What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened?

[Silverpot]

Originally Posted by JR76

Though the reason that he was elected king was that Finland had declared independence because of the war and the largely caused by the war revolution

True, but the revolution and Finland breaking free would've happened anyway, I think, although probably later.

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by Silverpot

True, but the revolution and Finland breaking free would've happened anyway, I think, although probably later.

True. Revolution would had eventually broke out either at end of 1920's or early 1930's. Russian society was just waiting that. It wouldn't be such like in ours world 1917 revolutions but ratherly similar like 1905 one. As end result Russia either would become constitutional monarchy or republic. But not communist state. Finland and Poland would break out from the empire during that alternate rvolution.

[An Ard Ri]

You can read more on the Grand Duchy of Finland below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland

[Toledo]

This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in Royal Forums. It allows members from different parts of the world to share the alternatives, from their point of view and knowledge, that a different twist could alter modern life.

Hope more people join the fun in here!

That said, this thread made me remember a tiny detail on Turkey/Ottoman history involving the father of the nation Kemal Ataturk. I even recall saving the link, from an Egyptian royal's blog, and can't find it. I recall reading Kemal was an imperial officer and wanted to marry one of the Sultan's daughters, both were in love.

The emperor refused and married her off to another officer. Had Kemal married an Ottoman princess, and being a pro-women's rights himself, makes me think he would have reverted the republic to a constitutional monarchy to make his wife Empress instead of First Lady of Turkey.

On that line of alternative history, Turkey would have caught up with the west faster without WWI and WWII happening and possibly altering the present Middle East situation and the fall of the kingdom of Egypt in the 50s and the Shah in the 70s.

[A Tudor]

This is a truly fascinating topic.


WWII happened largely because of WWI, that's a known fact. Without the first, the second would've never happened the way it did.


But the causes and the scenario leading to WWI have always puzzled me. The feeling is like everyone was building up their armies for some future war and the events leading to the conflict were merely excuses. It's like the great powers were tired of peace and the belle epoque and somehow were eager to fight again like the old Napoleonic times, but with even more lethal weapons.


Even without WWI I believe the Austria-Hungary Empire would've perished, or at least greatly downsized. That monarchy relied heavily on personal rule, there were too many different people, maintaining a state like that under one government would be almost impossible. The Russian empire could've survived but the oligarchs would keep the Czar as a puppet with power truly residing in their hands, I believe the Czar would be a figure head while the State is ruled by a strong Prime Minister, Putin-style.


Germany would be just like the UK, a full democratic and constitutional monarchy.


Overall, democracy would've have prevailed in the most part of the European continent, that movement was already in the way before WWI.

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by A Tudor

Even without WWI I believe the Austria-Hungary Empire would've perished, or at least greatly downsized. That monarchy relied heavily on personal rule, there were too many different people, maintaining a state like that under one government would be almost impossible.

A-H has some chances to survive altough it has reform itself as multi-ethnic federation sooner or latter. Franz Ferdinand had already plans for this and Franz Josef would still die around same time as in ours world. Habsburgs had great support among ethnic groups and the empire begun to crumble only just final stages of WW1. Since no WW1 A-H might stay as unified unless reforming attempt not blow up to faces of Franz Ferdinand since Hungary would oppose such ideas.

Originally Posted by A Tudor

The Russian empire could've survived but the oligarchs would keep the Czar as a puppet with power truly residing in their hands, I believe the Czar would be a figure head while the State is ruled by a strong Prime Minister, Putin-style.

Pretty intresting that you predicted A-H collapsing due its multi-ethnic character since Russia was too extremely multi-ethnic even in bigger degree than modern Russia. And tsar was very unpopular.


But otherwise I agree.

Originally Posted by A Tudor

Germany would be just like the UK, a full democratic and constitutional monarchy.


Overall, democracy would've have prevailed in the most part of the European continent, that movement was already in the way before WWI.

Agree.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by A Tudor

This is a truly fascinating topic.


WWII happened largely because of WWI, that's a known fact. Without the first, the second would've never happened the way it did.


But the causes and the scenario leading to WWI have always puzzled me. The feeling is like everyone was building up their armies for some future war and the events leading to the conflict were merely excuses. It's like the great powers were tired of peace and the belle epoque and somehow were eager to fight again like the old Napoleonic times, but with even more lethal weapons.


Even without WWI I believe the Austria-Hungary Empire would've perished, or at least greatly downsized. That monarchy relied heavily on personal rule, there were too many different people, maintaining a state like that under one government would be almost impossible. The Russian empire could've survived but the oligarchs would keep the Czar as a puppet with power truly residing in their hands, I believe the Czar would be a figure head while the State is ruled by a strong Prime Minister, Putin-style.


Germany would be just like the UK, a full democratic and constitutional monarchy.


Overall, democracy would've have prevailed in the most part of the European continent, that movement was already in the way before WWI.

Germany prior to the republic already had a constitutional monarchy or?

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Toledo

This is one of the most interesting threads I've seen in Royal Forums. It allows members from different parts of the world to share the alternatives, from their point of view and knowledge, that a different twist could alter modern life.

Hope more people join the fun in here!

That said, this thread made me remember a tiny detail on Turkey/Ottoman history involving the father of the nation Kemal Ataturk. I even recall saving the link, from an Egyptian royal's blog, and can't find it. I recall reading Kemal was an imperial officer and wanted to marry one of the Sultan's daughters, both were in love.

The emperor refused and married her off to another officer. Had Kemal married an Ottoman princess, and being a pro-women's rights himself, makes me think he would have reverted the republic to a constitutional monarchy to make his wife Empress instead of First Lady of Turkey.

On that line of alternative history, Turkey would have caught up with the west faster without WWI and WWII happening and possibly altering the present Middle East situation and the fall of the kingdom of Egypt in the 50s and the Shah in the 70s.

You’re saying that Ataturk basically uprooted the dynasty for a republic because of love?

[A Tudor]

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

Pretty intresting that you predicted A-H collapsing due its multi-ethnic character since Russia was too extremely multi-ethnic even in bigger degree than modern Russia. And tsar was very unpopular.


But otherwise I agree.

It's an interesting discussion, but I guess the autocratic roots of the Russian State, as we can witness until this day and age (for the most part), would help keeping its multi-ethnic people together under one government more easily than the A-H government could ever do it, even if A-H was also firmly based on a personal rule.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by A Tudor

This is a truly fascinating topic.


WWII happened largely because of WWI, that's a known fact. Without the first, the second would've never happened the way it did.


But the causes and the scenario leading to WWI have always puzzled me. The feeling is like everyone was building up their armies for some future war and the events leading to the conflict were merely excuses. It's like the great powers were tired of peace and the belle epoque and somehow were eager to fight again like the old Napoleonic times, but with even more lethal weapons.


Even without WWI I believe the Austria-Hungary Empire would've perished, or at least greatly downsized. That monarchy relied heavily on personal rule, there were too many different people, maintaining a state like that under one government would be almost impossible. The Russian empire could've survived but the oligarchs would keep the Czar as a puppet with power truly residing in their hands, I believe the Czar would be a figure head while the State is ruled by a strong Prime Minister, Putin-style.


Germany would be just like the UK, a full democratic and constitutional monarchy.


Overall, democracy would've have prevailed in the most part of the European continent, that movement was already in the way before WWI.

But would there be “oligarchs”in Russia if the empire survived unless you mean the Russian nobility because I don’t see much of a chance for the modern oligarchs to be in power? The oligarchs of today are only around because of the fall of the Empire

[A Tudor]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

But would there be “oligarchs”in Russia if the empire survived unless you mean the Russian nobility because I don’t see much of a chance for the modern oligarchs to be in power? The oligarchs of today are only around because of the fall of the Empire

Well, it's hard to predict anything that specific, but I think the Russian nobility was becoming rather decadent by the early 20th century and would eventually lose importance, prestige and wealth in favor of the newly rich industrial entrepreneurs, who, in true Russian style, would grow into some well connected, state controlling class. I believe the "Empire" would resemble very much today's Russia, but with the Czar as a figure head, mixing state and church into one mythical and nationalistic figure, controlled mostly by the same people ruling the country today.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

You’re saying that Ataturk basically uprooted the dynasty for a republic because of love?

No. And this is an alternate history thread. We/I'm not defending a thesis in front of a history panel if we place a 'what if...' post.

The Sultan's daughters were not only spectacular beauties but extremely smart and with a strong will enough to alter history if given a chance. Had he been married to one of them her influence would have similar to that of Eleanor Roosvelt, wife of President (and also cousin) Roosvelt.

In my alternative history about Ataturk destiny, on What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened? , I could see the new first lady of Turkey making him consider a revived Ottoman empire as a constitutional monarchy for their potential children. In this case it becomes a continuation of the former self and with time a force of its own in the middle east.

A modern empire, and possible ally of the UK and Germany, would have grabbed the Caucasus off Russia and then unified all Turkish lands from Anatolia to China. Not to mention altering the control of oil deposits in the middle east, etc. to present time.

My theory of a European/Asian world, without two world wars, would have their own version of the current European Union. This would be needed to counteract the expansion of the USA and eradicate the Monroe Doctrine.

This last part would have made countries in Latin America to welcome the British Empire and allies to interfere. When compared to the USA interference, that often had territorial gains in the XIX century followed by genocide or forced relocations to reservations, the post civil was Jim Crow era etc. a defense alliance with European countries would be more plausible.

And join the fun, what's your theory on a world without two major wars?

[WhitePine86LoveFam]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Oh I concur with you ,there were a small minority of Protestants in the Irish Nationalist movement and Home Rule Founding and Movement.

The vast majority were Unionist.

I was reading and interested to see if anyone was going to add the religious aspects of these wars.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Toledo

No. And this is an alternate history thread. We/I'm not defending a thesis in front of a history panel if we place a 'what if...' post.

The Sultan's daughters were not only spectacular beauties but extremely smart and with a strong will enough to alter history if given a chance. Had he been married to one of them her influence would have similar to that of Eleanor Roosvelt, wife of President (and also cousin) Roosvelt.

In my alternative history about Ataturk destiny, on What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened? , I could see the new first lady of Turkey making him consider a revived Ottoman empire as a constitutional monarchy for their potential children. In this case it becomes a continuation of the former self and with time a force of its own in the middle east.

A modern empire, and possible ally of the UK and Germany, would have grabbed the Caucasus off Russia and then unified all Turkish lands from Anatolia to China. Not to mention altering the control of oil deposits in the middle east, etc. to present time.

My theory of a European/Asian world, without two world wars, would have their own version of the current European Union. This would be needed to counteract the expansion of the USA and eradicate the Monroe Doctrine.

This last part would have made countries in Latin America to welcome the British Empire and allies to interfere. When compared to the USA interference, that often had territorial gains in the XIX century followed by genocide or forced relocations to reservations, the post civil was Jim Crow era etc. a defense alliance with European countries would be more plausible.

And join the fun, what's your theory on a world without two major wars?

Why would the monarchic system change to suit Ataturk? I highly doubt the Ottomans would allow it for Ataturk to be a leader alongside the daughter of the Ottoman Emperor. You do realise the system of Ottoman leadership was based on the son who survived and with so many men in the family I highly doubt they would give way to a non family member dominating the leadership.