"How to avoid WWI" Topic

This is an off-shoot of the thread "How to avoid WWII".
Note that answering "I don't think it could have been avoided" is a cop out and doesn't answer the question.

As it is a "what if" you can be creative and imaginative if you wish. The aim is to question how World War One could have been avoided.

My own thought.

World War One was a family squabble between the grandsons and granddaughters of Queen Victoria. The sovereigns of England, Russia, Germany and half a dozen other countries were her descendants. The Hapsburgs were close enough as well.

My own theory is that the whole family should have gotten together more and taken more vacations together. Wilhelm was a spoiled obstreperous child but what he really wanted was acceptance. George and Nicholas could have had everyone wondering who was who by switching uniforms enough. Granted not all were absolute monarchs, but they had a bond that might have been worked on. Perhaps millions could have been spared had Queen Victoria said "Now Bertie, let Willie win the stupid yacht race once in a while.,,, Goodness! I can't see why you children can't get along. Give Emma Schramm a knighthood too.

Interfamily dueling to prevent family fracases from
becoming international bloodbaths.

Let the 'gentles' settle their hashes in 'gentle'
fashion…

An idea that has occurred to me involves the Germans instigating a fight between the French and British in Africa. This might have been quite a small affair, especially compared to the fight that erupted in Europe. But it might have caused some more cautious behavior amongst the major European powers.

"How to avoid WWI?"

Don't shoot the Archduke!

The War could only have been avoided by Germany stepping back from its plans to dominate Europe. Gary Sheffield's Short History of the First World War. covers the arguments about causes in a fair and balanced way and decides that the Germans caused the war and were the only ones that could have stopped it. They could have reined in the Austrians, they could have done a deal with the Russians, they could have respected Belgian neutrality.
The French wanted Alsace Lorraine back, but would not go to war for he lost provinces without a British commitment. The Austrians were looking to have a war with Serbia to help unite their Empire, but they would not have taken on Russia unless the Germans had given unconditional support.
Given the weak nature if German democracy, the decision to fight was the kaiser's and thus he was to blame for the war.

Don't shoot Jean Jaures!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Despite the above mentioned warning to not cop out, I think WWI was unavoidable. The tensions between the nations and states of Europe, and the mostly European empires stretched around the globe, made the start and the spread of the war an eventual certainty. If it had not happened in 1914, it would have happened soon after. The world dodged the Great-War-Bullet several times before 1914 and any suggestions we may offer may have hypothetically caused a delay of hostilities, but I do not think avoidance was in the cards.
Militarism was rampant in the elite's minds in most European major powers and made it likely that disputes in Europe would be settled by war. Alliances assured that any local or regional conflict would soon spread far a field and drag in major powers. Nationalism was amplifying both the expansionist and xenophobic currents of Europe and making peaceful co-existence with neighboring nations more unlikely. Imperialism was causing friction between the European powers and acting like a feed-back loop to magnify tensions and militarism. Slavic vs. Germanic nationalism was not going to go away and the powder-keg of the Balkans was going to sputter and burn until it detonated taking Europe with it. Finally the Assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Crown-Prince set into motion a conflict between Slavic and Germanic satellites from which both sides were unwilling to back-down,so IMHO Europe's goose was cooked.
Now, if some great orator emerged and managed to convince all of Europe to attack Norway, maybe pan-European hostilities could have been delayed by a momentary distraction. Everyone knows Norwegians are evil and should be attacked whenever encountered. And don't get me started about Albanians!(An homage to the movie – "Please Stay Tuned").
Cheers.
Rod Robertson

The Russian Empire had a population in 1914 that was greater than the next 3 European countries combined and there was no American presence in Europe to block it. It was unlikely that Germany and Austria would ever have let Russia industrialize fully wo moving to block it. From that PoV, WW1 was probably inevitable.

I think Lewisgunner and Rod I Robertson have made cogent arguments that it was unavoidable. From my readings I feel the same. Kaiser Wilhelm was bound and determined to get his way and he wasn't reined in by a Bismarck. The whole of central and southeastern Europe was, as Rod said, a powderkeg with the fuse sputtering. Even with no assassination of the Archduke, the fuse would have sooner or later set it off.

Jim

The Russian, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian Empires were on their death beds. The competition for colonies by Germany, France, and the British was very high. Add to this domestic labor issues and you have all the right ingredients for a conflict.

The "inevitability" of WWI should serve as a sobering lesson for the US and China right now.

Well, there's plenty of blame to go around. The Serbs created the opportunity for a war, the Austrians and Russians ensured that there would be a war and the Germans turned what could have been a local war into a world war.

I'm not sure it was "unavoidable". If someone had just smacked the German General Staff upside the head and told them to make a PLAN B that didn't automatically require them to invade France if ANYTHING happened, then we might have avoided the larger catastrophe.

hey Otto ever heard off the "Act of Union " , happened in 1707 its when England Scotland and Ireland all joined together to become the United Kingdom , throw in the Welsh and you have the four countries that sacrificed many off there young men in WW1,so when you call my country "England " it is a bit of an insult , I dont think for a minuet you mean any disrespect , and it happens on here a lot , but believe me to A Scot , Irish ,or Welshman it is very frustrating . cheers mate

Possibly the only way war could have been avoided would be an early outbreak of Spanish Flu.

have Dragutin Dimitrijević and the rest of the Black Hand arrested in 1913

Europe was a magazine overflowing with loose powder in 1914, so I doubt war was avoidable. However, from a wargaming perspective, it didn't have to be Princip igniting an Austro-Serbian War leading to a Great War. There are a lot of fun wargame "what if" wars that might have attenuated the political tension without igniting a world-wide conflict. A few ideas:

• 1915 or 1916 Russo-Turkish War. In 1914 the Ottoman empire was about to get a big enough navy to contest the Black Sea (on paper) with the Russian empire. The two had been to war many times over the centuries, and both governments were having trouble quelling domestic turmoil, so either might have sought a war. Germany (and *maybe* Austria-Hungary) might have helped the Turks (conditionally) with arms sales, military advisors, technological help, etc. in order to fight a proxy war against the great enemy Russia. This war would have included a nice self-contained naval campaign in the Black Sea and a land front in the Caucasus, which could make for a very interesting dual naval/land campaign at the strategic level.
  
• Russian Revolution. In real life the Great War set off the Revolution, but Russia was already a seething mess internally long before that. It's not hard to imagine Russia collapsing into a bloody revolution in a future moment of weakness, such as after a long and bloody Russo-Turkish war (sic). It probably would have gone a lot like the real revolution, but with Germany as an added player. I'm not at all sure whether Germany would have backed the monarchy (Willy and Nicky were relatives and fellow absolutists) or the revolutionaries (Germany wanted a weak Russia).
  
• Austria-Hungary breaks up. Mounting pressure to grant more political power to its minorities was an ongoing process in Austria-Hungary, increasingly neutering the Dual Monarchy. The monarchists were not keen to let go of power, so the final straw before sundering the state probably would have been violent, again leading to a proxy war between factions (Germany behind Austria, France/Britain supporting the Slavic minorities, Italy "temporarily" annexing Trieste to "protect" the Italian-speaking inhabitants, etc.). This could be divided up into several fronts: the Serbian front, where the Serbians are invading to "help the Slavs" inside the empire; the Adriatic Front where Italy is militarily carving out an Italian-speaking client state at Austro-Hungarian expense; and a shifting internal front between revolutionary and monarchist forces ranging across Hungary and Austria.
  
• The Third Balkan War. The neighboring Great Powers (Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey) were all unhappy about the end of the 1913 Balkan War, so another one was inevitable – in fact, Austria-Hungary's attempt to instigate the Third Balkan War to its advantage is what caused WWI. But what if the Austro-Hungarians had been a little more patient and a little less aggressive, and just fomented war between the former Balkan League allies, then stepped in to "help". This might have lead to a big proxy war with Great Power politics, troops and navies all over the region.
  
• The Lesser War. Combine the Third Balkan War and Russo-Turkish Wars together for 3 side-by-side strategic campaigns: two land fronts (the Balkans and the Caucasus) separated by a Russo-Turkish naval front in the middle (the Black Sea). We have to assume the Turks and Russians are too busy in a death struggle to interfere much in the Balkans, leaving Germany without an excuse to go to war against Russia. To guarantee Austria-Hungary is unable to declare formal war on any southern neighbors and therefore ignite the Great War, we might also have to assume a Slavic nationalist revolution inside its borders. However, all the Western and Central European Great Powers would be fighting a proxy war in the Balkans, trying simultaneously to acquire new client states, prevent their Great Power opponents from doing the same, and avoid a full mobilization into a Great War. Plenty of chances to try out new technologies like airplanes, machine guns, indirect artillery, land mines, etc.
  

Nearly any set of WWI rules will simulate battlefields in any of these potential conflicts, though it might be hard to find miniatures and uniform guides for some of the armies. However, without the stagnant quagmire of a continent-spanning trench line, there might not have been tanks for a long, long time. Worse, in limited conflicts like a Balkan or Caucasian war, it might never have been noticed that cavalry were outdated, since they'd still be useful as mobile troops in under-mechanized areas.

For the naval campaigns, all the relevant miniatures exist in at least two scales (1/3000 and 1/6000) and probably will soon in 1/2400 if they don't already. The Black Sea is already very well covered by the Avalanche Press game Great War at Sea: Mediterranean.

- Ix

Martian Invasion. Tripods destroy most Earth cities, sink most navies and commercial vessels, decimate population. Human survivors unite around goals of planetary defense, counter-invasion.

Well, 1894 Treaty stipulated that if either Russia or France mobilized then the other would too and an attack on one would be considered an attack on the other. Germany tried to stop Austria from adventurism in Serbia knowing that Russia was in the throes of a Protect-E. Orthodoxy-at -all-Costs movement (in it now too it seems) Mobilization in that era was a freight train without brakes. Germany was trying to avoid the aforementioned 'inevitable'. Germany didn't really have manpower to fight a three front war (Italy) but in for a penny in for a pound once mobilization starts. [Did rather well until 2 million Americans showed up].

No, the thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn't a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
Captain Blackadder: Do you mean "How did the war start?"
Lieutenant George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.
Captain Blackadder: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
Lieutenant George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not.
[aside, to Baldrick]
Lieutenant George: Mad as a bicycle!
Private Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

I have always wondered if WWI had not happened would something have happened due to the collapse on Wall Street and the world a little more than 10 years later. I understand that it fueled part of Germany's response to WWII, but if WWI had not happened, and then the stock market collapse later I would believe that something would have precipitated a conflict pretty quickly. Another question I have had is whether WWI was part of a natural cycle that the Western World was just following of conflict happening every 20-30 years or so as something akin to a territorial relief valve. The US military has tended to follow a similar trend with their up and downsizing I think since at least the Civil War, and I think the pattern follows in Europe/Russia as well. I think both OP questions are interesting in the context of economic, political, cultural and of course military considerations.

About what Lewisgunner said:

The War could only have been avoided by Germany stepping back from its plans to dominate Europe.
…
Given the weak nature if German democracy, the decision to fight was the kaiser's and thus he was to blame for the war.

This is pretty much the conclusion I've read in English language histories (and probably French, Dutch, Russian, Italian, etc….). Assuming it's true, I see a few things that might have caused Germany to step back from it's aggressive Imperialism:

1. Petty Kaiserliche internal politics. The Kaiser was a bit fickle, like many spoiled princes, and occasionally removed people from power for purely egotistical reasons. Replacing Moltke would have taken away the Schlieffen Plan's strongest advocate. When the Great War did start, Moltke actually put the Schlieffen Plan into effect against the Kaiser's wishes and before receiving orders to do so. A less committed man with more personal loyalty to the Kaiser might not have, and war with France and Britain might have been averted. Similarly, kicking out Tirpitz earlier might have slowed or diverted the dangerous naval arms race.
   
2. Economic troubles. The extreme militarization of Germany was bankrupting the country. If pushed too much harder, it might have resulted in a slowing of the economy and a subsequent pause in German military accumulation. Germany really couldn't afford to beat Russia and France on land and Britain at sea. If a genuine worldwide recession or depression had started before a Great War broke out, Germany's excessive military budget might have caused a Great German Depression instead.
   
3. The untimely death of the Kaiser. He liked to do "manly" things, and might fallen off a horse, drowned, been killed in an artillery demonstration or zeppelin accident, etc. His eldest son would have been a weaker but less militaristic ruler, and the Reichstag might have subsequently gained power, ushering in more populist policies.
   

- Ix

"hey Otto ever heard off the "Act of Union " , happened in 1707 its when England Scotland and Ireland all joined together to become the United Kingdom , throw in the Welsh and you have the four countries that sacrificed many off there young men in WW1"

The 1707 Act of Union involved England and Scotland. Wales and Ireland were conquests and so could not consent or demur. The Act of Union with Ireland was later.

It could have been stopped if there were Strong RULERS (rather than "I just reign here")that could rein in the bureaucarcy and 'enevitable time tables'.

Even if war starts, some input from 'above' might have kept German forces from Belgium, or British forces from working close with France (from my reading a lot of the joint planning before the war was the work of a few British and French staff officers with little supervison).

If a PM had said, "hmm, NO" it could have turned into a replay of 1870.

In the East, once mobilized it is possible that Russia does not attack at once and waits to see what develops.

Lots of things had to align, no one seemed to be ready to de-rail anything

How about the Russians lean on their friends in Belgrade to suppress the Black Hand or at least direct them against some other target with less chances of igniting a world war? There was no love lost in the Balkans between anyone so perhaps Princip could have been launched towards a less significant member of a less significant nation.

And don't kill Sophie either.

The interlocking treaties are the cause of the global war.

The fact that so many nations also had their militaries on "hair trigger" alerts meant that a division changing it's home base in Hungary could result in French divisions marching into Germany. So that probably made matters worse.

Those two items could have slowed the development of local conflicts into a World War, but I don't see any way that a couple wars in Europe were NOT going to happen.

I always felt if the German Emperor Frederick III had not died of the complications from his cancer treatment in 1888, WWI would have been avoided.

link

I recently enjoyed the English TV miniseries 37 Days which was perhaps as good and dispassionate account of the causes which the English were capable of making. Any blame they feel is at best admitted only as mistakes and of course the Germans get the main hiding through the treatment. There was no mention whatsoever of their own imperial national interests and their obsession with naval supremacy.

What died (or should have) in the trenches of the Western front and across the deserts of North Africa was the the set of ideals which took them all toward disaster. Imperialism, power politics, the honour of statesmen and nationalism and collective cultural pride. It finished of a handful of outdated monarchical regimes but enough of them survived to ensure the lessons were forgotten after one generation.

What is fascinating is how representative democratic governments behave essentially the same today as their dictatorial ancestors and their less democratic contemporaries. Our so-called western liberal democracies are consistently as ruthless and careless with the lives and interest of foreign peoples as soon as it clashes with what our leaders interpret ours to be.

It was unavoidable then and it will continue to be so until human beings learn to self evaluate. Back to WWI – what a bloody, stupid mess. Ignoring Russia for a moment, if the French had just surrendered and Britain had stayed out, how bad would a total capitulation have been? Compare their 'victory' in 1918 and the cost to their 'loss' in 1871 and ask yourselves which you would rather have experienced. Just what the British Empire and my own country Australia got out of our involvement is anyone's guess.

The ability for a cultural leadership to act precisely contrary to their own best interest is fatal and consistent. Take how we deal currently with would-be ISIS fighters. In my country we are preventing them from leaving the country (as has Canada, the UK and the US) and now wonder why we are starting to experience the 'terrorism' on the home front. Dumber than I can fathom. Let me ask you this – if a bee flies into your car whilst doing 100kph, what do you do? My instinct is to wind down the window and let it out.

WWI was unavoidable, period. The growth of European powers and competing national interests have created a power keg waiting to blow and the balance of power was tenuous. Many were stuck in a 19th century mindset and did not anticipate the sheer destructiveness of 20th century warfare thanks to artillery and machine guns. If they knew it would bog down into trench warfare and stalemate, they might have thought twice.

Part of the problem, most evident with Germany, was requirement to move millions of men by rail. In Germany every inch of rail line and every train car was scheduled. They HAD to follow the plan or mass chaos would happen and they would probably have been hard put to even DEFEND their own borders.

Even if war starts, some input from 'above' might have kept German forces from Belgium,…

Invading Belgium was mandated by the Schlieffin Plan.

…or British forces from working close with France (from my reading a lot of the joint planning before the war was the work of a few British and French staff officers with little supervison).

The British and French staff officers "knew" the war was coming and given the size of the forces involved knew plans for landing the BEF and integrating their joint actions needed to be setup long in advance. Their political masters didn't want to upset the Kaiser with obvious war preparations.

If a PM had said, "hmm, NO" it could have turned into a replay of 1870.

Again, by treaty, Britain was pledged to defend Belgium (a neutral country). Once the Germans moved in the PM could not say "No". (At least if he wanted to stay PM.)

In the East, once mobilized it is possible that Russia does not attack at once and waits to see what develops.

Russia mobilized because Serbia asked for their help. The various treaties involved required Russia to move against Germany and Austria-Hungry.

Like I said, the interlocking treaties are what turned a local issue into a global war.

No interlocking treaties, no Great War. Still wars in Europe, though.

Aside from agreeing fully with Centurian, if Germany had had a more competent chief diplomat, Germany and the UK would have had an alliance early enough to have avoided the battleship arms race and to have settled somewhat German concerns over the French and Russian agreements. The UK made an overture to Germany that wound up being ignored by Germany at the time.

My own conclusion is WWI was not inevitable and that, while smaller wars may have broken out, a large continent spanning conflict could have been avoided. After all why should we bother gaming historical battles if we truly belief what happened was inevitable because that is what happened (and, yes, I'm still trying to parse out that statement).

Europe was a powder keg and everyone was smoking. From 1900 to 1914 general war almost started three times. It was not a question of if but only when.

To look at gamershs' statement another way, from 1900 to 1914 peace was maintained in the face of crises three times. There is no inevitably that Franz Ferdinand's assassination or any other difficulty had to lead to war. But there were people in positions of power (not the Emperors) in Berlin, Vienna and St Petersburg who felt that it was inevitable, and made it so.

John Rohl link seems to make a compelling case against Kaiser Wilhelm II in this latest book of his: link

I commend the reading of the review.

Jim

I don't think the OP is far off the truth to be honest. If he'd had a bit more affection from his mother, and if the British doctors treating him for his disability had been rather less barbaric in their methods, his hatred for Britain wouldn't have developed and festered and he might have felt he had less to prove to the world.

Ther was a fascinating BBC documentary ('A House Divided' I think) about his early life – his childhood was properly ed up.

Having thought a lot about this, I don't think that WWI was inevitable – highly likely, yes, but not inevitable. After all, the assassination of Francis Ferdinand happened beause of a very unlikely string of events – if his driver had known the streets better he would probably have survived. The assassination in Sarajevo set a series of events into action – but even then, had the leaders of the British Empire decided to sit this one out, it probably would have been resolved by the end of 1914 in the green fields north of Paris.

Had the start of way been delayed, it have been avoided. The German General Staff reckoned they had a window of opportunity until about 1917 – after that time, Russian railway development would have taken away the time window for mobilization they were counting on for victory in the West. Plus Franz Ferdinand had plans for changing how the Austrio-Hungarian Empire ran that would have made the Emprie more robust, which probably would have made their General Staff less trigger-happy.

There is also the economic thing. As noted, the German war machine was bankrupting the country, given that the Germans were trying to match the French and Russian armies and the British navy – and failing big-time at the latter. The politicians were beginning to ask questions about how much the German Empire could afford, but the war cut that debate off

Lebow has a recent book on this that is worth reading

Niall Ferguson makes a fairly good argument that Great Britain at least could have/should have stayed out.

Anyone see parallels to the current situations?

@Freecloud: Great Britain had treaty obligations that said they would go to war if Belgium was invaded.

You do not step away from an international treaty. Stepping away from one of them makes every treaty you have signed valueless.

Not exactly a treaty. Great Britain was a guarantor for Belgian sovereignty, but then again so was Prussia(Germany) and France.

Nothing in history is "written". Nothing is "destined." That is, unless you abandon individual responsibility and say "it's fate", "I's inevitable", "I am forced by events".

Barbara Tuchman way back in the last century showed how as they drew towards the brink, there was a sudden knowledge in EACH of the chanceries of Europe of what they were getting into and what it would mean, and there was a desperate attempt by the kings and presidents to pause and claw their way back from the precipice. In each case they were abandoned by the little, petty, nameless, faceless men who blandly replied "It's inevitable", "we can't draw back- we're too far committed", "It's fate", "It's destiny" "can't be helped", "Oh well I see it's time for me to have my dinner, see you tomorrow."

Well, Otto, I don't have any personal responsibility in whether Europe goes to war.

I simply cannot see any way out from several wars in Europe during the first 20 years of the 20th century.

I can see ways that might have prevented the whole of Europe going up in war, but I cannot see any way to prevent ALL wars in Europe.

Well the OP didn't propose avoidance of all wars in Europe, only the Great War.

Wm II wanted to be feted in Paris. If the French had invited him to join their polite society, instead of snubbing him his whole life, things would have gone differently. Little things like cliques cause wars, especially when parts of the same extended family treat other parts like outcasts because of ancient cultural biases….

If we had not had WWI we would not have had WWII and if we had not have had WWI Victorian society would have slowly evolved into perhaps something even more wonderful. But the brutal rape-dismemberment-murder of the Wars blighted the hopes of a century and into the beautiful garden of the Victorian world was sown the noxious weeds of fascism, communism, nihilism and nothing but ugly, poisonous, foul flowers.

If All of the money, resources, effort, energy, and emotion that was wasted in the wars could have been put to better use, like curing disease, lessening misery and degradation, we would have a cure for cancer, fusion power, and colonies on Alpha Centauri.

Great War Ace is correct. Absolutely correct.

If you don't think so, if you don't think that "Little things like cliques cause wars" then look around you at TMP. How many "wars have we had here on this forum because of cliques, petty slights, and snubs, with legalized stifles and ignores, and all in an extended family that has been "created" by our commonality of interest, and our pursuit of pleasure here through this hobby.

@Otto: yeah, the Napoleonics boards get a bit … "frisky", don't they?

I am afraid that even without the interlocking defense treaties and hair-trigger militaries, that it's quite possible for wars to spill over. And with the festering pit that was the Balkans plus the rising tensions between the Ottomans and the Russians, that's most of eastern Europe at war right there.

Yellow Admiral's list is pretty much the minimum I see happening without a Great War:

1915 or 1916 Russo-Turkish War. In 1914 the Ottoman empire was about to get a big enough navy to contest the Black Sea (on paper) with the Russian empire. The two had been to war many times over the centuries, and both governments were having trouble quelling domestic turmoil, so either might have sought a war. Germany (and *maybe* Austria-Hungary) might have helped the Turks (conditionally) with arms sales, military advisors, technological help, etc. in order to fight a proxy war against the great enemy Russia. This war would have included a nice self-contained naval campaign in the Black Sea and a land front in the Caucasus, which could make for a very interesting dual naval/land campaign at the strategic level.
Russian Revolution. In real life the Great War set off the Revolution, but Russia was already a seething mess internally long before that. It's not hard to imagine Russia collapsing into a bloody revolution in a future moment of weakness, such as after a long and bloody Russo-Turkish war (sic). It probably would have gone a lot like the real revolution, but with Germany as an added player. I'm not at all sure whether Germany would have backed the monarchy (Willy and Nicky were relatives and fellow absolutists) or the revolutionaries (Germany wanted a weak Russia).
Austria-Hungary breaks up. Mounting pressure to grant more political power to its minorities was an ongoing process in Austria-Hungary, increasingly neutering the Dual Monarchy. The monarchists were not keen to let go of power, so the final straw before sundering the state probably would have been violent, again leading to a proxy war between factions (Germany behind Austria, France/Britain supporting the Slavic minorities, Italy "temporarily" annexing Trieste to "protect" the Italian-speaking inhabitants, etc.). This could be divided up into several fronts: the Serbian front, where the Serbians are invading to "help the Slavs" inside the empire; the Adriatic Front where Italy is militarily carving out an Italian-speaking client state at Austro-Hungarian expense; and a shifting internal front between revolutionary and monarchist forces ranging across Hungary and Austria.
The Third Balkan War. The neighboring Great Powers (Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Turkey) were all unhappy about the end of the 1913 Balkan War, so another one was inevitable – in fact, Austria-Hungary's attempt to instigate the Third Balkan War to its advantage is what caused WWI. But what if the Austro-Hungarians had been a little more patient and a little less aggressive, and just fomented war between the former Balkan League allies, then stepped in to "help". This might have lead to a big proxy war with Great Power politics, troops and navies all over the region.
The Lesser War. Combine the Third Balkan War and Russo-Turkish Wars together for 3 side-by-side strategic campaigns: two land fronts (the Balkans and the Caucasus) separated by a Russo-Turkish naval front in the middle (the Black Sea). We have to assume the Turks and Russians are too busy in a death struggle to interfere much in the Balkans, leaving Germany without an excuse to go to war against Russia. To guarantee Austria-Hungary is unable to declare formal war on any southern neighbors and therefore ignite the Great War, we might also have to assume a Slavic nationalist revolution inside its borders. However, all the Western and Central European Great Powers would be fighting a proxy war in the Balkans, trying simultaneously to acquire new client states, prevent their Great Power opponents from doing the same, and avoid a full mobilization into a Great War. Plenty of chances to try out new technologies like airplanes, machine guns, indirect artillery, land mines, etc.

Can Americans etc stop making the mistake that George V chose to go to war – Britain was/is a constitutional monarchy – the monarch is a figurehead, who while supposedly retaining certain powers has to exercise, or not exercise, them on the 'advice' of his Prime Minister. The King could have been used as a diplomat to try and influence the Kaiser and the Tsar, but held no power.

Suppose that Europe dodged the Sarajevo bullet and an Austro-Serbian war was avoided and therefore did not metastasise into WWI. The Germans could have extended the Berlin-Baghdad Railway to Basra and into Iran. As Ottoman power waned German power would wax. Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would get a huge economic boost from access to reliable and comparatively cheap oil supplies. This newfound economic boost would allow the Germans to maintain their arms races with France and Britain. France and Britain would not let such a situation persist for long and would intervene to stop the expansion of German political, economic and military power in Mesopotamia. This would likely trigger a Western European conflict which would snowball into a world war very quickly. There was no way that the Brits or the French would allow Germany access to such resources.
IIRC Britain moved about 20 divisions to Mesopotamia to insure that no one but the Brits got their hands on Middle Eastern oil. This at a time when they were suffering huge losses and had critical manpower shortages in Western Europe.
When nations see their only tool for solving disputes to be a hammer, then all their problems are seen as nails. And when that happens the only outcome will be a whole lot of hammering. Then God help the Arabian and Persian wood which gets bashed by all sides.
Rod Robertson.