What it says on the tin. When (Between January 28th, 1871 and June 28th, 1914) could the European Great Powers have gone to war with each other? What would cause the war and who would win?
Alternate ways to start World War I
- Thread starter TheEmperorYT
- Start date
I think an interesting question would also be if there wouldn't have been the crisis of the summer of 1914 - I guess there must be several timelines about such a situation. My guess is that there would have been a some kind of of general conflict but maybe not at all like what we had iotl. But yeah, there were several crisis before 1914 that could have spiralled out of control - Fashoda would have been a fascinating starting point. Or would the other great powers just have stayed out?
Do it! Then make it a big coalition mess somehow, instead of just a replay of the Franco-Prussian steamroll! You know we want it. [Well, I want it. and that's enough
]
The Dogger Bank incident where a ship from the Russian Navy thought that British fishing boats were Japanese torpedo boats.
Not without some powerful ally, geographically/strategically the Austrians held the high ground.
Some another crisis probably would had started WW1 if Franz Ferdinand wouldn't had been assassinated/crisis resolved with some way. Chekc for example MaskedPickle's For Want of a Sandwich.
Dogger Bank Incident might escalate as Anglo-Russian War but it hardly can become the Great War since France is not going to fight for Russia against Brits. Their deals were targetted against Germany and France wanted closer realtions with Britain.
And I am not sure if Dogger Bank Incident can even easily escalate as Anglo-Russian War either. Russians probablyw oudl do everything to keep Brits out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis would be a different spin on things, I've always felt.
Do it -
...and don't have it flame out early, just cause French 75's overpower everything or Haber-Bosch process not invented yet. Those are two pretty common responses to say Germany couldn't last long in any earlier WWI.
more probably the contrary, maybe after the Messina Earthquake in 1908 as Conrad proposed
This way this seems more likely. But I can't see this beginning the Great War. Hard to imaginate that anyone would run to help Italy. And Germany hardly is willingful turn against A-H. And Italy too was ally. So Germany probably try get peace between them.
How would that expand beyond Britain, Japan, and Russia?
How did what should have been a border dispute between Austria-Hungary and Serbia turn into an all out global conflict? Interlocking alliances, everyone declaring war on everyone else, opportunism because someone decided that it was a great excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. A dispute between two of the largest land empires in world history could have spiraled just as easily.
It's always easier to attribute something to sheer stupidity, than to explain away actual malice
I don't see the Dogger Bank incident expanding, just for the fact that there was no other way to explain it except for stupidity... and it was only the 1st of the embarrasing moments that the Russian fleet got itself into on the way to Tsushima
Situation in 1914 was different than in 1904. In 1914 Russia felt that it had support Serbia no matter what. And Germany wally of Austria-Hungary. Futhermore Germany realised that in 1914 Russia was becoming too strong so it was either now or never. And eventually things just went out of hands when almost everybody felt that them had abide their own parts on treaties. For France it was perfect chance take Alsace-Lorraine back and Britain had enter when Germany invaded Belgium.
But in1904 wasn't yet such conditions. France was already in alliance with Russia but it was against Germany not Britain. So even if Russia would ask support against Britain France could easily say no. And France anyway wanted closer relations with Britain. So there wasn't any point for enter to the war. And Germany hardly would had felt any idea to go war at this point. So either you would had needed very stupid leadership for France, different treaty between France and Russia or France and Britain having worse relationships. Then this would bring Germany and Austria-Hungary to British side.
What's the endgame of such a dastardly Austro-Hungarian attack? How long will Austria-Hungary go on attacking Italy despite German pleas for peace? Will A-H be beating the Italian fleet and sinking much of it, or will the odds be even? I can't imagine A-H wants to absorb too much Italian territory, maybe just more strategic high ground and passes along the border? Do they compel the Italians to cede Somalia and Eritrea, worthless as they may be, as a mark of defeat, that doesn't add to A-H's Italian population? Or might Abyssinia opportunistically declare itself an Austro-Hungarian ally and try to take Eritrea or part of it for itself?
What are the results of probable humiliating defeat in Italy? Regime change surely. But of the normal democratic sort? Or a social revolution? Could any regional separatist movements triumph in moment of Italian weakness, with Austro-Hungarian support? Perhaps Venetian separatism, or Neapolitan & Sicilian, or a Papal States restoration?
When, if ever, would Italy be in shape to launch a war of revenge on Austria-Hungary? Could it ever initiate one on its own timetable, or simply have to pile-on at a point where Austria-Hungary ends up at war with some other power?
Might Germany be so disgusted with Austro-Italian infighting that it drops its commitments to *both* allies and starts over its diplomatic ties and alliance commitments from scratch, thereby in a way escaping the trap of crappy allies, and the trap of Sarajevo, and giving itself new flexibility?
But likely not WW1 as we know it - the time and context might have been slightly or even much different, the personalities involved would not be identical, the various domestic situations would have been different etc. There would have been a score of potential butterflies. I don't think that history is that predetermined - was it Tolstoy who said that Napoleon was totally irrelevant to the era of Napoleonic wars? I do disagree quite strongly.
Of course later WW1 or whatever it would be called would be very different. There would be even bit different alliances altough major partners would are pretty same. And naturally this would cause lot of butterflies.
And me either don't believe thathistory is predetermined. I even think that it is somehow possible that some such war as WW1 not happen altough it is unlikely. But not impossible.