Is it possible to speculate on how the 20th Century would have been different if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated? Was WWI inevitable? I can believe that the great powers were on a collision course, but I could be persuaded to the contrary.
This. The powers were hell-bent on a war. Cooler heads proposed sanctions on Serbia that would have adequately punished the assassination conspirators and the nation-state itself, but the war hawks, instead, demanded a schedule of punishments so dire that Serbia could never accept them. They deliberately inflamed the situation, making a war out of it, when a way forward without a war was clearly possible.
One more vote for “it was going to happen, regardless.”
The Great Powers and their associated allies had been working up their nerve to have another war for forty years. There had not been a serious conflagration on the continent since Bonaparte. (There had certainly been wars as Germany consolidated into a nation, Italy got its independence, Germany invaded France, etc., but each of them played out as fairly localized events, few of which lasted as much as a year.)
With all the new weapons and tactics that had been introduced, the prevailing attitudes of the military was that they could run out, test their mettle, and get bragging rights for the next few years. The politicians all seemed to think that a little war would allow them to “clean up” their borders, rectifying the “mistakes” that had been promulgated under Metternich or regaining land lost in intervening disputes.
I doubt that anyone wanted World War I, but, just as the in the North and South in the U.S. in 1861, no one expected the war to last more than a couple of months.
Under those conditions, someone was going to look for an excuse to go to war and everyone else was going to exuberantly join in. It would not have had to have been an assassination. It could have begun with a skirmish in the colonies of Africa or the Pacific. It could have been the result of a trade dispute. However, I believe that it was going to happen some time prior to 1925.
Can’t speak for the others, but France’s entire military doctrine was based on getting Alsace-Lorraine back as soon as a shot was fired. They were continually stung over the defeat in the previous century and were itching for revenge. Read the Guns of August by Tuchman for multiple cites.
If that ain’t enough there’s always the much quoted Victor Hugo:
Britain it is hard to say they wanted war, but their entire methodology was to box in Germany diplomatically in the hopes that since they would be so surrounded by enemies that they wouldn’t try anything. Didn’t exactly work.
AIUI, it always was British foreign policy to prevent any one power from rising to dominate continental Europe, for fear such a power could then threaten Britain.
Interesting timing of the question. Much the same is ready to go off in Syria right now. I agree that too many people wanted a glorious war and to be home before Christmas.
Not really. France wanted a war at some point in order to recover the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. But Britain, Italy, and Russia were all pretty happy with the status quo. They might have wanted a war outside of Europe to grab another colony or two but none of them wanted a European war.
Germany and Austria-Hungary wanted a war in 1914. Austria-Hungary, as you stated, wanted a short local war. They wanted to prop up the prestige of the Habsburg dynasty with a military victory. They would have been quite happy with just fighting a war against Serbia with no other countries involved.
Germany was the only country that wanted a general war in 1914. They looked at their strategic situation and saw it was getting worse year by year. France hated them as they had since 1870. Russia was recovering from its troubles in 1905 and was preparing to embark on economic and military reforms that would make it a much stronger enemy. Britain was growing closer and more committed to France and Russia. Austria-Hungary, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire - Germany’s allies - were all growing weaker. And Germany was finding the cost of keeping up its military to be reaching the point where it couldn’t be sustained.
So Germany looked around and essentially said “A war is going to happen at some point. And the longer it’s delayed, the worse our chances are. So let’s get the war started now.”
World War I was probably inevitable. But I find it hard to believe that a different sort of circumstances could have produced the Candide-like unlucky streak of our history with Russia falling to Red Revolution and Germany being taken over by the Nazis.
That’s what has me confused. I don’t know what timeline the other people in this thread are living in, but in mine and yours Franz Ferdinand was not assassinated and has a new album out.
I hate it when timelines cross. My stomach gets all wibbly-wobbly.
Would you care to elaborate regarding Syria? Are you saying that U.S. action in Syria is inevitable or that it’s going to start WWIII or that we are going to get bogged down there?
All the wars since 1900 have been inevitable according to a quote from Homer Lea’s ‘Day of the Saxon’ written in 1912 … I came across the quote in the book Empire of the City by E. C. Knuth, the subject is geopolitics …
“There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of the territorial and political expansion of other nations - a condition that must result in war, <i>one if the Empire is destroyed, a series if it is victorious.</i>”
So far the Empire has been victorious, and the series of wars is ongoing.
Well, the Serbians accepted all but one of the points of the ultimatum and wanted to negotiate on the final one (allowing A-H to participate in a Serbian inquiry), but in the end, you’re correct: A-H wanted a war and even acceptance of all the terms of the ultimatum may not have stopped the war.
I don’t necessarily buy the “it would have happened anyway” argument. Probably there would have been a war, but would it have necessarily been a world war?