WW1 never happened

[RedRalph]

Princep narrowly missed Ferdinand, was arrested and executed, Austria Hungary placed sanctions on Serbia but no ultimatum was delivered. what happens over the next century?

 

[aronnax]

Well, many historians have said that even if Ferdinard was not killed or even planned to be assasinated, WW1 would had happen sooner or later as there was much tension in Europe following the competition for resources, colonies, terrotries and so on. Adding on seperate national interests, nationalism and several military alliance, WW1 would had started anyway, it would just need a different spark to start it.

 

[Mirc]

Princep narrowly missed Ferdinand, was arrested and executed, Austria Hungary placed sanctions on Serbia but no ultimatum was delivered. what happens over the next century?

Ferdinand's death was nothing more than a pretext. You really can't say Princep was the cause of the war. Maybe it would have happened a little later, maybe even a little earlier, who knows? In any case, the first WW was bound to happen at that time.

 

[RedRalph]

Yes but it would have been a different war. If it had started 5 years later, theres a pretty good chance there would have been no revolution in the Russian empire. All sides would have had more chance to plan for modern war. chemical and aerial weaponry would have been more developed.

 

[aronnax]

Yes but it would have been a different war. If it had started 5 years later, theres a pretty good chance there would have been no revolution in the Russian empire. All sides would have had more chance to plan for modern war. chemical and aerial weaponry would have been more developed.

Well, no.

WW1 was the grand push to a full revoloution in Russia. But Russia was a pretty rotten place before the war with constant strikes and riots. Another 5 years would not change the defeat by Japan, the poor working conditions, the lack of a duma and so on

Aerial weaponry would not have changed. It was because of WW I did the importance of airplanes and an airforces was truly recongize. Chemical Weaponry before the war was well, pretty developed. Or at least it was develop enough to ban it.
If Franz wasnt shot, the war, equipment-wise will probaly be the same

 

[RedRalph]

WW1 was the grand push to a full revoloution in Russia. But Russia was a pretty rotten place before the war with constant strikes and riots. Another 5 years would not change the defeat by Japan, the poor working conditions, the lack of a duma and so on

how can you possibly know that? there could have been a big split in the bolsheiviks. Nicholas could have headed off the revolution by introducing a genuinely representative duma. If there was no WW1, Germany might have invaded Russia if a revolution did happen. there is no way everything would have worked out the same if there was a 5 year delay.

Aerial weaponry would not have changed. It was because of WW I did the importance of airplanes and an airforces was truly recongize.

Yeah, OK, thats probably a fair point.

Chemical Weaponry before the war was well, pretty developed. Or at least it was develop enough to ban it.

Its a big leap of logic to say that because it was developed more time to develop it in less urgent circumstances would have made no difference.

If Franz wasnt shot, the war, equipment-wise will probaly be the same

but if the war hadnt happened as it did, isnt it possible the importance of Tanks, chemical weapons, air force etc could have been discovered and mastered seperately by one of the main protagonisnts? Lets say, for example, a revolution breaks out in Russia in 1915 in the abscence of WW1, the Reds take poer and the germans invade to head off a similar uprishing in the Fatherland. during the invasion the germans realise the importance of aerial warfare and make steps towards making their tanks genuinely battle winning. with this skill, they kill off the communists and put Nicholas back in power. then, with new technology and tactics, they turn their attention west...

 

[aronnax]

how can you possibly know that? there could have been a big split in the bolsheiviks. Nicholas could have headed off the revolution by introducing a genuinely representative duma. If there was no WW1, Germany might have invaded Russia if a revolution did happen. there is no way everything would have worked out the same if there was a 5 year delay.

Nicholas hated the Duma, he could not even stand them for 6 months and dissolve them. He tried twice to establish a duma and dissolve them not long after. I dont think his mind would change.

Yeah, OK, thats probably a fair point.



Its a big leap of logic to say that because it was developed more time to develop it in less urgent circumstances would have made no difference.
point taken

but if the war hadnt happened as it did, isnt it possible the importance of Tanks, chemical weapons, air force etc could have been discovered and mastered seperately by one of the main protagonisnts? Lets say, for example, a revolution breaks out in Russia in 1915 in the abscence of WW1, the Reds take poer and the germans invade to head off a similar uprishing in the Fatherland. during the invasion the germans realise the importance of aerial warfare and make steps towards making their tanks genuinely battle winning. with this skill, they kill off the communists and put Nicholas back in power. then, with new technology and tactics, they turn their attention west...

Tanks were invented by the British FOR the war. The idea was brought up by Winston (I think) somebody for the trenches in France.

That entire bit of William saving Nicholas is a bit far-fetch. They may be cousins but they still warred with each other.

While the war would had taken place differently. It would be the same story. Germany, Austria-Hungary and Ottomans fight the British, French and Russians. Germany faces two fronts, stalemate comes up in France blah blah blah

 

[Swedishguy]

I think the German military plan was to invade Belgium and France, which they most probably would have done regardless of the start of WWI. I might be wrong though.

 

[aronnax]

Thats correct Guy who happens to be Swedish

They wanted to cut round the back and enter France through the back door

 

[RedRalph]

I think the German military plan was to invade Belgium and France, which they most probably would have done regardless of the start of WWI. I might be wrong though.

Yeah but my point is that anything could have happened in the intervening years. If Austria Hungary wasnt involved the Germans wouldnt have had to help them out, leaving more men for their own fronts. the Franco-Russian alliance would have been broken had a revolution happened in Russia. thats would mean only one front for germany and probably a completely different outcome of a Franco-German war, even if the UK was involved.

either way, if you believe the russian revolution was inevitable it means the Franco-Russian alliance wouldnt exist.

 

[aronnax]

Austria Hungary would be involed. If either country was attacked the other would have come to aid.

The Franco-Russian Alliance was an alliance mainly Agaisnt Germany. Even without AH's help, it would not have broke.

When war starts, their alliances would pull them to their same teams.

The Germans would use the same tactics and plans to invade France (Through Belgium), that would bring UK into the fight and so on

 

[RedRalph]

Austria Hungary would be involed. If either country was attacked the other would have come to aid.

The Franco-Russian Alliance was an alliance mainly Agaisnt Germany. Even without AH's help, it would not have broke.

When war starts, their alliances would pull them to their same teams.
The Germans would use the same tactics and plans to invade France (Through Belgium), that would bring UK into the fight and so on

Even if the "inevitable" Revolution in Russia has happened? I dont think so. Soviet Russia wouldnt have mobilised to assist Serbia, hence all bets are off.

 

[silver 2039]

Ah..but perhaps the Germans would have the sufficient amount of divisions to make the Schilfen Plan a success. The main flaw in the plan was that it was put into practice without the numbers that Schilfhen called for.

 

[Dachs]

Ah..but perhaps the Germans would have the sufficient amount of divisions to make the Schilfen Plan a success. The main flaw in the plan was that it was put into practice without the numbers that Schilfhen called for.

...mainly because von Moltke decided to send more troops to Elsass-Lothringen and Preussen instead of keeping them on the track through Belgium. Besides, what with the destruction of the Meuse bridges, the Germans were having logistical issues with the men they'd actually managed to put into the right wing; with more men, the logistics would have been even more hellish.

Even if Franz Ferdinand hadn't been shot, he still would have been the cause of another war long before five years had passed. Two years later in OTL, Franz Josef died, leaving the throne to him. Even if the Italians, the Serbs, and the Ruskies don't take advantage of the confusion surrounding Franz Ferdinand's coronation and the whole morganatic issue with Sophie (admittedly unlikely but still possible with Dragutin Dimitrijevic in charge of the Black Hand), Franz Ferdinand, being a tripartist, will almost immediately cause a Hungarian revolt with his schemes for making Slavania more or less equal with the rest of the country. That'll kick off interventions left and right anyway, and we have World War I anyway, but with the Central Powers in Austria at a decided disadvantage.

And that's only if the war doesn't start because of some damn fool thing earlier...

 

[innonimatu]

how can you possibly know that? there could have been a big split in the bolsheiviks. Nicholas could have headed off the revolution by introducing a genuinely representative duma. If there was no WW1, Germany might have invaded Russia if a revolution did happen. there is no way everything would have worked out the same if there was a 5 year delay.

Keep in mind that germany had its own revolutionaries and probably could not risk a war against a revolutionary Russia, especially as that would provide the perfect excuse and situation for the French to make a grab for Alsace.

I don't subscribe to the theory that WW1 was inevitable. Military tension? The Cold war had worst situations, just as there had been crisis before WW1, and they did not lead to war. Lets make this thread more interesting and assume there war was averted. What kind of peaceful evolution do you think would be possible in Europe?

 

[TheLastOne36]

None.

Poles revolting, Tensions arising, Ottomans declining, Irish people declaring-war-on-england, Russia collapsing, just as it would've had if the war actually started. Although these wars would've lasted longer since WWI didn't kill 60%(maybe more?) of every nations troops.

 

[Verbose]

Ah..but perhaps the Germans would have the sufficient amount of divisions to make the Schilfen Plan a success. The main flaw in the plan was that it was put into practice without the numbers that Schilfhen called for.

To follow up on what Dachspmg said, the main flaw of the Schlieffen plan was disregarding how far and how fast your average German infantry man can march. That effectively capped their capabilities for outflanking the French west of Paris.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't subscribe to the theory that WW1 was inevitable. Military tension? The Cold war had worst situations, just as there had been crisis before WW1, and they did not lead to war. Lets make this thread more interesting and assume there war was averted. What kind of peaceful evolution do you think would be possible in Europe?

I'll have a stab. I think Ireland wouldnt have got independence when it did, but I think by the 50s or 60s some type of arrangement might have come about where we have limited self-rule. I think with no USSR, no US as clear superpower, the UK and France would still be control most of Africa and india by the thirties. the Ottoman empire would have broken up eventually anyway but not in the way it did, probably more piece by piece, and Yugoslavia certaintly wouldnt have been formed, and ironically its quite possible the Sudetenland would have been peacefully incorporated into the German empire. I think the Czar would eventually have been overthrown but a republic would haqve emerged as the communists got most of their support for the promise to end the war, so they would have remained a fringe party, Poland, Finland and the baltics would have seceded alright, and I think probably Ukraine would have too eventually.

anyone want to have a stab at predicting events outside europe?

 

[Adler17]

Britain and Germany were trying to find an agreement to solve the problems they had. A later war would be totally different.

Adler

 

[aronnax]

Keep in mind that germany had its own revolutionaries and probably could not risk a war against a revolutionary Russia, especially as that would provide the perfect excuse and situation for the French to make a grab for Alsace.

I don't subscribe to the theory that WW1 was inevitable. Military tension? The Cold war had worst situations, just as there had been crisis before WW1, and they did not lead to war. Lets make this thread more interesting and assume there war was averted. What kind of peaceful evolution do you think would be possible in Europe?

There was something that the Cold War Period have that the WWI period didnt. Nukes. Now nukes were the reason that no huge WWIII happen as both sides knew the capabilities and the consequences of using one on the enemy. Both sides are then too afraid to actually fire any of them and are willing not to get into a nuclear fist fight.

Also, the people of WWI thought the war was going to be a short, fast war that. Many of them were extremely happy to go to war such as the French to extract revenge on Germany and recover Allsace-Lorraine. This differs quite alot from the Cold War era where they are still trying to forget the horrors of WWII.

The War cannot be averted.