History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedWhat if Archduke Ferdinand was never assasinated?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What if Archduke Ferdinand was never assasinated?
    Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 09:40

I saw a documentary on the 1st World War last night, and at one point they were describing the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which was the trigger for the Austro-Hungarian Empire attacking Serbia and thus starting the war. Apparently the assasination failed at first, since the Archduke's convoy, which was heading to a military inspection, was at first unsuccesfully attacked with a bomb. Afterwards the conspirators, notably Gavril Princip, were ready to go home, but on the way back from the military inspection, the Archduke's car took a wrong turn and by coincidence, Princip found himself in a position to shoot the Archduke, which he did.

What if the car never took the wrong turn? Would the war have started sooner or later? Would the alliances still be the same if the war started say 5 years later? Would the "Central Powers" (if they were the same) still have lost the war? Would there have been a revolution in Russia, and if so, would the Bolsheviks have taken over in the end? 

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 10:26
I think that WWI was going to happen anyhow: the rivalries between Germany and Britain for European hegemony, between France and Germany for nationalistic nonsenses and between Austria and Russia for control of the Balcans were already extremely strong. Only a more prudent German leadership could have maybe (only maybe) prevented that Russia and Austria clashed as they did. The war would still had happened anyhow but maybe Russia would have been in the other side and that could have given more advantage to Germany. 

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: Philippines
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Post Options Post Options   Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 10:57
Yes, WWI was only a matter of time. Tensions were so tense between not only the individual countries but the alliances as well. The survival of the archduke would not have prevented the war, it would only have delayed the inevitable.
"It is easier to talk than to hold one's tongue."
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 11:03
Yes, but would the alliances still have been the same? The European balance had a way of shifting every few years. If the war would have started in say, 1918, would America have entered the war still? On which side? What about the Russian Revolution?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: Philippines
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Post Options Post Options   Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 11:37
The Russian Revolution, or at least its scale, depended on the empire's entry into the war.

The United States would be in it no matter what. If not an actual fighting role, then you can be sure that they would be profiting from arms dealing. Any side the British Empire took would probably be the same side the United States took.
"It is easier to talk than to hold one's tongue."
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Sep-2005 at 11:48

Not necessarily. If you read Churchill's memoirs from the 1st world war, they British were initially quite worried that the US might enter the war on the German side. After all, historically until then, the Americans and the British were not exactly good friends. In the US, the majority of the population wanted to stay neutral. Woodrow Wilson got elected on a platform of guaranteeing America's neutrality. The Anglo-American alliance only started in 1916, and in 1914 it was not a reality yet. It took years of British propaganda about the German militarism and their abuses in Belgium, and the sinking of ships which carried Americans to finally sway the US to the British side. In an alternate universe, the Americans could have conceivably joined the war on the German side. 

As for the Russian Revolution, while it may still have happened, would the Germans have transported Lenin to Russia from Switzerland still? Would the 1st revolution have happened sooner in the war and as a result, the Germans wouldn't have seen the necessity of throwing Lenin in the mix. Perhaps, if the war had started at a later date, the 2nd revoultion, the communist one wouldn't have happened at all...

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 04:27
WWI would have happened anyway because of the alliances which allowed any petty pretext to drag all powers concerned into a struggle that each of those states heartily expected to win.

However, the more time that went by the more the advantage shifted to the allies. Russia was rapidly industrialising and grew every more militarily capable with that. France was also recovering her strength from after 1871. We forget that Russia lasted into the war almost until the end, once the military difficulties were alleviated the economy could be put back on track and the causes of revolution properly stifled. Perhaps if a good 5-10 years went by the allies would have been relatively strong enough to have won earlier, and without the support of the USA. The result would be a triumvirate of Russia, Britain and France holding the world in their grasp.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 09:29
... unless Germany would have had a smarter foreign policy in the post-Bismark decades. For instance, Decebal posted that British were at a time worried a US entrance on the German side, in another topic, it's been suggested that the relations between the UK and the USA weren't so good prior to (and even after) WWI.

I think that a smart German policy would have been to hal the tensions with France, keep Russia in their side and build a European continental bloc. If there were UK-USA tensions, Germany should have exploited them all it could. Bsmark was wrong in one thing: in keeping preferential treatment with Britain, who was obviously the main German rival, but if the Germans could have managed to reverse the historical tensions with France, keep Russia allied and stimulate the North American ambitions over the British Empire (Canada, Caribbean, Pacific, naval domination...) they might have got a chance.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2005 at 18:39
Bismarck pretty generally had the right idea and Wilhelm's attempts at domination were so much more clumsy. Mind you I wouldn't try to stimulate the US into too much Empire building if I were running Germany. While in the short term it may weaken Britain, over the longer term Germany would be digging her own grave.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2005 at 15:52

Back to Franz Ferdinand, his accession to the Crowns of Austria and Hungary might have been the cause of a very different scenario (since this is speculation anyway).

Franz Ferdinand saw Hungarians as troublesome, untrustworthy and disloyal to the Empire, i.e. to the Habsburg Monarchy.  Had he succeeded Franz Joseph, his program was to institute a regime more authoritarian than the Dual Monarchy with it's roughly equal parts.  How in the hell he thought this would have been practical escapes me.

Hungary had already asserted itself as an equal in the Empire, and was not going to back down from that.  South Slav and Czech national feeling might have been accomodated in a federalist empire, although it would have been different than Germany's federalism.  However, F.F. did not show interest in that possibility.

The political center of gravity in A-H had shifted to Hungary since the later 1890s, with Hungary providing some of the Empire's ablest statesmen and political leaders.  In reality, the parliamentary process had most likely developed in both parts of the Monarchy to the point where F.F. might not have been able to pull off his political schemes.  He seemed to believe the Monarch had more control than he actually had by 1914.

So, we have a potential constitutional crisis, an unresolved relationship with Russia in the Balkans, and feeling of betrayal in Hungary and of frustrated nationalism north and south of Vienna.  Centrifugal forces may have torn the Empire apart from within.  Perhaps the Revolution might have begun in Vienna or Prague rather than St. Petersburg.

Too bad Komnenos is inactive now, because in that scenario, with Vienna and Prague being more advanced and sophisticated, the Socialists may have come out on top, and the Revolution might have had a generally democratic beginning.......but then Adolf Hitler was in Vienna, and so was Josip Broz, and Bela Kun, etc.

Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4321
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2005 at 21:07

Germany wanted a war and they wanted it before 1916 when they thought the Russian army would be unstoppable.  They had the doctrine that mobilization meant war.  The Kaiser threw out Bismarcks intelligent restraint in favor of gaining...gaining what....?  The only reason to build a fleet was to antagonize Britain, the only reason to reneg on the secret treaties with Russia was to antagonize Russia.  They pushed Austria to war against the Hunagarian parlements objections, they obsessed about their railroad to the middle east...they wanted to through their weight around, why?

The SPD was gaining int he polls, they wanted to avoid them winning too many elections and reducing the aristocracy and the monarchy, how to do this? Build a fleet, maek the army more powerful, attack your neighbors.  Germany started the war to solve domestic issues and use a post facto shopping list on everyone else.  If the archduke had not been assasniated the Germans would have found a way to start the war anyway.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8797
Post Options Post Options   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 06:18
I haven't read the responses (apologies, if I am repeating wat someone else has said), if the Archduke had not been assassinated another pretext would have been used for war at a later date, the assassination was the spark, the fuel was already there waiting for ignition (crap analogy, I know, lol).
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 12:26

Originally posted by Maju

I think that WWI was going to happen anyhow: the rivalries between Germany and Britain for European hegemony, between France and Germany for nationalistic nonsenses and between Austria and Russia for control of the Balcans were already extremely strong. Only a more prudent German leadership could have maybe (only maybe) prevented that Russia and Austria clashed as they did. The war would still had happened anyhow but maybe Russia would have been in the other side and that could have given more advantage to Germany. 

 

I'm not so sure about Britain wanting European hegemony, France, Russia and Germany yes, but Britain was always isolationist from Europe and only ever stepped in to stop any other country achieving hegemony.

 

 

Here's a list of the twists and turns that lead to WWI. Is should be called Pity Bismarck was Sacked, Or the Kaiaser, the Dick!

 

    7 October 1879
    Alliance Treaty Between Germany and Austria: the cornerstone of Bismarck's foreign policy and alliance system was concluded for 5 years, renewed quinquennially until 1918; terms: if either party attacked by Russia the other would come to their partner's aid with all possible forces; if attacked by some other power its partner would at least remain neutral; if the other power was aided by Russia, then each treaty partner was obliged to aid the other (note this condition for the 1914 case of Serbia being supported by Russia).

    18 June 1881
    The Alliance of the Three Emperors (Germany, Austria, Russia): concluded for 3 years, and renewed only once in 1884; terms: if one of the partners found itself at war with a fourth power, other than Turkey, the other two members of this alliance would remain friendly and neutral; if anyone of the partners went to war with Turkey they would discuss the eventual outcome in advance with the other two members of this alliance; the Austrian right to eventually annex Bosnia-Herzegovina when it wished was recognized; the principle of closure of the straits (the Dardanelles) was recognized and if Turkey violated this she would be considered at war with the aggrieved power; (other terms of less concern to us were also included); this treaty and its terms remained very secret.

    20 May 1882
    The Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, Italy): concluded for 5 years and renewed quinquennially until 1915; terms: mutual aid in the event of an aggressive war waged by France on Italy or Germany; if any partner was engaged in a war with two or more other great powers the other two would come to her aid; if one partner was forced to make war on another power the remaining partners would maintain benevolent neutrality (note the terms which allowed Italy to stay out of the war in 1914).

    12 February 1887
    The First Mediterranean Agreement (Britain and Italy, subsequently adhered to by Austria [24 March] and Spain [4 May]) was an exchange of notes rather than a treaty; terms: maintenance of the status quo in the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic, Aegean, and Black Seas; British and Italian policies to be mutually supporting in Egypt and North Africa; the agreement(s) provided a basis for common action in the event of a disturbance in the Mediterranean by France or Russia.

    20 February 1887
    Renewal of the Triple Alliance with modifications in favor of Italy and with closer cooperation with Austria in the Orient, in spite of growing Italo-Austrian discords.

    18 June 1887
    Russian-German secret treaty known as The Reinsurance Treaty to replace the expiring Alliance of the three Emperors; terms: each power was to remain neutral in the event one of them became engaged in a war with another party, except in the case of an aggressive war by Germany on France or by Russia upon Austria (other terms of less concern to us were also included).

    12 December 1887
    The Second Mediterranean Agreement [also known as the Near Eastern Entente] (Britain, Austria, Italy); terms: the partners agreed to maintenance of the status quo in the Near East and to keep Turkey free of foreign domination, including maintenance of her rights in the Straits (the Dardanelles) and in Asia Minor; the powers to intervene if necessary.

    28 January 1888
    Military agreement between Germany and Italy; terms: provided for the use of Italian troops against France in the event of a Franco-Germany war.

    3 February 1888
    Publication of the 1879 Austro-German Alliance as a warning to Russia, where much nationalistic agitation against both Germany and Austria was going on.

    18 March 1890
    Dismissal of Bismarck as Chancellor by the young German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II due in part to his dissatisfaction with Bismarck's handling of Russia and due in part to a desire on the part of the Kaiser for better relations with both Austria and Britain.

    23 March 1890
    German ministerial conference concludes with a decision to not renew the 1887 reinsurance treaty with Russia.

    18 June 1890
    Reinsurance Treaty with Russia allowed to lapse by Germany.

    6 May 1891
    Premature renewal of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria, Italy) and consolidation into a single treaty document (three separate treaties formed the original basis of the arrangement) due to French pressure on the Italians to join them against Germany and Austria.

    4 July 1891
    On a visit to London Kaiser Wilhelm II pressures Britain to join the Triple Alliance.

    24 July 1891
    French fleet visits Kronstadt. French and Russian agreement to oppose the Triple Alliance looms in the face of its premature renewal (see 6 May 91), the end of the Reinsurance Treaty (see 18 Jun 90), and the appearance of Anglo-German solidarity (see 4 Jul 91), all of which threaten to isolate both Russia and France.

    21 and 27 August 1891
    The August Convention between France and Russia; terms: it was no more than an agreement to consult in a crisis-but it was a starting point.

    1 August 1892
    French mission to Russia proposes a draft military convention, which the Russians are simply not yet ready to endorse.

    15 July 1893
    German military bill increased the size of the army and was badly received in both France and Russia. It acted as a stimulus to further Franco-Russian conversations.

    27 December 1893 to 4 January 1894
    Franco-Russian exchange of notes formalized the military convention negotiated eighteen months prior (see 1 Aug 92). This agreement, effectively The Franco-Russian Entente Cordiale, was classed as a military convention by France to avoid having to submit it (as required of a formal treaty) to the Chamber of Deputies (French national legislative body). The Entente Cordiale, the origin of the term for the Allied Powers in World War I, was as much a political as it was a military arrangement; terms: (1) in the event either partner were attacked by Germany, or by Germany's partners in the Triple Alliance (Italy against France or Austria against Russia), aided by Germany, then the other member of the Entente would attack Germany with all available forces; (2) in the event a member of the Triple Alliance mobilized, both France and Russia were committed to mobilization at once; (3) troop commitments and war plans were to be coordinated (note the commitment to mobilize as soon as any member of the enemy alliance mobilized, it is a key to events in 1914).

    3 January 1896
    A freebooter raid by local South Africans from the British Cape Colony against the South African Republic, the notorious Jameson Raid, was defeated by "Oom Paul" Krueger's Boer Commandos. Kaiser Wilhelm II sent a telegram ("the Krueger telegram") to congratulate the Republic (its intent was to pressure Britain into joining the Triple Alliance, but it back-fired) and it raised a storm of public protest in Britain leading to pressure on the Government to open negotiations with France and Russia. Her Majesty's Government perceived that it was increasingly isolated in a Europe rapidly dividing into contending alliance systems.

    3 January 1896 to 29 May 1901
    Britain spent five years after the Krueger telegram incident seeking friendly arrangements with both the Entente and Triple Alliance powers at various times and to varying degrees. In the final analysis, the settlement of outstanding colonial differences with France (the Fashoda Crisis of 18 Sep-3 Nov 1898) proved easier than swallowing the arrogance of the Kaiser.

    18 May-29 July 1899
    The First Hague Peace Conference established a permanent court of arbitration.

1901 .. return to top

    29 May 1901
    Lord Salisbury, British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, wrote an internal policy memorandum defending the British isolationist tradition and position; this ended negotiations with the Germans for an arrangement, which foundered in part on the German insistence upon Britain joining the Triple Alliance or not having any arrangement with Germany.

    30 January 1902
    In spite of Salisbury's policy position his government opened negotiations with Japan for a treaty in July 1901, and this was consummated six months later (30 Jan 02), ending Britain's "splendid isolation." The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a politico-military treaty, concluded for 5 years; terms: each partner was to remain neutral in the event the other became involved in a war with a third party, unless another power came to the aid of that third party. In which case the other partner (Britain or Japan) to this treaty would come to the aid of its ally; neither was to enter into an arrangement with another power (Russia) without consultation with its ally.

    28 June 1902
    Renewal of the Triple Alliance for six years.

    8 April 1904
    The Anglo-French Entente was consummated after long years of negotiation with a complete settlement of all outstanding colonial differences. This opened the door to Anglo-French military conversations which continued up to the outbreak of war in August 1914.

    December 1905-December 1906
    The Royal Navy laid down [Dec 05], built [Dec 05-Oct 06], and commissioned [Dec 06] the first all big-gun battleship, H.M.S. Dreadnought, which revolutionized naval architecture (in spite of the fact that the U.S. Navy already had the U.S.S. South Carolina class approved in 1905, they were not laid down until December 1906, hence, the failure to complete in a timely manner gave Dreadnought the honors!). This opened up a frantic naval construction race between all of the great naval powers, since all of their ships were now obsolete. [HMS Dreadnought mounted 10x12-inch naval rifles in five dual barbettes, three on the centre line and one on each side of the forward structure, giving her an 8-gun broadside; she turned 21-knots max. with a radius of operations of 6600 miles at 10 kts and 5000 at 19 kts; her power plant was a hybrid in as much as she burned both coal and oil.]

    17 January 1906
    Anglo-French military conversations about cooperation in the event of a European war began at the Algeciras Conference (which opened on 16 January 1906); Anglo-Belgian military conversations also began soon thereafter.

    15 June-18 October 1907
    The Second Hague Peace Conference. The British tried and failed to get arms limitation agreements, opposed by the Germans in no small measure because they saw it as an effort to limit German naval growth, then perceived as a challenge to the absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy in European waters, as well as world-wide.

    July 1907
    Renewal of the Triple Alliance, in spite of complete Austro-German distrust of the intentions of Italy in the event of war.

    31 August 1907
    The Anglo-Russian Entente closed the loop involving all of the great powers of Europe in one or the other of the two great alliance systems; Anglo-Russian differences in Asia and the Middle East, with special reference to Persian (Arabian) Gulf issues were completely settled. This arrangement solidified the pre-war positions of the great powers. The Central Powers, as they came to be called, were Germany, Austria, and Italy, opposed by the Entente Cordiale of France, Russia, and Britain.

    6 October 1908
    At last Austria annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, which enraged Serbia, Montenegro, and Russia. Germany, though not forewarned, loyally supported Austria, while France and Britain supported Russia. The lines were clearly being drawn in the sand.

    4 December 1908
    The London Naval Conference agreed among the ten naval powers in attendance on conditions of warfare at sea, including regulations governing blockades, contraband materials, convoys, prizes, and similar matters. It was never ratified.

1911 .. return to top

    June-November 1911
    The Second Moroccan Crisis aggravated differences between France and Germany over influence in Morocco, and precipitated a German show of force with the dispatch of the gunboat S.M.S. Panther to Agadir (1 July 1911).

    28 September 1911-18 October 1912
    The Tripolitan War between Italy and Turkey, in which Italy acquired the first elements of her overseas Empire by conquest of Turkish possessions in North Africa (hence the name of the war), the Mediterranean, and the lower Aegean. In this defeat lay the seeds of the Turkish desire to reform their military establishment and of the German military mission to Constantinople (Nov-Dec 1913) which would do so much to put the great powers of Europe on edge before the trigger for war occurred with the assassination of the Archduke on 28 June 1914.

    16 July 1912
    The Franco-Russian Naval Convention strengthened the 1893 military arrangements.

    22 July 1912
    The Royal Navy reduces the Mediterranean fleet by moving its battleships to the Home fleet to oppose the growing strength of the German High Seas Fleet. France soon after moved all of its battleship strength from Brest to the Mediterranean to oppose the growing naval strength of Italy and Austria. Thus France and Britain entered into active naval coordination and the Royal Navy effectively became committed to defense of the French coast against the German Navy in the event of war. British Mediterranean interests were to be protected, de facto, by the French Navy.

    18 October 1912-30 May 1913
    First Balkan War pitted Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece against Turkey, weakened by the outcome of the Tripolitan War just settled. Turkey lost the war, territory, prestige, and respect for her military forces. The war was settled by the Treaty of London, negotiated 20-30 May 1913.

    5 December 1912
    The last renewal of the Triple Alliance, for six years from July 1914. Italy was agreeable to this because of a closer relationship with Austria than hitherto, and greater friction with the Anglo-French entente, chiefly over Italy's occupation of the Dodecanese Islands after the Tripolitan War, only recently ended. Italian bases there appeared a threat to Anglo-French naval dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean.

    29 June-30 July 1913
    Second Balkan War precipitated by a Bulgarian field commander attacking the Serbs and Greeks, without his government's knowledge or approval. Greece and Serbia were quickly joined by Roumania and Turkey. Bulgaria did not win this war! It was settled by the Treaty of Bucharest on 10 August 1913. Bulgaria lost most of Macedonia and other territory, some to each of her antagonists. In this defeat lay the seeds of Bulgaria joining the Central Powers in their war in the Balkans in World War I, whereby Bulgaria hoped to recover what she had lost in this struggle.

    29 September 1913
    The Treaty of Constantinople between Turkey and Bulgaria set up the arrangement which, coupled to German influence in both countries, would bring these two powers to the aid of the Central Powers once the First World War began.

    November-December 1913
    The Liman von Sanders Crisis. The Turks sought German aid in reforming their military which did so poorly in both the Tripolitan and First Balkan Wars. The Russians were incensed over the powers given to von Sanders (he was to command the First Corps at Constantinople), and the possible outcome of any effort to revitalize the Turkish Army. This was a point the British would have done well to heed before opting to land at Gallipoli in 1915!

1914 .. return to top

    28 June 1914
    The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand (heir apparent to the Austrian throne)and his wife at Sarajevo, Bosnia, by Gavrilo Princip. The latter was an agent of The Black Hand, the society properly named Union or Death, which was a terrorist organization aimed at recovering Bosnia-Herzegovina for the Serbian state. The Serbian Government had prior knowledge and did nothing to prevent the assassination. Europe was generally sympathetic to the Austrian desire for "satisfaction" from the Serbs; however, the treaty arrangements created an explosive situation. Refer back to the terms of the several treaties on issues such as involvement of second parties to a dispute, and conditions under which a supporting power must mobilize. Also keep in mind that fear of being isolated had driven many of the treaty arrangements, and failure to back an ally might well mean that at a later time a power would have to "go it alone" if they failed to aid their ally at this critical juncture.

    23 July 1914
    Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia with 24 hours to completely accept the terms.

    24 July 1914
    Russian policy emerged: Serbia must not be attacked and annexed by Austria.

    25 July 1914
    Austria assures Russia Serbian territory will not be annexed; Russia settles on first military measures (preliminary mobilization steps) against Austria, to be followed by war if Serbia is invaded. France assures Russia of support. The Serbians order mobilization and then reply evasively to Austria, which immediately orders mobilization against Serbia.

    26 July 1914
    The British Foreign Minister, Lord Grey, proposes an international conference to resolve the problem short of war. France and Russia accepted, though the latter preferred the direct negotiations with Austria which she (Russia) had already initiated. Austria refused to submit a matter of national honor to international arbitration, and Germany backed her.

    27 July 1914
    The French initiate preparations for war short of mobilization; in London the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, directs the Grand Fleet, then on summer maneuvers, not to disperse to home ports. Lord Grey supports Russia, and does nothing to restrain her preliminary military measures.

    28 July 1914
    Austria declares war on Serbia, and the game is afoot!

    29 July 1914
    Austria mounts her attack on Serbia, but it will be 12 August 1914 before Austria is ready to do more than shell Serbian positions. The Germans urge Austria to renew negotiations with Russia and they try to obtain British neutrality. Russia orders general mobilization, altered later in the day to mobilization against Austria only after Kaiser Wilhelm sent a conciliatory message to the Tsar, his cousin "Nikky."

    30 July 1914
    Austro-Russian talks resume, however, for technical reasons, the Russians renew the order for general mobilization, which confronted the Germans with a crisis of their own, given the nature of their war plans (The Schlieffen Plan).

    31 July 1914
    Germany declared the existence of a "state of threatening danger of war" and sent a 12-hour ultimatum to Russia demanding the cessation of military activities on the Russo-German border. Germany then asked Paris what its position would be in the event of a Russo-German war. Germany refused a British request that Belgian neutrality be respected. At 1700 hours Austria decreed general mobilization (which meant war with Russia).

    1 August 1914
    France replied to the German query of the day before that in the event of a Russo-German war she, France, would be "guided by her own interests." At 1555 hours France issued the mobilization orders. At 1600 hours Germany issued mobilization orders. However, Germany offered Britain a promise not to attack France if Britain could keep the French neutral! At 1900 hours, in the absence of a reply from Russia to the ultimatum of the day before, Germany declared war on Russia.

    2 August 1914
    Britain gave assurances to France that the Royal Navy would protect the French coast from incursions by the Germans in any form, the "moral obligation" growing from the naval conversations after 1904. The German invasion of Luxembourg began, and Germany submitted a demand to Belgium for a right of free passage over her territory, in return for a guarantee of territorial integrity.

    3 August 1914
    Germany declared war on France, on the pretext of frontier violations. German forces crossed the Belgian frontier.

    4 August 1914
    Britain declared war on Germany in the wake of the Belgian invasion, which allowed Lord Grey to make an effective case in the cabinet, parliament, and for the government to make it to the country.

    6 August 1914
    Austria declared war on Russia. Italy, consistent with German expectations, declared that Germany's declaration of war was not consistent with the terms of the treaty under which Italy would be required to enter the war in support of her erstwhile allies. Italy thus declared her neutrality, which would last until she entered the war on the side of the Entente on 23 May 1915 (and then only against Austria, though she would later be forced into war against first Turkey, then Bulgaria, and finally Germany).

     

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/mowbray/gw-pre.htm

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 14:29
Originally posted by Paul

I'm not so sure about Britain wanting European hegemony, France, Russia and Germany yes, but Britain was always isolationist from Europe and only ever stepped in to stop any other country achieving hegemony.


Britain already had continental hegemony since the defeat of Napoleon and maybe earlier, though it exerted it through "distant" and indirect means, like confronting countries against each other.

Anyhow, what I meant was that Germany was growing faster than Britain and had already surpassed it in GNP for the time of the war. Germany and Britain were comparable in internal power but Britain had a much stronger external power, mostly the colonial empire but also a diplomatic hegemony. While France, Austria-Hungary and the others couldn't compare the true rivalry was Germany-Britain: the two industrial colossus of Europe. I think that Germany was too slow in getting colonies in Africa (they could have got much more) and too agressive in the continent (they could have acted much more prudently and wisely, specially on Russia) - but maybe I'm wrong and they actually had no choice.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 966
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 14:37
I kind of think Germany's desire for colonies in Africa was indicative of it's demise. Despite as you say being more competitive than Britain it chose a 19th century road of colonialism rather than a 20th road of capitalism, it's chosen path was an anachronism, even the British empire was realising this and begining to disband the empire.

Edited by Paul
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4321
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 21:04
Germanies colonies of desire thereof had nothing to do with it, it was all about achieving politcal means at home through aggression with other nations.  I do certainly agree that if any one man instigated the war it was the Kaiser.  Bismarck was happy with the powers of the nation he created, but when the Kaiser sacked him he replaced reason with mad ambition, and like a child wanted to through his weight around.  He saw his excuse in giving Austria-Hungary a blank check.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Sep-2005 at 23:13
Originally posted by Paul

I kind of think Germany's desire for colonies in Africa was indicative of it's demise. Despite as you say being more competitive than Britain it chose a 19th century road of colonialism rather than a 20th road of capitalism, it's chosen path was an anachronism, even the British empire was realising this and begining to disband the empire.


Actually Britain and France were much more active in the colonial race, that's largely why they won. Germany didn't seem to see the importance of colonies so it was left behind (lack of navy also weighted probably).

Before the creation of international trading schemes as EU and WTO, colonies were essential for capitalism: they provided tax-free raw materials that otherwise would be more expensive or maybe even unavailable at all. Colonialism and Capitalism are not opposed but rather synchronized. The USA could pass without many colonies because it had them in shape of de facto proctetorates in all Latin America. But Germany, while being the largest and fastest growing economic power of Europe, was lacking of those strategic elements.

So, in fact, Germany didn't choose the path of colonialism vs. capitalism as you say, but rather comitted the error of ignoring the colonialist facet of capitalism and was overpowered by France and Britain. Britain particularly had a particularly profitable and undisputed colony in India but it also got the share of the lion in Africa and prevented the partition of China because it would not benefit from it. Britain was so powerful mostly due to its colonies (and specially India).

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Sep-2005 at 19:14

Maju:

I seem to remember your comment that Germany embarked on the "colonial" path under Bismarck.

Just as a point, since Otto von Bismarck was such a political animal, I think he just used the colonial phenomenon for what he could get out of it politically in the domestic milieu.

When someone was showing him a map of Africa with all the colonial possibilities, Bismarck said to him:

"Your map of Africa is very fine.  Here is my map of Africa:  Here is France, and here is Russia, and here we are in the middle.  That is my map of Africa."    

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.