What would the world be like today???

Crippen · 01-03-2005, 01:56 PM

What would the world be like today, if WW1 hadn't happened?????
Let me give ( from my memory of History) the running order and knock on effects of WW1:

Gabrillo Prinsip ( Black Hand Gang & all that), killed Franz Ferdinand ( The Arch Duke of Hungery)....blar blar blar..... Triple enterte v triple allience, more blar blar blar... War breaks out.
End of WW1 the 'Treaty of Versailles' drawn up........ the reparations from this led to WW2..... which in turn has led to much of the Cold War Paranoia, of the Eastern Block conflicts today.
It could even be said to be related to unfounded rational of the spread of Communism linked to the Vietnam War.

So if this be the, so called snow ball effect of WW1..... what might the world be better or worse for, 'if' WW1 hadn't kicked off?????

Well I just thought it worth a debate maybe!

The Lovely Lancaster might never have been built for a start .... or maybe your favourite plane....... good or bad.... what do you want to add?

plan_D · 01-04-2005, 12:19 AM

The Communism bit still might have happened, although World War 1 certainly sped up the success of the revolution.

World War 1 was a good thing, it created many technological advancements. Anyway, the war was going to happen sooner or later. If by some miracle it didn't happen the world would be backwards in technology, that's all.

cheddar cheese · 01-04-2005, 09:03 AM

Technology is perhaps the one good thing that comes from wars. In WW2 many countries were barely making Monoplanes, yet 6 years later we were flying Jets.

evangilder · 01-04-2005, 12:07 PM

I have heard it said that a big majority of aviation advances occurred between 1939 and 1945. War does drive technology to it's limit and when the war macine gets going, the advances are rapid. I was once told that 1 year of miltary development is like 43 years of civilian development.

plan_D · 01-04-2005, 01:13 PM

Sounds about right. The question about World War 2 is, was 55 million dead worth that development. Thinking though, there's a lot of medical advancement in war too...maybe it saved more than it killed..

HealzDevo · 01-19-2005, 07:21 AM

WW1 to a large extent acted to provide the money for aircraft companies to experiment. Including what is a big one- looking at the reliability of the engines and how to improve them. During WW1 engines improved a quantum leap over what they had been in terms of power and reliability. WW2 just offered an ability to give this progress a hot poker to the backside and for the improvement to continue. There is also a hazarding of the first monoplane fighters to see combat. Monoplanes were banned in some places before WW1 due to their unreliable record. However, it won't be until WW2 that we see the last gasp of the biplanes, their final victory in the form of the victory of the Three Gloster Gladiators- Hope, Faith and Charity that the biplane fighter concept dies a heroic death destroying Luftwaffe Bf-109s and Bf-110s.

HealzDevo · 03-24-2005, 11:39 PM

I would just like to think not so much if WW1 never happened, but what would have happened if Woodrow Wilson had got his way more at Versailles. The treaty imposed on Germany was not the one Wilson had in mind. If his treaty had been imposed, it was doubtful that WWII would have happened as soon as it did. In other words Versailles created the conditions for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

kiwimac · 03-25-2005, 04:52 AM

Hitler would not have won the Iron Cross I & II, he would not have had a reason to stand for the NSDAP, he would probably have died as a little known former artist.

Kiwimac

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-25-2005, 12:19 PM

and most important of all, WWI gave us tinned food!!!

mosquitoman · 03-26-2005, 08:55 AM

We wouldn't be advanced today as we are, look at Italy- years and years of war there gave the Reformation, Galileo and da Vinci but Peace in Switzerland has produced what? The cuckoo clock

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-26-2005, 02:20 PM

HealzDevo · 04-19-2005, 11:23 PM

What would have happened if the ANZAC troops sent to the beaches of Gallopi (However you spell it) had been used instead on the Western Front to create a larger attacking force? Any suggestions, I for one think that it would have severely stretched WW1 Germany which was starting to have trouble keeping up the pressure against the Allies.

BombTaxi · 04-20-2005, 06:55 AM

Im not sure that sending the ANZACs to the Western Front would have made a difference. The reason the Gallipoli campaign was concieved in the first place was that there was something wrong with the way operations on the Western Front were working. By this, I mean that the Allies couldnt find a formula that would crack the German defences and restore mobile warfare. Loos, Lens and the two Ypres had demonstrated that a decisive victory in the West was impossible in 1915, hence the eagerness to get tha Gallipoli campaign underway. Had the ANZACs gone to France, I fear they would have been frittered away in the 'wastage' of the trenches

kiwimac · 04-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Instead of being slaughtered by what passed for tactics by the General Staff of the time!

Kiwimac

delcyros · 04-21-2005, 04:26 PM

The swiss may have not done anything ultra impressive but so they didn´t anything ultra shocking. That´s why 85% of german citizen wants rather to be swiss citizen than to be german...
I think, it is worth to count WW1 and WW2 together as a single world war (1914-1945) with a twenty years peacetime in between (just from the geman point of view).The outbreak of a major european war would have come anyway.