National self-determination over the last century in a scenario without the World Wars

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#1
How would popular views of and attitudes towards national self-determination have evolved over the last century in a scenario without the World Wars?

In real life, the World Wars helped popularize the idea of national self-determination--initially only in regards to Europeans but later on applying it to other groups as well. This helps explain why a lot of Europe's, the Caucasus's, and Central Asia's borders nowadays are drawn roughly based on ethnic lines as well as why all or virtually all of the European colonies that had substantial populations subsequently gained their independence. Communists were particularly adept at utilizing the principle of national self-determination in real life--which explains why a lot of the ethnic groups in the former USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia got their own independent ethno-states once Communist rule collapsed in these countries and these countries broke up. National self-determination also helps to explain the partition of India as well as the creation of a Jewish state in a majority of Palestine in real life. Anyway, while we certainly still have our fair share of multi-ethnic countries even right now, the fact that a lot of ethnic groups already have ethno-states of their own might help make this idea more appealing to various other ethnic groups that don't actually have their own ethno-state yet.

What I'm wondering is how the discussion and debate over national self-determination would have emerged in a scenario without the World Wars. In such a scenario, might the Austro-Marxist idea of "national personal autonomy" become much more popular? :

National personal autonomy - Wikipedia

Or would there have still been a push towards the development of much more ethno-states for people of various ethnic groups even in this scenario (as in, in a scenario without the World Wars)? I mean, even before World War I, there were various nationalist movements that developed and achieved success--specifically the unification of Italy and Germany and the independence of various countries (ethno-states) in the Balkans during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?
 
Apr 2017
1,503
U.S.A.
#2
Nationalism was already spreading into the undeveloped world before ww1. China fell into civil war and was heading in a developed nature before the world wars. Ho Chi Minh was already radicalized by this point. The world wars just sped up this development, nationalism didn't develop in a vacuum, the subjects of the western empires were watching and learning.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#3
Nationalism was already spreading into the undeveloped world before ww1. China fell into civil war and was heading in a developed nature before the world wars. Ho Chi Minh was already radicalized by this point. The world wars just sped up this development, nationalism didn't develop in a vacuum, the subjects of the western empires were watching and learning.
What about in regards to Europe and Central Asia?
 
Apr 2017
1,503
U.S.A.
#4
Without ww1 there wouldn't be communism in Russia and the soviet republics wouldn't have existed. The absence of this would be continued Russian imperialism. This may have eventually led to uprisings in central asia against Russian rule. Russia would probably put these down brutally unless a world war happened to distract them. A world without world wars means continued imperialism and a strong will to maintain it.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#5
Without ww1 there wouldn't be communism in Russia and the soviet republics wouldn't have existed. The absence of this would be continued Russian imperialism. This may have eventually led to uprisings in central asia against Russian rule. Russia would probably put these down brutally unless a world war happened to distract them. A world without world wars means continued imperialism and a strong will to maintain it.
Do you think that most colonies are still going to be colonies nowadays in such a scenario?
 
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#7
Possibly. The world wars bled the developed world in money, people and willpower. Without the wars they would instead focus at maintaining their empires.
What would their long-term plans have been? A continuation of the status quo indefinitely? Or an ultimate goal of colonial integration into the metropole (at least for many colonies)?
 
May 2017
172
Monterrey
#9
What about in regards to Europe and Central Asia?
Nationalism began with the French revolution and spread like wildfire through Europe. This is partly due to the other political upheavals. For example, Finland(where I am from) nationalism rose partly due to the fact that we became part of Russia - prtio to this the country had been under Swedish rule for quite a bit. This also has a lot to do with the fall of monarchs and rise of popular leadership.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#10
Nationalism began with the French revolution and spread like wildfire through Europe. This is partly due to the other political upheavals. For example, Finland(where I am from) nationalism rose partly due to the fact that we became part of Russia - prtio to this the country had been under Swedish rule for quite a bit. This also has a lot to do with the fall of monarchs and rise of popular leadership.
Yeah, certainly. That said, though, nationalism only achieved limited successes before WWI. Its main areas of success were Germany, Italy, Hungary, and the Balkans.