# Would WWI still have happened....?



## Lucky13 (Sep 13, 2008)

The act which is considered to have triggered the succession of events which led to war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Young Bosnia. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against the Kingdom of Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare.

What I'm wondering is, would WWI still have happened even if the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had never taken place?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2008)

WW1 would have happened eventually. The entire world was a powderkeg just waiting to go off at that time.

You had minor skirmishes just prior to, or about to occur during 1914, by a number of nations globally. You had a serious arms race between a good number of nations going on and with it, a great deal of "saber rattling" in the world's political circles.

So even if Archduke Ferdinand hadn't been assinated, it was just a matter of time.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 13, 2008)

Maybe just another year or so then, if even that?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2008)

Another year or so at the very least...

You still had major tensions between Russia and Japan from the two Russo-Sino wars, the last being less than ten years prior to WW1.

There were huge tensions and ongoing conflicts between the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, add to that the friction between Italy and the Ottoman Empire in Libya. Also, the Libyan region saw conflicts between Italy, Germany, France and Austria.

Japan was looking toward it's eventual expansionism, there were sporadic skirmishes in Africa amongst the colonial powers and thier colonists, and South America was on the verge of open warfare amongst a number of countries.

There was internal unrest in Russia, China and Mexico at the time as well.

I think that the assination just had all the right elements to set the key players in motion that escelated WW1 as fast as it did.


----------



## Venganza (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi, I'm new here, but this thread caught my eye. I've always been interested in WWI. I agree that WWI was inevitable and the murder of the Archduke is just what happened to set it off. Frankly, the world wasn't big enough for both the UK and Germany, especially with the Kaiser's huge ego (or inferiority complex - the two seemed to go together). If nothing else, those two empires were bound to go at it, and combine that with France's bitter resentment over the Franco-Prussian war and some kind of general conflict was inevitable. Plus you had the system of alliances which made an attack on one country an attack on all allies. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 13, 2008)

Hey welcome, Vengaza and you're right, England and all the other Empires were constantly at each other's throats and no matter who did what, it would drag the whole lot into the brawl.

I also failed to mention that in 1912, Prussia and Austria almost went to war against each other on territorial issues, so add that to the long pre-war list of "those that don't play well with others"...


----------



## JugBR (Sep 13, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> The act which is considered to have triggered the succession of events which led to war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb citizen of Austria-Hungary and member of the Young Bosnia. The retaliation by Austria-Hungary against the Kingdom of Serbia activated a series of alliances that set off a chain reaction of war declarations. Within a month, much of Europe was in a state of open warfare.
> 
> What I'm wondering is, would WWI still have happened even if the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand had never taken place?



the answer is yes. the arms race, the rivalities between the imperialist powers of europe, the alliances among those, of course the assassination of archduke was an excuse, the war would happen one way or another.

a very know cartoon, explains very well the situation before the war:


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 13, 2008)

Yes I believe it would of happened sooner or later because of the tensions that existed around that time due to the alliances that had been formed. Now if there hadn't been the two sets of alliances then I think it could of been different. Perhaps a local war between Serbia and Austria/Hungary but even without the Alliances I think this would of drawn in Russia (and by consequence Germany and perhaps the Ottoman Empire) and so and the end of the day the result would of been similar. However I think it could of been a solely central Europe war depending on how the British, French and Italians reacted. If the Italians had reacted then I still think that the British and French could of avoided participation for at least a couple of years but eventually something would of triggered their involvement. At the end of the day I would say it would be a mainly European war that would be unlikely too involve the United States or most other parts of the world except for the colonies of the countries participating.


----------



## Venganza (Sep 13, 2008)

Remember, it almost didn't involve the United States. If Falkenhayn hadn't sent those troops to Prussia in 1914 (where thanks to Tannenberg, they weren't needed anyway), he might have defeated the French and taken Paris, end of story. As far as the colonies are concerned, the German colonies were simply too tempting to the British, the Japanese and the French to be left out of the war. Alternate histories are always dangerous to speculate on (and fun), but I wonder what would have happened if the Germans *had* won the war. I have my ideas, but it might be interesting to hear others' views.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 13, 2008)

Gnomey said:


> Yes I believe it would of happened sooner or later because of the tensions that existed around that time due to the alliances that had been formed. Now if there hadn't been the two sets of alliances then I think it could of been different. Perhaps a local war between Serbia and Austria/Hungary but even without the Alliances I think this would of drawn in Russia (and by consequence Germany and perhaps the Ottoman Empire) and so and the end of the day the result would of been similar. However I think it could of been a solely central Europe war depending on how the British, French and Italians reacted. If the Italians had reacted then I still think that the British and French could of avoided participation for at least a couple of years but eventually something would of triggered their involvement. At the end of the day I would say it would be a mainly European war that would be unlikely too involve the United States or most other parts of the world except for the colonies of the countries participating.




Exactly! Sooner or later it would've happened


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 14, 2008)

Part of the problem also was the lack of land in Europe. Therefor throughout history alot of clawing has taken place to gain more land. Eventually somebody would have got a little greedy and attacked somewhere or gone to Africa, the traditional place to settle European differences.


----------



## renrich (Sep 16, 2008)

I believe war was inevitable, given all the tensions between the countries and the arms races. Once war between Russia and Germany began, France, with an alliance with Russia, had to come in.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Oct 23, 2008)

Well guys, I can't add anything to this for You have all said what I was going to so I'll just say that I agree with You.

Cheers


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm with Milos except to say that the Balkan conflicts would have happened and caused the war - still feel that conflict today.


----------



## joy17782 (Oct 29, 2008)

Ok guys ,it would have happen sooner or later , but in all rights in 1914 it was russia mobalation that really triggered the war. Ive read too much about this , it was the mobalations of reserves . that triggered the germans too start kicking ass,


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2008)

The real thing that made World War 1 inevitable was actually all the treaties that each country had. If 2 countries went to war, everyone else had to.

When Hungary-Austria went to war with Serbia, Germany which had a treaty with Hungary-Austria had to side with them. Russia had a treaty with Serbia so they had to side with them.

Everyone had a treaty with someone.

Mobilizations, Arms Races, etc. all had a contribution but the treaties is what made it a "World War".


----------



## renrich (Nov 2, 2008)

To add to what Chris said, France had an agreement with Russia to go to war if Russia were attacked. Germany decided they would knock France out quickly because Russia would take a while to mobilise. Their plan called for the offensive to go through Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and the fat was in the fire.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

I recommend the German historian Fritz Fischer for those serious about how exactly WW I happened.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 8, 2008)

There's a decent book out there called "Europe's Last Summer". Good read, gives a good line on what happened. Also, "The Guns of August" and "Castles of Steel". Any one of the three is a good read.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Dec 8, 2008)

Adler's right. even though war was inevitable, it not might have been just in the Balkans if it weren't for so many of those bloody secret treaties.


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

"Dreadnought" is, IMO, the best book about the origins of WW1. Tim, I have read "Guns of August, " and "Castles"(have it in my library) and "Dreadnought," if you can get through it, has much more background than the other books.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 9, 2008)

Renrich, it might be Dreadnought I was thinking of and not Castles of Steel. Both by the same author and excellent books. Get them confused sometimes.


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

Tim, I agree. Because Castles is about the naval war, it is one of my favorite books. Much easier read than Dreadnought where I get all the names of the various royalty mixed up. Amazing how many of them were related ny blood.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 11, 2008)

renrich said:


> Tim, I agree. Because Castles is about the naval war, it is one of my favorite books. Much easier read than Dreadnought where I get all the names of the various royalty mixed up. Amazing how many of them were related ny blood.



Dead on about Massie's work, both fantastic pieces of history. Ren, ALL of the German, Russian and British royal families were blood relations - that is one of the things that brings home how utterly futile and stupid the war was. It was also a key factor in the downfall of two of those monarchies - the people wanted to decide their own destinies after the war, rather than leave them in the hands of a ruling clique that spanned Europe.


----------

