Would a World War have started without Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ?

McArmalite · 30-05-2009 12:24PM #1

Often wondered the above. Obviously the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a young Serbian nationalist ( with the covert training of the Serbian military ) was the catalyst that set in train Austria/Hungary declaring war on Serbia, Serbia's allies Russia declaring war on Austria/Hungary, Germany declaring war on Russia and then France and then britain declaring war on Austria/Hungary and Germany.

Was it just the wrong thing to happen at the wrong time and if his death had not happened then the various alliances and commitments would not have had to come into effect ? Or was it inevitable that the Imperial greed and rivalry of Europe would have brought about a massive conflict in the early part of the century regardless and just needed an incident like Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassination to set the wheels of war in motion ?

Joe1919 · 30-05-2009 02:26PM

For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
for want of a shoe the horse was lost,
for want of a horse the knight was lost,
for want of a knight the battle was lost.
So it was a kingdom was lost - all for want of a nail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail

i.e. Can a small detail (the loss of a nail) have huge conquences?

On the other hand.....

I remember reading Robert Cowleys ' What If ' and someone gave the opinion that the tensions had built up so much in Europe before WW1 that some type of conflict was inevitable.

brianthebard · 30-05-2009 02:32PM

Personally think it had feck all to do with the start of the war, the huge increase in nationalism and the military build up of the previous 20 years ensured that war would happen at some stage. If anything the connection of the assassination of one man with the carnage and bloodshed of WWI shows how absurd the whole situation was imo.

Denerick · 30-05-2009 07:55PM

As long as people felt that war was a good thing it was inevitable. At this stage people recognise war as a bad thing, but sometimes a necessary evil.

Our own Padraig Pearse for example practically masturbated over the thought of WWI, feeling that the wine of the battlefield would renew Europe.

Annnnnnnnyway....

Red Hand · 30-05-2009 08:00PM

A war had to happen. There were many incidents in the preceding years that could have set off the tinderbox, but didn't, such as the Morrocco dispute.

brianthebard · 30-05-2009 08:01PM

Denerick wrote: »

As long as people felt that war was a good thing it was inevitable. At this stage people recognise war as a bad thing, but sometimes a necessary evil.

Our own Padraig Pearse for example practically masturbated over the thought of WWI, feeling that the wine of the battlefield would renew Europe.

Annnnnnnnyway....

Lol masturbated is a bit far, but I see what you mean. In the context of the time though his position wasn't exactly extreme. I'm still not entirely sure how people got to the stage of believing in blood sacrifice/bloodshed as cleansing though?

Capt'n Midnight · 30-05-2009 08:11PM

There were many minor wars in Europe before then. Perhaps if there had been a few more of these then a major war may have been adverted. Imagine if there had been a war in Africa over the Fashoda incident. And people realised how expensive the whole thing was.

Would the situation been different had someone like Bismark been in more control in more places ?

Look at the history of the Austria Empire joining Hungry to see how much had changed, they could not afford to go indefintely.

Denerick · 30-05-2009 08:13PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Lol masturbated is a bit far, but I see what you mean. In the context of the time though his position wasn't exactly extreme. I'm still not entirely sure how people got to the stage of believing in blood sacrifice/bloodshed as cleansing though?

Pearse was very clearly an extremist (Even by the standards of the time)... Read some of his writings. They gave me the willies.

P.S. O Hegarty summed up the position of war amongst the mainstream of the time in his 'Victory of Sinn Fein' published in 1924. Basically war was good, though unpleasant. People who loved the thought of war were evil, hysterical, strange. People who recoiled at the thought of it were weak and pathetic.

War was effectively a tool for use in foreign policy. A bit like an extreme measure, like the way the British government might think about introducing internment in the north. Unpleasant but necessary. It simply didn't have the mainstream moral horror it possesses today (Mainly the after effect of WWII and the development of the Nuke)

brianthebard · 30-05-2009 08:13PM

Good point Cap'n. I find it interesting however that after the lengthy and expensive Boer war Britain didn't seem to think twice about getting involved in a European war.
Broadly agree Denerick.

Happy Monday · 31-05-2009 12:01PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Good point Cap'n. I find it interesting however that after the lengthy and expensive Boer war Britain didn't seem to think twice about getting involved in a European war.
Broadly agree Denerick.

Their naval and imperial interests were threatened by Germany.
There was a clamour in the UK to give the Boshe a bloody nose and show them who ruled the waves.
It was never believed that this war would last anything more than 6 months at the outside.

Plus the Boer War had finished over 10 years before.

brianthebard · 31-05-2009 04:50PM

Yes it had happened ten years ago, so should still have been in the minds of politicians in Britain. They thought they would defeat the Boers in a matter of weeks, it took years and was hugely expensive. They should have learned from that cost but they didn't.

citizen_p · 31-05-2009 07:02PM

war was inevitable but..... other nations may be involved abd for diffrent reasons.

just like war today theres always somone who'll get offend, it just depends how powerful they are. except nowadays large countrys (superpowers) are afraid to go to war with countrys of equal or reasonable size. i suppose it was like that in ww1 as well, austro hungry empire (huge at the time) vs serbia (small). countrys are especially afraid with a nuclear threat.... north korea, they have a nuke = no invading....

but nowadays if 1 soldier dies its in the news, back then it was alot more. The digital age has changed war dramatically.

begining to rant.....

McArmalite · 31-05-2009 07:10PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes it had happened ten years ago, so should still have been in the minds of politicians in Britain. They thought they would defeat the Boers in a matter of weeks, it took years and was hugely expensive. They should have learned from that cost but they didn't.

Good point there Brian. They got a very bloody nose from the Boers. You would have thought going up against the Germans, Austrian/Hungarians etc would have put them off. Sure enough it was in alliance with France, Russia etc but I suppose the thoughts of having a hand in the spoils afterwards was too great to resist.

Happy Monday · 31-05-2009 07:39PM

McArmalite wrote: »

Good point there Brian. They got a very bloody nose from the Boers. You would have thought going up against the Germans, Austrian/Hungarians etc would have put them off. Sure enough it was in alliance with France, Russia etc but I suppose the thoughts of having a hand in the spoils afterwards was too great to resist.

And more Irishmen fought for the British in both the Boer Wars and in WW1 and WW2 for that matter than ever fought for the IRA.

300,000 in WW1 vs 3,000 during the Tan War 1919-21.

brianthebard · 31-05-2009 07:53PM

Stay on topic. Mod.

Fratton Fred · 01-06-2009 04:45PM

Happy Monday wrote: »

Their naval and imperial interests were threatened by Germany.
There was a clamour in the UK to give the Boshe a bloody nose and show them who ruled the waves.
It was never believed that this war would last anything more than 6 months at the outside.
Plus the Boer War had finished over 10 years before.

The Boer war had not only ended ten years previous, but it had also been fought thousands of miles away, so the British government didn't have to look at dead bodies. people tend to turn a blind eye to bloodshed when they can't see it.

McArmalite wrote: »

Good point there Brian. They got a very bloody nose from the Boers. You would have thought going up against the Germans, Austrian/Hungarians etc would have put them off. Sure enough it was in alliance with France, Russia etc but I suppose the thoughts of having a hand in the spoils afterwards was too great to resist.

for Britian it had nothing to do with the "Spoils" as you call it, it was more to do with protecting the mother land. Germany was seeen as an up and coming aggressor, not only did they have a military that was growing at an alarming rate, it was also at the forefront of technology.

Germany (Or Prussia at least) has already kicked France's butt in a war 30 years previous and had grown exponentially since then. Britian knew it could hold it's own against France, it had fought them many times, it also believed that it could hold it's own against the Germans, but Britian's biggest fear was Germany invading france and getting hold of their navy. The combined fleet would not only threaten every colony Britain had, but also Britain itself. Why else do you think Britian went to great lengths to scuttle so many of Germany's ships after the war (Many of which you can still see in Scapa Flow.
as for the Archduke, his death was an excuse, not a reason.

bigeasyeah · 01-06-2009 06:55PM

I think it would have happened anyway.

Hookey · 02-06-2009 11:13AM

Actually the British weren't expecting to go to war at all, and if Germany hadn't gone in to Belgium but had instead attacked France directly, they would probably have weaselled out of their obligations under the Entente (which was a loosely worded "moral obligation" to aid France). As far as the British were concerned, they'd won the Dreadnought Race already and didn't particularly have any strategic objectives in mainland Europe. All through the July and August before the war started, no-one (least of all the Germans) expected Britain to do anything other than protest via diplomacy. It would be a very different world if they hadn't have fought (and not a better one probably).

As for whether a war was inevitable; on some level, yes, all of the "Great Powers" had upped military spending massively in the previous decade.

anonymous_joe · 02-06-2009 11:26AM

In a context in which war is less frightening, of course it was inevitable.

WW1 is one of the greatest examples of industrial warfare, huge volumes of manpower and matérial are pumped towards the fronts, but there's no real advantage to one side.

Moreover, military technology had not yet reached the stage where home fronts were in danger. Thus it's just young men at risk.

Denerick · 02-06-2009 02:14PM

WWI was the epitome of industrial warfare, as another user said. It was a chance for each nations industry to supply a nation of young men fighting on the front. The problem was that all of them were roughly technically and economically on a par. The US changed everything, bringing their industrial might to the table and cracking out infinitely more tanks and planes than the Germans. The Germans tried to keep up, because hither to this the Allied were roughly equal with the central powers in industrial capacity. The great campaigns which saw 000s of young men die were indicative of the moron-ity (Is that a word?) of the ruling class, seeing each major attack as vitally important... In taking a few acres of destroyed trenchland.

People tend to forget, that on the western front at least, the Germans were not beaten. They probably could have kept going for years, just fighting off the allied offensives. Reason thankfully prevailed in the end.

Morlar · 02-06-2009 03:06PM

I think that the system of alliances was the major underlying threat to peace. So long as that (system of alliances) was the foreign policy of the day (among the major powers and their allies) conflict was inevitable at some point. The whole thing was a house of cards waiting to collapse. The event of the assasination & ultimatum that followed could have been replaced by other triggers.

Hookey · 02-06-2009 03:24PM

Denerick wrote: »

WWI was the epitome of industrial warfare, as another user said. It was a chance for each nations industry to supply a nation of young men fighting on the front. The problem was that all of them were roughly technically and economically on a par. The US changed everything, bringing their industrial might to the table and cracking out infinitely more tanks and planes than the Germans. The Germans tried to keep up, because hither to this the Allied were roughly equal with the central powers in industrial capacity. The great campaigns which saw 000s of young men die were indicative of the moron-ity (Is that a word?) of the ruling class, seeing each major attack as vitally important... In taking a few acres of destroyed trenchland.

People tend to forget, that on the western front at least, the Germans were not beaten. They probably could have kept going for years, just fighting off the allied offensives. Reason thankfully prevailed in the end.

The US influence is much less significant in WWI than it was in WWII. Once they entered, Congress signed off on a massive armament programme, but a lot of the matériel wasn't delivered effectively (except ships), to the extent that the US Army had supply problems in France right up until the end of the war. And don't forget the immediate US effect had been counterbalanced by the Russian armistice.

While you're correct that the Germans weren't beaten on the battlefield, after the failure of the Ludendorf Offensive, they didn't really have any more shots in their locker and the German people were suffering quite badly (3/4 million dead of starvation, whereas Britain didn't even introduce rationing until 1918), if the Germans hadn't negotiated a general collapse was entirely possible (after all the French in particular had come really close and the Russians did collapse). Strangely, if Germany had collapsed, a principle cause for the rise of Nazism (the so-called "stab in the back") may never have happened.

loveissucide · 02-06-2009 03:30PM

Read Niall Ferguson's The Age Of Hatred.He makes some very interesting points about how the war was a result of nationalist drive, the desire to create empires by nations such as Serbia and Italy, and how nationalism was the driving force behind the war.Basically a pan-Slavic state was the aim of Serbia, and this would never have happened without the collapse of order in the Balkans which triggered the First World War.

bigeasyeah · 02-06-2009 03:45PM

loveissucide wrote: »

Read Niall Ferguson's The Age Of Hatred.He makes some very interesting points about how the war was a result of nationalist drive, the desire to create empires by nations such as Serbia and Italy, and how nationalism was the driving force behind the war.Basically a pan-Slavic state was the aim of Serbia, and this would never have happened without the collapse of order in the Balkans which triggered the First World War.

I tend to disagree Im afraid.
Colonial disputes,military and naval build-up,economic fluctuations,the many tensions between European states and the rise of jingoistic nationalism.
War could arise from any situation no matter how seemingly trivial.

Morlar · 02-06-2009 03:47PM

Hookey wrote: »

While you're correct that the Germans weren't beaten on the battlefield, after the failure of the Ludendorf Offensive, they didn't really have any more shots in their locker and the German people were suffering quite badly (3/4 million dead of starvation, whereas Britain didn't even introduce rationing until 1918),

I dont have the figures to hand but I believe over 300,000 of those Germans died of starvation after the unconditional surrender.

This was in part due to the continuation of the naval blockade for several months after the end of the war (to give the british an advantage in post conflict re-building of trade links and so on).

From what I recall during the versailles 'negotiations' the german delegate mentioned the above figure when he pointedly refused to stand (infuriating the french who the Germans viewed as extremely arrogant considering their performance on the battlefields).

McArmalite · 02-06-2009 06:12PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Stay on topic. Mod.

Well done mod. It's the standard tatic to drag any thread that is even mildly critical of britain into the IRA this, the IRA that, the IRA the other, when the IRA have little or most of the time nothing to do with whatsoever with the subject under discussion.

McArmalite · 02-06-2009 06:22PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Boer war had not only ended ten years previous, but it had also been fought thousands of miles away, so the British government didn't have to look at dead bodies. people tend to turn a blind eye to bloodshed when they can't see it.

Tripe. The british govt. give a damn about dead bodies and bloodshed, absoulute tripe.

for Britian it had nothing to do with the "Spoils" as you call it, it was more to do with protecting the mother land.

If britian had nothing to do with the spoils of WW1, why was the british empire bigger at the end of WW1 than before it ??

Why else do you think Britian went to great lengths to scuttle so many of Germany's ships after the war (Many of which you can still see in Scapa Flow. as for the Archduke, his death was an excuse, not a reason.

Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the German officer in command at Scapa Flow, after waiting for the bulk of the British fleet to leave on exercises, gave the order to scuttle the ships to prevent their falling into British hands on 21 June 1919. Fifty-one ships sank without loss of life. However, nine German sailors died when British forces opened fire as they attempted to scuttle their ship, reputedly the last casualties of the First World War.

Denerick · 02-06-2009 08:50PM

Hookey wrote: »

The US influence is much less significant in WWI than it was in WWII. Once they entered, Congress signed off on a massive armament programme, but a lot of the matériel wasn't delivered effectively (except ships), to the extent that the US Army had supply problems in France right up until the end of the war. And don't forget the immediate US effect had been counterbalanced by the Russian armistice.

While you're correct that the Germans weren't beaten on the battlefield, after the failure of the Ludendorf Offensive, they didn't really have any more shots in their locker and the German people were suffering quite badly (3/4 million dead of starvation, whereas Britain didn't even introduce rationing until 1918), if the Germans hadn't negotiated a general collapse was entirely possible (after all the French in particular had come really close and the Russians did collapse). Strangely, if Germany had collapsed, a principle cause for the rise of Nazism (the so-called "stab in the back") may never have happened.

I don't think you got my post. I was saying the Germans could have dragged it out for years in a defensive war. Both sides were equal in production, the US changed that when it entered.

(P.S. I chuckled when I saw who thanked your post! (Mr. Anti-Paisley himself)

Fratton Fred · 03-06-2009 09:25AM

McArmalite wrote: »

Well done mod. It's the standard tatic to drag any thread that is even mildly critical of britain into the IRA this, the IRA that, the IRA the other, when the IRA have little or most of the time nothing to do with whatsoever with the subject under discussion.

McArmalite wrote: »

Tripe. The british govt. give a damn about dead bodies and bloodshed, absoulute tripe.

:rolleyes:

McArmalite wrote: »

If britian had nothing to do with the spoils of WW1, why was the british empire bigger at the end of WW1 than before it ??

How was the "Empire" bigger? Britain actually got very little out of WWI compared to France, Denmark and Poland.

The colonies you are probably refering to are the ones taken off Germany and put under the control of the League of nations. these colonies were then administered by France, Belgium and Britain. Although these were "Defacto" colonies, they are not why any of the Allies went to war in the first place.

If you want to look for reason's, look at places like Alsace - Lorraine, France desperately wanted that back and their demands form the treaty of Versaille were not only for war reperations, but also revenge for the war that ended in 1871'

McArmalite wrote: »

Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the German officer in command at Scapa Flow, after waiting for the bulk of the British fleet to leave on exercises, gave the order to scuttle the ships to prevent their falling into British hands on 21 June 1919. Fifty-one ships sank without loss of life. However, nine German sailors died when British forces opened fire as they attempted to scuttle their ship, reputedly the last casualties of the First World War.

OK, the Germans's scuttled them. That was probably their fate anyway but the Germans beat them to it.

Reducing the size of the German fleet was one of Britains main aims from the treaty.

Now then Mac me old friend, this is a good subject, please don't ruin it with your anti British ****e, blame for WWI rests firmly on the shoulders of many nations, many moreso than Britain.

citizen_p · 03-06-2009 11:35AM

Morlar wrote: »

I dont have the figures to hand but I believe over 300,000 of those Germans died of starvation after the unconditional surrender.

This was in part due to the continuation of the naval blockade for several months after the end of the war (to give the british an advantage in post conflict re-building of trade links and so on).

From what I recall during the versailles 'negotiations' the german delegate mentioned the above figure when he pointedly refused to stand (infuriating the french who the Germans viewed as extremely arrogant considering their performance on the battlefields).

and 20 million died of spanish flu in europe in 1918

brianthebard · 03-06-2009 11:42AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How was the "Empire" bigger? Britain actually got very little out of WWI compared to France, Denmark and Poland.

The colonies you are probably referring to are the ones taken off Germany and put under the control of the League of nations. these colonies were then administered by France, Belgium and Britain. Although these were "Defacto" colonies, they are not why any of the Allies went to war in the first place.

OK, the Germans's scuttled them. That was probably their fate anyway but the Germans beat them to it.

Reducing the size of the German fleet was one of Britains main aims from the treaty.

Increasing the size of the British Empire and reducing the size/threat of the German navy go hand in hand. Although I don't fully believe that Britain went to war solely to gain colonies, the one's they did take were very important strategically and many were German. Rhodes dream of a British Empire in Africa from Cape to Cairo was realised after the war. Palestine and other parts of the Middle East for a few years at least came under British rule as they tried to secure the Suez Canal, as well as oil fields.
Going to war with Germany certainly solidified the Empire in Africa in the short term at least.

Would a World War have started without Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ?

Comments