What if World War I ended in Christmas 1914

[gillan1220]

I've been watching several takes on the Christmas Truce of 1914 in what has been regarded as the most wholesome event of WWI. British and German troops on that day ceased hostilities and came across each other, singing Christmas songs, playing football, and exchanging letters. The soldiers of the trenches hoped that the war would end then and there on that point. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The war would drag on for four more years. Twenty years after that, another world war would occur.

I do find the implications of a World War I ending in Christmas 1914 interesting. In that case, the rest of the century would look completely different from our timeline. Soviet communism may even be butterflied away.

Alternate History Hub - What if WWI Really Had Ended By Christmas?



Here are some animated history on the Christmas Truce:

Simple History - Christmas Truce (1914)



WW1 Christmas Truce: Silent Night - Extra History - #1



The Infographics Truce - WWI Christmas Truce - When the British and Germans Became Friends For a Day

[stevep]

   gillan1220 ,

   I can't see it lasting because it would need the vast bulk of the military on at least one side deciding not to fight, even if the other continued to, which would deter both armies from such. Also how do you end the current conflict? Is there any way that Germany would give up the territory in both west and east it had taken?  Especially since a future such attack would be vastly more difficult as you can expect Belgium to beef up its defences and probably also seek an alliance with the western allies as its treaty neutrality hadn't protected it.  On the allied side I think Russia still held a fair chunk of Austrian Galatia and had hopes of possibly winning more. 

  If somehow it happened your almost certain to have a continued arms race as the nations and alliances will be even more untrusting of each side.  However if a new war is avoided then butterflies would be huge.  Almost certainly no communist victory in Russia as people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin remain little known terrorists.  What happens in Russia would be more difficult to say with an idiot like Nickolas in power but you might still see some revolution and/or a civil war, which could be won by either a more moderate constitutional reform group or a military clique - although the latter might just store further problems for later.  Germany and France especially are going to be potentially unstable as the tensions released by the conflict is going to be unfulfilled, with elements on both sides arguing they had victory 'stolen' from them.  There will be less trust in the armies loyalty even while there will be a continued need for them.  However in the short term at least large numbers of lives will be saved and much money and resources as well.

  Steve

 

[gillan1220]

Dec 25, 2020 11:08:00 GMT stevep said:

   gillan1220 ,

   I can't see it lasting because it would need the vast bulk of the military on at least one side deciding not to fight, even if the other continued to, which would deter both armies from such. Also how do you end the current conflict? Is there any way that Germany would give up the territory in both west and east it had taken?  Especially since a future such attack would be vastly more difficult as you can expect Belgium to beef up its defences and probably also seek an alliance with the western allies as its treaty neutrality hadn't protected it.  On the allied side I think Russia still held a fair chunk of Austrian Galatia and had hopes of possibly winning more. 

  If somehow it happened your almost certain to have a continued arms race as the nations and alliances will be even more untrusting of each side.  However if a new war is avoided then butterflies would be huge.  Almost certainly no communist victory in Russia as people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin remain little known terrorists.  What happens in Russia would be more difficult to say with an idiot like Nickolas in power but you might still see some revolution and/or a civil war, which could be won by either a more moderate constitutional reform group or a military clique - although the latter might just store further problems for later.  Germany and France especially are going to be potentially unstable as the tensions released by the conflict is going to be unfulfilled, with elements on both sides arguing they had victory 'stolen' from them.  There will be less trust in the armies loyalty even while there will be a continued need for them.  However in the short term at least large numbers of lives will be saved and much money and resources as well.

  Steve

 

You and Cody have the same thoughts. Should the war have ended there, a "cold war" would still exist between the European powers over influence and territories. All these empires such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire would probably last a little longer, probably until the 1930s. Same for Imperial Germany. But of course as this alternate 20th century progresses deeper, we would see these empires collapse like Rome did.

As this happens, the U.S. would be watching from the safety of its isolationist shores.

[oscssw]

Very Merry Christmas to all.  I am in a very good mood this AM which probably affects my reply.  Here goes.

With tens of millions lives saved, European countries would have likely put more resources into building their economies. Germany would benefit most becoming an economic, scientific and cultural giant.  Without the loss of so many of the best men in Europe our gene pool would be far better.

The USA would have remained more isolated accept for trade.

No Great Depression with huge social and economic upsides.

The curse and/or boon of nuclear weapons, computers and possibly even the Internet would have been delayed.

Military spending accelerated the development of those technologies. Unfortunately antibiotics would have been

delayed, and so would the information revolution. 

World War I also made room for women in the workplace to fill in for soldiers at war. When the fighting stopped, it led to greater political activism, including the right of women to vote. That would have still happened but much later.

We'd probably see longer-lasting European empires that are less tolerant of democracy, as the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires remained in power.  

Germany would not have been punished at Versailles, and Hitler would not have had grievances that led to his later rise to power. Jews in Europe would have prospered and increased in population; there might not have been a state of Israel.

[gillan1220]

Dec 25, 2020 15:35:25 GMT oscssw said:

Very Merry Christmas to all.  I am in a very good mood this AM which probably affects my reply.  Here goes.

With tens of millions lives saved, European countries would have likely put more resources into building their economies. Germany would benefit most becoming an economic, scientific and cultural giant.  Without the loss of so many of the best men in Europe our gene pool would be far better.

The USA would have remained more isolated accept for trade.

No Great Depression with huge social and economic upsides.

The curse and/or boon of nuclear weapons, computers and possibly even the Internet would have been delayed.

Military spending accelerated the development of those technologies. Unfortunately antibiotics would have been

delayed, and so would the information revolution. 

World War I also made room for women in the workplace to fill in for soldiers at war. When the fighting stopped, it led to greater political activism, including the right of women to vote. That would have still happened but much later.

We'd probably see longer-lasting European empires that are less tolerant of democracy, as the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires remained in power.  

Germany would not have been punished at Versailles, and Hitler would not have had grievances that led to his later rise to power. Jews in Europe would have prospered and increased in population; there might not have been a state of Israel.

The butterflies are interesting.

The U.S. won't have the Wilsonian policy of foreign intervention. There may still be the naval arms race between European powers and America but I don't see the Washington Naval Treaty or an analogue come into fruition.

Women's rights to vote will be delayed. Medicine will be delayed. Computers and the like will be delayed.

A different century indeed.

One of the examples of this scenario where there are a lot of good things as well as bad things. For sure a "second Great War" may erupt but it would be different from our perspective.

[Zyobot]

Dec 25, 2020 17:24:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

Dec 25, 2020 15:35:25 GMT oscssw said:

Very Merry Christmas to all.  I am in a very good mood this AM which probably affects my reply.  Here goes.

With tens of millions lives saved, European countries would have likely put more resources into building their economies. Germany would benefit most becoming an economic, scientific and cultural giant.  Without the loss of so many of the best men in Europe our gene pool would be far better.

The USA would have remained more isolated accept for trade.

No Great Depression with huge social and economic upsides.

The curse and/or boon of nuclear weapons, computers and possibly even the Internet would have been delayed.

Military spending accelerated the development of those technologies. Unfortunately antibiotics would have been

delayed, and so would the information revolution. 

World War I also made room for women in the workplace to fill in for soldiers at war. When the fighting stopped, it led to greater political activism, including the right of women to vote. That would have still happened but much later.

We'd probably see longer-lasting European empires that are less tolerant of democracy, as the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires remained in power.  

Germany would not have been punished at Versailles, and Hitler would not have had grievances that led to his later rise to power. Jews in Europe would have prospered and increased in population; there might not have been a state of Israel.

The butterflies are interesting.

The U.S. won't have the Wilsonian policy of foreign intervention. There may still be the naval arms race between European powers and America but I don't see the Washington Naval Treaty or an analogue come into fruition.

Women's rights to vote will be delayed. Medicine will be delayed. Computers and the like will be delayed.

A different century indeed.

One of the examples of this scenario where there are a lot of good things as well as bad things. For sure a "second Great War" may erupt but it would be different from our perspective.

I've often heard and seen the talking point about the World Wars advancing science and technology beyond what we would've achieved in peacetime, but I doubt it's that simple. Millions of university students--some proportion of whom were potential scientists and innovators--probably became casualties before their careers could take off, while funding that could've gone to R&D ventures outside of wartime was spent on weapons, field munitions, and training recruits for military service. Not to mention the mass-social upheaval, battered economies, mass-desolation of productive infrastructure that left Europe nursing its wounds for decades to come.

[gillan1220]

Dec 25, 2020 17:33:34 GMT Zyobot said:

Dec 25, 2020 17:24:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

The butterflies are interesting.

The U.S. won't have the Wilsonian policy of foreign intervention. There may still be the naval arms race between European powers and America but I don't see the Washington Naval Treaty or an analogue come into fruition.

Women's rights to vote will be delayed. Medicine will be delayed. Computers and the like will be delayed.

A different century indeed.

One of the examples of this scenario where there are a lot of good things as well as bad things. For sure a "second Great War" may erupt but it would be different from our perspective.

I've often heard and seen the talking point about the World Wars advancing science and technology beyond what we would've achieved in peacetime, but I doubt it's that simple. Millions of university students--some proportion of whom were potential scientists and innovators--probably became casualties before their careers could take off, while funding that could've gone to R&D ventures outside of wartime was spent on weapons, field munitions, and training recruits for military service. Not to mention the mass-social upheaval, battered economies, mass-desolation of productive infrastructure that left Europe nursing its wounds for decades to come.

There's that. For all we know, antibiotics could have prospered earlier. So Penicillin as we know it may be named differently.

Also interesting enough if this has the potential of butterflying the so-called 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic as this would reset the timeline, therefore making the Chinese migrant worker coming into contact with the same infected bird or pig as infinitesimal. However, another disease would have taken its place as an analogue to the pandemic.

[stevep]

Dec 25, 2020 15:35:25 GMT oscssw said:

Very Merry Christmas to all.  I am in a very good mood this AM which probably affects my reply.  Here goes.

With tens of millions lives saved, European countries would have likely put more resources into building their economies. Germany would benefit most becoming an economic, scientific and cultural giant.  Without the loss of so many of the best men in Europe our gene pool would be far better.

The USA would have remained more isolated accept for trade.

No Great Depression with huge social and economic upsides.

The curse and/or boon of nuclear weapons, computers and possibly even the Internet would have been delayed.

Military spending accelerated the development of those technologies. Unfortunately antibiotics would have been

delayed, and so would the information revolution. 

World War I also made room for women in the workplace to fill in for soldiers at war. When the fighting stopped, it led to greater political activism, including the right of women to vote. That would have still happened but much later.

We'd probably see longer-lasting European empires that are less tolerant of democracy, as the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires remained in power.  

Germany would not have been punished at Versailles, and Hitler would not have had grievances that led to his later rise to power. Jews in Europe would have prospered and increased in population; there might not have been a state of Israel.

oscssw,

  There more people and resources to put into science and technology but on the other hand there is going to be a hell of a lot more spent on the military due to the unresolved issues of the shorter war with Europe continuing to be an armed camp.  There will be incentives for change due to the period of fighting that occurred but it will be less and society is likely to be more conservative in welcoming new ideas so in the longer run it could go either way. 

  Similarly Germany might be the biggest gainer but then its going to have very heavy military spending and other nations, especially Britain, which has seen the weaknesses of laissez faire and free trade in a protectionist world highlighted further with the decay of much of British industry.  Possibly with a Liberal government surviving or a Conservative one replacing them there might be much needed reform.  Of course there's also the issue of what happens to Ireland in this scenario.  Do the extremists still win out or is a devolution agreement made which would largely isolated them?  France has similarly taken a mauling, especially with its rash early attacks but will hopefully think out a more rational military doctrine.  Austria with some heavy military losses, including many of the regime loyalists and no real success could see problems although a lot would depend on how long before Karl becomes emperor and how much he is able and willing to change things.  Russia will have seen heavy military losses but marked success against the Austrians - don't accept the view in the video that the French or British would be rash enough to agree a peace on the western front and allow Germany, Austria and Turkey to crush Russia as that would probably be lethal to them - but will seen unrest and a need for change sooner or later.  The Ottoman empire is going to emerge relatively unscathed but is likely to have a rocky time in the decades ahead with extreme Turkish nationalists such as Enva Pahas in power.

  America will still be isolationist but could be less or more than OTL.  Without Wilson's reluctant involvement in the war and some US losses there's not going to be the same level of hostility towards foreign adventures or involvements.

  With the old economic system surviving, albeit probably strained somewhat and the entire world economy not heavily dependent on the state of the US your likely to either avoid the 1929 collapse totally or possibly have it isolated to a stock market crash in the US will will largely be confined to the US and less damaging there as the rest of the world continuing to operate helping a US recovery.

  Not sure if weapons development would be delayed that much and a decade or so later could be more advanced than OTL.  As you say there's a lot more very bright people surviving as well as more money for investment and research.  Plus the continued perceived military threats all powers will see and the fact there won't be the same acceptance of the view of warfare as bloody and pointless means a lot of people, not just commanders and politicians will be thinking what can we do better and what might a potential enemy do and how do we counter it.

  Agree that women's rights and expansion into the workforce will be significantly delayed but it will come eventually.

  Baring a later and possibly bloodier conflict European colonial empires will last longer and their ending is likely to be bloodier as a result.  Although a Liberal survival in Britain [as one of the two major parties] could mean that India gets dominion status in the 1930's or early 40's.  However probably going to see a lot more problems in Africa, especially those areas in the south and east that see white settlement.  Ditto for Germany and France in parts of N and W Africa and probably FIC.

  Germany won't be punished for its actions at Versailles but there's going to be a lot of unhappy German militarists, along with many in France and Russia and no doubt a few in Britain that could make some aspects of politics in the following decades more dramatic.

  Italy, which here won't have been involved in the conflict, could go quite a number of ways.  Probably won't see fascism arise here but without direct experience of the massive bloodshed a lot of its military and political leaders are likely to be more reckless.

  There was already some movement of Jews to Palestine but a lot will depend on what happens in the Ottoman empire and also the Russian one as without an independent Poland the vast majority of European [and probably world] Jews will be in the Pale in western Russia.

gillan1220,

The butterflies are interesting.

The U.S. won't have the Wilsonian policy of foreign intervention. There may still be the naval arms race between European powers and America but I don't see the Washington Naval Treaty or an analogue come into fruition.

Women's rights to vote will be delayed. Medicine will be delayed. Computers and the like will be delayed.

A different century indeed.

One of the examples of this scenario where there are a lot of good things as well as bad things. For sure a "second Great War" may erupt but it would be different from our perspective. 

  Actually I think the Republicans were somewhat more interventionist than Wilson and this could continue without a long war and US military involvement.  The US will still be pretty isolationist compered to OTL but may be a little more internationalist than OTL.

  There will almost certainly be another naval race.  Apart from the German HSF still being there there is US-Japanese tensions and if the US decide on something like the OTL 1916 programme its going to force responses from not just Japan but also Britain.  A lot could also depend here on what happens to the German Pacific colonies taken by both the British empire and Japan as the latter especially may be less than happy in returning their gains given their geographic importance to Japan and the pre-existing poor relations.  Coupled with the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which is likely to last longer here naval issues are likely to be volatile.  I can't see an WNT type agreement as a not exhausted Britain faced with a continued large German fleet, along with the U-boat threat is likely to be bitterly opposed to anything which prevents it responding to event.  Plus with so many competing great powers its going to be massively difficult to get any sort of agreement that at least one great power won't disagree with.

  Agree about woman's sufferage and general rights being delayed.  Might also delay development on racial issues with less use of coloured forces, possibly especially for the US.

  Not sure about delays in medical and other scientific developments as a lot of very bright people will still be alive.  Also if as seems likely we avoid the depression or most of it and see faster social change because there isn't a conservative reaction against both the horrors of the war and the appearance of Bolshevik Russia that is likely to see faster development.

  As you say  2nd Great War, especially if its not stopped very early like this one, could well derail everything.

Zyobot,

I've often heard and seen the talking point about the World Wars advancing science and technology beyond what we would've achieved in peacetime, but I doubt it's that simple. Millions of university students--some proportion of whom were potential scientists and innovators--probably became casualties before their careers could take off, while funding that could've gone to R&D ventures outside of wartime was spent on weapons, field munitions, and training recruits for military service. Not to mention the mass-social upheaval, battered economies, mass-desolation of productive infrastructure that left Europe nursing its wounds for decades to come.

  Fully agree.

  Steve

[gillan1220]

stevep,

Then it is possible that European colonialism will stay a little longer, probably until the 1970s-80s.

[stevep]

Dec 27, 2020 5:21:48 GMT gillan1220 said:

stevep ,

Then it is possible that European colonialism will stay a little longer, probably until the 1970s-80s.

  Assuming there's no later and more destructive war this could well be the case.  You wouldn't have the same breaking of self-confidence that it caused in much of the western nations, as well as the collapse into communism in the east.  [Although it could be argued their colonialism lasted until 1990.]  Plus the nations would be significantly stronger, fiscally, socially and economically as well as demographically and doubly so if there's no equivalent of OTL WWII.  Possibly also without the OTL widespread use of [non-European] colonial forces in both world wars there's less respect for their ability to fight for their independence.

  The classical example here might be France.  Defeat in WWII and a prolonged occupation by the Nazis left the nation significantly weakened.  It might also have resulted in a determination to restore national pride by not giving up key colonies.  However despite their much reduced resources they fought hard, 1st in FIC and then in Algeria to maintain control.  [Albeit in the latter it was technically part of metropolitan France including electing members to the Parliament, although I suspect there wasn't a full adult franchise.

  On the other hand after FIC they seem to have accepted the inevitable across much of their African colonies, with Algeria being an exception because of its special political status.  Britain was similarly bogged down in parts of southern and eastern Africa where there were colonial settlement.  S Africa was already a dominion by 1910 and broke away after WWII and Rhodesia followed but there was conflict in places like Kenya and Tanzania for instance.  As well as strategically important locations such as Aden and Cyprus.  Although after WWII [and even before apart from a few extreme cases] there was no real expectation of keeping direct control of India, which would have resulted in a bloodbath.

  Similarly the Netherlands and Belgium gave up on their big colonies fairly early in the process, albeit the Nazi [and Japanese] occupations made retaining the core DEI territories pretty much impossible.  Spain and Portugal maintained their colonies longer until reactionary regimes were overthrown - again with Portugal accepting the inevitable earlier in the case of Goa which India seized by force in the early 60s. 

 

  Of course the other option might be that continued tension among more powerful states [due to the much shorter and less destructive WWI here] could mean that TTL's WWI is possibly with widespread use of nukes in which case much of the colonies might gain a form of independence due to the collapse of their colonial master's being pretty much destroyed.

[gillan1220]

Dec 27, 2020 12:07:57 GMT stevep said:

Dec 27, 2020 5:21:48 GMT gillan1220 said:

stevep ,

Then it is possible that European colonialism will stay a little longer, probably until the 1970s-80s.

  Assuming there's no later and more destructive war this could well be the case.  You wouldn't have the same breaking of self-confidence that it caused in much of the western nations, as well as the collapse into communism in the east.  [Although it could be argued their colonialism lasted until 1990.]  Plus the nations would be significantly stronger, fiscally, socially and economically as well as demographically and doubly so if there's no equivalent of OTL WWII.  Possibly also without the OTL widespread use of [non-European] colonial forces in both world wars there's less respect for their ability to fight for their independence.

  The classical example here might be France.  Defeat in WWII and a prolonged occupation by the Nazis left the nation significantly weakened.  It might also have resulted in a determination to restore national pride by not giving up key colonies.  However despite their much reduced resources they fought hard, 1st in FIC and then in Algeria to maintain control.  [Albeit in the latter it was technically part of metropolitan France including electing members to the Parliament, although I suspect there wasn't a full adult franchise.

  On the other hand after FIC they seem to have accepted the inevitable across much of their African colonies, with Algeria being an exception because of its special political status.  Britain was similarly bogged down in parts of southern and eastern Africa where there were colonial settlement.  S Africa was already a dominion by 1910 and broke away after WWII and Rhodesia followed but there was conflict in places like Kenya and Tanzania for instance.  As well as strategically important locations such as Aden and Cyprus.  Although after WWII [and even before apart from a few extreme cases] there was no real expectation of keeping direct control of India, which would have resulted in a bloodbath.

  Similarly the Netherlands and Belgium gave up on their big colonies fairly early in the process, albeit the Nazi [and Japanese] occupations made retaining the core DEI territories pretty much impossible.  Spain and Portugal maintained their colonies longer until reactionary regimes were overthrown - again with Portugal accepting the inevitable earlier in the case of Goa which India seized by force in the early 60s. 

 

  Of course the other option might be that continued tension among more powerful states [due to the much shorter and less destructive WWI here] could mean that TTL's WWI is possibly with widespread use of nukes in which case much of the colonies might gain a form of independence due to the collapse of their colonial master's being pretty much destroyed.

I would agree with the colonies part. Their independence would be much later than our timeline. It would either be clean or messy or even resemble OTL's mess.

For nuclear weapons, that depends if which country has the concept of nuclear physics. Since Hitler's rise to power has been butterflied away, that would mean Jews would stay in Europe, meaning Albert Einstein would remain in Germany rather than heading to the United States. 

[stevep]

Dec 27, 2020 13:18:57 GMT gillan1220 said:

Dec 27, 2020 12:07:57 GMT stevep said:

  Assuming there's no later and more destructive war this could well be the case.  You wouldn't have the same breaking of self-confidence that it caused in much of the western nations, as well as the collapse into communism in the east.  [Although it could be argued their colonialism lasted until 1990.]  Plus the nations would be significantly stronger, fiscally, socially and economically as well as demographically and doubly so if there's no equivalent of OTL WWII.  Possibly also without the OTL widespread use of [non-European] colonial forces in both world wars there's less respect for their ability to fight for their independence.

  The classical example here might be France.  Defeat in WWII and a prolonged occupation by the Nazis left the nation significantly weakened.  It might also have resulted in a determination to restore national pride by not giving up key colonies.  However despite their much reduced resources they fought hard, 1st in FIC and then in Algeria to maintain control.  [Albeit in the latter it was technically part of metropolitan France including electing members to the Parliament, although I suspect there wasn't a full adult franchise.

  On the other hand after FIC they seem to have accepted the inevitable across much of their African colonies, with Algeria being an exception because of its special political status.  Britain was similarly bogged down in parts of southern and eastern Africa where there were colonial settlement.  S Africa was already a dominion by 1910 and broke away after WWII and Rhodesia followed but there was conflict in places like Kenya and Tanzania for instance.  As well as strategically important locations such as Aden and Cyprus.  Although after WWII [and even before apart from a few extreme cases] there was no real expectation of keeping direct control of India, which would have resulted in a bloodbath.

  Similarly the Netherlands and Belgium gave up on their big colonies fairly early in the process, albeit the Nazi [and Japanese] occupations made retaining the core DEI territories pretty much impossible.  Spain and Portugal maintained their colonies longer until reactionary regimes were overthrown - again with Portugal accepting the inevitable earlier in the case of Goa which India seized by force in the early 60s. 

 

  Of course the other option might be that continued tension among more powerful states [due to the much shorter and less destructive WWI here] could mean that TTL's WWI is possibly with widespread use of nukes in which case much of the colonies might gain a form of independence due to the collapse of their colonial master's being pretty much destroyed.

I would agree with the colonies part. Their independence would be much later than our timeline. It would either be clean or messy or even resemble OTL's mess.

For nuclear weapons, that depends if which country has the concept of nuclear physics. Since Hitler's rise to power has been butterflied away, that would mean Jews would stay in Europe, meaning Albert Einstein would remain in Germany rather than heading to the United States. 

  The danger might be that their developed in a pre-war arms race by multiple nations so a number have them when the war actually starts.  Then all it needs is that someone decides to push someone else too far and the latter decides that nuclear use is better than defeat.

[gillan1220]

Dec 27, 2020 13:51:28 GMT stevep said:

Dec 27, 2020 13:18:57 GMT gillan1220 said:

I would agree with the colonies part. Their independence would be much later than our timeline. It would either be clean or messy or even resemble OTL's mess.

For nuclear weapons, that depends if which country has the concept of nuclear physics. Since Hitler's rise to power has been butterflied away, that would mean Jews would stay in Europe, meaning Albert Einstein would remain in Germany rather than heading to the United States. 

  The danger might be that their developed in a pre-war arms race by multiple nations so a number have them when the war actually starts.  Then all it needs is that someone decides to push someone else too far and the latter decides that nuclear use is better than defeat.

So will the U.S. also try to start their own nuclear energy and weapons program?

[stevep]

Dec 27, 2020 14:43:07 GMT gillan1220 said:

Dec 27, 2020 13:51:28 GMT stevep said:

  The danger might be that their developed in a pre-war arms race by multiple nations so a number have them when the war actually starts.  Then all it needs is that someone decides to push someone else too far and the latter decides that nuclear use is better than defeat.

So will the U.S. also try to start their own nuclear energy and weapons program?

  Once it realises that the idea is practical and that other powers are working on the idea.  It won't have quite the same incentive as the European powers because of its geographical and political isolation, especially if/when its realised that early bombs will be very large.  However by the latest, once their proven, the US will want a version.

[gillan1220]

Dec 28, 2020 15:05:25 GMT stevep said:

Dec 27, 2020 14:43:07 GMT gillan1220 said:

So will the U.S. also try to start their own nuclear energy and weapons program?

  Once it realises that the idea is practical and that other powers are working on the idea.  It won't have quite the same incentive as the European powers because of its geographical and political isolation, especially if/when its realised that early bombs will be very large.  However by the latest, once their proven, the US will want a version.

Basically I'd see it the Europe will have its own primordial multi-polar Cold War against Empires. It will take another powder-keg to spark off another conflict.

More or less U.S. isolation will probably be like until the 1950s or 1960s because for sure it won't stay isolationist any longer in a rapidly, changing world.