| Tango01 | 27 Jun 2014 9:54 p.m. PST |
"This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of an obscure event that changed the world -- the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. A month later, five of the six great powers of Europe had declared war on each other. By the end of the conflict four years later, 37 million soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded, empires were reshaped, and society had changed forever. Victorian principles of humankind's orderly progress and the gallantry of war were upended. In its place came the barbarity of trench warfare, gas attacks, starvation and the great "No Man's Land" between armies…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| kidbananas | 27 Jun 2014 11:45 p.m. PST |
A better question might be how would the world be different if WWII was a short war and the soldiers went home by Christmas 1914 or shortly thereafter?? |
| Sobieski | 28 Jun 2014 1:58 a.m. PST |
I don't understand that last post at all. |
| Dogged | 28 Jun 2014 3:35 a.m. PST |
The way secret diplomacy and conflict of interests were going between the main powers made war not a question of "if" but a matter of "when". After the Balkan wars and Serbian success; after Austria annexing Bosnia to its empire (beyond a merely administrative hold); because of German-British industrial competition; because a lot of factors it was going to happen. The assassination was an excuse. |
| kidbananas | 28 Jun 2014 4:06 a.m. PST |
Sorry, I meant if WWI was a short war, not WWII. I typed that message after a long day at work and school & didn't catch the typo. |
| Dynaman8789 | 28 Jun 2014 4:18 a.m. PST |
Different circumstances could have had it end up being different groups involved, or different allies fighting together. Lots of plausibly fascinating what ifs can be spun. |
| Winston Smith | 28 Jun 2014 5:03 a.m. PST |
WWI being a short war totally depends on how it ended.
"What if" the Marne never happened or failed. The Hun won. Then what?
What if the Marne totally succeeds.
In either case the Germans occupy Belgium and much of France. You cannot undo that. |
| John the OFM | 28 Jun 2014 7:28 a.m. PST |
Assuming that Sarajevo was the cause of WWI is too facile. No Great War without it? Really?
If not Sarajevo, it would have been just another "Damn fool thing in the Balkans that is not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier."
It would have happened anyway, with nothing but a different cause, and it would have unfolded the same way. The secret alliances would have assured that. The same gutless politicians and "statesmen" who saw no way out would have reacted the same way. If not 1914, then 1915. |
| 14Bore | 28 Jun 2014 9:39 a.m. PST |
I agree with John,(see how that happens?) anyway it would have been something that triggers it off. Europe was just waiting for a reason. |
| doug redshirt | 28 Jun 2014 10:47 a.m. PST |
Of course if it had happened in 1916 the Germans would have had more Corps ready. In 1914 just before the war they voted more money to increase the number of corps. Remember Germany was only training 50% of each annual class. So had plenty of young men to increase the size of the army. The French were maxed out on their training class sizes. The Russians were limited by money and just poor logistics. The British were not going to spend money on enlarging its current army. What could the Germans do with just 6 more Corps? Add them to the army in Prussia and go on the offense against the Russians to threaten Warsaw. This would draw Russian units into Poland away from Austria-Hungary. Russia's problem was who to attack and where to defend. In WWI they tried attacking both Germany and AH, it didn't work. They feared the Germans and the French were pressing them to draw German units away from the Western front. Or the Germans could have put a whole new army into the Western Front. Would that have broken the French? Who knows. |
| Tango01 | 28 Jun 2014 11:04 a.m. PST |
What if the Italians were easily broken?
A lot of Austrian-German troops for the west. Amicalement
Armand |
| corporalpat | 28 Jun 2014 3:38 p.m. PST |
Gotta say I agree with OFM and 14Bore, what if WWI had ended differently is a valid question, but to think it would not happen at all? Small chance of that I say. |
| cmdr kevin | 28 Jun 2014 7:39 p.m. PST |
A world that looks like the Batman cartoon form the 1990s. It was set in the then current day, but there were many anachronisms; the cars looked like they were from the 40s, only the military had jet aircraft, TV was still black and white, movies only recently went to colour and computers were big bulky mainframes. Clothing, hairstyles and social awareness were from a much earlier time as well. With out the shock of the trench stalemate, weapons and technology development is much slower. |
| kallman | 29 Jun 2014 4:02 p.m. PST |
I have to agree that WW I was a forgone conclusion. The Duke Ferdinand assassination just provided the excuse. |
| kabrank | 01 Jul 2014 8:09 a.m. PST |
Very good recent book on the Austrian-Hungarian side:- link Read this last week and would recommend. Generally looks like Germany regarded earlier start as better due to Russian expansion and re equipment plans started in 1913. This book also looks good for the German side:- link |
| Tango01 | 01 Jul 2014 10:18 a.m. PST |
Thanks for share my friend. Amicalement
Armand |
is back from Council of Five Nations.