How do you think the world would have evolved if there had not been the World Wars?

[Dachs]

Actually, Germany, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary had successfully averted several war scares in the decade leading up to WWI. There's no particular reason they could not have done so again.

except for the prevailing belief in germany and austria-hungary, more so the latter, that by 1914 the international system, such as it was, was rigged against them (it was) and therefore had to be circumvented if either country was to avoid a slow death as a great power (it did)

austria-hungary had arrived at this conclusion precisely because of the avoidance of war scares in 1912 and 1913, when the germans deliberately failed to back austria up against serbia in order to maintain 'continental peace' and their detente with the french and russians; as a result, austria's situation had only gotten worse, with serbia even larger and more powerful and bulgaria, the prospective ally, weaker and humiliated after the second balkan war

this had soured the habsburgs on the entire notion of the german alliance and meant that at the next crisis they would threaten war with serbia regardless of german support (another reason why the 'blank check' was garbage)

the only way that this could seriously be averted in the immediate prewar era is to change russian diplomats' perception of events (horribly skewed); they, like the french and british, did not consider austria-hungary to be a great power worthy of respect or even a sovereign state whose territorial integrity must be maintained for the sake of peace in europe, and even created partition agreements before the war (including ones in which russia, of course, was permitted to annex galicia)

treat austria-hungary as something similar to the ottoman empire of the nineteenth century - a power that ought to be maintained not just for its own sake but for the sake of peace and the interests of the rest of europe - and perhaps that sort of thing might change; like pch said, why not have another diplomatic congress, impromptu or otherwise, to settle all of this?

of course, there was a realistic reason for this: the russians and french and british had no interest in preserving austria, and the austrians had no faith in the ability of such a congress to uphold their due rights as a sovereign power (and they were right) - everybody had seen what happened when congresses were called, namely, that the side with the most votes won, and the russians, french, and british could outvote austria and germany three to two (if italy were included, four to two), regardless of the 'rightness' of austria's position or the serious danger to the entente powers' national interests if austria ceased to exist

 

[Dachs]

Huh, missed that part of the story.

So this is basically an Austro-Hungarian civil war scenario in 1917, or a Hungarian war for independence based on your perspective?

civil war regardless of your perspective (frigging hungarians)

the magyars, as was their wont, were planning to demand outrageous things in the 1917 ausgleich such as virtual independence (separate foreign ministries for austria and hungary) and the dissolution of the common army, both of which were prima facie ridiculous and would have begun the demise of the austro-hungarian state

honestly even if you're a magyar you can't really explain that by anything but the basest perfidy, since they already damn well held the reins in austria-hungary anyway

i recently wrote an alternate history timeline around the first world war - it's linked in my sig - in which the magyars attempt to force the issue

 

[Lord Baal]

except for the prevailing belief in germany and austria-hungary, more so the latter, that by 1914 the international system, such as it was, was rigged against them (it was) and therefore had to be circumvented if either country was to avoid a slow death as a great power (it did)

austria-hungary had arrived at this conclusion precisely because of the avoidance of war scares in 1912 and 1913, when the germans deliberately failed to back austria up against serbia in order to maintain 'continental peace' and their detente with the french and russians; as a result, austria's situation had only gotten worse, with serbia even larger and more powerful and bulgaria, the prospective ally, weaker and humiliated after the second balkan war

this had soured the habsburgs on the entire notion of the german alliance and meant that at the next crisis they would threaten war with serbia regardless of german support (another reason why the 'blank check' was garbage)

the only way that this could seriously be averted in the immediate prewar era is to change russian diplomats' perception of events (horribly skewed); they, like the french and british, did not consider austria-hungary to be a great power worthy of respect or even a sovereign state whose territorial integrity must be maintained for the sake of peace in europe, and even created partition agreements before the war (including ones in which russia, of course, was permitted to annex galicia)

treat austria-hungary as something similar to the ottoman empire of the nineteenth century - a power that ought to be maintained not just for its own sake but for the sake of peace and the interests of the rest of europe - and perhaps that sort of thing might change; like pch said, why not have another diplomatic congress, impromptu or otherwise, to settle all of this?

of course, there was a realistic reason for this: the russians and french and british had no interest in preserving austria, and the austrians had no faith in the ability of such a congress to uphold their due rights as a sovereign power (and they were right) - everybody had seen what happened when congresses were called, namely, that the side with the most votes won, and the russians, french, and british could outvote austria and germany three to two (if italy were included, four to two), regardless of the 'rightness' of austria's position or the serious danger to the entente powers' national interests if austria ceased to exist

I agree absolutely completely. That's why I mentioned Franz Ferdinand not being assassinated as a pre-requisite for avoiding war. I don't think there was any doubt that war would break out after that, it was merely a question of how wide and serious the conflict would be. A war between Austria-Hungary and Russia was likely at some point in the near-future anyway, but if Britain did enough damage to itself in 1914 and beyond, Austria-Hungary may well have had a chance.

 

[r16]

but wasn't the entire rationale for the 1914 war that Russians would be stronger as time went by , that they would finally equip all their units with this Putilov or whatever fast firing cannon it was ?

 

[Dachs]

but wasn't the entire rationale for the 1914 war that Russians would be stronger as time went by , that they would finally equip all their units with this Putilov or whatever fast firing cannon it was ?

that was a support moltke used in his arguments in late july, but they were effectively unnecessary and incidental to the point

germany was not contemplating a preventive war against russia regardless of the success or failure of sukhomlinov's great program; they were contemplating running the risk of war to keep from losing their only european ally

 

[r16]

my point would rather be , and ı readily accept it is sort of unsupported , the Germans were not the only people (read European power ) who examined Russian re-armament with -kind of - hostile intent . Which would then -suspiciously ı hasten to add- lead to pushing Vienna off the chasm , if that is the word .

 

[Lord Baal]

that was a support moltke used in his arguments in late july, but they were effectively unnecessary and incidental to the point

germany was not contemplating a preventive war against russia regardless of the success or failure of sukhomlinov's great program; they were contemplating running the risk of war to keep from losing their only european ally

While a preventative war gainst Russia - or, more specifically, against Russia and France - had been discussed, these were only complementary arguments for the war. Germany needed to back up Austria-Hungary. If Germany had lost Austria-Hungary as an ally, she'd have been at the complete mercy of the Triple Entente. That's the real reason for the preventative war against France and Russia; to prevent the death of Austria-Hungary and the complete marginilisation of Germany, not because of the Russian and French military reforms.

my point would rather be , and ı readily accept it is sort of unsupported , the Germans were not the only people (read European power ) who examined Russian re-armament with -kind of - hostile intent . Which would then -suspiciously ı hasten to add- lead to pushing Vienna off the chasm , if that is the word .

Oh, the Germans were by no means the only people worried about Russian re-armament. The Turks and Austro-Hungarians certainly were. So were Iran, China, Japan and even Britain. Russia was a potential threat to all of them. But, due to Russia's newfound friendship with France and the railway construction along its borders, Germany was in a particularly disadvantageous position compared to its Eastern neighbour.

 

[Leifmk]

There's the obvious question of nuclear weaponry of course, but there's two problems there. First, they likely wouldn't have been created if there wasn't a huge war afoot. Second, their threat doesn't become less real if we're at peace. The true nuclear holocaust idea came about when the world was nominally at peace. I don't see why it would be any different had say, WWII not occurred, but the bombs had still been invented.

Yes, nuclear weapons would absolutely have been created even without a huge ongoing war. Not in 1945, not without the equivalent of the Manhattan Project, but by the 1950s for sure. And probably by multiple nations within a reasonably short time of each other.

Then, if a serious war broke out involving one or more nuclear-armed nation, they'd be going into it with an arsenal of probably a great deal more than two nukes, and with no previous real-life example of how horrible the effects of such weapons can be.

 

[r16]

when people are so into spending their nights , in addition to their days , thinking about what will happen when "it" begins can at times loose it .

regarding the argument ı can't say there is much difference . Germans will lose Austria-Hungary in any case , now that Russians are more likely to stay with Entente Cordiale no matter what and there is going to be a war , regardless people want one or not . Russia is against the German speakers . At least until the European front is decided for good . Fighting now when there is a German superioty on the ground is rather better than waiting for the expansion of the Allied arms .

crosspost thing : regarding nukes ı would rather say it was not that their horrible effects that keep the Cold War warm , conventional capabilities were uncertain for both sides .

 

[aelf]

June 28, 1434

Chinese Fleet makes landfall in Genoa.

Althis? That is history!

 

[SnowlyWhite]

more civil? less speed?

that assuming no world wars period; if just moving dates... bah, no clue, depends on dates and the scenarios are infinite. But as long as Germany was isolated, don't see how you could avoid the war(AH was just useless extra weight and Italy... well, they switched anyway); and, even changing the dates, Germany losses in isolation.

September 12, 1683

Kara Mustafa Pasha marched into Vienna.

excellent food; crap music... I'm torn(ok, tbh, secretly rooting for the food... I'm human afterall... though the sound, ugh...)

 

[Antilogic]

civil war regardless of your perspective (frigging hungarians)

the magyars, as was their wont, were planning to demand outrageous things in the 1917 ausgleich such as virtual independence (separate foreign ministries for austria and hungary) and the dissolution of the common army, both of which were prima facie ridiculous and would have begun the demise of the austro-hungarian state

honestly even if you're a magyar you can't really explain that by anything but the basest perfidy, since they already damn well held the reins in austria-hungary anyway

i recently wrote an alternate history timeline around the first world war - it's linked in my sig - in which the magyars attempt to force the issue

I think I'm technically an eighth, but I always call myself an 'American mutt'.

As far as the influence of perspective would be more about the name of the war, depending on who won or who was writing the history books. It was, of course, a civil war.

I'll have to read your alt-hist... after I get started on Strachan's book so I don't get too confused. I just started last night, and read the line about Franz Ferdinand's abandonment of the liberal policies.

when people are so into spending their nights , in addition to their days , thinking about what will happen when "it" begins can at times loose it .

regarding the argument ı can't say there is much difference . Germans will lose Austria-Hungary in any case , now that Russians are more likely to stay with Entente Cordiale no matter what and there is going to be a war , regardless people want one or not . Russia is against the German speakers . At least until the European front is decided for good . Fighting now when there is a German superioty on the ground is rather better than waiting for the expansion of the Allied arms .

crosspost thing : regarding nukes ı would rather say it was not that their horrible effects that keep the Cold War warm , conventional capabilities were uncertain for both sides .

I don't think the Entente was that stable. Britain and Russia were playing their great game of espionage and diplomacy over Asia and India. Hell, British PM Asquith apparently thought the Serbs needed to be put in their place. While France might have come to a pragmatic understanding with Russia, there was no guarantee that Britain would get involved. Furthermore, the Entente wasn't a full, offensive alliance, so there was no reason to assume the Western powers would back Russia's mobilization in support of Serbia.

P.S.: What is that goofy 'i' character you use? Is it a Cyrillic character?

 

[Marla_Singer]

The assassination of an archduke by some guy is a futile enough pretext triggering ww1 to know that this war would have happened sooner or later anyway.

This was a time when European powers still considered war as a diplomatic tool like another. It's only after ww1 that war changed in nature. No one could know beforehands (or at least not the majority).

 

[Tee Kay]

excellent food; crap music... I'm torn(ok, tbh, secretly rooting for the food... I'm human afterall... though the sound, ugh...)

Not a fan of the Mehter?


Link to video.

 

[Lord Baal]

The assassination of an archduke by some guy is a futile enough pretext triggering ww1 to know that this war would have happened sooner or later anyway.

This was a time when European powers still considered war as a diplomatic tool like another. It's only after ww1 that war changed in nature. No one could know beforehands (or at least not the majority).

I think it was more a case of a terrorist group affiliated with the Serbian military and intelligence services assassinating the heir to the throne than "some guy." It'd be more akin to India attacking Pakistan over a terrorist attack - which very nearly happened over the Mumbai thing - than France declaring war on the North German Federation because of a telegram.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If wars with poor reasons are inevitable, all wars are inevitable.

 

[Masada]

inevitable triumph of communism

 

[Lord Baal]

inevitable triumph of communism

It's already happened.

 

[Masada]

socialism =/ communism mang

 

[citedon]

If WW1 or WW2 had never happened I think that a major war of some type would have eventually started and the world by the mid 20th century would be very similar to what it was by the end of WW2. The growing nationalist movements within the old empires created several hot points. If an incident in the Balkans didn’t start a war perhaps a revolution against the Ottomans might. The desire to control the oil there would surely get the major European powers involved. We also had growing resentment of western control in the far east. Add to that Japan’s need to obtain raw materials to feed its growing industrial economy. Any war is the far east would naturally lead European and American involvement.