Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

What if the arch duke ferdinand wasn't assassinate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What if the arch duke ferdinand wasn't assassinate
    Posted: 22-Sep-2010 at 11:46
Originally posted by Patryk

If the Archduke had not been killed in Sarajevo, or simply if Princip had finished eating his sandwich and THEN tried to shoot the Arch Duke form a distance, I think the outcome would have indeed been different. The northern Europeans like launching there wars in the summer months.  If they missed their May-August window for action, they would shelve any war plans for another year. 
 
War would have come eventually but possibly, had it not been in summer, it could have been kept on Europe's periphery or in the colonies.
 
Good points.  I also think we need to factor in the rapidly increasing production rate of cars, truck and tractors.   Lets say that war in Europe was delayed until summer 1916.
 
By that time, the civilian automotive industry would have increased mechanization in militaries.  This mechanization would have given alternatives to the "Napoleonic formations against machine guns" tactics.   Casualties still would have been immense, but the sheer waste of 1914 frontier battles, The Somme and maybe even Verdun could have been avoided.  
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2010 at 04:08
Even if the Europeans had postponed war a season or two, it was inevitable because many, particularly England and France, had not yet truly embraced Free Trade.  In fact, both were still rooted in mercantilism which was a means of keeping Germany out of their markets.  Had England and France and even Russia allowed greater German access to their colonial markets, I suspect war could have been avoided. 
 
In deed, once Europeans embraced Free Trade after 1945, under US insistence, the need for colonial empires evaporated.  Colonies became mill stones that were quickly dumped at the first chance.  The Belgians unceremoniously evacuated the Congo even without the Congolese serious pressing them to depart.  The British even tried to unload the Falklands on Argentina at one point. 
 
In this, I have always place some of the blame for WWI on England and France for actively trying to keep Germany from reaching her full economic potential.  Reactionary British and French policies led to the German ill will and more than a little of their pre-1914 paranoia. 
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2010 at 13:56
Originally posted by Patryk

In deed, once Europeans embraced Free Trade after 1945, under US insistence, the need for colonial empires evaporated.  Colonies became mill stones that were quickly dumped at the first chance.  The Belgians unceremoniously evacuated the Congo even without the Congolese serious pressing them to depart.  The British even tried to unload the Falklands on Argentina at one point. 
The Dutch also left Indonesia after making only a token effort to keep it.  The French, however, tended to view their colonies as an intrinsic part of their nation and fought hard for Vietnam and Algeria.  In the case of Algeria, I think it was administered as a part of France.


Edited by Cryptic - 23-Sep-2010 at 13:56
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2010 at 18:47
Originally posted by Cryptic
The Dutch also left Indonesia after making only a token effort to keep it.  The French, however, tended to view their colonies as an intrinsic part of their nation and fought hard for Vietnam and Algeria.  In the case of Algeria, I think it was administered as a part of France.
[/QUOTE


 
I think Dutch resistence in the East Indies was actually fairly strong but it was a loser and they knew it.  They didn't have to ability to project force anymore, especially after 5 years of German occupation.
 
France was different in that they were more cont
 
I think Dutch resistence in the East Indies was actually fairly strong but it was a loser and they knew it.  They didn't have to ability to project force anymore, especially after 5 years of German occupation.
 
France was different in that they were more content to subsidize their financial blackholes in Africa and Asia since it added to Frances "greatness" as a European power.   Algeria was different furthermore in that it had 1 million French residents amidst 9 million or so Arabs.  Algeria was indeed and Overseas Department of France -- a French Hawaii, if you will. 
 
The Americans vacated the Philippines in 1946 and the British began evacuating much of Africa in 1957 with Ghana being the first.  The year 1960 saw the most.  But Vietnam was different because by the mid 1960s, the US changed its position on colonies' independence and conditioned it upon them being NON-communist. 
 
Still, those countries that shed their colonies saw greater economic growth than they had had while their were imperial powers.  Only Russia retain their colonies PLUS a dysfunctional economic system that forced the Russians AND their subject peoples into poverty for decades.
Back to Top
Ngodilan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-Oct-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2
  Quote Ngodilan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2010 at 15:45
NO! It does not change anything. Evidence provided by David Fromkin in his book "Europe's last summer" showed that his death was literally nothing because of the fact that Austria-Hungary strike back to late therefore shows that it wasn't a crazy attack for revenge. They developed an ultimatum 2 WEEKS AHEAD which they knew no state would accept as a pretext to attack Serbia...
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 10:19
I think it's clear that Austria was spoiling for a war to bolster its crumbling position in the Balkans.  That is clear.  The assassination was just a convenient pretext, like Saddaam Hussein not being 100% compliant with the UN over WMDs.  Perhaps he was 98% compliant but that 2% was all the George Bush need to release the hounds of hell.  Austria wanted to do anything it could to stomp out Slavic nationalism in the Balkans.
 
I think the issue really is, if not this, WHAT?  If not then, WHEN?  
 
Without Princip, I think the Balkans would have had another war by 1916.  Turkey's slow withering was destabilising.  Serbia and Russia both stood to gain by continued Turkish decline.  Austria and Germany could gain little from Turkish decline.  One way or another, the European Powers were going to come to war over territory being or having been evacuated by the Turks.
 
I think it is Ironic that Germany and Austria chose to prop up the Ottomans in the final days. Both of them were largely locked out of global imperialism and both Germany and Austria could have tried to feast on the Ottoman carcass just as Russia, the UK, and France were eager to do.  I guess since Germany and Austria were not in a position to gain the lion's share of the Ottoman buffet, they were going to be content themselves with NOBODY eating.    
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 12:11
But the thing is, Germany had no interest in the Balkans or in Ottoman territory.

Germany did, however, have an interest in making sure that Austria-Hungary did not lose any prestige or territory (as they were allies).

War was inevitable, but the death of the Archduke simply sped things up, as Germany did not want Austria-Hungary to look like a weak power, it encouraged it to take action against Serbia.

This had nothing to do with the Ottoman Empire. The only reason that the Germans and Austro-Hungarians sided with the Ottomans was because they could use any help possible to spread out Entente forces (The Ottomans were a major distraction to the British for example).

In fact, the Ottoman German alliance was never really successful, they bickered a lot (mostly due to Ottoman incompetence).
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2010 at 14:23
From an old post by Rider, taken from above;

"What might have been is usually irrelevant.

Squirrels might fly now if Alexander had lost at Issos."

And what he said is usually correct! How ever rather than using the term "at Issos" I might well suggest that a better translation would be "at the river!"
Regards,

http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2010 at 08:49
I wouldn't say Germany had NO interest in the Ottoman Empire.  They were one of their biggest creditors (although all of Europe owned them by 1914).  They were a potential ally to Germany only because nobody else much liked Germany by 1913.   But as was noted above, Austria and Germany both wanted the Ottoman preserved because its disolution was not aiding Austria in any way but it was Russia, England, and France.  By extension, this would diminish Austria which would then futher diminish poor friendless Germany. I guess that's why the Berlin-to-Baghdad thing really never took off.  They just were not natural alliance partners.   
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2010 at 10:26
Germany was reluctant to take the Ottomans as an ally (The Ottomans were more a liability than anything else) but yes, you are right, when World War I broke out, it was better to have them as an "ally" than not have them at all.

However, regarding the Berlin to Baghdad railway, it did take off and was very successful and large parts of it were constructed. However, due to British fears of German encroachment on their Middle Eastern sphere of influence, they pressured the Ottomans to stop the construction.
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
  Quote Patryk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2010 at 06:22
Berlin to Constantinople was quite well developed and travelled.  It was that final bit to Baghdad that I contend never really got going.  That was the unfinished bit. 
 
Germany was also a big investor in the Ottoman Empire.  I don't have the numbers handy, but things like public utilities and communications were often owned outright by European firms. I believe this was a market that Germany had penetrated quite effectively. No doubt they would have liked to cut their losses.  Also, the Germans hatched a strange plot to have the sultan declare an international Jihad against the British in hopes of making places like India and Egypt ungovernable. 
 
 It didn't really work out for them ...
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2010 at 12:13
Yes, the Europeans owned much of the Ottoman infrastructure which they built/invested in, something the Ottomans and Young Turks resented.

However, this wasnt much. By 1914, there werent many roads in the Ottoman Empire and there were less than 200 cars within the entire empire. There were only a few telephones operational by 1914, only in Smyrna and Istanbul...

There was investment in the Ottoman Empire, but not much as compared to European investments elsewhere.

The Ottoman Empire was most valuable because it was a provider of natural resources, Thats really the only thing it had to offer.
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Nov-2010 at 19:03
TGS, you wrote above;

"However, this wasnt much. By 1914, there werent many roads in the Ottoman Empire and there were less than 200 cars within the entire empire. There were only a few telephones operational by 1914, only in Smyrna and Istanbul..."

Surely you were referring to "improved roads?", that is roads that were regurally kept in condition to promote commerce! Certainly there existed hundreds and thousands of basically "unkept" roads?

And, regarding telephones, that was also the case in most of America at the same time! Especially in rural areas! The same can be said of most American roads, until the next 20 or so years!

Especially in the South!



Edited by opuslola - 19-Nov-2010 at 19:04
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
LeopoldPhilippe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 05-May-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
  Quote LeopoldPhilippe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-May-2015 at 22:36
If the Archduke had lived to be Emperor of Austria, what regnal name would he use: Francis II, Ferdinand II, or Francis Ferdinand I?
Back to Top
Futurist View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 01-Jan-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote Futurist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jan-2016 at 01:06
Originally posted by Majkes

Ther would be defenetly other reason to start the war. European powers were just waiting for the opportunity to start war.
Completely agreed. :( After all, Europe already had a couple of close calls before June-July 1914. :(
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.