Print Page | Close Window

What if the arch duke ferdinand wasn't assassinate

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15985
Printed Date: 25-May-2020 at 07:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: What if the arch duke ferdinand wasn't assassinate
Posted By: gramberto
Subject: What if the arch duke ferdinand wasn't assassinate
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 22:48
What if he was saved? Do you think the European system was so fragile it just would have been something else that sparked the war?



Replies:
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 02:53
Ther would be defenetly other reason to start the war. European powers were just waiting for the opportunity to start war.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 05:07

Just an excuse...



-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: gramberto
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 09:42
Are you sure about that? It seemed to me that the alliances got very tight. For the past several hundred years European alliances were tangled. It was only during about 1850-1918 that alliances were split in two. You don't think it was possible that the alliance structure could have evolved?
 
It may have been that Germany's power grew too fast and it caused a shake up in the old structure.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 10:51
Most of historians claims that Europe was at the time" barrel of powder." It just waited for something to blow it. European Powers strenghtened their armies for war. I don't think alliances could have changed a lot. Germany were getting stronger and this was uniting Russia, France and England against them. Some smaller countries could have changed position but main line of hostility would stay.


Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 11:17
Originally posted by Majkes

Most of historians claims that Europe was at the time" barrel of powder." It just waited for something to blow it. European Powers strenghtened their armies for war. I don't think alliances could have changed a lot. Germany were getting stronger and this was uniting Russia, France and England against them. Some smaller countries could have changed position but main line of hostility would stay.

    
I agree with that statement totally.

France, Russia and Britain were scared of the rise of German nationalism and power. Britain resented the German Navy. France wanted revenge for the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian war and Russia would side with France. In the Balkans nationalism was growing and as it was supported by countires like Britain the power in the region Austria was very worried which in turn made Germany worried. German nationalism was also very great and they felt it was time to show the older powers that they were no longer the split powers that were stomped by Napoleon on his way to Russia. Turkey wanted to regain her former glory and power.

An excuse would have been found no matter what.

-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 07:38
I agree too with the above. The assasination was just an excuse, and any excuse would have done. Germany needed war, Austria-Hungaria needed Germany, Frnace and Russia were stuck with each other and Belgium was under English protection. War was the only outcome.
 
I do believe that the men in power never knew what was coming for them. They still viewed war in the way it was fought in the Krim and in the French-German war. I do not believe they understood the horror of the trenchwar they were about to unleash. If they had, they might have been more careful politically...


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 15:15
Since Isaak Asimov wrote his "Fundation" there were many people interested in - as he called it- psychohistoria. They claim that war was inevitable. As well as such events like Russian revolution. One has even made a mathematic equation which gave the result that if there was no revolution in Russia in 1917, it would happend no later than in 1934.

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: gramberto
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 17:04
war may have been inevititble the question is when and how it was fought. If arch duke ferdinand was not assassinate, is there a chance that France, Brittain,. and Russian may have initiated an attack?
 
If Germany kept getting stronger relative to them would they have wanted to force a confrontation sooner rather than later? What if the first world war started in 1930 instead of 1918, that could have meant that germany would have been far more powerful relative to the allies.
 
I listened to some history lectures on the first world war from the teaching company ( http://www.teach12.com - www.teach12.com ) and they argued that germany was more powerful relative to everyone else after the war and in spite of losing because.
 
1. Less great powers
2. The other powers were weakened alot
3. germany could rebuild its economic engine.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 06:53
I don't think Germany was in any way better off than the allied forces after WWI. They were not allowed to rebuilt their economy at all, but meanwhile thy did have to pay huge sums to the others as bloodmoney. As they did not have it and could not earn it, they loaned the money in the US, which was the only place where there still was money. So Us loaned the money to Germany, who gave it to the European Allies, who in turn used it to pay off their wartime debts to US. Money went round in a circle, no one got better.
 
In fact, the extreme poverty in Germany after WWI is one of the main explanations why a man like Hitler could get power; he promised an end to poverty, and at first he delivered too. So to state that Germany was better off after the war is very cynical.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 12:50
I agree, the assassination was just the spark, the battle lines where drawn the minute the two mutual assistance treaties where signed, the tripe entente and the triple alliance, this of course combined with the Kiazers colonial ambitions where the true causes of WW1  


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 14:17
Its likely a European war would have broken out eventually. Would it have become a global  war like it did and change the history of the world forever, thats another question. It is entirely possible Britain would remain out, and if Britain remained out its unlikely the US would be sucked in, or that perhaps France would collapse quickly and be forced to cede another couple of departments to the Kaiser.

-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 15:26
Moreover, in slightly different circumstances the Ottoman  Empire might also have stayed out. Britain and the Ottomans had been really pretty close for most of the preceding 50 years or so, and from a global as opposed to European perspective Britain's real natural antagonist in Asia was Russia.
 
Japan would presumably have still taken advantage of the situation to move in on German interests though. 


-------------


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 20:04

Since this is a "What-If" scenario, I am moving it to Historical Amusement.



-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 17:10
What might have been is usually irrelevant.

Squirrels might fly now if Alexander had lost at Issos.

However, the developing technology might have meant a quicker beginning to the war; perhaps even the Germans could've pushed as far as they did in WWII with the tanks... Some small developments in the technology with which the countries began war may change everything.


-------------


Posted By: Aristilus
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 10:51
I don't think Britain could have stayed out if France was in danger of being overun, if only to try and stop Germany gaining control of ports on the Atlantic seaboard. There is no telling what kind of damage U-Boats could have done. Would the Germans have lost a battle of the Atlantic in the WW1. An interesting debate I think.


Posted By: warwolf1969
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2010 at 05:35
If Britain was not at war with Germany then there would have been no need to worry about the U-Boats.  Also remember that the entente was not actually a real alliance.  Britain had to grasp at a treaty that was nearly 90 years old as an excuse to declare war on Germany.  They had no reason to because of the simple german decleration against France.  There is also no real evidence that Germany wanted a war with either Engand or France. 
Saying that I do think that WW1 would have happened anyhow within probably four or five years.  The relationships were too volitile, and if you add the balkans into the mix, you've got a massive powder keg.  Something would have set one of the great powers at the other, and dragged everyone else into the war.


Posted By: DreamWeaver
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 10:53
All the pieces are in place, it merely requires someone to push the button. 

-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 14:42
Dream Weaver, it seems you took the time to read all of the old posts!

As the Brits say; Good Show!, "hip, hip, and all that!" Talley ho!

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Patryk
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2010 at 21:43
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 fever, which was gaining steam since 1910, might have abated. 
 
If some provocation ocurred in winter, they might have to limit themselves to some colonial actions, like the Boer War or the Philippine War. 
 
But even with a healthy and happy Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the Spring of 1915, we would still have an England worried about German grown.  An Austria worried about it's decline.  A Russia wanted to revive its prestige after being humiliated in 1905 by non-whites.  And the living Ottoman carcass to be divided up in the Balkans and Middle East.  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.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date 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.  


Posted By: Patryk
Date 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. 


Posted By: Cryptic
Date 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.


Posted By: Patryk
Date 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.


Posted By: Ngodilan
Date 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...


Posted By: Patryk
Date 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.    


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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.


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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/


Posted By: Patryk
Date 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.   


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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.


Posted By: Patryk
Date 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 ...


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date 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.


Posted By: opuslola
Date 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!



-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: LeopoldPhilippe
Date 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?


Posted By: Futurist
Date 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. :(



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com