WW1 never happened

[aronnax]

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

Adler

Would not matter, Germany wants to invade France and planned to go through Belgium. Belgium is under English Protection. You can figure out the rest

 

[RedRalph]

Would not matter, Germany wants to invade France and planned to go through Belgium. Belgium is under English Protection. You can figure out the rest

why is everyone ignoring my posts about the consequences of a revolutionary russia not being in the alliance? that make an enormous change to the situation

 

[aronnax]

Because why would Russia break its alliance with France?

Even if it was a new Revolutionary country, it will just like the french be afraid of the power of Germany.

 

[RedRalph]

Because why would Russia break its alliance with France?

Even if it was a new Revolutionary country, it will just like the french be afraid of the power of Germany.

Germany had no designs on Russia territory before the war, it looked west for new territory. there is no reason to think Germany and russia would have gone to war had Russia not been obliged to by treaties. these treaties with Serbia etc would have been invlaidated had there been an entirely new state in Russia. In all likelyhood Poland would have seceeded and been a buffer state in any case

 

[Dachs]

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.

Uh...German revolutionaries, up until the war years themselves, were almost nonexistent. Social legislation by von Bismarck did a lot to help co-opt a lot of them into the government in the SPD (even if they definitely didn't always side with the Kaiser). Besides, as has been repeatedly said, Russian revolutionaries didn't have a chance while the Russian government wasn't at war. Revolutions don't succeed if the government that has been targeted has three things: a loyal army, a certain amount of cash in hand, and backbone. Russia lacked all three by both the beginning of 1917 and the end, but without a war you'll only be bereft of the third one. In any event, revolutionary disturbances in Russia, since they are ideological in nature, probably wouldn't be used as an excuse for a realpolitik invasion because Wilhelm, as can be shown by his actions at Bjorko earlier in the century, was at least vaguely interested in removing Russia from his eastern flank, and this would be a great opportunity to get Nicky onto his side by helping him crush Marxists and democrats while the Western governments impotently sit there unable to assist the Tsar's government. Bing bang boom you have the reestablishment of the Dreikaiserbund and a stage set for Berlin's victory.

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.

Sure, they didn't lead to wars between the Soviet Union and the USA, but there were a series of proxy wars carried out all over the globe. Instead of something like that, during a theoretically peaceful time we'd be seeing brushfire colonial conflicts and Balkan wars, and probably interventions in collapsing China too. The existence of destabilizing people who actually want war, like Colonel Dimitrijevic, Poincare, and Conrad von Hotzendorf also sort of makes preventing conflict difficult. Certainly, it would be possible to prevent war, but that would require significant amounts of effort and will on the part of the political bodies in charge, and I don't know if we have that at this time.

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 think that the two power blocs would begin to solidify, with the entente establishing something of a more informal arrangement while the Central Powers (or, in the event of the unlikely Marxist revolution, the Dreikaiserbund) centralize into a German-dominated coalition, serving as a vehicle for German influence into northern China and the Balkans. Willy gets his Zollverein Mitteleuropa after all. France is slowly going to learn to live without Elsass-Lothringen (they were in the process before 1914 and frankly they shouldn't have nabbed it under Louis XIV in the first place) and some kind of Franco-German reconciliation may be possible, though it will probably require a victorious war on the part of one of them in order to actually get that to work. Hell, we might even have a German-led European Union much earlier than we actually are, without all of the ******** bloodshed and still retaining a good deal of dominance over Africa.

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.

Poles revolting have been crushed before, with joint action by the Russians and the Germans. Look at the Alvensleben Convention that von Bismarck signed to crush the '63 insurrection. Ottomans aren't really in charge right now (Mehmed V being the ultimate nonentity perfect for a parliamentary democracy or military dictatorship ), but the Young Turks, especially with genocide on their side, had a pretty good chance of retaining control, although British economic infiltration would certainly begin and the French will begin to do the same in Syria. Germany will probably be able to establish some sort of dominance over Mesopotamia with the Berlin-Baghdad railroad. Ireland might get independence, and it might provide the context for a little bit of German intervention in the form of a secret arms supply, but frankly the Irish were going to be crushed by a British parliamentary government had it not been sick of war already. Russia has already been outlined earlier in this post. As you indicated, a sharp decline in the size of the professional militaries of these countries wouldn't have occurred had there been no Great War, so their ability to crush uprisings would have been vastly augmented.

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.

Yeah.

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.

That also goes without saying; hell, without the example of Belgium, the colonies might still be profitable by the fifties and sixties.

the Ottoman empire would have broken up eventually anyway but not in the way it did, probably more piece by piece,

Hmmm. My own personal take on that would be that the Turks would lose those chunks to commercial infiltration by the Great Powers and that they'd keep the same sort of arrangement that they used to have with China, what with spheres of influence. A carve-up along those lines would seem to be a very amenable situation for all sides. Actually, we will have a war for certain here, with the Greeks; they will certainly want Smyrna and Eastern Thrace, although the latter will probably be out of their reach. As part of this general sphere of influence business (Italy will also get much of southwestern Anatolia, as they attempted to seize in 1919-20), they might be awarded Ionia for free but in all likelihood the Turks will try to fight them over it. With Greek naval supremacy, no Anglo-French arms aid to the Young Turks (due to them wanting their spheres of influence), and Venizelos likely still in charge, though, Greek victory seems likely. Short war, little to no Great Power involvement.

and Yugoslavia certaintly wouldnt have been formed,

Well yes, the Serbs certainly wouldn't have the kind of dominance that they retained under the Treaty of Versailles. However, Balkanian politics would seem to remain highly unstable even without a war. If we want to keep the peace, though, and say that Franz Ferdinand not only survives but takes the throne with little incident, then his tripartite plan - reducing Hungarian power by creating a Triple Monarchy of Austria, Hungary, and Slavania - would have gone a long way to reducing Serbian revolutionary power. Dragutin Dimitrijevic might be discredited; the Serbs could very well, after Pasic dies, seek some sort of rapprochement with Vienna the way that the Serbs had before Aleksandar was murdered.

and ironically its quite possible the Sudetenland would have been peacefully incorporated into the German empire.

I ain't seeing this, sorry. Why would Germany want the Sudetenland when Austria is doing such a good job of controlling it? Actually, Bohemia ought to be either much more Germanized, or Austria's Triple Monarchy could peacefully evolve into a multinational federal state that has a fair chance for controlling all of the Balkans with little muss or fuss.

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.

Like I've said before, Germany in particular has a much better option of helping Nicky suppress the rebellions. That's always relatively easy, and with the ring of fortresses in Elsass-Lothringen there's little chance of a French breakthrough or even a war at all. Germany back then is better able to manage insurgencies in far off countries than the United States nowadays, anyway, with a bigger reputation for brutality and a populace who couldn't care less about what happens to communist Slavs, along with a political system that is less able to dissent openly. Eventually a liberal Tsar will probably come around (Alexei, assuming some Bolshie doesn't kill him or he doesn't die in an accident, has potential, I suppose) that ends Russification and attempts to improve the lot of the minor nationalities, creating a hopefully more federal state along the lines of Austria-Hungary-Slavania.

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

Africa will remain under European control, while China could see interventions by Germany, Britain, and Japan, with respective puppet dictatorships (the Fengtien clique by Germany, probably, while the Kuomintang receive Japanese sponsorship) dividing up the country for economic infiltration. Pretty much everywhere else is probably going to stay colonial. With this more Asian focus, Japan may not go for Pacific expansion, especially seeing as Germany won't be losing colonies any time soon. Also, the Western Hemisphere has the possibility for being an interesting third side, with the United States really retaining little to no alliance with either the entente or the Dreikaiserbund. The Americas will probably be an American playground even more than OTL with a good deal more concentration on them, and a large amount of United States focus on these countries may yield more formal annexations, such as in Mexico (the arguments for intervention will be even stronger here).

Would not matter, Germany wants to invade France and planned to go through Belgium. Belgium is under English Protection. You can figure out the rest

The British Cabinet actually had a moral crisis over whether to intervene due to Belgium, with the government nearly collapsing. There is a possibility of Britain not sending the BEF to the Continent in enough time, which would certainly prevent the French from winning the First Battle of the Marne without French's troops to smash through the gap between von Kluck's and von Bulow's Armies. And besides, Adler's indicated that if there were no war, then there would be no invasion, and thus no British intervention. While Anglo-German ties were certainly on the downtick, the Germans would probably be able to mend them if they had any brains (doubtful but still possible, even with Willy in charge) and if a situation of peace persisted. Also, Germany wanting to invade France doesn't matter if France doesn't want Elsass-Lothringen anymore, meaning that a rapprochement is possible...

Germany had no designs on Russia territory before the war, it looked west for new territory. there is no reason to think Germany and russia would have gone to war had Russia not been obliged to by treaties. these treaties with Serbia etc would have been invlaidated had there been an entirely new state in Russia. In all likelyhood Poland would have seceeded and been a buffer state in any case

Why is everyone constantly talking about a Polish secession? As said before, Russo-German relations would probably tend towards more of a blatant colonization and adaptation for colonial purposes rather than war if your revolution happens. If it doesn't, then Russia has a chance for real federalism under a guy like Alexei or someone similarly nice whose mind hasn't been corrupted by the harsh experiences of the Revolution.

There's a NES map floating around; I guess I could try to modify it somewhat to give us a picture of the world in 1960 or so.

 

[kristopherb]

Now most of the thread is about if the had started.Now lets assume WW1 didn't start it was resolved peacefully.
No treaty of versailes -No rise of hitler -No communist revot in russia.
Japan/USA wouldn't be as strong as it is today.
But on the other hand there whould have to have war between the super powers.

 

[Adler17]

Dachspmg had many good points. Germany was not interested in France nor in Russia. Germany wanted however a France no longer willing or able to attack Germany in the best next moment. Thus a war would become more unlikely when France accepted the lost war of 1871. And there were no ideas of invading Russia. The Germans offered peace to Nicky by going back to the status quo ante.
And here the problem is. The Russian population was very czaristical. In Germany there were already social laws and most social democrats were monarchists, too. In Russia the people were mostly also monarchists, at least on the land. In the cities there was a growing mass of labourers who wanted better conditions. Bun in contrast to Germany no social laws nor a parliament, which had at least some power. Nevertheless over short or long the situation might lead to further uprisings, perhaps also revolts, but a revolution? No war was lost and the army loyal and intact! Reforms might have happened but not under Nicky or only after a dramatical change of his mind. Alexei is another discussion.
A tripartite Austria would have stableized the empire and might even have found an arrangement with Serbia. It might also start to become a strong federal state. It might even be able to expand its influence dramatically.
Britain and Germany would have found a way to put the troubles aside. A fleet treaty on the base of 8:5 for Britain was possible. Also the question of the colonies. A problem would be the German influence in the Middle East, where the Ottomans were still there. But if we consider the Young Turks as the same leaders as later there would be a Turkey with a colony like Arabia. That would still be problematically for both Germany and Britain because of the oil. But with the reserves found in Saudi Arabia little later another agreement might have followed. The Germans could use the oil of the Iraq and the British of Saudi Arabia.
The USA would be in their isolation and not play much in the other powers' fields. Some crises excluded here and there.
Japan would want more and so it would have been a danger for British, German, French and US posessions in the Pacific and China. In China Sun Yat Sen would be unable to form his dream of a strong democratic state. Too many warlords, too many fractions. However here again Germany, Japan and Britain and perhaps France would have agreed about the influence zones in China.
A very nice idea for another AoI scenario. But I will at first finish AoI II (Civ III).

Adler

 

[Backwards Logic]

I think the communist revolt would have happened in Russia, with the major difference Germany would not help to facilitate it (they'd have no reason to). Let's face it, conditions in Russia were bad even before the war began; WWI just made those awful conditions worse. Nicholas II wasn't exactly the brightest Tsar, with the railway strike, the Potemkin mutiny, Bloody Sunday, etc, the seeds of revolution were already sowed. It wouldn't have taken much else to start a full blown revolution.
As for the other nations, the sense of nationalism and the feeling of 'we're better than everybody else' was so great that the powers were almost looking for an excuse to beat each other up. Add on top of the fact all of the secret alliances, it was almost a certainty at some point a war would start. The when though, is the big inanswerable question.
Can we assume Hitler doesn't rise to power?? Well, if the resulting war ends in a German victory, then yes, he'll have no one to blame for Germnay's failures and unfair treaties they'd have to sign. The vast majority of his supporters in the 20's and 30's were WWI veterans who felt the same way about the Treaty of Versaille and were angered over the recession that followed. So assuming either a) a war doesn't start, or b) another war starts and ends with a Germany victory, Hitler does not rise to power.
Now, let's go down the road that says Russia revolts, forms a communist government, then revolts breaks out in the Balkans (I don't buy the fact that Austro-Hungary and/or Germany was going to stabilize that powder keg of a region). Serbia would have no backing from Russia (we can assume Lenin would be focusing on fixing his country than worried about external affairs), so do they reach out to the French? It's possibile, since France really wanted the Alsace-Lorraine region they lost to the Germans in 1871 back, and would use the Serbian predicament as an excuse to attack the Germans. If that happened, then the rest of the world would have been dragged into the conflict at some point (it's no secret Germany would have gone through Belgium to hit France).
As far as the warfare goes, it would be identical to the real WWI. In peace time, there would have been very few (if any) developments to change the combat of the time. There had been no wars to show the military high commands of each nation that Napoleonic tactics were obsolete and a new kind of war was needed. The Great War really pushed the development of aircraft, highlighted the use of the machine gun, which obsoleted cavalry, which led to trenches, leading towards the develoment of tanks, etc...So I don't buy anything saying it would have been more 'modern.'

 

[Dachs]

Now most of the thread is about if the had started.Now lets assume WW1 didn't start it was resolved peacefully.
No treaty of versailes -No rise of hitler -No communist revot in russia.
Japan/USA wouldn't be as strong as it is today.
But on the other hand there whould have to have war between the super powers.

It *was* resolved peacefully......the problem was that the peace wasn't enforced, not that it wasn't fair (though it wasn't).

I think the communist revolt would have happened in Russia, with the major difference Germany would not help to facilitate it (they'd have no reason to).

Germany wouldn't have facilitated it either way; the idea was that the Germans would help Nicky or his successor crush the revolt so as to gain a Russian Empire whose power rests on the bayonets of the German Heer and which is thus indebted to Berlin, to forward Kaiser Wilhelm's admittedly grandiose plans for the domination of the universe. It's even the kind of Weltpolitik that doesn't need an unreliable navy - just the kind Germany is suited for.

Let's face it, conditions in Russia were bad even before the war began; WWI just made those awful conditions worse. Nicholas II wasn't exactly the brightest Tsar, with the railway strike, the Potemkin mutiny, Bloody Sunday, etc, the seeds of revolution were already sowed. It wouldn't have taken much else to start a full blown revolution.

Perhaps, but even if the revolution starts, I've been saying that either the Tsar would crush the dissent or, if the Russian troops became unreliable, the Germans would.

Add on top of the fact all of the secret alliances, it was almost a certainty at some point a war would start. The when though, is the big unanswerable question.

That is almost certainly true, and I agree with you that it is far more likely that a world war would start instead of a peaceful situation; however, as has been indicated, it is far more interesting to posit a world in which a Cold War situation exists between the German-led Zollverein Mitteleuropa and the Entente Powers, however unlikely. There is precedent, anyway.

Now, let's go down the road that says Russia revolts, forms a communist government,

Without a war - which was the whole object of this thread - then I still maintain that the bayonets of millions of German and Tsarist soldiers are plenty to crush any dissent, plus detach Russia from the Entente.

then revolts breaks out in the Balkans (I don't buy the fact that Austro-Hungary and/or Germany was going to stabilize that powder keg of a region).

Revolt against whom? Even if Russia goes commie (one assumes that this miracle is due to German idiocy, Kerenskyist idiocy, Tsarist idiocy, and even Entente idiocy; all of those factions were against a Communist Russia and had the ability to intervene, especially without a war), exporting the revolution would be the only way that Balkanian states will revolt. And, as possibly previously noted, the Austro-Hungarian-Slavanian state will have the ability to prevent Slavic dissent, reduce Magyar power, and overall improve the position of the central government to act under Franz Ferdinand, who was no man's fool. Austria plus Bulgaria is more than enough to smash anything inside the Balkans during this part of the century, especially from Serbia and Rumania (real military powers here! ). The threat of Austro-Bulgarian intervention would be enough to cow any of these states, especially without any backing from Russia. Even if Serbia and Rumania do decide to be stupid, then they can be smashed quickly and quietly with the massive strategic and numerical advantage that Austria and Bulgaria hold.

Serbia would have no backing from Russia (we can assume Lenin would be focusing on fixing his country than worried about external affairs),

If Russia's not exporting the revolution, and the world hasn't been put through a gigantic war, why do the Balkans explode in Communist revolt?

so do they reach out to the French? It's possibile, since France really wanted the Alsace-Lorraine region they lost to the Germans in 1871 back, and would use the Serbian predicament as an excuse to attack the Germans. If that happened, then the rest of the world would have been dragged into the conflict at some point (it's no secret Germany would have gone through Belgium to hit France).

Sigh. Yes, France would want to support a Serbia even if that Serbia were theoretically in revolt, but they would only have a casus belli for a German war, and they can get that easier by saying OMGOMGOMGUSTOLEZALSACE GERMANY FTL!!!1111. France just isn't interested in facing Germany without allies, and if Russia has, as you say, gone communist (again, highly unlikely), then France will be alone. They don't want to fight Germany alone. Since the Germans won't have to finish the war in the West quickly to fight the Russians, they won't activate the Schlieffen Plan and just watch as the French throw themselves against the fortresses in Elsass-Lothringen and die in droves. Paris isn't interested in that; they won't be dumb enough to start a war.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It *was* resolved peacefully.

I think he means "what if the assassination crisis were resolved peacefully" (which it wasn't) rather than "what if the war had a peaceful end" (which, of course, it did . . . more or less).

Paris isn't interested in that; they won't be dumb enough to start a war.

Yeah, they were dumb enough in 1870 and look where it got them.

 

[Traitorfish]

how can you possibly know that? there could have been a big split in the bolsheiviks.

The Bolsheviks were the result of a "big split" within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which occurred in 1903. The Bolsheviks represented the radical faction, favouring political change through revolution, while the opposing Mensheviks favoured progressive, democratic change. Although it may have been possible for the Bolsheviks to further splinter, it would have been unlikely.

 

[Backwards Logic]

I never said the Serbians' would revolt to communism They wanted their own independent nation, seperate from Austro-Hungary's rule. Now, if they chose communism as their government, then yes, my points above would be different. Austria-Hungary's glory days were far behind them at this point. Between all of the various Slav groups of people in the 'empire,' all of which untied to form their own government, they would have had their hands full putting down the rebellion. And revolutions are never based on actual possiblity, they instead are based on ideals and principles. It doesn't matter if they think it'll actually work, if they believe in the idea of their own independent nation (which they did) they'll fight to make it happen or die trying. And who knows if it would or would not happen? How many nations thought the American Revolution was actually going to be successful when it started?
And in 1917, the German's did facilitate the Russian revolution; they brought the exiled Lenin via rail back into Russia to rule the country in exchange for peace in the east.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's true. No World War I, probably no Lenin.

 

[Traitorfish]

And in 1917, the German's did facilitate the Russian revolution; they brought the exiled Lenin via rail back into Russia to rule the country in exchange for peace in the east.

You mean the October Revolution. The February Revolution and the deposition of the Czar occurred independently of German interference.

 

[Backwards Logic]

Ah, but the two are directly related. You can't expect Germany to think that Lenin wasn't going depose of the Czar and form his own government.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

They brought him in after the first revolution, and I don't think they would have bothered without it.

 

[Dachs]

I think he means "what if the assassination crisis were resolved peacefully" (which it wasn't) rather than "what if the war had a peaceful end" (which, of course, it did . . . more or less).

That was the whole basis behind what we've already been talking about.

Yeah, they were dumb enough in 1870 and look where it got them.

Exactly, that's the point. France isn't going to jump head-first into a war with Germany with that precedent. They're too scared to. Look at how the French diplomacy post-Sedan goes: always, always with the Russian Dual Alliance and, after Fashoda, the push for a stronger British relationship. All of this is aimed towards completely annihilating Germany from multiple directions so as to recover the lost provinces. If they don't have Russia on their side, and since Britain will probably be unwilling to intervene in a war where Germany doesn't invade Belgium, France will have to sit tight.

I never said the Serbians' would revolt to communism They wanted their own independent nation, seperate from Austro-Hungary's rule.

And when did their independence get taken away? If there's no 1914 crisis - the entire premise behind everything I've said so far - then the Austrians won't have the proper casus belli for attacking Serbia. Franz Ferdinand will ascend to the throne and Slavania will be created out of Bosnia and formerly Hungarian territories, creating a Triple Monarchy. Serbia will probably continue making trouble after that, but with equality within the Empire, the South Slavs under Vienna's control will be much less likely to go over to their side. Eventually, the Serbs will either stop their dissent fomentation or they'll get caught, both of which end in a rapprochement with Vienna as they had before the murder of Aleksandar.

Austria-Hungary's glory days were far behind them at this point.

I'm not sure that the Habsburgs really *had* glory days, especially while in control of the Dual Monarchy.

Between all of the various Slav groups of people in the 'empire,' all of which untied to form their own government, they would have had their hands full putting down the rebellion.

Why would the South Slavs unite behind a Serbian-dominated banner if they can stay in the Austro-Hungarian-Slavanian Triple Monarchy and have peace and prosperity instead, with equal rights thrown in for good measure? Serbia sure wasn't going to give those up to their fellow South Slavs (we already saw that post-1913 with the Macedonian situation and in OTL after 1918 in Montenegro, Croatia, and Bosnia). Besides, by the time 1914 rolled around, a lot of Serbs were pissed off enough with Dragutin Dimitrijevic to start to abandon his policy of fomenting rebellion in the Balkans; this process will speed up if Slavania is created. I don't see Serbia having the ability to effectively foment rebellion after that, nor do I see them particularly wanting to. Even if they do, Bulgaria and Austria are more than a match for them; if the Habsburgs can't take Serbia alone one-on-one with no other considerations (remember, the whole premise behind this entire thread is the lack of general war between Central Powers and the Entente) then the RNG Gods must have intervened. And even then Bulgaria, which is at its greatest territorial extent since the Middle Ages and has one of the best armies in the Balkans, has the geographical and numerical ability to crush Serbia, along with good enough relations with Vienna to allow it to happen.

All in all, I don't think that Serbia has the ability to successfully lead a Balkanian revolt after 1914 if the Entente Powers have nothing to do with it. After 1916 and Franz Ferdinand's succession, they don't have the ability even if the Entente assists them due to the existence of Slavania. It's not just the overwhelming military force that the Entente Powers have, but the ability to appeal to stability and equality with the Germans and Magyars, which is more than Serbia can offer. There is simply no incentive for a general South Slav rising.

And revolutions are never based on actual possiblity, they instead are based on ideals and principles. It doesn't matter if they think it'll actually work, if they believe in the idea of their own independent nation (which they did) they'll fight to make it happen or die trying. And who knows if it would or would not happen? How many nations thought the American Revolution was actually going to be successful when it started?

Really living up to your name here. [/ad hominem] Frankly, I call BS. The difference between the American Revolution and the proposed South Slav revolt is the fact that virtually every major maritime power in Western Europe gave the United States economic and direct military assistance. The War of American Insurrection was fought from the Indian Ocean to the British shores, plus over thousands of miles of wilderness in America. Most of that fighting was not done by American freedom-fighters, it was done by the French navy and army, the Dutch navy, and the Spanish armed forces. Britain also lacked the money with which to resist the coalition, money that Austria-Hungary-Slavania would have, if not from their own coffers then from the Germans, who certainly aren't interested in a South Slav revolt. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. Yes, anyone would concede that there is inherent possibility for a miracle to happen. But circumstances and the massive power that a Great Power and a major regional one can bring to bear militate against even a minor likelihood that a South Slav uprising will succeed.

And in 1917, the German's did facilitate the Russian revolution; they brought the exiled Lenin via rail back into Russia to rule the country in exchange for peace in the east.

I wasn't talking about 1917, I was talking about my "Scenario Based on the Lack of General War in 1914 and the Probable Course of History Assuming that the Two Great Power Blocs Decide to Keep the General Peace for a Very Long Time". Yes, I know about the train to Finland Station; the difference between my "Scenario" and OTL is that the Germans aren't fighting the Russians and thus can afford to take steps to try to coax them over into a Dreikaiserbund redux under the aegis of protecting them from those nasty rebels, which, I maintain, are still unlikely to become a real threat to the monarchy unless Nicky loses his cool or they can co-opt large portions of the Army.

Ah, but the two are directly related. You can't expect Germany to think that Lenin wasn't going depose of the Czar and form his own government.

This post makes no sense. Lenin never had an opportunity to depose of Tsar Nicky - Nicholas was already a private citizen by the time the October Revolution arrived.

Apparently I've been misunderstood repeatedly. My posts should generally be taken in the context of my "Scenario" that I fleshed out over the last few posts unless I explicitly state otherwise. I could repost the entire bloody thing for your convenience, unless people decide to just skim my posts without thinking about a little thing called context.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That was the whole basis behind what we've already been talking about.

Right, but when you said "it" was settled peacefully you seemed to be saying that World War I was. Certainly the assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't, but that is what i got from the OP. In other words, you misinterpreted someone's claim that "it" was not settled peacefully.

Yeah, I'm gonna debate about it. Not because I care about the issue but because I like arguing. But hey, all in fun, yes?

 

[Dachs]

Right, but when you said "it" was settled peacefully you seemed to be saying that World War I was. Certainly the assassination of Franz Ferdinand wasn't, but that is what i got from the OP. In other words, you misinterpreted someone's claim that "it" was not settled peacefully.

Yeah, I'm gonna debate about it. Not because I care about the issue but because I like arguing. But hey, all in fun, yes?

Mmm, quite fun.

Or, given the smiley after my original response, I could be just joking.

 

[Demetrias]

I never said the Serbians' would revolt to communism They wanted their own independent nation, seperate from Austro-Hungary's rule. Now, if they chose communism as their government, then yes, my points above would be different. Austria-Hungary's glory days were far behind them at this point. Between all of the various Slav groups of people in the 'empire,' all of which untied to form their own government, they would have had their hands full putting down the rebellion. And revolutions are never based on actual possiblity, they instead are based on ideals and principles. It doesn't matter if they think it'll actually work, if they believe in the idea of their own independent nation (which they did) they'll fight to make it happen or die trying. And who knows if it would or would not happen? How many nations thought the American Revolution was actually going to be successful when it started?
And in 1917, the German's did facilitate the Russian revolution; they brought the exiled Lenin via rail back into Russia to rule the country in exchange for peace in the east.

First of Franz Ferdinand was in Serbia as in the independent country of Serbia. They had their own country they just didn't like that half their ancestorial lands lay in Austrian hands. The Serbs even with Russian backing basically begged for peace with the Austrians before OTL WWI. The Austrians though were the ones looking for an excuse and they got it from Germany. If Willy hadn't given Austria a blank check then Serbia would have just payed a fine and you would have gotten something akin to the cold war. If their is no assassination then anything is possible. Russia at one time had an alliance with Germany. France didn't declare war on Germany even after Russia and Germany were already at war. Their is every possibility that if Germany doesn't declare war on France and invade Belgium then all that would have happened would be Germany would get all of Poland from Russia and Russia would leave the entente for being hung out to dry by the other powers. Also Germany was working on the tank during the war to so it is possible if the war is delayed 5 years that the Germans will deploy tanks onto the battle field in 1920 and actually be able to take Paris because classical defenses would be over come by the tanks. And even if everyone has tanks except Russians because their industry wasn't well developed then your probably still looking at a German victory because lets be plain the Germans had better war strategies then the entente and used their equipment and man power better. If Germany wins this War then you will see a German and maybe British Africa and a German run Europe. They wont own everything but everybody will pretty much do as they say. Think Napoleon before the Russian invasion.