Princip misses. What are the major events between then and now?

Princip misses. What are the major events between then and now?

Everything would be different... or not. Austria-Hungary is still outraged by the assasination attempt, still delivers ultimatum to Serbia and WW1 erupts anyway...

If WW1 was avoided, the world would be totally different, it's impossible to say how. For example, Franz Fedinand (the killed archduke) had a Czech wife and was known to be much more open minded about the status of Slavic peoples in Austria-Hungary. What if he managed to defuse the nationalist crisis and instead introduced working federal principles in the monarchy? United Kingdom of Central Europe, anyone? :lol:

Perhaps WW1 would start later, sparked by another international crisis. Perhaps the Germans would win it, or perhaps they'd lose honourably so the war wouldn't repeat itself 20 years later.

Anyway, of all the things I would try if I had a time machine, shooting Princip is among the top 10.

One thing I think is a possibility is that the Ottoman Empire could have survived (unlikely but possible) without WW1, and would have been a powerhouse if it had, what with having control over so much oil. It would have become a supwerpower if it had stayed together and reformed properly

One thing I think is a possibility is that the Ottoman Empire could have survived (unlikely but possible) without WW1, and would have been a powerhouse if it had, what with having control over so much oil. It would have become a supwerpower if it had stayed together and reformed properly
Doubt that the reformation could have taken place. The CUP government was a piece of crap and unable to reform correctly, militarily, politically, or socially, and the Ottomans as they were had major ethnonational problems. There was a good deal of discontent with the capitulations and the overall inability to do anything about the foreigners, which wouldn't have changed with the existing framework. The fact that they were Sunni also is an impediment to the quick and easy expedient of becoming an Islamic quasi-theocratic imperial republic, partly also because a republican tradition would require devastating defeat in war to create (barring somebody sane getting the reins of the CUP). If anything, oil would cause the state to be exploited even more than before by the Western Powers, and we might see a Sevres anyway with the various European states carving it up to secure their share.

Princip misses. What are the major events between then and now?

The assassination of the archduke was merely the spark for World War One. In other words, without Princip, WWI would still have happened. The build up of tension and arms would still have continued until something else caused the eruption of war.

The assassination of the archduke was merely the spark for World War One. In other words, without Princip, WWI would still have happened. The build up of tension and arms would still have continued until something else caused the eruption of war.
Is the naturalistic fallacy the same as the argument of historical inevitability because if it is it so needs to be deployed right here. The First World War may have occurred, but I think that the form the conflict would take has a good probability of being drastically different from OTL in both the combatants on both sides, course, and outcome...

Is the naturalistic fallacy the same as the argument of historical inevitability because if it is it so needs to be deployed right here. The First World War may have occurred, but I think that the form the conflict would take has a good probability of being drastically different from OTL in both the combatants on both sides, course, and outcome...

Yeah, it probably would've been different, but not drastically. Austria-Hungary would probably have had to do something in the Balkans sooner or later, and Russia would have mobilized in opposition. Then Germany would enact the Schlieffen Plan, and everything would be like World War One. Perhaps a matter of time would have stopped this, but the alliance system was so much in place that I don't think that the two sides would consist of different nations.

The course of the inevitable war, would however, I agree, be drastically different. Russia would probably be even weaker, and Germany would probably be even stronger. Also, the tank may've been in common use by the time this inevitable war started, changing the course of events, and probably the style of the war. It may have been more 'free flowing'.

The outcomes of a more free flowing war would probably be different, too. Depending on whether Germany had embraced the new technology of the tank (in World War One they ended up having a grand total of roughly nine tanks), then the Schlieffen Plan may've been more effective, surely changing the outcome of the war spectacularly.

So, in summary, yes, I think that there would've inevitably been a war, and I agree that it would be quite different, more in style and outcome, than composition.

I really don't think that tank would be developed if it wasn't for the war. Nobody thought the war would become a trench war in just few months. Only after both sides realized that they were in stalemate situation they had started developing tanks.

I really don't think that tank would be developed if it wasn't for the war. Nobody thought the war would become a trench war in just few months. Only after both sides realized that they were in stalemate situation they had started developing tanks.

True, although I'm sure they would've figured it out before too long.

Also, if the war had waited a couple of years, maybe von Moltke would be dead, possibly causing Germany to stick to the original Schlieffen Plan, going through Holland to avoid the Belgian bottleneck, and going 'round west of Paris. Perhaps.

Winners on the money there. I can't think of any advances that didn't come via the war that would have shortened it by any meaningful period.

Germany perceived correctly that she was relatively speaking falling behind Russia and France I'm guessing that this gap would have widened considerably in the meantime between any war. France might also have been in a better position politically which might have aided her. Belgium might also have got together troops sufficient enough to hold of the German right hook for longer which possibly might have allowed France to cut it off at the head although I doubt that. With a stronger Belgian army all other things being equal the allies should by rights have stopped the Germans in Belgium or far closer to the French border. Materially at least the allies would have been better off :p

I really don't think that tank would be developed if it wasn't for the war. Nobody thought the war would become a trench war in just few months. Only after both sides realized that they were in stalemate situation they had started developing tanks.


It would have happened evetually, it was a logical invention. Once the technology to build them was available, the inspiraiton would have followed sooner or later.

Winners on the money there. I can't think of any advances that didn't come via the war that would have shortened it by any meaningful period.

You never know. Maybe if the war had been delayed, the men of the 19th century would not be in charge of the armies of Europe, and perhaps technological advance would be possible with a new mindset.


Germany perceived correctly that she was relatively speaking falling behind Russia and France I'm guessing that this gap would have widened considerably in the meantime between any war. France might also have been in a better position politically which might have aided her. Belgium might also have got together troops sufficient enough to hold of the German right hook for longer which possibly might have allowed France to cut it off at the head although I doubt that. With a stronger Belgian army all other things being equal the allies should by rights have stopped the Germans in Belgium or far closer to the French border. Materially at least the allies would have been better off :p

Well, depending on how great the impact of the war was on the Russian Revolution, Russia amy not have been a factor at all in the war, allowing Germany to concentrate on one front for the entirety of the war, therefore eliminating the need for the Schlieffen hammerswing to be weakened to help defend Prussia. But this is a weak argument, I suppose, as, well frankly, the war was of the upmost importance to the development of the Russian Revolution. But I don't think that Germany (the industrial powerhouse of Europe) would've fallen behind France in any way at all.

Going back to Russia on a completely contradictory note, if the Russian Revolution had occurred without the 'aid' of WWI, then any AH ultimatum to Serbia would not have been seriously opposed, i.e. Russia wouldn't have mobilised, and therefore Germany wouldn't have started it's plans.

You never know. Maybe if the war had been delayed, the men of the 19th century would not be in charge of the armies of Europe, and perhaps technological advance would be possible with a new mindset.

Perhaps, but I don't think that the technology would have sufficiently matured or been tested to make a significant difference to the initial stages of the war.

Well, depending on how great the impact of the war was on the Russian Revolution

The Russian Revolution would not have happened without a major cataclysm as you noted. It's certainly possible that the Duma might have wrested some power from the Czar over time... but it's probably only going to be negligible (maybe his personal signing of all divorces:p). Russia would have gone into the war in a better shape in almost any scenario as time went on.

But I don't think that Germany (the industrial powerhouse of Europe) would've fallen behind France in any way at all.

Your missing the elephant in the room in that analysis [Russia] :p. The relationship between France and Russia and Great Britain would also be critical.

Going back to Russia on a completely contradictory note, if the Russian Revolution had occurred without the 'aid' of WWI, then any AH ultimatum to Serbia would not have been seriously opposed, i.e. Russia wouldn't have mobilised, and therefore Germany wouldn't have started it's plans.

What would Russia end up as is another important question.

The Russian Revolution would not have happened without a major cataclysm as you noted. It's certainly possible that the Duma might have wrested some power from the Czar over time... but it's probably only going to be negligible (maybe his personal signing of all divorces:p). Russia would have gone into the war in a better shape in almost any scenario as time went on.

I beg to differ, slightly. I do agree that the Russian Revolution would probably not have happened without the war, but I don't think that Russia's situation would have improved much in the time scale we are looking at. The problems in Russia had been rapidly accelerating since 1912, not 1914.

Your missing the elephant in the room in that analysis [Russia] :p. The relationship between France and Russia and Great Britain would also be critical.

How much longer would France support Russia, an authoritarian monarchy. French emissaries before the war had begun to doubt Russia's capabilities as an ally, which were, or course, proved correct in the war, and so I think it was probably only a matter of time before France and Russia would not be friends anymore. As for Britain, well it wasn't really part of any alliance, and was even courted by Germany. So if German power had continued increasing, and France was no longer an ally of Russia, then Britain may've found it wiser to stay out of any conflict. Resulting, of course, in France's loss.

Also, if the war had waited a couple of years, maybe von Moltke would be dead, possibly causing Germany to stick to the original Schlieffen Plan, going through Holland to avoid the Belgian bottleneck, and going 'round west of Paris. Perhaps.
von Moltke was the one who had probably drafted the original plan from von Schlieffen's very vague original note anyway, so this whole idea of von Moltke contravening the better man's (von Schlieffen's, according to historical myth) is silly; he was altering his own plan...anyway, that's a solid "maybe". And maybe Hohenzollern dynastic ties with the Oranje could have been sufficiently strengthened to allow the Germans free passage, maybe not. They're still going to come into contact with the immense logistical problems of advancing through Belgian territory in which the rail connections have either been damaged or destroyed in any case. A wider sweep would have implied an even greater supply problem and thus even weaker German troops coming into the third and fourth weeks of the war.
But I don't think that Germany (the industrial powerhouse of Europe) would've fallen behind France in any way at all.
The Germans were starting to fall behind France with the passage of the new conscription laws.
Russia would have gone into the war in a better shape in almost any scenario as time went on.
Yeah, all that social tension, massive amounts of strikes, and so forth won't make any difference. Russia won't have collapsed but they would have serious confidence issues, problems with continuing their industrialization, and so forth. They also might try fiddling around in China again when Yuan Shikai starts to do his thing. I wonder how that would work.
How much longer would France support Russia, an authoritarian monarchy. French emissaries before the war had begun to doubt Russia's capabilities as an ally, which were, or course, proved correct in the war, and so I think it was probably only a matter of time before France and Russia would not be friends anymore.
France has always courted buddies on the other side of Germany. Their favorite was Poland, but after Poland served as the best possible distraction during the French Revolution it wasn't really a viable candidate, since it, you know, didn't exist and all (the Grand Duchy of Warsaw notwithstanding). In the absence of Poland, Russia was the only real option, unless France was able to detach the Habsburgs from the Dual Alliance. (A distinct possibility - although still somewhat remote - when Franz Josef dies. Anybody thought about that?)

Yeah, all that social tension, massive amounts of strikes, and so forth won't make any difference. Russia won't have collapsed but they would have serious confidence issues, problems with continuing their industrialization, and so forth. They also might try fiddling around in China again when Yuan Shikai starts to do his thing. I wonder how that would work.

Short term it might have problems but then it already had those and in the early stages of the war the patriotism bug got in the way. Medium to long term it was only going to get better.

France has always courted buddies on the other side of Germany. Their favorite was Poland, but after Poland served as the best possible distraction during the French Revolution it wasn't really a viable candidate, since it, you know, didn't exist and all (the Grand Duchy of Warsaw notwithstanding). In the absence of Poland, Russia was the only real option, unless France was able to detach the Habsburgs from the Dual Alliance. (A distinct possibility - although still somewhat remote - when Franz Josef dies. Anybody thought about that?)

Would that mean an Emperor Karl I?

Short term it might have problems but then it already had those and in the early stages of the war the patriotism bug got in the way. Medium to long term it was only going to get better.
Depends on how "medium to long term" we're talking about here. I don't seriously see anything getting done during the reign of the current tsar at all.
Would that mean an Emperor Karl I?
Possibly. Depends on Franz Ferdinand, and if he dies anyway. He was heir-presumptive after all. I would be most interested in his tripartite monarchy scheme...

It would have happened evetually, it was a logical invention. Once the technology to build them was available, the inspiraiton would have followed sooner or later.

No doubt about that, but it would take much longer. Most militaries back then were conservative as hell (when did the French started using helmets?). If there hadn't been the need to innovate, most things would have been invented much later than they were in OTL.

It would have happened evetually, it was a logical invention. Once the technology to build them was available, the inspiraiton would have followed sooner or later.
The inspiration was the challenge of trench warfare, though. Without a plentiful supply of that, there wouldn't have been a drive to invent a trench-crossing device such as the tank. True, it's likely that someone would've thought to update the age-old concept of the "war wagon", but it's not inevitable that governments would be all that interested without some specific motive to invest in such technology.

The inspiration was the challenge of trench warfare, though. Without a plentiful supply of that, there wouldn't have been a drive to invent a trench-crossing device such as the tank. True, it's likely that someone would've thought to update the age-old concept of the "war wagon", but it's not inevitable that governments would be all that interested without some specific motive to invest in such technology.
Assumption that the First World War won't happen isn't equivalent to an assumption that no conflicts will occur during this period. :)

Assumption that the First World War won't happen isn't equivalent to an assumption that no conflicts will occur during this period. :)

Russo-Japanese war demonstrated the pitfalls of trench warfare, yet nobody believed it would be a problem in the future.

Due to the alliance system in Europe, practically any war between major powers would haver triggered a global conflict, IMO.

Russo-Japanese war demonstrated the pitfalls of trench warfare, yet nobody believed it would be a problem in the future.
That's not really the consensus view on military thought in the post-Russo-Japanese War period, and it ignores the lack of significant motorized non-rail transport at the time. I mean, you could bring up the American Civil War too, because there was some pretty nasty trench warfare there too, but again, they didn't have the technical wherewithal to construct tanks.
Due to the alliance system in Europe, practically any war between major powers would haver triggered a global conflict, IMO.
This is the alliance system that made the UK's entry uncertain, which did not explicitly force France to fight, which Italy rather blatantly contravened, and which Germany had to interpret rather creatively to issue that guarantee of theirs? In addition, that is not the only possible field for technological innovation. The United States in its Latin American interventions had plenty of scope for that sort of thing (in fact, they used Dodges as cavalry during the Pancho Villa expedition, experimentally), and the peripheral conflicts, such as the Balkan wars (which were by no means settled in 1914) could have provided a testing ground like Spain did in the 1930s, without necessitating Great Power direct involvement.

Regarding the Schlieffen Plan (German plan of attack through the Low Countries into France), an interesting theory is put forward in the Pity of War by Nial Ferguson, in which it is said that if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality the French (and possibly English) would've done so.

How realistic that was, I do not know.

***

If Princip were not fail in his assassination, that would only most likely only delay another such attempt on some other major Austro-Hungarian political figure; the Serbian Black Hand was not without plans of all kinds with regards to that.

However, World War I would most likely still have occured, albeit in a (vastly?) different way. As incidents such as the Agadir Crisis (1911) would've continued to occur unless the Germans would've radically changed their policies, which would be unlikely. Bismark's policy of keeping an alliance between Germany and Russia was one key deterrent for war, his successors simply threw that option out of the window, quite an error.

Austria-Hungary under Franz Ferdinant has the chance for reform, the Ottoman Empire and Russia though had no such progressive leaders in sight when the war began.

Fact though is, there's no one single act that could entirely make war avertable. A global war would probably have happened sooner or later, whether it would've been some years or a decade one can't say for sure. But the "seeds" for the war had been sown individually already much earlier, so it would be too late to make amends in the 1910's.

Before the assassination there were many conflicts between Serbia and AH.
Since the secret dead between AH and Serbia 1881, Serbia was related to AH, as vassal country (That was during reign of Obrenovic family till 1903.). When the last Obrenovic was killed, relations worsened, since the new Serbian king was Petar Karadjordjevic, with pro-russian politics. The first big conflict was Pig's war 1906-1911, an economic war. Since till then AH was only market for serbian exports (pig's meat mostly), and they closed borders for Serbian exports. Serbia won this "war", by building railroad to Thessalonica.
The second event, that could have started the war was annexation of Bosnia 1908. Since then relations worsened, and it was only the question of time, when will the war start.

I haven't read the topic, so perhaps this has already been mentioned.

Italy was set to go to war on the side of Germany and Austria in a defensive alliance. Because Austria-Hungary initiated the war against Serbia, the pact didn't apply so Italy ended up joining the Allies. If it had been the case that Franz Ferdinand weren't assassinated and World War I started from some other cause, the war may have turned out a bit differently.

Well, we can all state that AH ended smashed and erased from history list of countries, mostly thanks to small Serbia.

1915. German command informing the community: Since serbian army does not exist any more, besides shabby remains which flee away in Albanian mountains, where they'll find death, all farther operations have been stopped, and the reporting from Balkan battlefield will not be given any more.

1918. Telegram from Wilhelm, German emperor to Bulgarian Command: 62.000 serbian soldiers decided about epilogue of war. Disgrace!

Well, we can all state that AH ended smashed and erased from history list of countries, mostly thanks to small Serbia.

Don't you think that is giving slightly too much credit to Serbia, seeing as it was completely overrun by AH?

Well, we can all state that AH ended smashed and erased from history list of countries, mostly thanks to small Serbia.

1915. German command informing the community: Since serbian army does not exist any more, besides shabby remains which flee away in Albanian mountains, where they'll find death, all farther operations have been stopped, and the reporting from Balkan battlefield will not be given any more.

1918. Telegram from Wilhelm, German emperor to Bulgarian Command: 62.000 serbian soldiers decided about epilogue of war. Disgrace!
Serbia was completely overrun and defeated, its army and government in a shambles, and its king in exile. Serbia didn't erase Austria-Hungary from history, a combination of war and internal troubles did. Serbia's government just happened to be the only Allied government in the Balkan region, so it reaped the rewards, much as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and others did.

The whole country got out of herself, and moved to greek island of Corfu, after crossing cold and cruel albanian mountains. There is an saying: Тај не зна муке тешке док не пређе Албанију пешке (you don't know what is suffering, unless you walk over Albania).
Anyway, that smashed nation in exiled, was never destroyed. As long there is live king, government, army and people of an nation, that nation still exists. As you know, 1917. and 1918. there were major stoppages of all progression on all fronts. Balkan front showed as "main" secondary front, because of which, they war ended, as it ended. The breaking of Macedonian front started with artillery bombarding 14.9.1918, in early morning. Next day, 15.9. french and serbian troops started break-through. Few days after french troops stopped in progressing, but now, no-one could have stopped Serbs. Serbian army crossed path from Macedonian front to Belgrade 46 days. That was the fastest on foot progressing of an army in known history (in not sure about the authenticity of this information). Not even french cavalry could have come up with serbian infantry forces. Looking at this situation, they only responsible for the capitulation of AH (3.11.) were Serbia (in my opinion 75%), and Italy (25%).

The whole country got out of herself, and moved to greek island of Corfu, after crossing cold and cruel albanian mountains. There is an saying: Тај не зна муке тешке док не пређе Албанију пешке (you don't know what is suffering, unless you walk over Albania).
Anyway, that smashed nation in exiled, was never destroyed. As long there is live king, government, army and people of an nation, that nation still exists.

Oh, I see. Withdrawing from Serbia was just a show of strength. And unfortunately, that army you speak of was decimated.

As you know, 1917. and 1918. there were major stoppages of all progression on all fronts. Balkan front showed as "main" secondary front, because of which, they war ended, as it ended. The breaking of Macedonian front started with artillery bombarding 14.9.1918, in early morning. Next day, 15.9. french and serbian troops started break-through. Few days after french troops stopped in progressing, but now, no-one could have stopped Serbs. Serbian army crossed path from Macedonian front to Belgrade 46 days. That was the fastest on foot progressing of an army in known history (in not sure about the authenticity of this information). Not even french cavalry could have come up with serbian infantry forces. Looking at this situation, they only responsible for the capitulation of AH (3.11.) were Serbia (in my opinion 75%), and Italy (25%).

These are unsubstantiated, and highly unrealistic claims. If France did stop advancing, it was probably so that they could go back to France to help with the final big push.

Saying that Serbia was mainly responsible for the breakup of AH is a bit like saying France was mainly responsible for Germany's loss in WWII.

Well Macedonian front was broken mostly thanks to serbian forces, and i doubt french forces had important role in Invasion of Normandy.

waffle

I just had to stop by to remark what an awesome username indeed!



//



Killing princip would kill too many butterflies.. I cannot possibly imagine the next 6 months let along to present day.

I haven't read the topic, so perhaps this has already been mentioned.

Italy was set to go to war on the side of Germany and Austria in a defensive alliance. Because Austria-Hungary initiated the war against Serbia, the pact didn't apply so Italy ended up joining the Allies. If it had been the case that Franz Ferdinand weren't assassinated and World War I started from some other cause, the war may have turned out a bit differently.
Doubt it. Italy had already agreed to a naval treaty with the Entente before the war began, and it was quite clear that they would have much more to gain by siding against Austria-Hungary than with it. I think that the choice for Italy, as it was in early 1915 of OTL, would be between neutrality and 'whatever side was against the Habsburgs'.

Well Macedonian front was broken mostly thanks to serbian forces, and i doubt french forces had important role in Invasion of Normandy.
The Macedonian front was broken because Austria-Hungary was pulling troops away to deal with problems elsewhere. The Italians had broken through, the Slavs were rising, Hungary's independence movement was getting stronger, communists were becoming unafraid of speeking in public, the public was growing tired of war, many young men who had been to the frontlines were either already dead or completely demoralised. Macedonia was the least important front for Austria, so it was the one with the least adequate protection.

You should also note that the Serbian advance, which was NOT that fast - granted, it was fast, but "French cavalry couldn't keep up" is idiotic - was in the face of pretty much no opposition; rather than fight, Austro-Hungarian troops retreated, in some cases turning on each other. Austria-Hungary disintegrated and Serbia picked up the pieces. A lot like how France and Britain picked up the pieces when Turkey collapsed further East.

Serbia was the only allied government in the Balkans, so the spoils went to it. If Greece had have officially entered the war, it may well have scored some of the Adriatic islands, possibly even Dalmatia, though the latter is unlikely. Italy should also have recieved more territory than it did, but the British and French wanted to keep it weak. Serbia got lucky.

Serbia was the only allied government in the Balkans, so the spoils went to it. If Greece had have officially entered the war, it may well have scored some of the Adriatic islands, possibly even Dalmatia, though the latter is unlikely. Italy should also have recieved more territory than it did, but the British and French wanted to keep it weak. Serbia got lucky.
Greece officially entered the war in 1917 and provided a large number of the troops on the Salonika front - nine slightly oversized divisions in 1918. Unofficially, Venizelist volunteers, in a semi-civil war with Konstantinos' royalist government at Athens, were already fighting with the Allies in 1916. Greek demands for the war mostly had to do with territorial concessions from the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, and they were largely met in the Treaty of Sevres, which was part of the Versailles omnibus. Following the death of King Alexandros I and the diplomatic volte-face by the Allied Powers in 1920-1, Turkey was able to reclaim most of its losses at Sevres, formalized in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.

Greece officially entered the war in 1917 and provided a large number of the troops on the Salonika front - nine slightly oversized divisions in 1918. Unofficially, Venizelist volunteers, in a semi-civil war with Konstantinos' royalist government at Athens, were already fighting with the Allies in 1916. Greek demands for the war mostly had to do with territorial concessions from the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, and they were largely met in the Treaty of Sevres, which was part of the Versailles omnibus. Following the death of King Alexandros I and the diplomatic volte-face by the Allied Powers in 1920-1, Turkey was able to reclaim most of its losses at Sevres, formalized in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.
Hmm, I was under the impression that the Greeks allowed Allied activities in the area, and provided volunteers, but didn't officially enter the war until the last few months, in an attempt to snatch a little territory. I know they did take a little bit of land off Bulgaria. Not surprised that you know more about Greek activities than me though.