Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've had a lot of speculation in recent threads about different possible outcomes to World War II, but not much has been made of the point that that conflict actually represented the final chapter of disputes, mostly rooted in mercantilism (the idea that "Trade follows the flag"), and this can, in turn, be traced back to the "stabilization" of the great European powers after the final defeat of Napoleon.
In all honesty, any such an agreement is bound to unravel; the assaination of Franz Ferdinand was preceded by several other crises which could have led to a similar final confrontation. But what if a latter-day Metternich has managed to convince the major players that co-operation, at least for another decade or more, offered a better future? Other pressures, such as the increasingly apparent cost of colonialism and the raising of consciousness in parts of what came to be called the Third World, as well as Japan and other emerging nations, might have seen things play out very differently. The question of the fate of weak, and stateless nations and groups, and the role of an emerging economy increasingy based upon petroleum, also has to be considered.
The possibilities are unlimited; the floor is open; let's have at it!
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-04-2013 at 02:30 PM..
well, there wouldn't have been a WWII without the effects of the Great War.
I'm not so sure there would have been a successful Bolshevik Revolution either.
Pretty much everything would be totally different.
If you want to successfully avoid World War I, the best move in regards to this might have been to either have Kaiser Wilhelm II be born without a crippled arm/hand or to have Wilhelm die young and have his younger brother Prince Heinrich become German Kaiser in 1888. If Germany abandons its alliance with Austria instead of with Russia in the very late 19th/early 20th century, then World War I might not have occurred, or at least not occurred in the way and at the time that it occurred in real life. Also, a fairer resolution of the Alsace-Lorraine dispute between France and Germany (perhaps holding several referendums in Alsace-Lorraine) might have significantly helped dramatically reduce tensions and enmity between France and Germany after 1870/1871.
With no WW I, then Gary Cooper would not have won the 1942 Best Actor Oscar for "Sergeant York." Instead it probably would have gone to Orson Welles for "Citizen Kane."
WW1 was probably unavoidable because of nationalistic rivalries, economic competition, imperialism and the large peacetime armies. Too many people were itching for war.
Last edited by jobseeker2013; 11-04-2013 at 06:22 PM..
WW1 was probably unavoidable because of nationalistic rivalries, economic competition, imperialism and the large peacetime armies. Too many people were itching for war.
No, I don't think so, at least not in the form that World War I occurred in real life.
WW1 was probably unavoidable because of nationalistic rivalries, economic competition, imperialism and the large peacetime armies. Too many people were itching for war.
I agree. There hadn't been a long, general European war in almost a century, so it was easy for the European powers to see only the glory and not the gore, especially since the tactics and weaponry had changed since Waterloo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
No, I don't think so, at least not in the form that World War I occurred in real life.
Show me a major war in the 19th or 20th centuries where the country or countries that started the war got what it/they expected. Wars are hardly ever as short and bloodless and glorious as countries think they will be, even when those countries win.
I agree. There hadn't been a long, general European war in almost a century, so it was easy for the European powers to see only the glory and not the gore, especially since the tactics and weaponry had changed since Waterloo.
Show me a major war in the 19th or 20th centuries where the country or countries that started the war got what it/they expected. Wars are hardly ever as short and bloodless and glorious as countries think they will be, even when those countries win.
The Franco-Prussian War is the answer to your question. The war lasted 9 months and Prussia gained everything it had hoped for. The German Empire was formed, Alsace-Lorraine was taken, the French Empire fell and was replaced with the Third Republic and France paid Germany a large war indemnity. The cost was 28,000 German dead and 88,000 wounded versus 139,000 French dead and 143,000 wounded with 475,000 taken prisoner. The war was an overwhelming success for the Germans and foreshadowed the impact of railroads as well as breech loading rifles and guns. This was greatly influenced tactics, ideas and even tensions relating to WW1. Had the Franco-Prussian War been more of a drawn out bloodbath or resulted in a French victory, then WW1 may have been avoided.
As to the premise of the OP, I think the question of avoidability and what if hinges heavily on what happens to the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. Both of these empires were dieing off and they controlled volatile territory that Russia had a long interest in acting as "protector" of.
1. Show me a major war in the 19th or 20th centuries where the country or countries that started the war got what it/they expected.
2. Wars are hardly ever as short and bloodless and glorious as countries think they will be, even when those countries win.
1. Well, technically speaking, Hitler and the Nazis actually got more than they expected in 1939-1940 after starting World War II. It was only in 1941 when things began to go downhill for the Nazis.
2. True, but there was no reason for World War I to occur as in real life in an alternate historical scenario. As I previously said here:
"If you want to successfully avoid World War I, the best move in regards to this might have been to either have Kaiser Wilhelm II be born without a crippled arm/hand or to have Wilhelm die young and have his younger brother Prince Heinrich become German Kaiser in 1888. If Germany abandons its alliance with Austria instead of with Russia in the very late 19th/early 20th century, then World War I might not have occurred, or at least not occurred in the way and at the time that it occurred in real life. Also, a fairer resolution of the Alsace-Lorraine dispute between France and Germany (perhaps holding several referendums in Alsace-Lorraine) might have significantly helped dramatically reduce tensions and enmity between France and Germany after 1870/1871."
Had the Franco-Prussian War been more of a drawn out bloodbath or resulted in a French victory, then WW1 may have been avoided.
I think that the loss of Alsace-Lorraine in an unfair way (no referendum(s), no anything) angered France more between 1871 and 1918 than its loss to Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War.
Also, which country exactly began the 1866 Prusso-Austrian War?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
