Was the eventual creation of a European Union actually realistic without both World Wars?

W

WolfBear

Well-known member
Was the eventual creation of a European Union actually realistic without both World Wars? In real life, Europe only began deep integration after it was destroyed as a result of two World Wars. But if neither World War ever actually occurs, would there have still eventually been as much support for deep European integration?

Personally, I think that France's alliance with Russia would make it rather difficult to integrate France into a European Union without both World Wars since in such a scenario, the Franco-Russian alliance would have likely lasted indefinitely and thus both Germany and Austria-Hungary might have been extremely wary of pursuing deep integration with a country that was so close to Russia, which would inevitably have to end up outside of any European Union due to its extremely massive population. But eventual economic integration of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and some or all of the southeastern European countries might be doable if Italy and the southeastern European countries will conclude that trying to achieve further territorial revision by force won't work. In such a case, they could aim to "reunify" with their ethnic brethren abroad through an economic union, similar to how north and south Tyrolean Germans were "reunified" within the European Union in real life. Poland, the Baltic countries, and Ukraine could also eventually join such an economic union if they will ever permanently become independent from Russia. But I think that the UK will stay out due to its heightened sense of importance and also admitting the Ottoman Empire might be difficult due to its extremely massive Muslim population, which Europeans might not want to deal with.

Anyway, what do you think?
 
It depends a bit on why the wars don't happen. Avoiding not only the OTL wars, but any ATL counterparts as well, is not all that facile. It suggests some POD a bit further back, that takes the heat off the kettle. Like the Anglo-French rapprochement of OTL, which resulted in the Entente Cordiale. (Or, for that matter, the normaliation of Anglo-Russian relations, once their 'Game of Shadows' over Eurasian influence had essentially run its course.) If you have a development like that, but affecting all (or most) major European powers... then you have a solid premise for lasting peace and for gradually increasing supra-national co-operation later on.

(May I suggest, by the way, that asking this question would have been perfectly possible in your existing "no world wars" thread? There's no need to open a new thread for a question that's so closely derived. Just add it as a post in the existing thread, maybe slap a threadmark on it so people can easily find it.)
 
Skallagrim said:
It depends a bit on why the wars don't happen. Avoiding not only the OTL wars, but any ATL counterparts as well, is not all that facile. It suggests some POD a bit further back, that takes the heat off the kettle. Like the Anglo-French rapprochement of OTL, which resulted in the Entente Cordiale. (Or, for that matter, the normaliation of Anglo-Russian relations, once their 'Game of Shadows' over Eurasian influence had essentially run its course.) If you have a development like that, but affecting all (or most) major European powers... then you have a solid premise for lasting peace and for gradually increasing supra-national co-operation later on.

(May I suggest, by the way, that asking this question would have been perfectly possible in your existing "no world wars" thread? There's no need to open a new thread for a question that's so closely derived. Just add it as a post in the existing thread, maybe slap a threadmark on it so people can easily find it.)
Click to expand...
But Russia is still likely to be the elephant in the room here due to its sheer size, no?

You mean in the "World map without the World Wars thread"?
 
WolfBear said:
But Russia is still likely to be the elephant in the room here due to its sheer size, no?
Click to expand...
Without major wars, Russia is going to keep developing. Prior to the destruction caused by the wars and -- to a far greater extent -- by communism, Russia had the potential to be the equivalent of the USA, qua population, economy, et cetera. You get that just by comparing prior Russian trends, and comparing them to those of the USA. As such, without the wars and without the USSR, Russia would easily be able to become a superpower. (Whereas in OTL, it's a country with less then half the USA's population, and an economy smaller than that of Italy.)

In many ways, given the premise of greater co-operation between the European powers, the ascent of Russia would only prompt them to hurry up with it.
 
Skallagrim said:
Without major wars, Russia is going to keep developing. Prior to the destruction caused by the wars and -- to a far greater extent -- by communism, Russia had the potential to be the equivalent of the USA, qua population, economy, et cetera. You get that just by comparing prior Russian trends, and comparing them to those of the USA. As such, without the wars and without the USSR, Russia would easily be able to become a superpower. (Whereas in OTL, it's a country with less then half the USA's population, and an economy smaller than that of Italy.)

In many ways, given the premise of greater co-operation between the European powers, the ascent of Russia would only prompt them to hurry up with it.
Click to expand...

But would France, as a Russian ally, actually be willing to participate in any Pan-European integration proposals in this TL?
 
WolfBear said:
But would France, as a Russian ally, actually be willing to participate in any Pan-European integration proposals in this TL?
Click to expand...
The Franco-Russian alliance isn't a given, nor is it bound to be a big deal. In OTL, Wilhelm II allowed the League of Three Emperors to lapse, for instance, the very existence of which would have prevented a Franco-Russian pact against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Even if Russia and France still get closer... if there's no major wars, the reality will eventually become clear: the European powers are all in the same ship, and Russia is a giant iceberg that's awfully close. Best to all steer in the same direction, and plot a safe course.
 
Skallagrim said:
The Franco-Russian alliance isn't a given, nor is it bound to be a big deal. In OTL, Wilhelm II allowed the League of Three Emperors to lapse, for instance, the very existence of which would have prevented a Franco-Russian pact against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Even if Russia and France still get closer... if there's no major wars, the reality will eventually become clear: the European powers are all in the same ship, and Russia is a giant iceberg that's awfully close. Best to all steer in the same direction, and plot a safe course.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I was thinking of French loans still eventually becoming attractive enough for Russia to pursue a French alliance sooner or later. Apparently Russian Tsar Alexander III was already interested in a French alliance even in the 1880s:

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org

The full article above can be found on LibGen, FWIW.
 
From the article above:

Seriously, indeed, Alexander must have regarded the prospect if his conversation on this subject with Giers (Russian foreign minister) be correctly reported. In August, I885, after a meeting with the Kaiser at Kremsier, Moravia, at which Bulgarian affairs were discussed, the tsar declared to Giers that the policy of the day was no longer a policy of dynasties but one of a combination of national interests.

Bismarck is giving us the first demonstration by ignoring the relations of kinship which exist between Romanov and Hohenzollern. I am his first example and I desire to establish in our foreign relations the principle of the protection of the rights of peoples as well as of dynasties. I suggest that you henceforth maintain afriendly attitude toward France with a view to being able, at the proper time and in case of necessity, to negotiate a formal alliance with her.9

"But such is impossible", answered Giers, recalling the attitude of France toward Poland, the revolutionary character of the French, and their hospitality to Russian revolutionary propaganda, and the danger in such an alliance for Russian internal affairs. The tsar, nevertheless, waved these objections aside, and insisted that such a course was his desire.'10
Click to expand...
 
Interestingly, that's after Prince Wilhelm (the future Wilhelm II) made a notoriously terrible impression in Russia in 1884.

I think the extent to which Wilhelm II fucked up the relations with both his Russian and English cousins cannot be over-estimated. Wherever he went, the desire for anti-German alliances somehow proliferated...
 
Last edited:
Skallagrim said:
Interestingly, that's after Prince Wilhelm (the future Wilhelm II) made a notoriously terrible impression in Russia in 1884.

I think the extent to which Wilhelm II fucked up the relations with both his Russian and English cousins cannot be over-estimated. Wherever he went, the desire for anti-German alliances somehow proliferated...
Click to expand...

What exactly did he do in Russia in 1884 that was so unappealing?

And it's quite interesting--Wilhelm II managed to have a good relationship with both Franz Ferdinand and the Ottoman leadership, but not with any other European royals and heads of state.
 
WolfBear said:
And it's quite interesting--Wilhelm II managed to have a good relationship with both Franz Ferdinand and the Ottoman leadership, but not with any other European royals and heads of state.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Franz Ferdinand notoriously prickly and hard to like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top