gotten rid of the Qing Empire and was a basketcase; without Europe committing suicide and losing all interest in playing its factions against one another, it would've been firmly carved into spheres of influence before it could get its act together:

View attachment 546974

Note that this map understates Russian claims in both Manchuria and Xinjiang and doesn't note well that Korea and Taiwan were already held by Japan. Also weird of them to mention Hangzhou and Chongqing and not the major international settlements at Tianjin, Shanghai, etc.​

Decolonizing China would've eventually happened: for all the talk of its atheism, there's 3000 years of nearly religious love for their land, its reunification, and tossing foreign rulers at the first available opportunity. Martyrdom for that cause is nearly as big a thing as it is in Islam, even without the promise of much of an afterlife. But without Mao spiking their birthrate, without Deng bringing in the One Child Policy, without He Kang and China's teams of Norman Borlaugs' focuses on improving rice output and engineers' focuses on major dams, without active American/Soviet support of its war efforts, development, etc., you might've been looking at the late 20th and early 21st century as a long boil of terrorism and reciprocal massacres amid dystopian quality of life and still-ongoing triennial floods of the Yellow River plains.

As far as the Eurocentric part of this goes, the intersection of the NS and EW trunk lines at Wuhan would've risked becoming a second Fashoda as Britain tried to maintain its hold on the Yangtze basin and France tried to push north across the mountains from Guangdong into entire provinces underlain by coal fields. Sichuan, Hebei, and Xinjiang would've been other powderkegs.

This, I think, would have been an interesting outcome. Personally, I'm more interested in the Qing hinterlands.

Britain was making inroads into Tibet - Younghusband had taken Lhasa in, what, 1905? Let's say that instead of the UK spending its treasure and young men and attention in senseless carnage in Flanders, that they had continued apace in Central Asia, with the eye that they had to advance and control Tibet before Russia did so.

The Russians, likewise, had come into a series of conflicts with the Qing in the early 20th century, with arguments over who was the suzerain of which minor Turkic tribe.

Its possible that with China proper being in a state of chaos and Europe in a state of stasis that the Russians try to gobble up Turkestan (and Mongolia - as they actually did under the USSR), while the Brits advance into Tibet.

 

[LlywelynII]

Its possible that with China proper being in a state of chaos and Europe in a state of stasis that the Russians try to gobble up Turkestan (and Mongolia - as they actually did under the USSR), while the Brits advance into Tibet.

I think it's unquestionable, unless there was some other crisis elsewhere. The Russians would more greatly value their railroads and ports in the NE, but they'd take the central bits all the same and the UK would get nervous about the pressure on India. [Incidentially, the British espionage that first mapped Tibet using local pundits is a facinating story if you haven't heard of it before.]

France certainly would've angled for Russian involvement in the NW as a way to help push its holdings further north. I hadn't thought of what a mess their inevitable conversion attempts were going to create, but if they upheld the Catholic Church's policy against ancestral veneration and started attempting to curtail it in their sphere... well, even more riots and nontraditional warfare.

I think the period name was Sinkiang, not Turkestan, but that's just a old/bad spelling of Xinjiang.

 

[Yakman]

I think it's unquestionable, unless there was some other crisis elsewhere. The Russians would more greatly value their railroads and ports in the NE, but they'd take the central bits all the same and the UK would get nervous about the pressure on India. [Incidentially, the British espionage that first mapped Tibet using local pundits is a facinating story if you haven't heard of it before.]

France certainly would've angled for Russian involvement in the NW as a way to help push its holdings further north. I hadn't thought of what a mess their inevitable conversion attempts were going to create, but if they upheld the Catholic Church's policy against ancestral veneration and started attempting to curtail it in their sphere... well, even more riots and nontraditional warfare.

I think the period name was Sinkiang, not Turkestan, but that's just a old/bad spelling of Xinjiang.

eh. I think Russia would stay far, far away from the French sphere. anything that brought them closer to the Japanese would almost certainly be thought of with great trepidation. But mucking about two thousand miles away in a turkish desert? Whatevs.

 

[Spelaren]

Its possible that with China proper being in a state of chaos and Europe in a state of stasis that the Russians try to gobble up Turkestan (and Mongolia - as they actually did under the USSR), .

Wait what? I thought Mongolia was kept independent as a buffer state against China?

 

[diegosimeone]

There are way too many plausible scenarios and even more potential outcomes.

But let's say for the sake of discussion no WW1 means that there's no War of that scale happening, not just our own timeline's one.

The truth is that all big powers have been gearing for war for over a decade. And war was a frequent occurence throughout the world in the 20 years prior to WW1. Heck, even in the region of origin of WW1 there was a big war that ended just a couple of years ago.

Austria-Hungary had stability issues.
The Ottomans had stability issues.
Russia was in a weird situation.
The whole of Europe had a socialist uprising vibe as well (Germany, France, Russia, Great Britain, Spain and Italy being important examples)
Even the USA had a growing socialist movement.

Nationalism in Europe was still on the rise and borders weren't really concluded in pretty much the entire continent with the exception of the Brtish Isles, Iberia and Scandinavia. And half of Asia and most of Africa was under colonial powers.

It is kind of obvious that war was going to break at any moment. Whether it would involve almost every party concerned would be the question. Also, civil war was possible in a number of countries as well. For example I think France would have had a civil war if how they reacted in WW2 happened during WW1 instead.

One of the scenarios that I have in mind is that the Russians would smell Ottoman blood and find a way to sneak their way into the Mediterranean which would have created a Great War. How?

Russia wanted access to warmer ports for ages, the Ottomans just kept losing to everyone that desired freedom and that also meant that Russia could have fought on almost every front. And winning such a war against an enemy of tha ages with the mask of a religious conflict on top of that, would have probably granted the Tsar more time in power.

The British wouldn't like this turn of events. But at the same time, Austria-Hungary would have been concerned about this since they controlled parts that the Serbs/Yugoslavs wanted. And desire from freedom wasn't really that low in those parts. Would it take a Russian effort to get those people to gain independence and place them under their sphere of influence for Austria-Hungary to react, or was the intention to bite a chunk off the Ottomans suffice? The Austrians could very well also smell the blood and go for Serbia to contain them under their political power as well, essentially doing what was done to Poland during WW2. But that would probably cause the British to get involved. But on whose side? Against both? So we have the British against Austria + Russia? Then Germany gets in the play and France sides with Britain? Seems like an odd turn of events from a historic perspective but maybe it was possible. But would any of these powers really care about the Ottomans? They all wanted a piece of that melting pie.

I don't see how WW1 could break between France, Britain, Germany, Russia and Austria. It had to be done via another route, just like in our timeline with the assassination in Sarajevo. Nobody really cared about Asia, Africa was a mess that was under control for the time being, so we're left with Europe. If it's not a Balkans involvement, it's a direct Ottoman one. Europe was in boiling point already so if anything happens to anyone during that time, it's going to be a big war coming.
The only alternative would be that everyone just sits idle while gearing up for war for ages with no signs of war breaking out. Which seems impossible to think about now, but could be some sort of Cold War thing that would also cause a technological leap.

Because for people claiming that we'd have better technology and all that, it wouldn't have been possible without the threat of war. War is triggers a kind of survival instict we humans have and that's what drives technological push. At least historically. Most of the technology we enjoy today are byproducts of stuff invented or implemented during war time. Computers, radio, telephones, means of transportation, satelites etc. With no threat of war, all we could do was polish existing technology. Just like we went from adding a camera to a telephone to then adding a second one on the other side. There's no technological thrill today despite the hype. We just have fancier products which get polished and improved over the years. Survival drives technology to new levels, not peace. As unfortunate as that sounds.

 

[Yakman]

Wait what? I thought Mongolia was kept independent as a buffer state against China?

The Mongolians were so independent that they decided to write in cyrillic.

 

[Gurkhal]

The Mongolians were so independent that they decided to write in cyrillic.

There's a difference between cultural influence and political control.