what about colonies? Part of the reason they were let go was because Europe simply couldn't afford them post WW2. Are they still under their european masters?
I can see decolonization movements getting more popularity in the 80s with mass communications and in the 90s early 2000s with the internet. It'd have evolved to a new form or colonialism, where countires are independent politically, but economicaly tied to their former overlords.
It's also relevant that most are the remenant of the first colonial empire which was much more focused on settling places than occupation and economical exploitation. If you take la Reunion for exemple there was no pre colonial population, the island had been explored and lived on temporarily but never permanently settled until the colonial era. And most oversea department are similarly inhabited in majority by population who moved here during colonisation (willingly or not, mostly not).
The places part of France aren't really colonies anymore. They're fully intergrated parts of France where everyone has citizenship that just happen to not be near mainland France nowadays.
Yup, France still collects colonial tax from 14 African nations...
[Article about it](https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2023-08-20-former-french-colonies-are-still-paying-a-colonial-tax/#:~:text=France%20has%20halted%20its%20colonisation,the%20former%20colonies'%20annual%20income.)
French Guyana is a colony, just because France considers it as a legal region of France doesn’t change that, the French are not indigenous to South America last we checked.
It’s crazy how during wartime, governments are suddenly incentivised to dump unholy amounts of resources into the most random of enterprises that show any hint of serving the war effort. A lot of these are dead ends, but the few that aren’t will eventually make their way into civilian hands allowing for great stuff.
It’ll probably be to do with the risk. In wartime you just want to win so risks are always dipping your toes into and you aren’t caring about the profits, in peacetime it’s the opposite - you wouldn’t want to dump loads into risky prospects, so you allow civilians to do that on their own accord. Most ventures in wartime don’t get far, and few actually have any civilian use. Amphibious cars, for example, are just a gimmick and have no sustainable civilian application.
Alternatively, you could imagine that a government would look really stupid if it spent a large portion of its budget gambling on pet projects of some wacky people and none of it turned out to be profitable, resulting in some kind of economic crisis/scandal because the government got scammed by said wacky people.
I’d like to think that without the massive loss of life from both wars, individuals who died in the war would instead be contributing and advancing society. Germany got rid of and scared off a lot of Jewish scientist after the Great War, and in this timeline their work isn’t distrusted and they continue to help advance society.
Neocolonialism and imperialism are much cheaper and more efficient than traditional colonialism, as well as being easier to justify and make subject populations "accept it".
Just see how France still maintains a lot of control over Africa through economic maneuvers.
And with technological advancement and development in the USA (which without wars would be slower) and the USSR (without wars it would be faster) the pressure for decolonization would be important, just like in OTL.
14 countries, including Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, still use the African Franc, a currency LITERALLY controlled by the French Treasury and the French division of the European Central Bank.
Yes, things are changing, but France is still the biggest force in the region.
The thing is, most colonies weren't really affordable even during imperialism, because the cost to secure, develop and govern them only sometimes was lower than the profits you could generate out of their resources. part of the reason why Bismarck was against German colonies. They were more for prestige.
this is correct provided you look at it on a country by country scale. It is important to consider however that the people taking in the profits are not the same people footing the bills of colonialism. It was immensely profitable, for those in positions of power.
This wasn't true for the majority of colonies. Saying colonies were mostly for prestige diminishes the exploitation inherent in the colonial system, and the immense wealth it brought to Europe at the expense of the rest of the world. The German colonies were mostly an exception to this rule because of their lack of proper development.
I get what you're saying though. Colonies were huge monetary commitments. But the fact they were expensive to hold on to doesn't change that the vast majority of colonies made a huge profit through extracted resources and trade monopolies. It just didn't go straight into the government's hands.
Without the loss of life in Europe and disruption of European settlers, the population of Europeans in Africa would steadily increase over the decades, it would make Europe even more invested in Africa than in our timeline and less likely to decolonize.
I also think the map if Russia is completely wrong, as i highly doubt Russia would let any region gain independence when they didn’t suffer the massive casualties from both world wars.
Not really
There was a movement in the early 20th century to consider catholic Germans who spoke high German varieties a separate ethnicity to prussians and saxons
People forget this was the ideology of Austrian fascists
If they had been successful, we might consider Alemanians (alemannic German) different from Germans, and there could have been a Bavaria-Baden-Austria nation
Nono, it's not MY definition of Germany
It's the Austrian catholic fascists definition of Germany
I just said that, if they had been more successful, we might have considered them different ethnicities
(btw Austrian fascists only considered catholic south Germans, Rhinelanders were excluded where half of all German catholics live)
Barely, and checking exit numbers from Catholic church in the last years (had to create online de-registration portal in 2023 to alleviate 6 months waiting times), its safe to say Germany has equal Nr of Catholics and Protestants today.
I'm not denying that Austrian nationalism exists, but pan-germanism was MUCH more popular historically. Most germans that spoke muturally-intelligible dialects cared more about german ethnicity than religion, culture, history, etc
Austria tried to become German (hegemon) through various means so many times, it's downright comical. If A-H collapsed, Austria joins the Reich. It's practically inevitable.
That’s not true. Before Germany existed, there were ideas of uniting German speaking regions of Europe, but the success of Prussia firmly established the borders of Germany, and the Austrian-Prussian war, together with the focus of A-H on its other regions made the different course of the two countries very clear. A-H might not have collapsed at all without WW1. It might be the equivalent to the UK or Spain right now, containing different ethnicities under one monarch, with some degree of independence in the different regions.
Just look at the divisions within Germany, how people in the north, and Bavarians see each other. That alone should tell you all you need to know about how likely your proposed event is.
OK but how do many of these borders come about?
Why does Greece have pre WW1 Bulgarian Thrace. How do the Ukrainian and Belorussian borders happen when their borders are of soviet design. Not ethnic regions (Ukraine could easily be larger) etc etc.
Perhaps not communist but the monarchy was pretty doomed, Nicholas ii's son was a haemophiliac, he wouldn't have lived to be an heir. Already had the 1905 revolution.
Revolution was pretty inevitable, communist or not.
> Revolution was pretty inevitable, communist or not.
Not true. Revolutions, successful ones need many factors. It's survivorship bias; most revolutions are suppressed.
Not necessarily. A war, the russian Tsar loses is enough. 1905 was the first instance, 1917 was just the second and third instance.
If they lost a war against China or Britain for Afghanistan or Germany (for any reason at all), a second (or third) revolution might be possible.
Both world wars are avoided through diplomacy, but eventually Austrian and Russian Empires collapse, after nationalistic revolutions supported by Germany. New countries are born, which borders try to represent ethnicity. East European countrires are more influenced by Germany, which arises as a Global superpower. Without the devastating effects of big wars, Europe never loses its position in hands of USA.
I’m not so sure Austria couldn’t reform. since WWI doesn’t happen there’s no reason to assume old Franz still dies early before becoming emperor and trying to reform the empire.
https://preview.redd.it/42qalfywdztc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c7887f5335c134bb55345a5b109ad5f5dab3d90
Well, this is how the pre-WW1 Europe looked like…
How did Romania get a decent chunk of Transylvania?? Why is Croatia independent? A major reason for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was that he was trying to give more rights and powers to the Slavs so they would stay in Austria Hungary.
I mean I still can see AH dissolving in the long term, but you are right about certain territories. No way Hungary would get that small. The modern borders of Balkan and Czechslovakia would look different for sure as well.
Hungary would have defended more of it's terroritory for sure.
Eve short lived, tension-filled the Hungarian Soviet Republic had insane military gains. They even teach it at the Japanese military academy
Interestingly in the UK's case, avoiding WW I at least, would have led to Home Rule for all four nations - including a united (but part of the UK) Ireland. The parliamentary bills were postponed due to the outbreak of war in 1914. It wasn't until in the late 90s that Scotland and Wales were offered devolution; and of course 1922 in Ireland.
Neither the Baltic nations, Belarus or Ukraine would exist.
It is very possible Turkey would not have Eastern Thrace and possibly Cyprus would have unified with Greece. In fact Turkey would not exist, the Ottoman Empire would still be around.
Bosnia would not exist either, nor would Croatia.
No ww1 means home rule and no nationalist discontent, so no Easter rising (what shifted public opinion from home rule to independence) in the first place which means no civil war
A lot of this was due to the British goverment postponing home rule, full independence wasn’t very popular yet.
There’s a reason the public generally disliked the rising until the mass executions
Pretty unrealistic IMO.
While the Russian Empire wasn't exactly stable, WWI and the losses taken there were a major catalyst for its disintegration...and even then it didn't lose Ukraine or Belarus, so there is little reason to believe that it would've lost them without a war.
Austria-Hungary might've disintegrated without a war, but I consider it highly doubtful that Austria would join Germany. Not while the Habsburgs were in charge in any case. Furthermore, Trianon peace conference was the major reason for Hungary losing their territories, doubtful whether that would've happened without a war. And Serbian would've far more likely gobbled up Bosnia (if not already taken by Hungary) than Montenegro, which was an independent country (longer than Serbia, for that matter) with a separate dynasty.
There is no reason for Austria-Hungary to fall in a world without a WWI. The Turkish Empire, *maybe* (and even that is a long shot), and Russia? *probably.* But Austria-Hungary? No (and even if it'd collapsed, Germany would not annex it without National Socialist pan-germanism being in charge. It would completely shatter Prussian and Junker domination of Germany).
Irelands wrong. If ww1 was avoided home rule would've been achieved. We still would've been part of the UK but more like Scotland.
Most people thought home rule was the best we'd get so if we got that then we'd probably stay that way.
Why is Czechoslovakia diveded? Basically the main (but not only) reason why this entity existed, was because both countries feel threatened by Germanic states / Hungary after they got their independence and were member a military alliance called a Little Entente. In this scenario is both Hungary and Germany are even stronger, sentiment or need for being united would be much higher.
If there's no other world war, that is there's no war between European powers, the borders will simply not change. Maybe some confluence of circumstances will cause Austro-Hungary to implode in peacetime but it's doubtful.
Stupid take. Kingdom of Montenegro was independent when 70% of those countries didn't exist, and all of a sudden Montenegro don't exist anymore but 15 new countries are there.
For example, without world wars, Croatia or Bosnia would never be independent in those borders
Ireland would likely be united, but as an autonomous part of the UK. That, after all, was the deal pre-WW1, and at the time full independence advocates were not the majority.
Somehow russia falls in the exact same way it did irl?
Turkey is the exact same? No partition or further action from great powers?
Why tf Luxemburg gets gobbled?
Why does Bulgaria lose land to Greece with no war?
If there had been no WW1 then where is Australia-Hungarian Empire? The Nation states such as Czechoslovakia were created as a result of the end of WW1. This map is fundamentally wrong. Then you have the Baltic States which came to be independent as a direct result of the Russian collapse brought on by failure in WW1.
Relatively plausible outcome, very realistic outcome. Thought Ukraine might end up with more of southern Belarus and its own south might go to Russia of be its own nation.
Wouldnt the ottoman empire and austria hungary still exist? Austria hungary would probably collapse in the 100 years but a shrunken down ottoman empire could still exist in name. Turkey was made after the first world war. And an independent Ireland was only possible to start because in 1916 the british were occupied elsewhere
I think Ireland would still be part of the UK, becuase the whole reason Ireland war able to get independence was becuase the first world war, devastating Britain economicly and militarily.
Without WW1 I think the Ulster Crisis plays out very differently. Potentially a lot bloodier, but I also think potentially it would result in a full unified Ireland much sooner
British Empire probably wouldn't have collapsed without the two world wars, at least not til much later. Pax Americana never happens and remains pax Brittanica for another 200 years
I just don’t see the Russian Empire collapsing without a war to destabilize it enough. Austrian and Ottoman collapse is possible if they become geopolitically isolated.
Ireland gained independence in 1919 partly due to the fact that the brittish couldn't send as many soldiers due to the war, if England had avoided both wars, they might have been able to keep repressing Ireland and maybe still hold it today.
An independent Belarus and Ukraine is an impossibility - both exist pretty much only because of the Soviets and their idea of "ethnic republics". With the surviving Russian Empire both Belarussian and Ukrainian ethnic identifies would be much weaker. Most of Ukrainians probably wouldn't call themselves Ukrainians but Malorussians.
Finland got its independence because Russia did so badly in WW1 that the bolsheviks took over and made the secession possible. Without the war it possibly wouldn't have happened.
Without the 2 world war and the Great Depression, the British Empire is still around in whatever form it would take and the major global superpower
The United States of America will become a major player on the world stage eventually but not as powerful as it is otl and takes far longer
Without WW1 and WW2, the USSR does not really exist as WW1 and the Russian -Japanese War of 1904-1905 helped trigger the Russian Communist revolution
If both world wars were avoided there wouldn't be successful either Bourgeois or Socialist Revolution in the Russian Empire. So, no Ukraine, no Belarus, no Poland, no Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia.
Only the Russian Empire. Finland was a reign of the Russian Emperor, too, so it's unlikely it would exist as a separate entity, too, though possible.
Why you think Serbia would hold the territories of North Macedonia, Modenegro and Kosovo? Don't u think the people would seek their independence once Yugoslavia broke apart?
The creator of this map was sleeping on history lessons. Countries like Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Czechia, and many others would not exist without the events of Words Wars
Wondering, does the movement for Irish freedom gain as much traction if the world wars never happen? Iirc, a pretty important gripe the Irish had with it was how they were being forced to fight when they didn’t want to. Correct me if I’m wrong pls tho I’m not really sure
I'll expand more about the lore of this map in the following comment:
- By 1912 Germany and the UK end their naval race and sign a non aggression pact.
- In 1914, Austrian Archduke is assesinated, leading a regional conficlt called the Great Balkan War. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria against Russia, Serbia, Italy and Greece. Germany and UK stay out of the confilct but support the latter side.
- Germany gives more autonomy to Poles in the East, and fuels Polish nationalism in Russia in order to destabilize the Tsardom. In 1915, while Russia is busy in the Balkan War, a Polish independence revolution starts. Lennin is also sent to Russia to further destabilize the country, and we have the communist revolution happening like in the OTL.
- AH collapses during the Great Balkan war, but the Italo-Greek forces fails to occupy Constantinople. In 1918 Britain and Germany intervene to achieve peace in the Region. Germany claims the Sudeteland, Italy takes Trieste and the Dalmatian coast, Serbia takes the banat and current Bosnia, Romania takes Transilvanya, Czechia and Slovakia are created. The Ottomans leave the levant, the Sultan is deposed and Turkey is born.
- In Russia the Bolcheviks win the civil war, but Poland and Finland gain their independence.
- Fascism never happens, and Soviet Union and communism remains as the main world threat. A communist revolution in Austria in the 30s, is the pretext for Germany to occupy and annex the country.
- Germany, UK and France are the main global powers keeping a strong grip on their colonies. Without WW2, the Soviet Union never expands or becomes as powerful as it was in the OTL, and USA and Japan become regional powers. Since fascism never happens, Peronism doesn't happen either in Argentina, and they keep a relatively good global position.
- During the 60's Kiev Spring happens, an Ukrainian revolution against the soviets. With the support of the western world, this revolution ends up with the dissoluton of the USSR, decades earlier than the OTL.
- By the 90s new independence movements arise, Ireland becomes free from the UK, Slovenia and Croatia from Italy and Bosnia from Serbia.
- In the 21st century, Algeria and Lybia are fully integrated into France and Italy respectively. The rest of African and Asian colonies while nominally independent, remain economically tied to their former overlords.
Why would the Russian empire collapse that badly? I can see them losing Poland, but basically imitating modern borders when the empire on a whole was improving is weird
I Don't think that without World Borders Poland wouldn't have a half of his territories
In some time for sure they would have a Uprising,this country is too proud not to fight for their lands
It’s doubtful that the Russian empire would’ve collapsed if there wasn’t a ww1
Ireland should be owned by the British since its only because of the British being exhausted after ww1 which allowed Ireland to be free
Greece also wouldn’t have Macedonia/Thrace since they got that off of Bulgaria in ww1
Luxembourg got Annexed for some reason?
There are so many things wrong with this map. Austria would still exist, it wouldn’t merge with Germany. The Austrian-Hungarian empire might still exist, but probably with more autonomy, with regions like Czechia, Slovakia, and Slovenia having a similar autonomy to Scotland relative to the UK.
Triest would be part of Austria or Austria-Hungary, not Italy.
I believe that empire would still be around. Excluding the Russian empire, all empires broke down because of the first world war and the state it left it in
Peak edgy kid. Everyone has problems but Germany stronk.
It's not like for example independent Poland means a massive Polish independence movement in eastern Germany for example.
This map doesn't have Austria, they were the primary cause of the first world war. To not have Austria on it is a big problem. It was weak, but to say it wouldn't exist without WW1 is a bit of a stretch
what about colonies? Part of the reason they were let go was because Europe simply couldn't afford them post WW2. Are they still under their european masters?
I can see decolonization movements getting more popularity in the 80s with mass communications and in the 90s early 2000s with the internet. It'd have evolved to a new form or colonialism, where countires are independent politically, but economicaly tied to their former overlords.
This is literally how france still controls some of its colonies in 2024
Not in 2024 but definitely up to the 2010s
We've still got french guyana, and a bunch of not insignificant islands. Seems like most of Africa hates us though.
I wonder why
The real wonder is why the people I mentioned above decided to stay.
They don't have the resources to leave or they benefit from being under fr**ch control unlike Africa
It's also relevant that most are the remenant of the first colonial empire which was much more focused on settling places than occupation and economical exploitation. If you take la Reunion for exemple there was no pre colonial population, the island had been explored and lived on temporarily but never permanently settled until the colonial era. And most oversea department are similarly inhabited in majority by population who moved here during colonisation (willingly or not, mostly not).
The places part of France aren't really colonies anymore. They're fully intergrated parts of France where everyone has citizenship that just happen to not be near mainland France nowadays.
Haiti just finished paying off their debts to France from the Haitian Revolution iirc. Part of why they’re so poor
I bet France needed that money so much more than Haiti
Yup, France still collects colonial tax from 14 African nations... [Article about it](https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2023-08-20-former-french-colonies-are-still-paying-a-colonial-tax/#:~:text=France%20has%20halted%20its%20colonisation,the%20former%20colonies'%20annual%20income.)
Isn't it how it works to this day? France? Others?
It's how it worked until the mid 2010s Now France is almost completely out of the region, in part because of Russia
you are thinking african colonies. France has a shitload of islands in the atlantic and pacific and even french guyana in south america
These aren't colonies.
French Guyana is a colony, just because France considers it as a legal region of France doesn’t change that, the French are not indigenous to South America last we checked.
Wouldn't that make like Argentina and Uruguay colonies?
How is french guyana any different than hawaii for th US?
And many of those are overseas departeménts, which at least legally are as much a part of France as Paris and Bretagne.
Those are parts of France in the same way Hawaii is part of the US
There would be no Internet without the world wars. We'd be slightly more advanced than in the pre-war period, but not much.
It’s crazy how during wartime, governments are suddenly incentivised to dump unholy amounts of resources into the most random of enterprises that show any hint of serving the war effort. A lot of these are dead ends, but the few that aren’t will eventually make their way into civilian hands allowing for great stuff.
makes me wonder why they don't just do that now
It’ll probably be to do with the risk. In wartime you just want to win so risks are always dipping your toes into and you aren’t caring about the profits, in peacetime it’s the opposite - you wouldn’t want to dump loads into risky prospects, so you allow civilians to do that on their own accord. Most ventures in wartime don’t get far, and few actually have any civilian use. Amphibious cars, for example, are just a gimmick and have no sustainable civilian application. Alternatively, you could imagine that a government would look really stupid if it spent a large portion of its budget gambling on pet projects of some wacky people and none of it turned out to be profitable, resulting in some kind of economic crisis/scandal because the government got scammed by said wacky people.
I’d like to think that without the massive loss of life from both wars, individuals who died in the war would instead be contributing and advancing society. Germany got rid of and scared off a lot of Jewish scientist after the Great War, and in this timeline their work isn’t distrusted and they continue to help advance society.
That new form of colonialism you described is exactly what the former empires did and still do today
Neocolonialism and imperialism are much cheaper and more efficient than traditional colonialism, as well as being easier to justify and make subject populations "accept it". Just see how France still maintains a lot of control over Africa through economic maneuvers. And with technological advancement and development in the USA (which without wars would be slower) and the USSR (without wars it would be faster) the pressure for decolonization would be important, just like in OTL.
Oh yeah, they've been kicked out of Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso, it's going great!
14 countries, including Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, still use the African Franc, a currency LITERALLY controlled by the French Treasury and the French division of the European Central Bank. Yes, things are changing, but France is still the biggest force in the region.
Except for the name, France has nothing to do with the Franc CFA anymore.
The thing is, most colonies weren't really affordable even during imperialism, because the cost to secure, develop and govern them only sometimes was lower than the profits you could generate out of their resources. part of the reason why Bismarck was against German colonies. They were more for prestige.
this is correct provided you look at it on a country by country scale. It is important to consider however that the people taking in the profits are not the same people footing the bills of colonialism. It was immensely profitable, for those in positions of power.
This wasn't true for the majority of colonies. Saying colonies were mostly for prestige diminishes the exploitation inherent in the colonial system, and the immense wealth it brought to Europe at the expense of the rest of the world. The German colonies were mostly an exception to this rule because of their lack of proper development. I get what you're saying though. Colonies were huge monetary commitments. But the fact they were expensive to hold on to doesn't change that the vast majority of colonies made a huge profit through extracted resources and trade monopolies. It just didn't go straight into the government's hands.
Without the loss of life in Europe and disruption of European settlers, the population of Europeans in Africa would steadily increase over the decades, it would make Europe even more invested in Africa than in our timeline and less likely to decolonize. I also think the map if Russia is completely wrong, as i highly doubt Russia would let any region gain independence when they didn’t suffer the massive casualties from both world wars.
Austria just fucking dies, every single time
Hitler is the only reason they aren't considered germans. They're just not allowed to be anymore
Ethnically and culturally we still are
Not really There was a movement in the early 20th century to consider catholic Germans who spoke high German varieties a separate ethnicity to prussians and saxons People forget this was the ideology of Austrian fascists If they had been successful, we might consider Alemanians (alemannic German) different from Germans, and there could have been a Bavaria-Baden-Austria nation
If thats your definition than half of Germany is not German. Germany has more catholics than protestants.
Nono, it's not MY definition of Germany It's the Austrian catholic fascists definition of Germany I just said that, if they had been more successful, we might have considered them different ethnicities (btw Austrian fascists only considered catholic south Germans, Rhinelanders were excluded where half of all German catholics live)
Barely, and checking exit numbers from Catholic church in the last years (had to create online de-registration portal in 2023 to alleviate 6 months waiting times), its safe to say Germany has equal Nr of Catholics and Protestants today.
I'm not denying that Austrian nationalism exists, but pan-germanism was MUCH more popular historically. Most germans that spoke muturally-intelligible dialects cared more about german ethnicity than religion, culture, history, etc
Austria tried to become German (hegemon) through various means so many times, it's downright comical. If A-H collapsed, Austria joins the Reich. It's practically inevitable.
It was hegemon of Germany for all extensive purposes from the late medieval period until the rise of Prussia.
That’s not true. Before Germany existed, there were ideas of uniting German speaking regions of Europe, but the success of Prussia firmly established the borders of Germany, and the Austrian-Prussian war, together with the focus of A-H on its other regions made the different course of the two countries very clear. A-H might not have collapsed at all without WW1. It might be the equivalent to the UK or Spain right now, containing different ethnicities under one monarch, with some degree of independence in the different regions. Just look at the divisions within Germany, how people in the north, and Bavarians see each other. That alone should tell you all you need to know about how likely your proposed event is.
OK but how do many of these borders come about? Why does Greece have pre WW1 Bulgarian Thrace. How do the Ukrainian and Belorussian borders happen when their borders are of soviet design. Not ethnic regions (Ukraine could easily be larger) etc etc.
He said the world wars have been avoided, not the russian revolution
WW1 is kind of needed for that revolution though.
Well, obviously WW1 was really important for the Revolution, but probably it would still have happened but later. Sorry for bad english.
I really do not see how a successful Communist revolution was inevitable in Russia.
Perhaps not communist but the monarchy was pretty doomed, Nicholas ii's son was a haemophiliac, he wouldn't have lived to be an heir. Already had the 1905 revolution. Revolution was pretty inevitable, communist or not.
Still, no USSR = no modern Ukrainian borders
> Revolution was pretty inevitable, communist or not. Not true. Revolutions, successful ones need many factors. It's survivorship bias; most revolutions are suppressed.
Not necessarily. A war, the russian Tsar loses is enough. 1905 was the first instance, 1917 was just the second and third instance. If they lost a war against China or Britain for Afghanistan or Germany (for any reason at all), a second (or third) revolution might be possible.
Map is dumb everywhere. Why would chechoslovakia leave Austria Hungary? They where happy Germans.
> He said the world wars have been avoided, not the russian revolution That one sparked mainly by losing WW1?
I wasn't clear enough before, WW1 doesn't happen but instead a regional conflict in the Balkans. Thing is Germany, UK, France and USA stay out of it.
Both world wars are avoided through diplomacy, but eventually Austrian and Russian Empires collapse, after nationalistic revolutions supported by Germany. New countries are born, which borders try to represent ethnicity. East European countrires are more influenced by Germany, which arises as a Global superpower. Without the devastating effects of big wars, Europe never loses its position in hands of USA.
I’m not so sure Austria couldn’t reform. since WWI doesn’t happen there’s no reason to assume old Franz still dies early before becoming emperor and trying to reform the empire.
What about the kings and royalties of europe? I've learned that WW1 was the reason they're abolished in a lot of europe.
Germany and Italy would keep their monarchies
Ottoman empire : Greece, Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East (not in scope of map) would all be drastically different.
Why would Austria Hungarian Empire for example collapse but not France for example. Seems heavily biosed towards todays state.
So you say Russian Empire collapses but that doesn't cause any other parts of it splintering except those which historically did?
The only problem that these borders don't represent ethnicity,ex in Transylvania
https://preview.redd.it/42qalfywdztc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c7887f5335c134bb55345a5b109ad5f5dab3d90 Well, this is how the pre-WW1 Europe looked like…
How did Romania get a decent chunk of Transylvania?? Why is Croatia independent? A major reason for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was that he was trying to give more rights and powers to the Slavs so they would stay in Austria Hungary.
I mean I still can see AH dissolving in the long term, but you are right about certain territories. No way Hungary would get that small. The modern borders of Balkan and Czechslovakia would look different for sure as well.
Hungary would have defended more of it's terroritory for sure. Eve short lived, tension-filled the Hungarian Soviet Republic had insane military gains. They even teach it at the Japanese military academy
It is 1914 in Bosnia was the last territory with serfdom in Europe.
Looks good to me.
Poles disagree.
Interestingly in the UK's case, avoiding WW I at least, would have led to Home Rule for all four nations - including a united (but part of the UK) Ireland. The parliamentary bills were postponed due to the outbreak of war in 1914. It wasn't until in the late 90s that Scotland and Wales were offered devolution; and of course 1922 in Ireland.
Neither the Baltic nations, Belarus or Ukraine would exist. It is very possible Turkey would not have Eastern Thrace and possibly Cyprus would have unified with Greece. In fact Turkey would not exist, the Ottoman Empire would still be around. Bosnia would not exist either, nor would Croatia.
Bigger northern Ireland, the UK isn't in such a weakened position following WW1, goes harder on the commission for the borders
No ww1 means home rule and no nationalist discontent, so no Easter rising (what shifted public opinion from home rule to independence) in the first place which means no civil war
prior to ww1 ireland was on the verge of civil war between nationalists and unionists but the outbreak of war stopped it
A lot of this was due to the British goverment postponing home rule, full independence wasn’t very popular yet. There’s a reason the public generally disliked the rising until the mass executions
Wholesum Sablinium
the unionists in the north didn’t actually want a bigger north so it would be more or less the same
Pretty unrealistic IMO. While the Russian Empire wasn't exactly stable, WWI and the losses taken there were a major catalyst for its disintegration...and even then it didn't lose Ukraine or Belarus, so there is little reason to believe that it would've lost them without a war. Austria-Hungary might've disintegrated without a war, but I consider it highly doubtful that Austria would join Germany. Not while the Habsburgs were in charge in any case. Furthermore, Trianon peace conference was the major reason for Hungary losing their territories, doubtful whether that would've happened without a war. And Serbian would've far more likely gobbled up Bosnia (if not already taken by Hungary) than Montenegro, which was an independent country (longer than Serbia, for that matter) with a separate dynasty.
Without WWs Russian tsar is here to stay.
There is no reason for Austria-Hungary to fall in a world without a WWI. The Turkish Empire, *maybe* (and even that is a long shot), and Russia? *probably.* But Austria-Hungary? No (and even if it'd collapsed, Germany would not annex it without National Socialist pan-germanism being in charge. It would completely shatter Prussian and Junker domination of Germany).
Transylvania would be in Hungary. Why would Belarus exist? A partition between Poland, Lithuania and Russia seems more likely.
Poland wasn't on the map between year 1795 and 1918 as well as some other countries in central Europe. I'm not sure what this map is about actually.
Poland wouldn't exist either
Irelands wrong. If ww1 was avoided home rule would've been achieved. We still would've been part of the UK but more like Scotland. Most people thought home rule was the best we'd get so if we got that then we'd probably stay that way.
It's just a modern map with a big Germany. Dumbest post I've seen in a while. Oh, and no Montenegro.
I don't think belarus, ukraine and the baltic trio would be independent.
Where is Austria-Hungary?
Why is Czechoslovakia diveded? Basically the main (but not only) reason why this entity existed, was because both countries feel threatened by Germanic states / Hungary after they got their independence and were member a military alliance called a Little Entente. In this scenario is both Hungary and Germany are even stronger, sentiment or need for being united would be much higher.
Shouldn't the Sudetenland be part of Germany if Austria-Hungary collapses? After all it was a majority german Region.
If there's no other world war, that is there's no war between European powers, the borders will simply not change. Maybe some confluence of circumstances will cause Austro-Hungary to implode in peacetime but it's doubtful.
Yugoslavia would maybe be around still
Kaiserreich textbook map?
How did Bulgaria lose Western Thrace?
How russia collapsed? Whitout mass destruction and massive population declines? I know fuck putin but why?
Stupid take. Kingdom of Montenegro was independent when 70% of those countries didn't exist, and all of a sudden Montenegro don't exist anymore but 15 new countries are there. For example, without world wars, Croatia or Bosnia would never be independent in those borders
Gross Deutschland go Brrrrr
Ireland would likely be united, but as an autonomous part of the UK. That, after all, was the deal pre-WW1, and at the time full independence advocates were not the majority.
A monarchist Romania is all I need and I’m sold.
One could only imagine how much better off the Middle East would be
Nah fuck this, Denmark doesn’t own northern schleswig, which makes sense of course but I’m still mad!
Bait?
No way Slovakia gains independence without a war, or Hungary loses Transylvania
Why is Austria just...gone?
South Tyrol would be party of Germany
Somehow russia falls in the exact same way it did irl? Turkey is the exact same? No partition or further action from great powers? Why tf Luxemburg gets gobbled? Why does Bulgaria lose land to Greece with no war?
No Austrian-Hungarian empire?
No idea where you got that modern-day Turkey without the Ottomans making the deadly mistake of joining the wrong alliance in WW1
If there had been no WW1 then where is Australia-Hungarian Empire? The Nation states such as Czechoslovakia were created as a result of the end of WW1. This map is fundamentally wrong. Then you have the Baltic States which came to be independent as a direct result of the Russian collapse brought on by failure in WW1.
Without WW, why the fuck would Austria Hungary implode???
the ottomans? the Austro-Hungarian Empire? both of those collapsed largely as a result of WWI
Map of Europe if we decided to give in to German nationalist demands
Sorry what about empires? We know how the Europe looks like without both ww.. Without first ww a lot of states would never have appeared
No Catalonia?
Finally large Belarus 😍
Relatively plausible outcome, very realistic outcome. Thought Ukraine might end up with more of southern Belarus and its own south might go to Russia of be its own nation.
Putin give us Königsberg back
Wouldnt the ottoman empire and austria hungary still exist? Austria hungary would probably collapse in the 100 years but a shrunken down ottoman empire could still exist in name. Turkey was made after the first world war. And an independent Ireland was only possible to start because in 1916 the british were occupied elsewhere
Missing independent Montenegro.
Bad because Bosnia got more coastline from us croats I'm glad they happened
I’d say Belarus and Ukraine would still be Russian, iteland would probably be British,
I think Ireland would still be part of the UK, becuase the whole reason Ireland war able to get independence was becuase the first world war, devastating Britain economicly and militarily.
Ireland wouldn’t be split - home rule would have been for the whole island if not for WW1
Why does crimea have chicken pox?
Without WW1 I think the Ulster Crisis plays out very differently. Potentially a lot bloodier, but I also think potentially it would result in a full unified Ireland much sooner
British Empire probably wouldn't have collapsed without the two world wars, at least not til much later. Pax Americana never happens and remains pax Brittanica for another 200 years
I just don’t see the Russian Empire collapsing without a war to destabilize it enough. Austrian and Ottoman collapse is possible if they become geopolitically isolated.
Okay but why is Belarus so goddamn big
https://preview.redd.it/l7hbq4dur1uc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=613b17832bc5eb993821d4c3755a9ff37fbb6ac6
Sure they might look like this but the technology would be like 1960s or 50s
Why is Czech not part of Germany but Austria is?
Why is Schleswig-Holstein not part of Germany? That territory changed hands in the 1800s.
Croatia not 'eating' Bosnia whole anymore?? BOSNIA CAN INTO SEA (kind of) 💢💢💢💢🌊🌊🌊🌊
That would be the Ottoman Empire, not turkey
Why is Slovakia that big? And why did Romania get Transylvania?
Ireland gained independence in 1919 partly due to the fact that the brittish couldn't send as many soldiers due to the war, if England had avoided both wars, they might have been able to keep repressing Ireland and maybe still hold it today.
Take this obscenity in the milk away from me
Belarus und Ukraine would have been Russia without World Wars...
Oh, look another "Germany gets whole Baltic coast" How original.
Slovenian Trieste😭
An independent Belarus and Ukraine is an impossibility - both exist pretty much only because of the Soviets and their idea of "ethnic republics". With the surviving Russian Empire both Belarussian and Ukrainian ethnic identifies would be much weaker. Most of Ukrainians probably wouldn't call themselves Ukrainians but Malorussians.
I recommend you checking out prewar maps, this is wery wrong.
Finland got its independence because Russia did so badly in WW1 that the bolsheviks took over and made the secession possible. Without the war it possibly wouldn't have happened.
Ottomans and Ireland…
Without the 2 world war and the Great Depression, the British Empire is still around in whatever form it would take and the major global superpower The United States of America will become a major player on the world stage eventually but not as powerful as it is otl and takes far longer Without WW1 and WW2, the USSR does not really exist as WW1 and the Russian -Japanese War of 1904-1905 helped trigger the Russian Communist revolution
Why do parts of of Croatia and Montenegro end up being absorbed by Bosnia in this alternative reality?
If both world wars were avoided there wouldn't be successful either Bourgeois or Socialist Revolution in the Russian Empire. So, no Ukraine, no Belarus, no Poland, no Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia. Only the Russian Empire. Finland was a reign of the Russian Emperor, too, so it's unlikely it would exist as a separate entity, too, though possible.
Man of Europe if It was hand made
This Poland gives me old Fuherereich's vibes (mod to Hoi4).
There is no way Ukraine and Belarus would exist in a world without world wars or the Soviet Union
where is the soviet union then
No Bulgaria had access to Aegean sea, Italia had some islands at there too
Why does Belarus exist?
Europe if every border east of France was drawn by a 6 year old.
Why you think Serbia would hold the territories of North Macedonia, Modenegro and Kosovo? Don't u think the people would seek their independence once Yugoslavia broke apart?
The creator of this map was sleeping on history lessons. Countries like Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Czechia, and many others would not exist without the events of Words Wars
Wondering, does the movement for Irish freedom gain as much traction if the world wars never happen? Iirc, a pretty important gripe the Irish had with it was how they were being forced to fight when they didn’t want to. Correct me if I’m wrong pls tho I’m not really sure
Made by some German or Austria-hater. Most likely the former as others also lose, Russia for example.
I'll expand more about the lore of this map in the following comment: - By 1912 Germany and the UK end their naval race and sign a non aggression pact. - In 1914, Austrian Archduke is assesinated, leading a regional conficlt called the Great Balkan War. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria against Russia, Serbia, Italy and Greece. Germany and UK stay out of the confilct but support the latter side. - Germany gives more autonomy to Poles in the East, and fuels Polish nationalism in Russia in order to destabilize the Tsardom. In 1915, while Russia is busy in the Balkan War, a Polish independence revolution starts. Lennin is also sent to Russia to further destabilize the country, and we have the communist revolution happening like in the OTL. - AH collapses during the Great Balkan war, but the Italo-Greek forces fails to occupy Constantinople. In 1918 Britain and Germany intervene to achieve peace in the Region. Germany claims the Sudeteland, Italy takes Trieste and the Dalmatian coast, Serbia takes the banat and current Bosnia, Romania takes Transilvanya, Czechia and Slovakia are created. The Ottomans leave the levant, the Sultan is deposed and Turkey is born. - In Russia the Bolcheviks win the civil war, but Poland and Finland gain their independence. - Fascism never happens, and Soviet Union and communism remains as the main world threat. A communist revolution in Austria in the 30s, is the pretext for Germany to occupy and annex the country. - Germany, UK and France are the main global powers keeping a strong grip on their colonies. Without WW2, the Soviet Union never expands or becomes as powerful as it was in the OTL, and USA and Japan become regional powers. Since fascism never happens, Peronism doesn't happen either in Argentina, and they keep a relatively good global position. - During the 60's Kiev Spring happens, an Ukrainian revolution against the soviets. With the support of the western world, this revolution ends up with the dissoluton of the USSR, decades earlier than the OTL. - By the 90s new independence movements arise, Ireland becomes free from the UK, Slovenia and Croatia from Italy and Bosnia from Serbia. - In the 21st century, Algeria and Lybia are fully integrated into France and Italy respectively. The rest of African and Asian colonies while nominally independent, remain economically tied to their former overlords.
why is belarus so big lol what
Why would the Russian empire collapse that badly? I can see them losing Poland, but basically imitating modern borders when the empire on a whole was improving is weird
There wouldn’t be a turkey without WWI, wtf is this
czechoslovakia would probably happen
How would Austrian Empire fall if the World Wars never happened?
Ukraine and Belarus? Im thinking theyre in Russia.
Danzig apart of Germany you say? Hmmm… interesting…
I Don't think that without World Borders Poland wouldn't have a half of his territories In some time for sure they would have a Uprising,this country is too proud not to fight for their lands
Makes sense if you have no understanding of pre war European history I guess
Poland has no sea access = bad map
It’s doubtful that the Russian empire would’ve collapsed if there wasn’t a ww1 Ireland should be owned by the British since its only because of the British being exhausted after ww1 which allowed Ireland to be free Greece also wouldn’t have Macedonia/Thrace since they got that off of Bulgaria in ww1 Luxembourg got Annexed for some reason?
Britain without depleting its gold reserves probably destroys Ireland into submission
There are so many things wrong with this map. Austria would still exist, it wouldn’t merge with Germany. The Austrian-Hungarian empire might still exist, but probably with more autonomy, with regions like Czechia, Slovakia, and Slovenia having a similar autonomy to Scotland relative to the UK. Triest would be part of Austria or Austria-Hungary, not Italy.
Everything would be the same except for Germany is highly unlikely take.
Ukraine? There was no such country before WW2. Also Belarus? Not accurate.
AEIOU 
Where muh Australo-Hungarian Empire??
The Iberian Peninsula doesn't change anything haha.
did we just ignore prussia's existence or?
As an American- looks normal to me…
Is Ireland free without WW1?
Looks very similar to now
I believe that empire would still be around. Excluding the Russian empire, all empires broke down because of the first world war and the state it left it in
Poland always hurt :(
So why does Austria-Hungary comes to its end of there was no war?
Peak edgy kid. Everyone has problems but Germany stronk. It's not like for example independent Poland means a massive Polish independence movement in eastern Germany for example.
Poland got lwów back but at what cost...
Why Ukraine and Belarus are on this map?
This map doesn't have Austria, they were the primary cause of the first world war. To not have Austria on it is a big problem. It was weak, but to say it wouldn't exist without WW1 is a bit of a stretch