I was reading recently about the history of dueling and honor. The culture of honor was quite important 100 plus years ago. You would not suffer an insult to yourself or family without a call for seconds and appropriate matched weaponry on the following dawn. Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr, hard to imagine now, sort of like AG Gonzales calling out Nancy Pelosi for a showdown.
The culture of honor, it was speculated, led Western Europe to arms following ArchDuke Ferdinand's assassination by the Serbian anarchist. The Grear War was to be a summer lark, for toughening up a generation of young men, and retain diplomatic loyalties, treaties, and the honor of various alliances, but it was a reaction that changed the world. What if a peaceful solution was sought instead of war? The machinery brought into that conflict showed what the industrial age and technology could bring to warfare, and the horror it unleashed, as you say Alan, brought about the later rise of Nazi Germany. The awful memory of the Great war delayed US entry into the second, but America's entry into the Great War could be seen as the first time America sent huge numbers of troops overseas (I know, US forces had been abroad before) which the US has now done several times.
OK, back to the group project: I would speculate that if we went back to 1914, Britain and the rest of Europe avoids a war, then Europe, and especially Britain, would have remained a stronger power for a longer time. I don't think the Reds in Russia would have had their 1917. The two world wars did much to reduce Europe's resources and influence, and strangely gave the US a boost in world affairs.

A big arguements we had with a vet when I was in the reserves was "what if the Germans Won".. My point to him was completely lost beause he was still full of WWII propaganda and reason didn't come into his faith in the west of the time and its motives.

My point was: "the Germans would have stalled somewhere, if not Russia, then elsewhere. You cannot have a radical political agenda sweep the world when it is an agenda that would enslave or kill most of the population.. plus there just weren't enough Germans and Nazi supporters to actually grow a larger army than they had at their peak. they coudl not garrison teh planet on what they had. They had no actual true belief that they could take over the world... just a eurpoean chunk of it."

He said "They were godless ba$tards and they wanted to take over the planet and we stopped em, yes we did..." and that was the end of the debate. We all drank up and we wobbled off home from the JR mess.

I loved What If comics..

I am not clear whether you point is about WWI or not. Can you reframe it so it is only about WWI as I do not want to mix up ideas.

I think Alan is speaking to me.

OK, to sharpen the point: the historical culture of honor that drew European powers into what became WW1 was the catalyst that saw the end of Europe as a power in the world, ushering in the American century. 1914 paved the road to Hitler's Germany, Lenin's Russia, and to the dominance of the US in world affairs. Without 1914, Europe would not have exhausted its people and resources by the time you got to the 1950s, which is not to say that some other conflagration would not have changed Europe. But, 1914 changed the world. So, just to imagine economic and political alliances and possibilities from a peaceful 1914: The Kaiser and Tsar realize that one has the supplies, the other has the engineers and they shake hands and develop supply lines and factories all over occupied Poland. The US, Japan, France and Britain become alarmed, and form similar agreements. The Austro-Hungarian Empire forms the third largest power, and Italy decides to join them.

(an aside--will we see 'The Chinese Century' emerge later here in the 2000s? There are a lot of them, Chinese people that is)

Sorry alan. You

Same goes for WWI. The Germans may have won but they could only garrison a portion of Europe. Sure they didn't have the radical agenda but their kaiser agenda woudl not be popular for very long and eventually they'd have been neaten back to the original country boundaries.. WWII would not have happened. If anything, Germany would become communist once the people under the Kaiser's rule saw what happened in Russian.. imho.

I was talking to Gorthos, Gary. But more is more as we say in blogging moderation circles.

I forgot about Austria-Hungary. [Ed.: <i>How many times a day do I slap my head and shout that aloud?</i>]

I think Pierre Berton made the point in his "Vimy" that WWI did rob Canada (and other countries) of the flower of a generation. What would have happened domestically if all those young men of action survived? How might the country's 20th century have been different?

What about Vimy? What if it didn't happen? We're told that it marked the birth of Canada as an independent nation. I'm pretty weak on this period, so how did Vimy lead to the Statute of Westminster 1931 and other aspects of official national independence? Was it all about Pride? Did that Pride lead people to act differently? Why wasn't the BNA "enough"?

It's an unfortunate aspect of the Battle of Vimy Ridge that it was unexpected and not properly followed up; ground gained in lives was soon lost. I don't know if it can be said that it had an impact on the outcome of the war.

Just seeing Longstaff's painting, "Ghosts of Vimy Ridge", is worth the visit to the National War Museum.
http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesHistory/VimyRidge/GhostsVimyRidge.jpg

If there hadn't been a WWI, there wouldn't have been a Churchill, but since there wouldn't have been a WWII then it wouldn't have mattered.

What about "Prussian militarism" as a cause of WWI? Was that aspect of Prussian culture real? If so, with no WWI, would Prussian militarism, and other military cultures/nations have helped spark a continental war later in the first half of the 20th century? That time of year, late summer, when the crops were in and men were (relatively) idle, was viewed as a dangerous time, 'the danger months in Europe, when the harvests have been gathered, and when the powers of evil are at their strongest.' (Churchill) How many harvests would have gone by without an aggressor testing the will to fight of their neighbours?

It's reasonable to think that we would have arrived at a nuclear age some time later, but still around mid-century. Would the Americans have thought it so necessary to get there first? If not them, who? And what would the results have been?

I haven't read any Turtledove. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" - mmm, nyeh, so-so. I did like Harris' "Fatherland", a crime story set in post-Nazi-Victory-Germany in the 60s.

Mike's right about Prussian military culture, but the problem of 1914 was that many countries had that glorious idea of war as a little summer exercise.
Listen Alan, Austria-Hungary was the umbrella for one of the most interesting cultural conglomerations EVER: ideas, arts, languages, cultures, and most unusual--religion. Who knows where they would have led the 20th century?
I need to modify one of my thoughts up there: I think Spain would have had no Franco, and probably would align itself, not happily, with France.

I met a gent in his 90s in the mid-80s who fought the Austrio-Hungarian navy. What might have been avoided if the A-HE had morphed into a federation of autonomous states.