What if WW1 hadn't happened until 1922? What would change?

>>2866151
earlier woman's rights , more mechanization of agriculture leading to mass displacement of workers, a lot of communism uprisings

No World War 2, no technological advancement, no internet, no satellites, no smartphones, no computers, no nukes, no fascism, no communism.

File: IMG_5860.png (1MB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x1136px

>>2866151
We might actually have some nude pictures of Hitler's penis.

the pace of technological advancement in the fields of arms, aviation, and medicine during ww1 was massively faster than in the preceding years

so you've just delayed that advance by a few years

>>2866151
You'd probably still have generals trying to fight a 19th century war with 20th century weapons, and failing badly.

Aeronautics would probably be less advanced than in the actual time period, because it too got a shot in the arm from the war.

Assuming the naval arms race continued between Germany and Great Britain, you'd probably be seeing increasing parity between the two fleets, because Britain could only build so many battleships and battlecruisers before they'd have to slow down.

Improvements in automotive technology may make motor transport more widespread; may also make tanks more mobile, reliable, and practical when they are eventually introduced.

Ireland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and countless other nations would not exist.

Empires and monarchies would remain in existence throughout Europe.

Hitler would probably miss all the windows that allowed for his ascent to power.

>>2866164
First and third got boosted by WWI. If anything, the delay of WWI would delay them both.

>>2866257
>trying to fight a 19th century war with 20th century weapons
meme

Colonialism and imperialism of Britain, France, Germany and other European nations would continue to this day

>>2866151
The power balance between Russia and Germany would probably have shifted further in Russia's favour

>>2866261
Certainly not line tactics or cavalry charges, but there probably would have been a distinct lack of small unit organization, less sophisticated artillery coordination, and so forth, all of which grew out of experiences during WWI.

>>2866206
Why do I keep getting banned for this?

>>2866227
>so you've just delayed that advance by a few years
Unless any of those 17,000,000-18,000,000 killed in WWI, largely working-age males, were going to invent anything... at which point WWI delayed technological advancement in many fields for years.

A 20/20 perspective on history often makes the huge mistake of assuming only those people who weren't killed would have been significant.

The loss of even 100 inventors in that culling could have drastically slowed progress if they were going to be involved with any significant technologies (like the jet engine, radar, atomic bomb, analog or digital computers, missile weaponry, ship engines or weapons)

We assume that "oh it was inevitable that the first tanks and warplanes arrived in WWI" or "it was inevitable that strategic bombing arrived in WWII" or all these things, but the dates could have easily moved forward or back 5, 10 or 20 years if young men who were killed by certain wars had been around to be the Thomas Eddison, Albert Einstein or Fritz Habber.

>>2866151
It might not have even happened at that point, just based off of the fact that the russians would have had a modern railroad system, so the germans wouldn't have been anywhere near as willing to Schleifen their shit up.