Alternate Causes of World War I

[JJohnson]

I'm trying to come up with alternate causes for World War I that would not ignite with Franz Ferdinand getting shot, but I'm drawing a blank.

Specifically, given that:
1871 - Germany, Austria, Bohemia merged together into one Germany; Hungarian Empire exists as remnant of former Austria Hungary
1888 - Friedrich III does not develop cancer, and deepens British-German relationship, limits navy, still develops colonies, and has some intermarriage between royal families. Wilhelm II is not a breech birth, and is more inline with Friedrich III's temperament, and is a competent Kaiser (not sure how long Friedrich stays around).
1888-1908 - France develops ties to Russia in response to German-British relationship.
1870-1908 - Greece regains Constantinople and Smyrna (or as a result of WW1).

1912 - War starts?

I'm looking for an alternate to World War I to evolve, mostly from France's "smackdown" (for lack of a better term) from the Franco-Prussian War, and the resultant criss-cross of alliances and treaties that drag everyone in Europe into war. Ideally for this situation, the UK, Germany, Italy, and Greece fight on one side, while France, Spain, Russia, and the Ottomans fight on the other. The Ottomans would be tough considering the Turko-Russian War in the 1878 timeframe, but could be doable as a French ally, not technically a Russian ally.

What would be a plausible series of events be given the above? At the very least, Germany-UK would be allied, and France-Russia on the other side, with the US on the German-British side late in the war. I'm hoping to avoid Franz Ferdinand's OTL fate, and essentially stalemate the war until the Americans join in around 1916/7 or so. There would be a Versailles Treaty, but this would lay blame for the war on France.

I'd appreciate any help you could provide on this.

[EvolvedSaurian]

Originally Posted by JJohnson

1870-1908 - Greece regains Constantinople and Smyrna.

Regains? I'm sorry, did I miss something here?

[New Patomic]

The scenario is interesting, however it's going to take one hell of a war, butterflies, and insane luck to have Greece gaining that much before or after World War I.

[imperialaquila]

Something in the Balkans is the easiest way. They didn't call it the powder keg of Europe for nothing.

[EvolvedSaurian]

Originally Posted by New Patomic

The scenario is interesting, however it's going to take one hell of a war, butterflies, and insane luck to have Greece gaining that much before or after World War I.

Reading this and looking at your location made me giggle from irony. But just a little.

[New Patomic]

Originally Posted by EvolvedSaurian

Reading this and looking at your location made me giggle from irony. But just a little.

Even the best Wanks can't get past sheer limitations/ASBism

[mikegold]

Originally Posted by EvolvedSaurian

Regains? I'm sorry, did I miss something here?

Most of Classical and Medieval history.

[eaglesfan101]

You can't really pick out an alternative cause. The First World War was inevitable. One tiny spark and it would have begun.

[EvolvedSaurian]

Originally Posted by mikegold

Most of Classical and Medieval history.

Find me a country named 'Greece' on any map before 1821. Go ahead, try it.

I'll save you time. You won't.

[I Blame Communism]

WW1 happening at all in such a world seems highly unlikely. The French leadership were always profoundly conscious of their own weakness against Germany. The time before WW1 had seen renewed fdeelings of setrength and confidence in France about the French military and its allies. If Britain is pro-German (and I find that in many timelines it's assumed that Germany refraining from a prestige fleet will make us not merely ambivelant about their utter domination of Europe, but even enthusiastic), France won't feel ready to start a war, and indeed Russia will probably keep its head down in the Balkans.

Originally Posted by mikegold

Most of Classical and Medieval history.

British India in one form or another has lasted for longer than the Republic of India.

And your point is?

Not to mention the excellent objection raised by ES.

[Bill Cameron]

JJohnson,

You've some interesting alliances there, especially the Ottomans and Russia on the same side. I'm not suggesting that both nations would always be at each others' throats, but I'm wondering just strategic goals they can share or even work in tandem towards.

You see, the Balkans is a zero sum game. If the Ottomans regain lost territory, they're doing so against Russian client states and Russian interests. Conversely, if the Russians and Russian clients do well, they're going to be treading on Ottoman toes too. I just don't see how an alliance between the two, even an alliance of convenience, can balance the strategic desires of both parties.

While I can definitely see the Ottomans entering the war with Egypt as a goal and Russia entering the war with territorial adjustments across eastern Europe as a goal, it's their long term and ultimately conflicting goals in the Balkans that make idea so very hard to envision.


Bill

[A.M. Turtle]

Perhaps a war for the empires in Africa?

[JJohnson]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

JJohnson,

You've some interesting alliances there, especially the Ottomans and Russia on the same side. I'm not suggesting that both nations would always be at each others' throats, but I'm wondering just strategic goals they can share or even work in tandem towards.

You see, the Balkans is a zero sum game. If the Ottomans regain lost territory, they're doing so against Russian client states and Russian interests. Conversely, if the Russians and Russian clients do well, they're going to be treading on Ottoman toes too. I just don't see how an alliance between the two, even an alliance of convenience, can balance the strategic desires of both parties.

While I can definitely see the Ottomans entering the war with Egypt as a goal and Russia entering the war with territorial adjustments across eastern Europe as a goal, it's their long term and ultimately conflicting goals in the Balkans that make idea so very hard to envision.


Bill

Very true, which is what's stalling me there. The Ottomans had a long history going up into the Balkans as part of their Empire, so they could be said to have a historical claim going back several centuries up to Budapest, and down into the Middle East.

Russia has ethnic Slavs in the region, giving them an interest, though I admit I'm unclear how strong the 'fellow Slav' sentiment is at this point in history (say 1870-1920).

A possible compromise for the two powers would be that Russia would help the Ottomans hold up to Albania, leave Bulgaria alone, and focus on regaining Egypt, while the Ottomans would cede Bulgaria/Yugoslavia to the Russians. The Ottomans would allow Russian Naval ships through Istanbul giving them a warm water exit point that they've wanted for the longest time (this might be a reason for the British/Germans to take Istanbul and give it to the Greeks in a peace settlement);

Roughly:

Ottomans: Egypt, Libya, Albania, Macedonia, Greece
Russia: Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Iran?

I don't know what Russia would gain from Iran at this point in time though. Would the two powers agree to this, though?

And if the Ottomans don't really draw themselves in - I did read Sultan Mehmed V tried to stay neutral, and the Germans along with Mehmed's advisor led them in on the OTL Central Powers. Perhaps Paris entreats the Sultan, agreeing to offer assistance with Egypt (to gain Suez access) in exchange for Ottoman help up the Balkans?

On the issue of Istanbul, I'm not sure it's likely Greece can gain it back until the Ottomans fall on the losing side of a war, and the Greeks press British allies to swap the city.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by eaglesfan101

You can't really pick out an alternative cause. The First World War was inevitable. One tiny spark and it would have begun.

Funny, they used to say the same of the Cold War.

I remember reading about a book published in 1912, sorry but I can’t remember the title, that “proved” that there would never again be a large war in Europe because the economies of Europe were so thoroughly integrated that the disruption to their economies meant that even the victors would be worse off at the end then when they went into the war. It was entirely logical. Unfortunately it didn’t take into account war caused by miscalculation and misadventure.

Plus, the point of this site is to examine various periods of history more thoroughly by looking at alternatives. Hence the title of Alternative History not Inevitable History.

[Whanztastic]

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron

You've some interesting alliances there, especially the Ottomans and Russia on the same side. I'm not suggesting that both nations would always be at each others' throats, but I'm wondering just strategic goals they can share or even work in tandem towards.

Actually I found one about twenty minutes ago without knowing this thread was here. I'd reveal it but I'm planning on writing a timeline which involves it. My only hint is that involves the nation which Bismark thought would plunge Europe into chaos (not Serbia).

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by eaglesfan101

You can't really pick out an alternative cause. The First World War was inevitable. One tiny spark and it would have begun.

Nothing in history is inevitable.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

Nothing in history is inevitable.

Except Death and Taxes.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Cook

Except Death and Taxes.

Well, you're half right. We'll always have to pay taxes.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by EvolvedSaurian

Find me a country named 'Greece' on any map before 1821. Go ahead, try it.

I'll save you time. You won't.

Ah pedantry. Where would AH.com be without it?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by EvolvedSaurian

Find me a country named 'Greece' on any map before 1821. Go ahead, try it.

I'll save you time. You won't.

EvolvedSaurian is about to recall his ambassador for consultations…