What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened?

My wild guesses:
1. Germany and the UK would be allies to dominate the growing USA and fight for control of Latin American countries. For example, making Mexico strong after the 1910-1920 civil war and installing a third empire that would engulf central America. The Panama Canal would be Anglo German.

2. Russia would still have a revolution. Germany, France and UK would come to the rescue. Japan would take a big chunck of Siberia.

3. Germany, France and UK would restore Brazil's empire and Portugal's king.

4. My old country, Spain, would still have a civil war but Germany, Italy, France and UK would step in and restore a constitutional monarchy, preventing Franco's reign of terror to take over.

5. Germany, Italy, France and UK would again interfere in Turkey and restore the Sultan.

6. And unfortunately, colonialism and exploitation in Africa and Asia would go unchecked to present day.

7. The lack of Soviet Union would have prevented or delayed the race to space and the first men on the moon and other advances in technology. For shorts: no Star Trek, laptops, flying cars...

In summary, for good or bad the two world wars shaped the world we live in today.
 
How would Russia interfere in the issue of a claimant to the Hungarian throne?

As they always interfered with anything..ignorance and blatant superiority sentiments...Well,we have seen were that got them..

And again...
 
Ireland might possibly have found peace within the UK with home rule or it might just have been a step towards inevitable independence. There would presumably have been no Easter Rising.

Yes I think had Home Rule with an Irish Parliament in Dublin been established in 1912 the Irish Risings and Irish War of Independence could have been avoided.
In 1801 the Kingdoms of Ireland and Great Britain were merged into Great Britain and the Irish Parliament became redundant.
That could also could have been revered in 1912 as the 1801 Act was vehemently opposed in Ireland

PARLIAMENT HOUSE, DUBLIN
640px-GILBERT%281896%29_p109_PROSPECTIVE_VIEW_OF_THE_PARLIAMENT_HOUSE%2C_DUBLIN.jpg
 
There were still disputes in 1914 about Home Rule, I dont think that there woudl have been an easy solution to the problem fo the Ulster Unionists, and HR might not have proceeded into law in 1914.
 
What If WWI/WWII Hadn't Happened?

My wild guesses:
1. Germany and the UK would be allies to dominate the growing USA and fight for control of Latin American countries. For example, making Mexico strong after the 1910-1920 civil war and installing a third empire that would engulf central America. The Panama Canal would be Anglo German.

2. Russia would still have a revolution. Germany, France and UK would come to the rescue. Japan would take a big chunck of Siberia.

3. Germany, France and UK would restore Brazil's empire and Portugal's king.

4. My old country, Spain, would still have a civil war but Germany, Italy, France and UK would step in and restore a constitutional monarchy, preventing Franco's reign of terror to take over.

5. Germany, Italy, France and UK would again interfere in Turkey and restore the Sultan.

6. And unfortunately, colonialism and exploitation in Africa and Asia would go unchecked to present day.

7. The lack of Soviet Union would have prevented or delayed the race to space and the first men on the moon and other advances in technology. For shorts: no Star Trek, laptops, flying cars...

In summary, for good or bad the two world wars shaped the world we live in today.
I don’t see why or how the Brits and Germans would interfere with Mexico. Germany had little or no involvement in Latin America geo politics wise aside from a number of Germans migrating.

I don’t see how allies could help Russia’s internal issues of revolution because Russia is too big.

I don’t think the further colonialism would continue because Empires cost a lot of money to run and locals would overtime made it difficult. All empires come to an end.

I can see a restoration of the Portuguese royals, but not the Brazilian royals (at least not help from Western powers because the reason they were deposed had nothing to do with WWI)
 
As they always interfered with anything..ignorance and blatant superiority sentiments...Well,we have seen were that got them..

And again...
You’re not wrong with that, they interfered too much in East, South and Central Europe post WWII.
 
There were still disputes in 1914 about Home Rule, I dont think that there woudl have been an easy solution to the problem fo the Ulster Unionists, and HR might not have proceeded into law in 1914.

The Ulster Unionists were venomously opposed to Home Rule or a Parliament in Dublin.
Protestants in the South were among the more fervent Irish Nationalists.
 
not true, SOME Protestants in the south were nationalists but not many.
 
not true, SOME Protestants in the south were nationalists but not many.

I was reading up on some of the Protestant Irish nationalists

There are some famous figures like Wolfe Tone,Robert Emmet
and Henry Grattan.
Others who are less famous or long forgotten.

The Founder of the Irish Home Rule was William Shaw an Irish Protestant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shaw_(Irish_politician)

Isaac Butt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Butt

Sir John Gray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gray_(Irish_politician)

Rev.Isaac Nelson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Nelson

John Gordon Swift MacNeill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._G._Swift_MacNeill

Some more Famous Figure
Charles Stewart Parnell
Countess Markievicz nee Constance Gore-Booth
Eva Gore-Booth
Alice Milligan
Erskine Childers
Sir Thomas Myles
Captain James Robert White
Alice Stopford Green
Douglas Hyde
Sir Roger Casement
Lord Glenavy
Revd. Robert Hilliard
 
Im not going to argue, but this is a subject that I studied at college, and these people were the excpetions like upper class socialists. Most Protestants in Ireland were unionist. Many of the Southern unionists left the country after 1922
 
Im not going to argue, but this is a subject that I studied at college, and these people were the excpetions like upper class socialists. Most Protestants in Ireland were unionist. Many of the Southern unionists left the country after 1922

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 don’t see why or how the Brits and Germans would interfere with Mexico. Germany had little or no involvement in Latin America geo politics wise aside from a number of Germans migrating.

I don’t see how allies could help Russia’s internal issues of revolution because Russia is too big.

I don’t think the further colonialism would continue because Empires cost a lot of money to run and locals would overtime made it difficult. All empires come to an end.

I can see a restoration of the Portuguese royals, but not the Brazilian royals (at least not help from Western powers because the reason they were deposed had nothing to do with WWI)

The intent of the thread seems to be on the theme give us your guess and defy logic! ;) It's playing here with the genre called Alternative History. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history
Just join the fun :flowers:

Re Mexico, during WWI the Kaiser's government reached out to Mexico and offered all territories taken by the USA, by 1848, in exchange for their alliance in the War to invade the USA from the south border.

This trick happened twice in recent history in my country. Napoleon asked Spain's king to let him enter the territory to defeat the British and their ally, Portugal. End results: he crowned his brother 'Pepe' king of Spain.
Hitler asked Franco the same, to allow his troops in to reach French Morocco and the resistance and Franco said hell no remembering Napoleon's offer.

Had the Kaiser's Germany step foot in Mexico they would have declared a third empire probably with one of his relatives on the throne. This was going to happen to Finland, too in 1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Finland_(1918)

Re Brazil - The UK/Europe destroyed the Brazilian monopoly of rubber by stealing seeds to grow their own. Rubber was like gold for the emerging car industries. There was no love lost and the Brazilian resources were closer to obtain if the Bristish Empire interfered in Latin America the way the USA did.

So just have fun with the thread and share your alternative history too! 😄
 
Last edited:
The Ulster Unionists were venomously opposed to Home Rule or a Parliament in Dublin.
Protestants in the South were among the more fervent Irish Nationalists.

Had WWI not happened and instead UK and Germany became allies against the growing dominance of the industrial power of the USA, the grip in Ireland would have lasted longer. And I don't doubt the end result would have been independence but at the cost of thousands of lives on both sides.

In my theory today, the USA's first Irish ancestry president, John F. Kennedy would have interfered on behalf of Ireland. Interesting if that would have been the trigger for a WWI? USA helping Ireland and India vs UK and Germany :ermm:
 
I was also thinking of Monaco had World One not happened would we have had the 1918 Succession Crisis ?
The Duke of Urach could have become Prince of Monaco.
 
...And the Prince of Liechtenstein would be today on one of his many palaces within the Austro-Hungarian empire. I think we still would have a European Union and a common currency like the Euro but expanded worldwide. And don't forget Eurovision going worldwide to include participants from the restored Empire of China, the Vice Royalties of Canada and Australia and the USA, etc.
 
...And the Prince of Liechtenstein would be today on one of his many palaces within the Austro-Hungarian empire. I think we still would have a European Union and a common currency like the Euro but expanded worldwide. And don't forget Eurovision going worldwide to include participants from the restored Empire of China, the Vice Royalties of Canada and Australia and the USA, etc.

Ofcourse many Monarchies overthrown before 1914 Brazil,France,Portugal and Mexico and others too would have fallen over time with or without both World Wars.
 
...And the Prince of Liechtenstein would be today on one of his many palaces within the Austro-Hungarian empire. I think we still would have a European Union and a common currency like the Euro but expanded worldwide. And don't forget Eurovision going worldwide to include participants from the restored Empire of China, the Vice Royalties of Canada and Australia and the USA, etc.

Ofcourse many Monarchies were overthrown before 1914 Brazil,France,Portugal and Mexico and others too would have fallen over time with or without both World Wars.
 
An interesting thread I haven't seen before.


A fun fact is that Finland would've been a monarchy today if the WWI hadn't happened. They had chosen Fredrik Karl of Hesse to become king, but just before he could enter the throne, Germany lost the war and Fredrik Karl decided to decline the offer.
 
An interesting thread I haven't seen before.


A fun fact is that Finland would've been a monarchy today if the WWI hadn't happened. They had chosen Fredrik Karl of Hesse to become king, but just before he could enter the throne, Germany lost the war and Fredrik Karl decided to decline the offer.
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
 
There were also proposals during the latter years of the Irish Free State to nominate a King of Ireland and that the candidate should descended in the paternal line of Brian Boru. Donough O'Brien, 16th Baron Inchiquin was chosen as a candidate but Eamon De Valera preferred the title of Prince-President of the Irish Republic but then changed his mind .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donough_O'Brien,_16th_Baron_Inchiquin
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.



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.



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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom