What would the fate be of countries around the world, had there not been a war at all?
Title of thread edited by ADMIN to make it more descriptive of the subject being discussed.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Note: You did not specify a war. However since this is in the WW2 section, I'm guessing you are referring to WW2.
Here is probably the most likely of non-WW2 scenarios
Everything the same up as of September 2nd 1939. Hitler was right that the UK guarantee of Poland was a bluff (much like the 1935 bluff guarantee of Ethiopia). The UK realized without the USSR, it could not guarantee the independence of Poland and does not declare war on Germany. Hitler wanted to avoid war with the UK, so the real question is whether Germany would still invade the USSR. For the sake of this exercise, lets assume Austria, Czechoslovakia, and western Poland is enough Lebensraum.
China eventually realizes the League of Nations countries are not going to intervene, and offers surrender terms. Japan accepts surrender terms.
Germany is post WW1+Austria+Czechoslovakia+Western Poland.
USSR is post Civil War+Baltic countries+eastern Poland+some of Karelia
Italy is post WW1+Ethiopia+Albania
Japan+some unknown amount of Chinese territory
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
And what of France?
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
France, would have been neutral.
And I doubt that Hitler would've invaded them. Mainly because he wanted to be fighting a "Titanic war against the savic people of the east, alongside the British Empire"
Not in the west.
Obviously west and east refer to Western and Eastern Europe.
TehBoss said
France, would have been neutral.
And I doubt that Hitler would've invaded them. Mainly because he wanted to be fighting a "Titanic war against the savic people of the east, alongside the British Empire"
Not in the west.
Obviously west and east refer to Western and Eastern Europe.
I should hope so. Not east and west asia.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Germany would have still invaded France in 1940. The question would have been whether there would have been an invasion of Denmark and Norway.
Hitler would have had no choice but to invade France, the Army demanded it and the people would have demanded it for the humiliation they felt for the loss of WWI and the huge indemnity that the Allies required of them as War Repariations. So, the UK would have been drawn in regardless, if they were to hold true to their treaty of support for France.
Moussalini would have still had his abortive attempts to invade Greece, which would have spread the war to the Balkan countries.
- stoneoffal
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 24, 2009
- posts: 1
stoneoffal said
Germany would have still invaded France in 1940. The question would have been whether there would have been an invasion of Denmark and Norway.
Hitler would have had no choice but to invade France, the Army demanded it and the people would have demanded it for the humiliation they felt for the loss of WWI and the huge indemnity that the Allies required of them as War Repariations. So, the UK would have been drawn in regardless, if they were to hold true to their treaty of support for France.
Moussalini would have still had his abortive attempts to invade Greece, which would have spread the war to the Balkan countries.
Actually, I do not believe the people would have demanded it. Germany had still not recovered from the massive blow of WW1, in all senses.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Germany would not have invaded France in 1940 if France had not declared war on them. Most of the German Generals thought the proposed invasion was doomed to fail in 1940 (think about what they would have thought about the idea if Germany wasn't already at war with France...a military revolt might have occurred). Germany was not ready for war in 1940. Hitler had planned to avoid any major wars until the very earliest of 1944. A German declaration of war of France in 1940 would not have happened.
Denmark is a possible target in 1940, it depends on whether Hitler thought the UK would let Germany get away with it.
Hitler wanted Norway to remain neutral even when Germany invaded....but that desire was overridden by his desire to have Swedish iron ore shipments remain uninterrupted by the UK. So in the above scenario Norway is not a target.
I'm not going to argue whether or not Italy would invade Greece. I have read very little about Italian WW2 objectives and can not make a informed judgment on the subject.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Carl said
Germany would not have invaded France in 1940 if France had not declared war on them. Most of the German Generals thought the proposed invasion was doomed to fail in 1940 (think about what they would have thought about the idea if Germany wasn't already at war with France...a military revolt might have occurred). Germany was not ready for war in 1940. Hitler had planned to avoid any major wars until the very earliest of 1944. A German declaration of war of France in 1940 would not have happened.
Denmark is a possible target in 1940, it depends on whether Hitler thought the UK would let Germany get away with it.
Hitler wanted Norway to remain neutral even when Germany invaded....but that desire was overridden by his desire to have Swedish iron ore shipments remain uninterrupted by the UK. So in the above scenario Norway is not a target.
I'm not going to argue whether or not Italy would invade Greece. I have read very little about Italian WW2 objectives and can not make a informed judgment on the subject.
Hilter would not have invaded Denmark by itself. The only reason he invaded Denmark was so that he would have access to Norway, which is part of the reason Denmark's occupation was initiatlly very mild.
- Light-Infa
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 212
This is such an interesting question, one which would take days to compile an answer to.
I can't so instead I'll just put forth a few interesting notions (assuming Hitler was never in power):
If World War II in Europe & Asia didn't occur then:
-No Middle Eastern conflict as we know it. No holocaust, no exodus, no founding of Israel; therefore no terrorism as we know it. No 9/11.
-No Cold War (arguably). Barring a Soviet War with the west during the 30's & 40s, there would have been no reason for Soviet forces to 'liberate' Eastern Europe.
I say 'arguably' since a war of ideologies may have been conceivable, as a growing USSR sought to influence E. Europe, as well as the west.
Europe today might be a minefield of treaties, secret treaties and currently friendly nations might be at each other's throats.
Colonial expansion might have remained, the British Empire might have still survived, France might have regained her former colonial power, and Japan may have never risen as an economic & technological nation which leads to...
Technology:
The war acted as a catalyst for boosting the 'natural' evolution & development of technologies.
Everything from industry, agriculture, transport, medicine, electronics and computers would have been 'set back' years, perhaps even decades. There would have been no moon landing in 1969, the Atom Bomb may not have appeared until the 60's.
Home Computers may not even exist today.
Just food for thought...
Adding on the post by Ian, wouldn't America still be in a depression during the war years? What would be the long term effects of that.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
Ian said
This is such an interesting question, one which would take days to compile an answer to.
I can't so instead I'll just put forth a few interesting notions (assuming Hitler was never in power):
If World War II in Europe & Asia didn't occur then:
-No Middle Eastern conflict as we know it. No holocaust, no exodus, no founding of Israel; therefore no terrorism as we know it. No 9/11.
-No Cold War (arguably). Barring a Soviet War with the west during the 30's & 40s, there would have been no reason for Soviet forces to 'liberate' Eastern Europe.
I say 'arguably' since a war of ideologies may have been conceivable, as a growing USSR sought to influence E. Europe, as well as the west.
Europe today might be a minefield of treaties, secret treaties and currently friendly nations might be at each other's throats.
Colonial expansion might have remained, the British Empire might have still survived, France might have regained her former colonial power, and Japan may have never risen as an economic & technological nation which leads to...
Technology:
The war acted as a catalyst for boosting the 'natural' evolution & development of technologies.
Everything from industry, agriculture, transport, medicine, electronics and computers would have been 'set back' years, perhaps even decades. There would have been no moon landing in 1969, the Atom Bomb may not have appeared until the 60's.
Home Computers may not even exist today.
Just food for thought...
1) The Middle Eastern conflict will still be present. The roots of this conflict are in WWI, not WW2. The Versailles borders created most of this problem, and Zionism was already a dominant force before WWII. The Jews are going to be there and Britain will still have a problem when it comes time to give independence to their Mandate in Palestine.
2) Regarding colonial powers, the colonial empires of Europe will fall. WWI and it's financial consequences made their end inevitable. WWII just sped up the process. For example, the India Act which was a major step towards independence for the Indian subcontinent had already been passed by this point, and many independence movements had gained momentum.
However, without the defeats that Britain and the other continental powers suffered during the early stages of the war, they will retain much more credibility with the people of their colonies, which could lead to a much more tightly knit Commonwealth for example.
Nothing to complain about with the rest.
- Light-Infa
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 212
I would just replicate LightInfa's points-
Ian said
-(1)No Middle Eastern conflict as we know it. No holocaust, no exodus, no founding of Israel; therefore no terrorism as we know it. No 9/11.
-(2)No Cold War (arguably). Barring a Soviet War with the west during the 30's & 40s, there would have been no reason for Soviet forces to 'liberate' Eastern Europe.
(3)Colonial expansion might have remained, the British Empire might have still survived, France might have regained her former colonial power, and Japan may have never risen as an economic & technological nation which leads to...
On points 1 and 3: If we go on Carl's initial scenario, we might still assume that a Holocaust still occurs to some extent, since the Nazis are still Nazis. Without a total-war going on, they might go easier on the Jews and others, but Greater Germany would probably still be a miserable place to live, for millions of people. Israeli independence might go differently without a tremendously weakened UK to just let things slide. I would bet on an Indian independence war, which would go badly for the British.
As for a Cold War, wouldn't the USSR be in mortal fear of the Germans, and vice versa? A German-Soviet cold war might well have developed, with the Brits and Americans probably backing the Germans.
Just think the years it would set back modern civilization. Like it or not, war speeds up research.
"Mors ultima linea rerum est mortalis."
- MajorLufbery
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: France
- joined: Aug 12, 2009
- posts: 1173
Well to really be a no-WW2 scenario, in addition to the UK not declaring war over Poland, Hitler must die before the German military is strong enough for him to think Germany could win against a major power. And considering Hitler's rational for invading the USSR was influenced by the USSR wanting influence in Bulgaria and Rumania...
Considering Hitler evaded something like 42 assassination attempts its not too much of a stretch to say its likely a assassination attempt kills him in this alternate scenario.
As for the idea of a Zionist state arising in the middle east without the holocaust. Before the holocaust most Jews were against the idea of a Zionist state in the holy land not set up by the messiah due to it being blasphemous. The rest of the world thought the idea was insane. The UK is not going to give a unpopular mandate to a small group of starving people (those that already chose aliyah) without a giant guilt trip.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
MajorLufbery said
Just think the years it would set back modern civilization. Like it or not, war speeds up research. OMG! IF I JUST REALIZED!
if ww2 didnt happen then i might have to clean the dishes by hand!
&$%^!!!!
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
War doesn't speed up research. It speeds up certain types of research and curtails others. Rocket, atomic and computer technology certainly benefitted from WWII, but other things would have benefitted in its absence, to say nothing of the vast amount of money and tens of millions of lives that were senselessly wasted and could have contributed to all sorts of human endeavours. WWII also significantly aided the spread of Communism; in a huge section of the world biological sciences especially were retarded by Communist regimes in favor of ideologically correct pseudoscience.
Carl said
Well to really be a no-WW2 scenario, in addition to the UK not declaring war over Poland, Hitler must die before the German military is strong enough for him to think Germany could win against a major power. And considering Hitler's rational for invading the USSR was influenced by the USSR wanting influence in Bulgaria and Rumania...
Considering Hitler evaded something like 42 assassination attempts its not too much of a stretch to say its likely a assassination attempt kills him in this alternate scenario.
As for the idea of a Zionist state arising in the middle east without the holocaust. Before the holocaust most Jews were against the idea of a Zionist state in the holy land not set up by the messiah due to it being blasphemous. The rest of the world thought the idea was insane. The UK is not going to give a unpopular mandate to a small group of starving people (those that already chose aliyah) without a giant guilt trip.
I'm going to have to say you are wrong here. It doesn't matter what the majority of Jews thought (despite the fact that the Zionist Congress was meeting annually and had a great deal of support), the population is all that matters. The fact is, by 1937, Jews made up 27% of the Mandate of Palestine's population, and that number is only going to grow, whether by leaps and bounds as did actually happen, or by a small but steady trickle. The fact that Arabs revolted in Palestine from 1936-1939 over their treatment vis-a-vis the Jews shows that this problem was already in existence before the war.
Plus, the British don't have to give the mandate to the Jews, they didn't do so in actuality anyway. It is conceivable for the British government to issue another declaration akin to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as there were prominent supporters of Jews in the British political establishment, but that is beside the point. The most likely course of action is that Britain tries to get the League of Nations (as there will be no United Nations coming into existence) to divy up the mandate as the British rule expires much like the UN tried and this will fail. We will see a war between the Arabs and Jews that may go in the favor of the Arabs due to a smaller Jewish population, but I suspect that the result of that war could lead to quite a lot of sympathy for the Jews across the world.
- Light-Infa
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 212
The White Paper of 1939 limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 to Palestine over the next 5 years after which Jewish immigration would require Arab consent.
Jewish population as a % of Palestine would only remain at around 1/3 or decrease if the holocaust didn't cause illegal migrations to Palestine.
Considering the Arab revolt was over the issue of taking tillable land from the Arabs and giving them to the Jews, the British did not want to start a war of independence by proposing another partition.
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
