Assassination that still shapes the world 100 years later.

[Breezy]

Been digging into World War 1 lately; re-reading books, re-watching docs and I can't help but play the 'what if' game with history. It makes me wonder. Is Gavrilo Princip the most Influential man of the last 400 years?

If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand then do these premises follow?

*No World War 1 (Most obvious)

*No Communism in Russia - Maybe the Bolsheviks aren't able to galvanize the people around the public discontent from the war and don't gain a foothold and kick off a revolution.

* No Hitler/Nazi Party/World War 2 - Seems straight forward. Without WW1 there would be no fuel on the fire for WW2. Although I doubt that would have changed the Sino-Japanese war which could still involve the united states.

* No Cold War/Nuclear arms race. - Without communism in maybe the US and Soviet union aren't antagonizing each other for so long.

* We could still have the Ottoman empire. Which changes the whole picture of the middle east for the last 100 years. Desert Storm, War in Iraq. Iran/Iraq war, civil war all across the region....


***DISCLAIMER***

I know a lot of people will argue that Europe at the time was a powder Keg waiting to be set off by anything, and that many of these other events would have happened anyway. You may be right! But we do know how all of these things did get set off so it's mind boggling to think about how 1 singular event changes everything.

[RidonKs]

great thread and very difficult topic to explore. makes me wish i knew more about world war one. i wonder what some of our resident historical savants have to say on the subject.

[DeuceWallaces]

There was so much tension in Europe from late 19th century through the 50's that I don't think there was any avoiding major war.

[DwnShft2Xcelr8]

If Franz Ferdinand hadn't been executed, the death of a different political figure would've been justifiable enough to go to war. Like Deuce Wallace mentioned, Europe and Northern Asia had so much tension that just about anything was bound to set it off. Maybe WWI would have started on a different date..? That's the only thing I can think of being different.
Russia was destined for Communism, imo. They weren't going to follow along with the United States. I believe Communism was considered superior over a "true" Democracy for many years before WWI was even settled, so it wouldn't have mattered what the outcome would be.
Also, I believe Germany was going to be screwed no matter what. They had too many city-states. If I recall correctly from a World Civilizations history class I took in college circa 2011, Germany wasn't even considered a real country until the late-1800's/early-1900's. They were too poor economically once they finally became Germany, so I think Hitler would have blamed the Jews one way or another and persecuted them.

When you really look into it, WWI or not, a lot of this shit was meant to be.

[RidonKs]

the easiest thing you can say about history is that it was inevitable. its also the least interesting and the most useless thing you can say.

[StephHamann]

If I recall correctly from a World Civilizations history class I took in college circa 2011, Germany wasn't even considered a real country until the late-1800's/early-1900's. They were too poor economically once they finally became Germany, so I think Hitler would have blamed the Jews one way or another and persecuted them.

When you really look into it, WWI or not, a lot of this shit was meant to be.

Dude this is so wrong :lol

Actually Britain only went to war because they feared germanys economical power.

Germany was the second biggest economy in Europe after Britain

[MavsSuperFan]

Been digging into World War 1 lately; re-reading books, re-watching docs and I can't help but play the 'what if' game with history. It makes me wonder. Is Gavrilo Princip the most Influential man of the last 400 years?

If he doesn't shoot Franz Ferdinand then do these premises follow?

*No World War 1 (Most obvious)

*No Communism in Russia - Maybe the Bolsheviks aren't able to galvanize the people around the public discontent from the war and don't gain a foothold and kick off a revolution.

* No Hitler/Nazi Party/World War 2 - Seems straight forward. Without WW1 there would be no fuel on the fire for WW2. Although I doubt that would have changed the Sino-Japanese war which could still involve the united states.

* No Cold War/Nuclear arms race. - Without communism in maybe the US and Soviet union aren't antagonizing each other for so long.

* We could still have the Ottoman empire. Which changes the whole picture of the middle east for the last 100 years. Desert Storm, War in Iraq. Iran/Iraq war, civil war all across the region....


***DISCLAIMER***

I know a lot of people will argue that Europe at the time was a powder Keg waiting to be set off by anything, and that many of these other events would have happened anyway. You may be right! But we do know how all of these things did get set off so it's mind boggling to think about how 1 singular event changes everything.



*No World War 1 (Most obvious)

WW1 still happens. Franz Ferdinand assassination was the spark that set off the powder keg. The powder keg was already unstable, if it wasnt this it would have been something else. nationalist tensions made the war inevitable. The system of alliances made any region war likely to become a major European theater war. the fact that Europe had colonies around the world made any European war likely to have multiple theaters.


Austria-Hungary was a multinational realm and one of the world's great powers. Austria-Hungary was geographically the second-largest country in Europe after the Russian Empire, at 621,538 km2 (239,977 sq mi),[6] and the third-most populous (after Russia and the German Empire). The Empire built up the fourth-largest machine building industry of the world, after the United States, Germany, and Britain

Gavrilo Princip was one of 6 people who wanted to kill the crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If princip doesnt kill him and his wife, one of the other 6 would have. Even if the crown prince doesnt get assassinated the desire of serbian peoples for self determination and total freedom from the influence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have lead to some from of revolt. a significant amount of the global Serbian ethnicity lived under the Austro-Hungarian Empire's rule and the newly created nation of Serbia thought that was wrong.

Russia being allied with Serbia would have supported Serbia and Germany being allied with the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have supported them. Britain and France being allied with Russia would have supported them and they feared a raising Germany and were looking for an excuse to fight.

The ottomans whom the Serbians had recently gained independence from after centuries of turkish rule would have seen this as an opportunity to resurrect their empire. Russians are the classical enemy of the ottoman empire.

the assassination of Franz Ferdinand did not cause world war 1. it was the straw that broke the camel's back. the situation was already extremely unstable.


No Communism in Russia - Maybe the Bolsheviks aren't able to galvanize the people around the public discontent from the war and don't gain a foothold and kick off a revolution.


Unlikely, Imperial Russia at this point was already an extremely backward state. it masqueraded as a great power, but all it had was land and a large population (much of which resented Russian rule). Russian weakness was exposed when Imperial japan defeated them soundly in the Russo-japanese war of 1904. it showed imperal japan was a legit power and russia was crumbling.

As i have argued above WW1 would have happened anyways, just for a different reason. Russia would join to support serbia (they deluded themselves into thinking they were a great power). Russia's lack of industrialization would have shown against the advanced german military in any scenario and the russian tsar would be blamed for the military's failure and they would collapse. the germans would have sent Lenin to moscow in any scenario.


No Hitler/Nazi Party/World War 2 - Seems straight forward. Without WW1 there would be no fuel on the fire for WW2. Although I doubt that would have changed the Sino-Japanese war which could still involve the united states.

WW1 would have happened. Once America entered the war during the last year it would have been impossible for the central powers (composed of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) to win.

the triple entente (Russian Empire, the French Third Republic, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) probably would have won even without America's late entrance into the war, but adding a massive population and the worlds largest economy and the most industrialized nation in the world during the last year of WW1 basically removed all doubt.


* No Cold War/Nuclear arms race. - Without communism in maybe the US and Soviet union aren't antagonizing each other for so long.
see above


* We could still have the Ottoman empire. Which changes the whole picture of the middle east for the last 100 years. Desert Storm, War in Iraq. Iran/Iraq war, civil war all across the region....

the ottoman empire was crumbling. its actually amazing the last islamic caliphate in the world lasted as long as it did. Under no scenario does the ottoman empire survive. The technological revolution in the west left the turkish empire incredibly antiquated. Its lucky its closest great power neighbor (the russian empire) was similar unindustrialized and backward.

[StephHamann]

Guys should read The sleepwalkers from Clark

[JohnnySic]

the ottoman empire was crumbling. its actually amazing the last islamic caliphate in the world lasted as long as it did. Under no scenario does the ottoman empire survive. The technological revolution in the west left the turkish empire incredibly antiquated. Its lucky its closest great power neighbor (the russian empire) was similar unindustrialized and backward.
Russia had several opportunities to capture Constantinople and end the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Britain got in the way each time and prevented this because they did not want Russia to have access to the Meditteranean Sea, which would have been a major threat to British interests.

[MavsSuperFan]

the easiest thing you can say about history is that it was inevitable. its also the least interesting and the most useless thing you can say.
What if thats obviously the most accurate statement?

nothing is inevitable, but for WW1, many extremely unlikely things have to change for war to be avoided or even not encompass all the great powers of Europe (basically at this time the world, except for the USA and imperial japan)

nationalistic tensions in the balkins have to be resolved. Slavic peoples would have had to accept domination by others.
the ottoman empire would either have to become much stronger or accept losing its empire peacefully.
the Austro-Hungarian empire would similarily have to become much stronger or accept losing control of the slavic populations under its control.

Britain and France would have to stop fearing a raising germany.
Germany would have to accept the status quo of power in europe.
France would have to accept the loss it incurred in the Franco-Prussian war. Eg. German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine

the french would never have accepted permanent german control of alsace-Lorraine

Germany would have to accept its meager holding in africa. France and Britain were both resolved that further German expansion was a threat to them.

Russia would have had to accept that it was a weak (by the standards of the great powers), backward power

[JohnnySic]

* No Hitler/Nazi Party/World War 2 - Seems straight forward. Without WW1 there would be no fuel on the fire for WW2. Although I doubt that would have changed the Sino-Japanese war which could still involve the united states.


Some type of "world war" was basically innevitable. Germany and Japan were late coming to the empire party and wanted their piece of the pie. Britain, France, and Russia did not want to concede. It was a powder-keg.

[MavsSuperFan]

Russia had several opportunities to capture Constantinople and end the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Britain got in the way each time and prevented this because they did not want Russia to have access to the Meditteranean Sea, which would have been a major threat to British interests.
And if russia was stronger, British interference wouldnt have mattered.

[MavsSuperFan]

the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is the most over hyped event in human history. People act like him not dying would have avoided WW1.

Many extremely unlikely things would have had to have changed for WW1 to be avoided.

[StephHamann]

Germany : Destroy Russia and expand Eastwards



You cant say that. Germany had no long term goals going into the war, the annexation plans came after the war started.

Germanys military command said they need the war 1914, because in 1916 they could not win a 2 front war because everybody overestimated Russias economical potential.

Also they feared they loose Austra as a partner if they dont support them in the serbian cause, and then Germany would have had no Allies at all.

Should look up "Einkreisungspolitik" , Germany felt like it was surrounded by powers that wanted to destroy them.

[KevinNYC]

Good podcast on the start of WWI from Hardcore History.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First%20World%20War-World%20War%20One-Great%20War

Great book on the end of the WWI and the creation of the modern Middle East.
http://www.neebo.com/Content/CoverImages/Large/9780805088090.jpg

[Gr]

Dude this is so wrong :lol

Actually Britain only went to war because they feared germanys economical power.

Germany was the second biggest economy in Europe after Britain

:applause:

The Germans actually didn't mind the British. We wanted to be friends with them. Vice versa it was a different story though. Germany was becoming far too strong economically for Britain's liking. They would've looked for a way to cripple Germany economically no matter what it takes. WW1 was very convenient in that sense because the oppressive and anti human Treaty of Versailles was passed.

[ImKobe]

There was so much tension in Europe from late 19th century through the 50's that I don't think there was any avoiding major war.

Pretty much this. The assasination was just an excuse to follow through with what they had already planned on doing. War was inevitable.

[StephHamann]

WWI is really the dumbest war ever

Russia was cursed with communism, Britain lost its economical superpower status to the US, Ottoman Empire and Austria were completely destroyed, Germany was ****ed, France gained Alsace-Lorraine but the eastern part of the country was wasteland and the ecnomocial damage was huge.

The serbs got a multi-ethnic new country, and ultimately they had a 10 year civil war in the 1990s.

:facepalm

[Gr]

The British also didn't like the fact that Made in Germany became a seal of high quality, when they originally wanted that seal on it so that nobody buys German products.

[MavsSuperFan]

[QUOTE=Gr

[StephHamann]

WW1 germany supported the domination of slavic peoples.

There was no "good side" in WWI every major power was imperial and suppressed people, for example Britain Ireland.

[MavsSuperFan]

There was no "good side" in WWI every major power was imperial and suppressed people, for example Britain Ireland.
if you want to be very basic and break down WW1 to its most basic cause, Eg. Slavic nationalism and german desire for increased imperial holdings.

Germans are clearly the bad guys. Maybe there were no good guys, but the germans were clearly the bad guys.

1. Supported the austro-hungarian empire and allied with the ottoman empire. Both wanted to/denied slavic peoples self determination.

2. German desire for empire in europe and africa.

[Gr]

Do you want me to dig up all the crimes against humanity by allied countries?

I don't really feel like having such a depraved tit for tat.

[StephHamann]

if you want to be very basic and break down WW1 to its most basic cause, Eg. Slavic nationalism and german desire for increased imperial holdings.

Germans are clearly the bad guys. Maybe there were no good guys, but the germans were clearly the bad guys.

1. Supported the austro-hungarian empire and allied with the ottoman empire. Both wanted to/denied slavic peoples self determination.

2. German desire for empire in europe and africa.

Russia denied Polands (slavic state) self determination

The Germans had a desire, while Great Britain had the largest Empire of all time.

[MavsSuperFan]

Russia denied Polands (slavic state) self determination

The Germans had a desire, while Great Britain had the largest Empire of all time.
Russians are a type of slavic people

None of that is relevant to why WW1 was fought.

[StephHamann]

Russians are a type of slavic people



The Polands were super happy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War

[NumberSix]

if you want to be very basic and break down WW1 to its most basic cause, Eg. Slavic nationalism and german desire for increased imperial holdings.

Germans are clearly the bad guys. Maybe there were no good guys, but the germans were clearly the bad guys.

1. Supported the austro-hungarian empire and allied with the ottoman empire. Both wanted to/denied slavic peoples self determination.

2. German desire for empire in europe and africa.
Good guys/bad guys is such an idiotic and childish way of looking at things.

It's not about good vs bad. It's about advancing national/political/economic interests.

[MavsSuperFan]

Good guys/bad guys is such an idiotic and childish way of looking at things.

It's not about good vs bad. It's about advancing national/political/economic interests.
Sometimes advancing interests requires immoral actions.
Such as dominating slavic peoples and conqueror areas to expand your imperial holdings,

Thus why german action in WW1 was immoral imo.

Judging Morality is not has abstract as you are making it out to be.