What if World War I was avoided?

[Chomper98]

What would the world possibly be like if there was never a first world war?

[Malte279]

The what ifs are very difficult to guess about. Perhaps the discussion should start with how it could have been avoided in the first place. Personally I do not believe that a failure of the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand would have meant a continuation of peace. It was not the archduke's death the fighting was about. With the extreme tension of the political situation in 1914 combined with the ignorance or refusal to see the extreme degree of senseless slaughter into which modern weaponry would turn a war it is extremely likely that a different casus belli would have occured within a decade.

It would have taken a very honest spirit of acknowledging war for the horror that it is (rather than focusing on it as some kind of glorious adventure as which it continues to be seen and depicted all too often) and a readiness to accept even painful concessions of some nations at the expense of their national pride / egoism on behalf of peace.
For example there was the ever looming issue of Alsace-Lorraine. If Germany back then had shown the greatness to allow for a popular vote about which country the people there wanted to belong to (which almost certainly would have favored France) and accepted the result this would have been a very powerful signal. If there had been more politicians ready to hold out a hand rather than salute to bayonettes passing by and if there had been more willingness to life together rather than kill each other it would have been a different world entirely. The Balkan was described as Europe's powder keg and there had been warnings that a crisis there might be the spark to set the keg off. If those warnings had been taken seriously there might have been some kind of agreement between the major powers to prevent them from getting dragged into a war over it. Austria-Hungary would have had to yield influence on the Balkan, but Russia and the Ottoman Empire both would have had to be ready to accept a higher degree of autonomy on the Balkan. With the many people and the hostilities there is a sad likelihood that there would have been bloodshed on the Balkan in any case, but it might not have taken on the huge dimensions it did.

If we do assume that somehow WW1 could have been prevented and if indeed the result would have been a more peaceful relationship between the European powers these beneficial results may have had other not so positive effects elsewhere. Not weakened by two world wars (WW2 would not have taken place without WW1) colonial powers (mainly England and France, but also Germany and Belgium) would have been a lot less likely to yield the grip on their colonies for example. The perception of the United States might be very different. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine would have remained more prominent rather than being ousted by different political doctrines. It is very tricky to guess what would have happened in Russia and the Ottoman Empire. WW1 may have just accelerated developments there, but what course their history would have taken (and what effect it would have had on their neighboring country) would have strongly depended on their readiness to conduct social reforms without revolutions as a motivator.

[Chomper98]

I always had a difficult time imagining the difference it would have made, as so many things we are familiar with would not have happened, like there would be no offensive comparison to everything we hate to the nazis, and plus, films and books like Harry Potter and Star Wars may have even gone differently, as much of their basis is in those conflicts. Also, would we here of Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, Turkey, or other countries that became independent after the war? For the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires things were already bad, so it may have just slowed down their falls. Russia is a different issue, it was not in a bad state at that time, World War I threw the country into turmoil and caused its revolution. Perhaps there would have been a cold war between the European Superpowers, England, France and Russia on one side, Germany on the other. Perhaps America would still be isolationistic, which in a way would be better as we would be keeping to ourselves rather then try to give freedom to countries that need a textbook to understand it, just generalizing.

I came up with a scenario for the world as World War I or II hasn't occured.

- Britain and Germany are in a cold war, as they were Europe's most powerful countries.

- No islamic-based terrorism due to large empires being maintained.

- America is still a world power, though is not as strong as today, and keeps to itself. Perhaps mediating between the European countries.

- Russia is eastern europe, though the Austrian territories are still independent.

- 76 million lives have been saved(the combined total in deaths for both world wars), world still heavily anti-semitic due to lack of certain horrible events.

- Kaiser's monarchy still strong.

- Tanks are seen as troop support, air forces are much smaller, missiles are non-existent, this is due to the germans in world war II developing these ideas.

- A-bombs and other Nuclear weapons don't exist due to no need for them.

Tell me ways I can improve this.

[Malte279]

Lack of these wars would not have frozen technological or social developments in pre 1914 status. There had been a high degree of social unrest in many countries prior to the war and it would not have ceased because of a lack of war. In Russia for example there had been large protests and harsh government reactions. The political direction of a social movement in Russia may have varied somewhat without WW1, but the country (which had also been militarily humiliated by Japan in 1905) was not exactly stable. It is unsure which results social movements would have had in other countries without WW1. I sure do hope that anti-semitism would have ceased even without the terrible crimes committed against them. The huge contributions to science and culture may have contributed to a ceasing of the revolting hatred against Jews. The stability of the Kaiser monarchy in Germany would depend on many factors. Social movements, crises (other than WW1) and the personality of the ruler may all have altered the form of government. Chances are that it might have gradually developed ever more into something similar to the parliamentary monarchy of Great Britain. The relationship between Germany and Great Britain used to be relatively good before WW1 (except for Germanys naval armament). The English royal family had their roots in Germany after all and Willhelm I. probably loved his grandma queen Victoria more than his mother. France had been a traditional enemy of England, though their enemity had ceased in the aftermath of the Napoleonic war and as a result of their alliance in the Crimean war against Russia. In any case so long Germany would not try to dominate the continent too much or rival Great Britain's rule of the waves there is no reason why the relationship between the two countries could not have been amicably without WW1.
I'm afraid nuclear power and the resulting weaponry (rockets etc.) would have been developed with or without the war. What might or might not have been done with it is beyond what could reasonably be guessed.

[Petrie]

Unrest in the Middle East would've occurred anyway.  The Balkan crisis which started WW1 would've happened....you weren't going to stop people angry with those in power.  Russia would've gone through its Revolution as well.  Empires don't last forever so the status quo of Europe's empires around 1914 would've eventually fallen into some sort of chaos/war as new leaders tried to come to power.

[f-22 "raptor" ace]

Let's not forget without world war 1 the naval treaties that followed it probably would not have existed.

[Kor]

It's possible that a cold war may have resulted and continued.  It's also possible that some other event later on may have started WW1, years or decades later.  Maybe instead of Germany being on one side the axis and allies may have been a bit different, and or maybe the middle east or something may have battled Europe.

[Malte279]

The situation in the middle east would have differed from the situation as we know it though. Prior to WW1 there had been a lot of local unrest in the Ottoman Empire or more specifically among the Arabian people whose situation was somewhat similar to that of nations colonized by other European powers. Civil Wars / Wars of independence would have likely occured. Chances are however, that perhaps the new borders drawn as a result of such conflicts might not have caused the same degree of lasting unrest as the mostly random borders drawn up by European colonial powers often dividing up people or putting traditional enemies together. Without the foundation of Israel (cynical as it sounds, without the Holocaust zionism would not have found as many followers) the religious component (religion as an excuse for killing that is) may not have become as prominent, which does not mean that there would have been less bloodshet though.
As for Russia, I agree that there would have been revolutionary changes before long, but I don't know of what kind they would have been. There had been uprisings before which had been brutally opressed. Without WW1 and Lenin's involvement it likely would have taken longer for these people to rise again. A revolution would not have necessarily been motivated by communism. Theoretically there might have been a "revolution from above". While nothing indicates that the Czar himself would have conducted any reforms, there was some dissatisfaction with the arristocracy. They might have tried to force concessions from the Czar having their own advantage (rather than that of the common people) in mind. A conservative military junta could have been a possible result. The people themselves rising against the government without the support of the military would have been extremely unlikely. Contrary to later Soviet propaganda the revolution of 1917 was not a huge uprising of the common people.

One scenario that I find very interesting is what would have happened if WW1 had errupted as we know it, but ended with the Christmas truth of 1914. Back then most of the soldiers along the western front put down their guns and met between the front lines to celebrate christmas together while the military high comman was foaming with rage over this insubordination. If at that time soldiers on both sides had not returned to business (butchery) as usual, but if they had refused to continue the killing and thus forced their governments to make peace I think it might have been one of mankinds most glorious moments. The lasting impression of such a victory of humanity over human madness might indeed have caused a more lasting peace in Europe than in case WW1 had never started. It might have served as an example to soldiers in other times and different places too making further wars more difficult to conduct if the governments couldn't convince the people of the necessity of killing each other. The power of the people over their governments might have been increased by such a peace enforced upon their governments by the people.

[Chomper98]

One scenario that I find very interesting is what would have happened if WW1 had errupted as we know it, but ended with the Christmas truth of 1914. Back then most of the soldiers along the western front put down their guns and met between the front lines to celebrate christmas together while the military high comman was foaming with rage over this insubordination. If at that time soldiers on both sides had not returned to business (butchery) as usual, but if they had refused to continue the killing and thus forced their governments to make peace I think it might have been one of mankinds most glorious moments. The lasting impression of such a victory of humanity over human madness might indeed have caused a more lasting peace in Europe than in case WW1 had never started. It might have served as an example to soldiers in other times and different places too making further wars more difficult to conduct if the governments couldn't convince the people of the necessity of killing each other. The power of the people over their governments might have been increased by such a peace enforced upon their governments by the people.

That is very interesting,  wonder what would happen if that did happen. Also, I saw War Horse, the play, a while ago, and there is this scene where a German and British soldier find the horse in the battlefield after a battle, and instead of fighting, they play heads or tails. After the british win, he and the german soldier shake hands, which I find to be a very symbolic moment.