Historical speculation...

[Boerseun]

There's no real forum for this thread, but I'd rather park it under 'History' than 'Watercooler'.

 

So, off we go:

 

I like to speculate on alternate histories, given a specific set of historical circumstances, and then deciding on a branching point from where it changes from real history.

 

So, here's the premise:

 

Let's say the Archduke never got bumped off, and the First World War never happened. If that was the case, the Second World War wouldn't have happened, either. Was tensions in Europe at the time (1910-1920) such that the Archduke's assassination was just a handy excuse to reshuffle the balances or power? Was the inequal colonial empires such that the Europeans would have jumped at each other's throats for it? Would some other war have taken the place of WW1&2? But be that as it may, if WW1 didn't happen, how would the world today look like?

 

Personally, I believe that Africa would have been in much better shape. Most of the colonies got abandoned by the former rulers without much of an exit plan, due to their financial commitments to rebuilding their home countries after WW2. Not only that, but Russian interference to support terrorist movements in former colonies to increase the communist sphere of influence wouldn't have been so harsh, because the US and USSR wouldn't have been bumping heads in the Cold War, were it not for WW1&2.

 

I believe the US wouldn't have such a global influence. It would eventually get there, but not as fast as happened in the aftermath of WW2. War reperations and loan paybacks resulted in the US having military bases all over the world, in strategic spots. This resulted in the US being able to effectively project its military will worldwide. And this prompted the USSR to reciprocate, which resulted in serious third world meddling.

 

I also believe we would be using much, much slower computers today. WW2 resulted in loads and loads of money being invested in the initial development of computers, which otherwise would have taken much longer. Generally, scientifically, we would have been a few decades behind where we are now.

 

I don't think there'd be a European Union. Europe might still be divided up into countries more independant than today, although they might be linked in some sort of customs union for practical financial purposes. I also think that after the 40's (in the non-WW1&2 world), the European manufacturing capabilities would be slowly dragging being the rest of the world. Reason for this, in the WW1&2 world, their factories got blown to bits and had to be rebuilt with new technology. That gave them an edge for a while over American factories, which weren't so drastically retooled en masse.

 

There are plenty more examples of how the world would have looked without the two World Wars, these are just some of them.

 

What do you think?

 

Do you think that if we only consider scientific progress, and ignore the human suffering for a while, that the two World Wars might have ulitmately been a good thing?

[eric l]

There's no real forum for this thread, but I'd rather park it under 'History' than 'Watercooler'.

 

Let's say the Archduke never got bumped off, and the First World War never happened.

As you say yourself further on, tensions were very high. Even if the attempt would have failed (as far as the actual killing of the Archduke is concerned), there were so many similar attemps planned that could have triggered the war just as well.

 

If that was the case, the Second World War wouldn't have happened, either.

WW1 was never the only cause for WW2. How else is one to explain the involvment of Japan, the changing of sides by Italy, the neutrality of Turkey and Bulgaria ? The economic crisis of he 1930's was an important factor in the rise of absolutist systems in many countries. But then again, WW1 may have been a major cause of this economic crisis.

 

I 'll leave the question/speculation about Africa and America out for the time being, and pass to the computers.

 

I also believe we would be using much, much slower computers today. WW2 resulted in loads and loads of money being invested in the initial development of computers, which otherwise would have taken much longer. Generally, scientifically, we would have been a few decades behind where we are now.

I think that the spectacular ®evolutions in this field are more due to the miniaturisation and other needs created by the race to the Moon, more than to the millitary needs of WW2. But then again, this race to the Moon may have been just a side track in the cold war, which in turn is rooted for a major part in WW2.

 

Do you think that if we only consider scientific progress, and ignore the human suffering for a while, that the two World Wars might have ulitmately been a good thing?

 

Porblem is that you can not replay history in controlled conditions in a lab, changing parameters at will. Or isn't that rather a good thing ?

[Boerseun]

Problem is that you can not replay history in controlled conditions in a lab, changing parameters at will. Or isn't that rather a good thing ?

Aye - that's why it's called 'speculation'!

[jackson33]

Africa; many of the greater powers in the world today were vacated by other nations at some point by one means or another. however the influence of the occupier in most cases prevailed into the new found country. with regards to Africa, they lack the natural resources for self maintenance, even to the issue of defense. IMO, there are other reasons along the line of desire.

 

British Empire; along the line of changing history, i feel much of what is today would not have been if not for this influence in the world. w/o taking a stand on what would be better or worse, a great deal of what is, came from that empire.

 

personally i split economic, political and military powers. economic powers are complicated, built on available growth potential, freedom from governments and the talent to operate. political, comes from the style of governing or the acceptance by nations of that form. military, is IMO shear determination or will of the population represented.

 

the US, was lucky in many ways but the foundation (constitution) was devised by people who actually realized the problems in the world nations. many countries have followed that constitution outline.

 

IMB, was instrumental in the progress of the computer age. much dating back to the 50's, but there purpose was to make money. Capitalism has served mankind which had roots in the late 1800's. i might add, government turned to industry to get the products for WW II and space flight.

 

a little comment on world wars. many historic wars were in reality world involved wars, many with resulting death, disruption and consequences above those of the 20th century. its hard to imagine a need for war, since most even todays are over ideologies. you can defeat a will to fight, but it is difficult to defeat ideas...

[charles brough]

There's no real forum for this thread, but I'd rather park it under 'History' than 'Watercooler'.

 

So, off we go:

 

I like to speculate on alternate histories, given a specific set of historical circumstances, and then deciding on a branching point from where it changes from real history.

 

So, here's the premise:

 

Let's say the Archduke never got bumped off, and the First World War never happened. If that was the case, the Second World War wouldn't have happened, either. Was tensions in Europe at the time (1910-1920) such that the Archduke's assassination was just a handy excuse to reshuffle the balances or power? Was the inequal colonial empires such that the Europeans would have jumped at each other's throats for it? Would some other war have taken the place of WW1&2? But be that as it may, if WW1 didn't happen, how would the world today look like?

 

Personally, I believe that Africa would have been in much better shape. Most of the colonies got abandoned by the former rulers without much of an exit plan, due to their financial commitments to rebuilding their home countries after WW2. Not only that, but Russian interference to support terrorist movements in former colonies to increase the communist sphere of influence wouldn't have been so harsh, because the US and USSR wouldn't have been bumping heads in the Cold War, were it not for WW1&2.

 

I believe the US wouldn't have such a global influence. It would eventually get there, but not as fast as happened in the aftermath of WW2. War reperations and loan paybacks resulted in the US having military bases all over the world, in strategic spots. This resulted in the US being able to effectively project its military will worldwide. And this prompted the USSR to reciprocate, which resulted in serious third world meddling.

 

I also believe we would be using much, much slower computers today. WW2 resulted in loads and loads of money being invested in the initial development of computers, which otherwise would have taken much longer. Generally, scientifically, we would have been a few decades behind where we are now.

 

I don't think there'd be a European Union. Europe might still be divided up into countries more independant than today, although they might be linked in some sort of customs union for practical financial purposes. I also think that after the 40's (in the non-WW1&2 world), the European manufacturing capabilities would be slowly dragging being the rest of the world. Reason for this, in the WW1&2 world, their factories got blown to bits and had to be rebuilt with new technology. That gave them an edge for a while over American factories, which weren't so drastically retooled en masse.

 

There are plenty more examples of how the world would have looked without the two World Wars, these are just some of them.

 

What do you think?

 

Do you think that if we only consider scientific progress, and ignore the human suffering for a while, that the two World Wars might have ulitmately been a good thing?

 

World War II was not caused by the killing of an Arch Duke! It was caused by a whole host of other more fundamental resons or causes. The assasinations was just a pretect, the spark. It would have happened had he not been killed. It is the same with all the speculation. History is not a process of "luck" but of cause and effect.]

[TheFaithfulStone]

Yeah, tell that to Theresa LePore

 

WHOOPS! :)

 

TFS

[Boerseun]

World War II was not caused by the killing of an Arch Duke! It was caused by a whole host of other more fundamental resons or causes. The assasinations was just a pretect, the spark. It would have happened had he not been killed. It is the same with all the speculation. History is not a process of "luck" but of cause and effect.]

Indeed. World War II was not caused by the killing of the Arch Duke. That was World War I. But World War II would not have happened were it not for World War I. The twenties and thirties could more accurately be called a truce in one single war.

 

But this is not the point to this thread. The thread title points to the actual intent of this particular thread...:rolleyes:

[rodeosweden]

Hey I’m new sorry if I’m spoiling your WW thread but, what about this old one: what if Hannibal Barca had captured Rome during the Second Punic War. Then hypothetically Britain wouldn't have been 'Romanised' therefore might not have created its own empire; meaning places like America, Africa and Australia wound not exist as they are today. Christianity would not exist as it is today (what a shame) and the World Wars would have gone a bit differently with no one really able to appose the Germans.

[Boerseun]

Good one! I'm sure English as we know it would also be a completely different language if not for the early meddling by the Romans!

[eric l]

Question is of course if the Roman Empire would not have existed with Hannibal winning, or that a Punic or Carthagean Empire would have been so much different.

 

The English language gives a good example : much of it is rooted in Normandy French. But the Dukes of Normandy - including William the Conqueror - were Vikings. The Battle of Hastings (1066) comes about 150 years after the Treaty of ST Claire sur Epte, treaty by which the Vikings were given Normandy as theri territory. In that period (about 6 generations) the Vikings of Normandy became more French (and more feodal) than the suurounding French, and their contribution to the English language was French and not Viking.

 

An other example : the Romans gradually conquered Greece, and adopted many aspects of the Greek culture - Greek even became the language of the ruling classes. In this way, there was some conquerring of Rome by the Greeks as well.

 

So, if Hannibal had won his war, we probably would have had a Punic (Punian ?) Empire around the beginning of our era. But it might have been influenced by the Greek civilisation just as much. And it might have served just as well in spreading Christianity.

 

But I agree with Boerseun that English (and most other European language, and even Afrikaans) would need to revise their dictionaries and grammar books.