AH Challenge: Earliest or latest possible WWI

What is the earliest possible WWI given all the tensions in Europe? Additional, what is the latest point where these tensions have to burst out assuming the Archduke wasn't assassinated and there has to be another flame to lit the already existent powder keg in Europe?

This is posted in Before 1900 because some of the PODs could be before the 20th century.
 
What is the earliest possible WWI given all the tensions in Europe? Additional, what is the latest point where these tensions have to burst out assuming the Archduke wasn't assassinated and there has to be another flame to lit the already existent powder keg in Europe?

This is posted in Before 1900 because some of the PODs could be before the 20th century.


The Fashoda Incident in 1898 could have been quite nasty. GB vs France, with Germany deciding to kick France again to teach them a lesson.
 
What is the earliest possible WWI given all the tensions in Europe? Additional, what is the latest point where these tensions have to burst out assuming the Archduke wasn't assassinated and there has to be another flame to lit the already existent powder keg in Europe?

This is posted in Before 1900 because some of the PODs could be before the 20th century.

Fashoda Incident of 1898. What started as a minor skirmish between Great Britain and France quickly turns into a World War as the other powers get involved.
 
Panjdeh Incident between Great Britain and Russia in 1884. War could break between the two if the British didn't recognize Russian possession of territory north of the Amu Darya. If war did break between the two powers, it could easily get the other powers in play. (probably France, Great Britain, and Ottoman Empire on one side and The Three Emperors' Alliance & Italy on the other)
 
You could delay the Duke's Assassination by having Gavrilo Princip not hit the cafe after the failed first attempt or have Ferdinand listen to his advisors and not go to visit the hospital.
 
The Fashoda Incident in 1898 could have been quite nasty. GB vs France, with Germany deciding to kick France again to teach them a lesson.

Respective alliances get thrown in play again. Great Britain wasn't part of any alliance at the time, and therefore will probably join the Triple Alliance. France is screwed if the war spreads to Europe, because it will be attacked from three different directions by three countries, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain.
 
How about the Spanish-American War becoming a lot worse? Say Germany decides to support Spain (and purchases the Philippines afterwards) with Britain supporting the US and Japan may side with whoever will give them rewards, though the Japanese would still want the islands from Spain and may not want the US to get them.
 
How about the Spanish-American War becoming a lot worse? Say Germany decides to support Spain (and purchases the Philippines afterwards) with Britain supporting the US and Japan may side with whoever will give them rewards, though the Japanese would still want the islands from Spain and may not want the US to get them.

Was the deathtrap alliance system set up at that point?
 
Was the deathtrap alliance system set up at that point?

No. The deathtrap alliance system was set up when Great Britain allied with France and Russia creating the Triple Entente in 1907. Before that, there was always the chance Great Britain might be neutral or ally itself with the Triple Alliance.
 
The basis for long-running total industrial war had existed long before the turn of the century, as witness the American Civil War. The only issue was that few nations were "ready" for that kind of war, so any general war would involve states that would be unable to sustain the same kind of conflict. Essentially we're looking at a lot of Italies and CSAs, all trying to industrialize mid-war and destabilizing themselves in the process.

I think that period is about as soon as anything can be done. So....

Let's say in 1842 the Russian Department of Railways is tasked with building a St. Petersburg-Kiev line, by way of Moscow, instead of just St. Petersburg-Moscow as the first large rail project. It finishes in 1855 instead of 1851, but means that the Russians can much better project themselves into the south come the Crimean War. By upping the length from 700 to 1550 kilometers, it also produces serious knock-ons for Russian steel production and mining, which will in turn mean that further railway construction happens ahead of OTL. And since Russia's income is still disproportionately coming from grain shipped south, a fair portion of this extra construction is branches from the Kiev line or short tracks to Black Sea ports to supplement river traffic.

Then delay the Crimean War. Let's say Napoleon III gets distracted trying to profit from a Brazilian civil war and a series of "golden opportunities" in Africa and Indochina. He drains the treasury a bit and accomplishes some things that look good on a map. Let's say France doubles the size of its Guyana, presses in from Senegal to the upper Niger a bit early, and similarly has Cambodia drop into its lap due to Siamese internal issues. Before he can turn his attention back to the Ottomans, war breaks out in Italy in 1857, two years ahead of schedule. Nappy as OTL supports the Risorgimento and forces Austria to give up Lombardy to the new nation-state.

When he finally gets things sorted back out, his diplomats strong-arm the Porte into declaring France the protector of its Christians. This angers the Russians as in OTL, but following in context also leaves the Austrians a little annoyed. Russia goes to war expecting everyone to take an anti-French tack, but Britain freaks out in the opposite direction and the Crimean War begins in January 1860.

This war starts a lot better for Russia than its historical equivalent. It's logistics where the actual fighting is are incomparably better. It's industrial capacity has also managed to graduate from "negligible" to "tiny." The latter is especially important because as in OTL, Russian artillery is so out-of-date that it is out-ranged by allied small arms.

But more importantly, Russia is also diplomatically in a much stronger position. Italy is too preoccupied to get involved. Vienna is feeling decidedly anti-French in the moment. Although they don't want Russia to win, they are very hopeful that France will have to bleed for a victory. And on distant continents.... circumstances have changed.

The rebellion of 1857 was butterflied by the absence of Britain's war, but the existing tensions have mounted enormously in the interim. When news reaches Calcutta of a war with a major power, May sees a Mutiny in Bengal. With the added weight of grievances and the prospect that Britain might actually be too busy to crush the rebels, the resulting uprising is much larger, with some of the princes going over.

And of course 1860 is an election year in the United States. With the Powers at war, Seward's foreign policy experience and recent European tour narrowly edge out Lincoln's electioneering team. Douglas still splits the Democrats, handing the Presidency to a Seward-Lincoln ticket. Seward initially attempts non-confrontation with the south, betting that the Deep South will give up and come back if they can't get the border states to join. The Confederates are actually largely in agreement, but they can't shell what the Union already abandoned, so they're reduced to firing on passing navy ships, preparing to take islands offshore of Florida, and arguing about whether to impose a tariff on river traffic from border states.

The Allies have a rough first year. Britain initially focuses on India, shuttling a much smaller number of troops to the Black Sea. Combined with hesitancy similar to OTL and better Russian logistics, the Franco-British assault on the Crimea is a bloody embarrassment. The arrival of real forces in India quickly halts the expansion of the rebellion, but actually crushing it proves a much longer task. Indian troops from Madras and the Punjab are increasingly relied on. Then a French ship siezes an American vessel sailing for Russia with a hold full of war materiel and humiliates the captain.

President Seward's efforts are largely failing. With the remaining slave states feeling under siege by a radical Republican Congress and an unavoidable casus belli expected to be provoked by the Confederates at any moment, he gambles. He carefully draws American forces away from Canada and sends diplomatic notes to Parliament in the least aggressive language he can manage. And then he gets Congress to declare war on France and requests that all states levy regiments for the effort, including those that consider themselves part of the CSA.

The Confederates are out of time and begin desperately seizing ships on the Mississippi, then fire on a US navy ship that attempts to intervene. Unlike OTL, they're attacking "their own country" while it is at war with a foreign power, and the patriotic backlash is even bigger. Missouri and Kentucky vote firmly against secession and Virginia briefly declares itself neutral before splitting in half and becoming a battleground. North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee still join the Confederacy. That's all fine and dandy, but declaring war on the ally of the world's greatest power while it is feeling desperate has predictable consequences. Washington and London soon find themselves exchanging declarations of war.

Despite being woefully outmatched, the Indians and Russians have more than enough stomach for a fight. With so many wars on, the Indian Mutineers are still in a position to hope, while their cosubcontinentalists sit on the fence wherever they can rather than help the British. Russia likewise has no interest in backing down from the fight while its enemies seem to be finding new foes at every turn. Not least because its early performance in the war was much more successful. Which means in turn that Prussia and probably Austria will eventually declare war on Russia. Garibaldi leads an insurrection in Venezia, which the Austrians crush, and is then executed with the tacit compliance of the King of Italy, who is then assassinated.

So this is the world by late 1863: Russia and the United States battling Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and the Confederate States. Britain committed to massive deployments on three continents and struggling to reconcile an urge to ruin the back-stabbing USA with real disgust toward the CSA. France and Austria splitting their focus, unnerved by an unstable Italy in their backyard. And everywhere the minor powers look for their advantage. China is eyeing the foreign concessions; Denmark planning to annex Schleswig-Holstein; Sweden readying in case of a Russian collapse; Spain gleefully supplying the Confederates; even in Mexico they are beginning to think very carefully.

No one is in a position to crush anyone else with quick military campaigns. All they can hope to do is beat at the fundamentals of each other's political structures and economies. It won't end next year.
 
Churchill argued that the Seven Years War was the first World War. So that's my nomination. It was the first war with big land armies fighting on at least two continents.

Though the Carthaninian-Roman Wars were fought over most of the world they THOUGHT existed....
 
Churchill argued that the Seven Years War was the first World War. So that's my nomination. It was the first war with big land armies fighting on at least two continents.

Though the Carthaninian-Roman Wars were fought over most of the world they THOUGHT existed....


I agree with him. Just expand it abit and we can really get it looking like a World War.
 
Churchill argued that the Seven Years War was the first World War. So that's my nomination. It was the first war with big land armies fighting on at least two continents.

Get the Ottoman Empire and China involved somehow and we might see the war in the Middle East, North Africa, and North & Northeast Asia. Then, historians can call the Seven Years War "World War I".
 

Since no one else has commented on this yet, I just wanted to pipe up and say I was amazed at this suggestion.

The Seven-Years war was certainly fought on various continents, but I don't think it involved the kind of military technology characteristic of what we consider a "world war." It's more than just location.
 

iddt3

Donor
If you wrote a TL on this, I would totally read it. It's certainly an interesting clusterfuck of a war, though I suspect the US and the Anglo French would make peace at the first opportunity, now that the US has succeeded in screwing up the CSA's chances.
 
In this timeline will Commodore Matthew Perry still go to Japan? Because whether he does or not will play a big role in the timeline in the future.

Hm? Somebody else will kick open Japan 'afore long: do you think the triumphs of the Meji restoration were very butterfly-dependent?

Bruce
 
Top