I often hear that a world war was inevitable due to various pressures and tensions between countries in Europe.

I often hear that a world war was inevitable due to various pressures and tensions between countries in Europe. Including population pressures and economic pressures.

What would have caused WW1 if not Franz Ferdinand though?

Was it always going to have the same countries on each side regardless?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What would have caused WW1 if not Franz Ferdinand though?

    Another accident like shooting at the border or diplomatic argument

    >Was it always going to have the same countries on each side regardless?

    Italy could fight on Central Powers side if Austrians gave up Tyrol and Istria (but it was highly impossible) and Turkey could stay neutral if not Young Turk autism

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If not Franz
    Unknowable
    >How do the sides look
    Britain was sending a diplomatic mission to Germany right before the assassination occured. They were looking to smooth things over with the Germans and shrug off their obligation to France. Had something else happened after this it would've been a much smaller war, only including Germany and A-H vs France, Russia, and Belgium + whatever small border nation wanted involvement.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Britain was sending a diplomatic mission to Germany right before the assassination occured. They were looking to smooth things over with the Germans and shrug off their obligation to France.
      Source? Why would Britain align herself with Germany? Germany was the No.1 threat to British hegemony. WW1 happened largely because of the animosity between Britain and Germany.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >shrug off their obligation to France
      Britain did not enter WW1 as part of its French alliance. The British were the last major power in the first wave of mobilizations and they were very clear to Germany that an invasion of Belgium would cross a red line. The Germans crossed it anyways.

      The British would have most likely stayed neutral if Germany didn't invade Belgium, whose existence and independence was guaranteed by treaty which even Prussia signed.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No matter what anyone says, WWI, much like the fall of AH, was not inevitable, even taking into account Fran Ferdinand's death.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is also this, had they moved faster A-H could've overran Serbia without any larger war starting

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was inevitable because international bankers wanted it to happen. No matter how many incidents were prevented or how friendly relations between countries got, they'd have just forced them all to start fighting eventually.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >international bankers wanted it to happen.
      Why?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        German Interational Bankers were investing in Turkey. French/British International Bankers were investing in Russia. They each wanted to own the link between Austria and Turkey or between Russia and the Adriatic, which lay within Serbia.

        See Bismark and his "some damn thing in the balkans"

        You have to remeber the whole Baghdad-Berlin Railway thing. Where does that go through? Belgrade?

        Turkey's involvement actually makes less than zero sense unless you consider the financial perspective because the war was ostensibly being fought over the Austria annexation of Bosnia, which was an Ottoman territory, so why were the Ottomans on the Austrian side? Because they wanted German investment to continue.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What would have caused WW1 if not Franz Ferdinand though?
    Something else. Germany wanted an excuse to go to war and Austria-Hungary's spat with Serbia was that excuse, they would've found something else if there were no assassination.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Entente propaganda

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Unironically, historians embrace the thesis that Germany was more accountable than the other parties for the July crisis escalating into a world war.

        Both Tirpitz, Moltke and Wilhelm were conspiring war in the years leading up to 1914 because they anticipated that Britain would eventually out-industrialize Germany and Russia would out-militarize Germany, so war sooner was better than later, meaning they would encourage war at the next opportunity.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Unironically, historians embrace the thesis that Germany was more accountable than the other parties for the July crisis escalating into a world war.
          There are plenty of historians who reject the parroting of Entente propaganda, most notably Christopher Clark, and their views are becoming increasingly prominent while the old sonderweg bullshit, as propagated by Fritz Fischer and his ilk, is becoming increasingly discredited.
          >Both Tirpitz, Moltke and Wilhelm were conspiring war in the years leading up to 1914
          That's not what the article says. What it does say is that IF there was to be a war they would prefer that it happen sooner rather than later, and that much is true, but it does not say that the Germans wanted war nor that they thought war was inevitable.
          Also, a very important detail is that Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, or any other civilian minister, was not present at the council, and Germany did not and could not go to war without the approval of the cabinet. And ignoring the civilian leadership is really one of the most glaring faults of the anti-German narrative, as you won't find the same type of jingoists in the cabinet as you would in the general staff, but Gernany was not a military dictatorship, the power to determine foreign policy and to declare war rested with the civilian cabinet as it did in most other countries.
          And another thing worth pointing out is that the article mostly relies on the decades-old works of one of these sonderweg boomers, John C.G. Röhl, even for the bit about historians who disagree with him, so it's not at all a good source, even by wikipedia standards.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            All of this would be true, if it wasnt for the fact that it completely aligns with how Germany dealt with the July crisis, namely to push the hesitating Austrian crown with its declaration of war on Serbia.

            You simply cant refute that Germany gave Vienna a blank cheque for war, which was far more of a cataclysm of ww1 than the actual assassination. It was also then Germany who escalated the war from being a Russian-Austrian conflict into a global conflict. The Russians tried to mediate a peace, Germany refused mediation.

            I agree that everyone is responsible for ww1, but Germany really had the power to make or break it far more than any other party.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Other than muh blank cheque and muh they declared first you don't seem to know anything about how the Germans handled the July Crisis. The reality is that they took the utmost care to NOT provoke an Entente intervention at the behest of Serbia, not doing any sort of preparations for what was to come and even having everyone, including both Moltke and the Kaiser himself, take their scheduled vacations as if this was a regular summer. The same also goes for Austria-Hungary who mobilized only against Serbia and not against Russia, which ended up fricking them over once Russia did join the war. If the Germans actually wanted war the logical course of action would have been the opposite, to do the utmost to provoke Entente intervention and to ensure that their allies were adequatly prepared for Russia. Instead their restraint shows that they wanted France and Russia to stay the frick out of it.

            The Germans weren't looking to go to war, but they weren't going to back down from one either. After the earlier Entente provocations over Morocco and Albania they figured that war might be inevitable and therefore they shouldn't back down in the next crisis as Russia would only grow stronger over time, that was their reasoning behind the infamous blank cheque, plus that they fully understood that the assassination wasn't something that Austria-Hungary, for their part, could let slide. And irregardless of their reasoning, it is honestly silly to regard it as a cataclysmic event as it basically presumes that the other side couldn't have done anything differently, not to mention the fact that the French had given the Russians a blank cheque of their own before the ultimatum had even been sent.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Other than muh blank cheque and muh they declared first you don't seem to know anything about how the Germans handled the July Crisis. The reality is that they took the utmost care to NOT provoke an Entente intervention at the behest of Serbia, not doing any sort of preparations for what was to come and even having everyone, including both Moltke and the Kaiser himself, take their scheduled vacations as if this was a regular summer. The same also goes for Austria-Hungary who mobilized only against Serbia and not against Russia, which ended up fricking them over once Russia did join the war. If the Germans actually wanted war the logical course of action would have been the opposite, to do the utmost to provoke Entente intervention and to ensure that their allies were adequatly prepared for Russia. Instead their restraint shows that they wanted France and Russia to stay the frick out of it.

            The Germans weren't looking to go to war, but they weren't going to back down from one either. After the earlier Entente provocations over Morocco and Albania they figured that war might be inevitable and therefore they shouldn't back down in the next crisis as Russia would only grow stronger over time, that was their reasoning behind the infamous blank cheque, plus that they fully understood that the assassination wasn't something that Austria-Hungary, for their part, could let slide. And irregardless of their reasoning, it is honestly silly to regard it as a cataclysmic event as it basically presumes that the other side couldn't have done anything differently, not to mention the fact that the French had given the Russians a blank cheque of their own before the ultimatum had even been sent.

            If there was any cataclysmic event, other than the assassination, it would rather be the Russian mobilization. Blaming the Germans for declaring war first is wrong because their whole war plan was about striking France before Russia could fully mobilize, so when the mobilization started their only option was to go to war right away as backing down was completely unacceptable at this point and mediation would make the war unwinnable if it would still come to that. You seem to imply that they should have let Russia invade Austria without getting involved, but Germany had treaty obligations to defend them, and Austria was their only reliable ally.

            And there was no serious desire by the Russians for mediation, they wanted the Austrians to back down just like the Austrians wanted the Russians to back down. The ones who did try to mediate were the British, but the Austrians turned it down because they thought mediation would probably not end in their favour.

            All in all, both sides are to blame, but if the Entente had stayed out it would have only been a Austro-Serbian war.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Germany gave Vienna a blank cheque for war
            Russia gave the exact same cheque to Belgrade.
            Serbia was expected to accept the ultimatum, but with full assurances of military backing from Moscow of course they didn't.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Unironically, historians embrace the thesis that Germany
          Anglo historians do.

          >Both Tirpitz, Moltke and Wilhelm were conspiring war
          There were hawks in every government. You should read what Churchill was saying at the time. The man was completely nuts, just foaming at the mouth warmongering.

          As far as Wilhelm being an evil moustache twirling villain - complete anglo propaganda. It's pathetic that you are still repeating it over 100 years later.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    All wars are avoidable.

    But the world needed an industrial war to understand how destructive an industrial war can be. War was still romanticized in the early 20th century because people simply didnt understand how destructive it had become.
    The reason we are so pacifict today, and so globalized in our relations and cooperation, is a direct consequence of the lessons learned from ww1.
    In fact, a major cause fro ww2 was because the world turned too pacifist when they in fact should have stood their ground early on.

    The only way to avoid ww1, as far as I see it, is if somehow diplomacy succeeds until the late 1940s when nuclear weapons are introduced. War was avoided several times, such as over Morocco and the Fashoda Incident.

    But it's hard for diplomacy to continiously succeed when diplomacy was literally upheld on the basis of cousins and wives, with limited international cooperation, communication, romanticizing militarism and nationalism, no real international body or lobby, political conviction exploding, and .... well ... kaiser Wilhelm.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The reason we are so pacifict today
      Is because of nukes
      We had a second war after the first one when everyone understood how destructive that would be. It was only because nukes made it SO destructive and would be over within minutes that people decided it wasn't worth it. Without nukes the pattern of escalation allows you to eventually work yourself up to a full scale way even if you have a "phoney war" in the interim. With nukes you avoid even declaring the phoney war because the risk is too great.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >War was still romanticized in the early 20th century because people simply didnt understand how destructive it had become.
      The demonisation of war is an effect of propaganda, had Marinetti been a household name instead of Remarque you'd argue that WW1 convinced everyone that war is good but it were the pacifists who were being promoted for various reasons. The assumption that people were pro-war because they didn't understand the destructiveness is just wrong. In the world of literature you can point to things like Simplicius Simplicissimus as an example of omg war so destructive piece of work and it was written in 17th century. Similar themes show up in for instance Candide and many other works. The human inclination is simply pro-war despite any warnings about its destructiveness and it took decades of propaganda to temper it in the recent period, even then among the parts of the society that received less taming pro-war sentiment is very visible whenever an occasion to war happens, the peace propaganda works better on people with good education it seems.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Come on. All those cripples coming home probably had a larger effect than a few adrenaline junkies like Jünger.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        ¨
        You have a point, but ww1 was much larger in scale than any previous war, everyone knew a veteran or someone who had been killed, literally every single person was affected, not to mention the existance of the media, and ww1 occured during a time of social awakening, with all the labour rights movements and democratic rights protests. These were already rebelling and holding marches on a daily basis against the conservative established elite and ruling class, ww1 merely poured fuel over the fire even if there was a surge of nationalism among the working class in the initial year of the war.

        No matter how you spin it, ww1 was absolutely defining in human history when globalisation for cooperation between nationstates with specific laws and protocolls became a real thing, and not just some poshed meeting between ruling cousins.
        I remember listening to a seminar by Richard Overy on the German reaction to Britains declaration of war, and apparently there was no excited crowds or waving of swastika flags when the news came out that Germany and Britain was once again at war i 1939. The German people withdrew to their homes in anguish because all of them had experienced ww1 and knew exactly what was to come and not even the die-hard nazi militarism could change that emotion.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's considered inevitable because there was no framework in place to stop wars from happening, no NATO, no EU, no nukes, no UN (lol).
    Serbia would still keep financing terror attacks and if that situation was somehow solved non-violently, the gloves would probably still come out at some point. Because why not?
    War was seen as a normal thing you did back then.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I tell you chaps, the Jerrys were going to have their war whether we liked it or not. There is a reason they started inflating their own currency, storing gold reserves and issuing fiat money before the turn of the century. Those old boys were up to no good I tell you, but you shouldn't need me to tell you that, the Huns have always been a barbaric lot.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's an argument that the real cause was more of a human agency thing.

    If you look at the last 20 years proceeding the war there were several incidents that could've led to it but didn't like Moroccan crisis, when the assassination of Franz happened a lot of observers reacted with something like "there will be half a year of negotiations with mediation by other great powers and it'll be figured out" and then the Austrians sent an extremely short ultimatum.
    There's an acronym in English for the structural argument, so it's rather commonly given, but there's also a lot of things that just counter it, revanchism is overblown, Russian, German and other jingoism is overblown, the colonial tensions are overblown(literally an effect of propaganda) meanwhile no attention is given to the fact the war was extremely economically destructive(the greatest economic crisis in human history happened in 2nd half of 1914) which was expected(see Ivan Bloch) so there was a pressure of the elites against the war, there was an exaggerated fear that if the war erupts there will be massive draft riots or even outright rebellions etc.

    The alternative version is simply either people in Austrian diplomatic service were just decidedly pro-war for the sake of war or they believed what they did was a good negotiation strategy(presenting their confidence in a sense) to get the affair solved quickly, when the Serbs didn't yield backing down would tear down that facade so they went to war instead which started a domino

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was a lot of tension between the Austrian and Hungarian halfs of the empire, Franz Ferdinand had a plan (that he helpfully left written down for us) to basically revoke Hungary's special place. Historians believe this might have led to a civil war, which could have expanded into a general european war
    In Britain, Irish home rule had passed Parliament and was about to be inacted. The prods of Northern Ireland however weren't too happy about this, fearing popish domination from the south and some had already disobeyed westminster in the Curragh mutiny. It was likely a civil war in Ireland would happen with the Northerners refusing to accept home rule, and with much of the rest of Britain supporting the northern protestants, some sort of general unrest in the rest of Britain was likely. It was so bad some in the British cabinet are recorded as wanted a european war to distract the population from ireland in early 1914. Unlikely to lead to a general european war, but some sort of conflict is inevitible
    There were a vast number of Italians living in the area around Istria, particalarly in the cities. While Austria and Italy were offically allied, they were not at all friendly. Many Austrians believed Italy was Austria's principal foe through the 19th century, and the inzono front of WW1 proved to be Austria's most succesful front, perhaps in part motovated by this. Italy strongly desires Istria yet Austria cannot afford to lose it. Of their 3 main naval bases (Pola. Trieste and Fiume) 2 are in istria. The third is in Hungary and thus was considered politically unreliable
    Basically everyone in europe bar the French feared Russia growing industrial power and believed it was only a few short years before Russia became undefeatable. With many believing a general European war was inevitable and with pro-war figures like Von Moltke and von Hötzendorf in high places, perhaps someone would simply declare war on someone else, nevermind a preceding crisis

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    often? i never heard of that

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *