20th Century What if Princep's shot missed Archduke Ferdinand? What would the world be like?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Dry Rot said:
Was WW1 avoidable or inevitable?

If it didn't happen, would we still have seen the rise of the Nazis, the Russian Revolution and many other consequences of WW1?
Click to expand...
For the thread title, it was more dependent on whether he was captured after taking a shot (doesn't matter if he hit the Archduke or not). A Bosnian trained by Serbian nationalists with links to the Serbian military and government tried to shoot at one of the main leaders of the A-H Empire, the Austrians would have been pushing for the war and assuming that Germany would take the same actions with a supposed blank cheque, everything would more than likely happened the same, though we are dealing with what if's?


Was the First World War avoidable or inevitable is a hard question and depends on your interpretation of events leading up to the First World War, as Princep's shooting of the Archduke was a trigger point that set off a series of long and short factors and issues. Nationalism, an arms race, Imperialism, a naval race, racial tensions in Eastern Europe (AH Empire, Russia and Serbia, as well as Greece (British ties) and the Ottoman Empire), colonial rivalries, the two Balkan Wars, the decline of the Ottoman Empire and how it should be divided, and Russian designs on the Dardanelles was pushing all nations towards war. All these factors influenced the decisions made by all leaders in the July crisis of 1914 that led to war, they just needed that spark, which was Princep.

Whilst there were many groups in Europe supporting racial superiority and social darwinism, the Nazi movement, at its very early core appealed to ex-soldiers like Hitler and disfranchised middle class citizens (with the traditional nationalist morals and value) that have suffered during the First World War. Starvation, poor economic conditions, rise of extremist elements, distrust of democracy pushed many people towards the Nazi Party. So it is not unthinkable that there would have been a Nazi style party if the First World War didn't occur, it just would not have been as strong, well funded or popular.


It is important to note the importance of the Great Depression in driving voters and followers to the extremist elements in German politics, namely the Communists and the more popular nationalist Nationalist Socialist Workers Party with a charismatic leader, which eventually led to political pressure on President Hindenburg (one of the leading German generals of the First World War, that effectively rule Germany with Ludendorff during the war) that led to Hitler becoming chancellor. The Great Depression may not have occurred due to no First World War, we don't truly know, however we've always have recessions and economic/social crisis' that pushed people towards the political fringes in the past and even currently, look at Greece atm with their fascist party getting a lot of votes. I'll argue that the Great Depression in unison with the First World War provided the perfect conditions for the Nazi's and Hitler to thrive in, and once he was in power, war with someone was inevitable, but probably against Russia and poor old Poland.


As for the Russian Revolution and its links to the First World is a harder question to answer from my perspective as they are directly linked. If there was no First World, the Germans would not have had to send Lenin back to Russia on a train from Switzerland and without Lenin, the Bolsheviks would not have been able to pick their opportunities to sieze power against the Russian provisional government or even if they did, they may have not won the Russian civil war without Lenin's charismatic leadership style. If we go back to before Lenin and whether the First World War caused the revolution itself, the Tsarist government was having its fair share of difficulties with domestic unrest, but I would argue that the royal family would have slowly released some executive power to the Duma (Russian Parliament) to retain their power and turn themselves into a constitutional monarchy, to retain some power and keep the people happy. The First World War created very good conditions for the communists to come to power, the Tsarina's links to Rasputin (though that started pre-war) and the German imperial family, even more food and other shortages, high manpower losses that were loyal to the Tsarist cause and German occupation of large portions of Tsarist Poland and parts of Russian destablised the Tsarist regime massively.
 
Kangaroos4eva said:
For the thread title, it was more dependent on whether he was captured after taking a shot (doesn't matter if he hit the Archduke or not). A Bosnian trained by Serbian nationalists with links to the Serbian military and government tried to shoot at one of the main leaders of the A-H Empire, the Austrians would have been pushing for the war and assuming that Germany would take the same actions with a supposed blank cheque, everything would more than likely happened the same, though we are dealing with what if's?


Was the First World War avoidable or inevitable is a hard question and depends on your interpretation of events leading up to the First World War, as Princep's shooting of the Archduke was a trigger point that set off a series of long and short factors and issues. Nationalism, an arms race, Imperialism, a naval race, racial tensions in Eastern Europe (AH Empire, Russia and Serbia, as well as Greece (British ties) and the Ottoman Empire), colonial rivalries, the two Balkan Wars, the decline of the Ottoman Empire and how it should be divided, and Russian designs on the Dardanelles was pushing all nations towards war. All these factors influenced the decisions made by all leaders in the July crisis of 1914 that led to war, they just needed that spark, which was Princep.

Whilst there were many groups in Europe supporting racial superiority and social darwinism, the Nazi movement, at its very early core appealed to ex-soldiers like Hitler and disfranchised middle class citizens (with the traditional nationalist morals and value) that have suffered during the First World War. Starvation, poor economic conditions, rise of extremist elements, distrust of democracy pushed many people towards the Nazi Party. So it is not unthinkable that there would have been a Nazi style party if the First World War didn't occur, it just would not have been as strong, well funded or popular.


It is important to note the importance of the Great Depression in driving voters and followers to the extremist elements in German politics, namely the Communists and the more popular nationalist Nationalist Socialist Workers Party with a charismatic leader, which eventually led to political pressure on President Hindenburg (one of the leading German generals of the First World War, that effectively rule Germany with Ludendorff during the war) that led to Hitler becoming chancellor. The Great Depression may not have occurred due to no First World War, we don't truly know, however we've always have recessions and economic/social crisis' that pushed people towards the political fringes in the past and even currently, look at Greece atm with their fascist party getting a lot of votes. I'll argue that the Great Depression in unison with the First World War provided the perfect conditions for the Nazi's and Hitler to thrive in, and once he was in power, war with someone was inevitable, but probably against Russia and poor old Poland.


As for the Russian Revolution and its links to the First World is a harder question to answer from my perspective as they are directly linked. If there was no First World, the Germans would not have had to send Lenin back to Russia on a train from Switzerland and without Lenin, the Bolsheviks would not have been able to pick their opportunities to sieze power against the Russian provisional government or even if they did, they may have not won the Russian civil war without Lenin's charismatic leadership style. If we go back to before Lenin and whether the First World War caused the revolution itself, the Tsarist government was having its fair share of difficulties with domestic unrest, but I would argue that the royal family would have slowly released some executive power to the Duma (Russian Parliament) to retain their power and turn themselves into a constitutional monarchy, to retain some power and keep the people happy. The First World War created very good conditions for the communists to come to power, the Tsarina's links to Rasputin (though that started pre-war) and the German imperial family, even more food and other shortages, high manpower losses that were loyal to the Tsarist cause and German occupation of large portions of Tsarist Poland and parts of Russian destablised the Tsarist regime massively.
Click to expand...
There ya go :) Am reading it now
 
the Archduke himself if unharmed could have been a powerful force t prevent war breaking out. not saying he definitely would but it would have less chance.
 
pugsville said:
the Archduke himself if unharmed could have been a powerful force t prevent war breaking out. not saying he definitely would but it would have less chance.
Click to expand...
He was often a voice of peace against Serbia in Austrian-Hungarian politics.
 
Dry Rot said:
Was WW1 avoidable or inevitable?
Click to expand...

There have been a number of books in recent years (none of which I have read, just reviews) that attempt to debunk that notion it was inevitable and that the major powers had to real intention of going to war. Someone on here may have read one or two of them?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

medusala said:
There have been a number of books in recent years (none of which I have read, just reviews) that attempt to debunk that notion it was inevitable and that the major powers had to real intention of going to war. Someone on here may have read one or two of them?
Click to expand...

Look throughout the history of American war mongering. When they take out the peacemaker, all hell breaks loose. The Germans had to destroyed at all costs if capatlism was going to overcome socialism.
 
little graham said:
Look throughout the history of American war mongering. When they take out the peacemaker, all hell breaks loose. The Germans had to destroyed at all costs if capatlism was going to overcome socialism.
Click to expand...

I've read that the Lusitania was bait, as such to get the U.S public behind joining the war. Apparently the Admiralty knew there were uboats lurking and still kept the escorts in harbour. Packed with munitions so still considered fair game despite all the passengers on board.
 
suspect footskills said:
I've read that the Lusitania was bait, as such to get the U.S public behind joining the war. Apparently the Admiralty knew there were uboats lurking and still kept the escorts in harbour. Packed with munitions so still considered fair game despite all the passengers on board.
Click to expand...

crazy conspiracy theory stuff. do not believe everything you read.

liners were generally pretty safe from u-boats, speed sig zag course and your chances of being sunk rely onto u-boat been perfectly positioned before time. the captain made some poor choices. the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were used to move large numbers of troops in ww2 and were unescorted, they relied on their speed. what could have an escort done? nothing.

carrying munitions did not make the ship fair game. the cruiser rules of warfare applied.
 
pugsville said:
crazy conspiracy theory stuff. do not believe everything you read.

liners were generally pretty safe from u-boats, speed sig zag course and your chances of being sunk rely onto u-boat been perfectly positioned before time. the captain made some poor choices. the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were used to move large numbers of troops in ww2 and were unescorted, they relied on their speed. what could have an escort done? nothing.

carrying munitions did not make the ship fair game. the cruiser rules of warfare applied.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. I wouldn't say it was quite conspiracy theory material, probably more focused on painting Churchill in a lesser light than he's commonly viewed.

Regarding escorts, your right again as effective anti uboat tactics weren't put into place until midway through ww2.

WW1 was likely due to start at some point regardless, due to the annexation of Alsace-Lorrain and other tensions on the continent.

WW2 may have ended in a very different fashion if Hitler weren't such a meddler.
 
pugsville said:
crazy conspiracy theory stuff. do not believe everything you read.

liners were generally pretty safe from u-boats, speed sig zag course and your chances of being sunk rely onto u-boat been perfectly positioned before time. the captain made some poor choices. the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth were used to move large numbers of troops in ww2 and were unescorted, they relied on their speed. what could have an escort done? nothing.

carrying munitions did not make the ship fair game. the cruiser rules of warfare applied.
Click to expand...
Expanding on anti shipping tactics, it's interesting how much the Germans tended to invest more commerce raiders/cruisers and using pocket battleships during the Second World War often as commerce raiders.
 
If Princeps had failed to kill Archdule Ferdinand there were other conspirators waiting to have a go,spread out along the route of his motorcade.
 
Dry Rot said:
Was WW1 avoidable or inevitable?

If it didn't happen, would we still have seen the rise of the Nazis, the Russian Revolution and many other consequences of WW1?
Click to expand...

I'd probably be the beneficiary of my great grand dad's potato farm in the Austro-Hungarian empire. 5am starts in the middle of winter, in the slovak republic sounds like a dream.
 
Power Raid said:
I'd probably be the beneficiary of my great grand dad's potato farm in the Austro-Hungarian empire. 5am starts in the middle of winter, in the slovak republic sounds like a dream.
Click to expand...
I would have been growing wine in Bavaria if the Germans won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SBD Gonzalez
The true cost of the British Raj?
Replies
7
Views
854
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top