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.
Sure most have heard of the Tunguska event, on the morning of 30 June 1908 the explosion over the sparsely populated Eastern Siberian Taiga flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 2,150 km2 (830 sq mi) of forest. Very fortunate for them it happened in as desolate a place as possible, but say it hit the heart of Moscow instead, even though WWI was 6 years away wouldn't the Russians still be reeling from it and possibly not gotten involved, possibly leading to WWI not happening, at least as it did with Russia being involved? And overall how high do you think the death toll would have been?
Why do you waste your time thinking about things like this?
^It's an interesting what if scenario, but ultimately this is one where we can come up with a near definitive answer. Tunguska is simply too far away from St Petersburg, the Russian capital at the time, to have had any effect.
Interesting question. The impact (air burst) could have hit anywhere. Having now discovered that St Petersburg (I like many others, thought it was Moscow) would have been the place to hit, I wonder how it might have altered history? If that event had prevented WWI, it would also have prevented WWII so it's quite a thought.
As has been noted, most of the world (71%) is ocean. One entire continent is uninhabited save for a few researchers. Vast swaths of every other continent are tundra, mostly-empty boreal forest, or sparsely-populated deserts or rainforests. Even most places that are not lightly populated - agricultural regions, towns, mid-sized cities - are places that, while an impact event would be locally tragic, it would not alter the course of history. In other words, plopping a bolide on the capital of a major power is the very definition of a historical deux ex machina.
As has been noted, most of the world (71%) is ocean. One entire continent is uninhabited save for a few researchers. Vast swaths of every other continent are tundra, mostly-empty boreal forest, or sparsely-populated deserts or rainforests. Even most places that are not lightly populated - agricultural regions, towns, mid-sized cities - are places that, while an impact event would be locally tragic, it would not alter the course of history. In other words, plopping a bolide on the capital of a major power is the very definition of a historical deux ex machina.
It’s a bit like asking what would have happened if the Titanic had managed to avoid hitting the iceberg. The ship would likely have then gone on to serve as a hospital ship in WW1, possibly then altering the fate of her sister the Britannic who might not have found herself in the position she was. At the same time, the founding of the International Ice Patrol would have been altered as well, as it was created as a direct result of the sinking.
The reason I’m using the Titanic as an example, is that like the Tunguska event, it was a highly unlikely event. Had Tunguska hit a major population center, it’s significance would have been more noteworthy. It would not have stopped WW1 as all the other powers would still be involved in it, but it might very well have changed Russia’s role in the war, albeit to what extent will obviously never be known as it’s a fictitious timeline.
Germany entered the war because of the Russian mobilization. Russia was mobilizing because it had determined to come to the aid of Serbia which was being threatened by the Austria-Hungry empire. Germany was allied with Austria Hungary and thus had to react to Russia's mobilization. Germany's existing war plan, should it find itself at war with Russia and Russia's ally, France, was to strike at France first, rapidly overrun it, and then turn to face the Russians whom the Germans assumed would be slow to mobilize and advance.
So...take Russia out of the equation and you no longer have a reason for Germany to be going to war with anyone at the time.
You are are confusing the pre-text to war with the cause for a war.
Germany became a united nation since the 1870th - but did not have as much world power to protect its interests and wanted the wealth coming from the colonies which Britain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands had.
In preparation for the fight for world dominance and the new territories and for re-drawing the map of the world Germany built a capable modern navy in years leading to 1914 and beating France much earlier- Alsace, etc.
Each world actor had its own interests to uphold: the falling apart weakening Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the newly formed Serbia, Poland, Bulgaria as well as other countries, etc.
France wanted revenge for the lost war and its land back, as well as keeping Germany out of Africa.
England was trying to shutdown Germanic interference in Africa and keep its colonies, etc.
Russia had the goal to be a protector of all the Slavic nations of the Balkans and to keep the Turks at bay.
The cause for a World War I was -the attempt to redistribute the world's dominance and territories.
That is the gist of it.
Btw, the Russian Tsar was trying to settle the murder of the Ferdinand (the pre-text to war) in Hague Court (by suggesting it in his friendly letter to Wilhelm- it went unanswered)
(Your hypothetical Tunguska supposition just shows the narrow world view that promoted by (the US and the Allies) propaganda that the Russia is at fault for everything bad in history-which intentionally masks the true causes of why bad things happening) That war was inevitable,
You are are confusing the pre-text to war with the cause for a war.
There was no confusion on my part, but apparently some on your part. Nothing I wrote was incorrect. If you think that there was, please point it out specifically.
What you have to say has nothing to do with any point I was making. It is difficult to understand why you decided to begin your response by quoting mine. Please read more carefully.
There was no confusion on my part, but apparently some on your part. Nothing I wrote was incorrect. If you think that there was, please point it out specifically.
What you have to say has nothing to do with any point I was making. It is difficult to understand why you decided to begin your response by quoting mine. Please read more carefully.
Didn't you say in the part I quoted that if not for Russia's mobilization- the Germany would not have a reason to start a war? (in addition to a thread that if the Tunguska meteorite caused the Russia or part of it wiped out -there would not be a World War I?)
And my point was Russia was not important for a Germany to start a war: there could be used multiple fake "reasons" for Germany to start a war.
Though, unfortunately, a very good reason of "weapons of mass destruction" was not invented yet at that time..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Germany entered the war because of the Russian mobilization. ...
So...take Russia out of the equation and you no longer have a reason for Germany to be going to war with anyone at the time.
My point was that there is a pre-text to a war and there is a cause for a war.
No matter the circumstances: the Germany would start a war for a re-distribution of power and the wealth in the world.
So, it is interesting from a historical perspective to see some nations trying to get dominant on the world stage as we speak..
Didn't you say in the part I quoted that if not for Russia's mobilization- the Germany would not have a reason to start a war?
Yes, but it was specific to the post to which I was responding, specific to the actual events which obviously could not be replicated under the OP premise of Russia being devastated by a meteor strike.
You are addressing something else...how a war might have been started for reasons other than the ones which actually caused it. I had nothing to say about that, so you should not be arguing with me to make your point, you should have just made it without reference to my post. By attaching my post to your argument, it makes it seem like I was arguing that Germany would never have started a war under any conditions. I wasn't, so you are arguing with a phantom and trying to cast me as the ghost.
That....that is my objection. I hope you now understand.
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.
