AHC a bloody war to prevent WWI

The POD is to be set sometime in the late 19th century. You are to create a war so bloody and costly that it starts an anti-military or pacifist movement. Your goal is that this huge war between colonial and other nations would kill any sense of national pride and jingoism. Thus preventing the attitudes that went into the great war.
 
Laying aside the irony, I'm not sure that you could do that.

WWI and all previous conflicts failed to do that. Sure, you might have a period of pacifism, but jingoism and such crushed in the process? No.
 
Well, Fashoda would be a good place to look. An Anglo-French War, even if the politicians were working to cool it, would see cross-Channel naval clashes and manoevrings by other powers.

A US-German war over Samoa would be...well, it would feel to me a little like a Russo-Japanese War in the sense of the distances involved between the main bases of the combatants and whether or not anybody else gets involved.

Would Italy ever be stupid enough to go to war with France over Tunis? Maybe if they thought they had British support?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well, Fashoda would be a good place to look. An Anglo-French War, even if the politicians were working to cool it, would see cross-Channel naval clashes and manoevrings by other powers.

Well, this would probably a naval war to begin with and the French would be whooped. Most likely, Kaiser Willy uses the opportunity and dogpiles on them. Russians wisely stay out. It might not be bloody, but it would probably prevent WWI as per OTL.

The other way is to make Balkan wars a lot bloodier and longer. Not sure if this is possible, though. Not even this might do the trick, given that bloody Russo-Japanese war and all the engagements of Franco-Prussian and Civil War should have pointed to the end result of the evolution of the fire power and the massive armies that were expected to be mobilized and yet no one paid any heed to it, remaining wedded to the praised concept of offensive.

Most leaders felt it in their guts, so they tried to make up for this by creating detailed mobilization scenarios for any give contingency. Which lead to 'Guns of August'.
 
Imperialism as a business model has the largest market, profit margin, and least regulations of any scale. It is the logical progression from Capitalism- if you consider things more important than people.
http://pinterest.com/cooperdegrace/imperialism/

Change economic values higger ranked countries are those selling the most products needed and not needed to the less capable countries.
To protect this top dog model, you will need an army capable of defending ur resouce lines and trade lines.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War were plenty bloody and they barely caused Europe to bat an eyelid.
 
The Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War were plenty bloody and they barely caused Europe to bat an eyelid.

Russo-Japanese war was discounted by the fact that the Japanese and the Russians were considered inferior to French/Germans/British, who thought they could do better and avoid the massive slaughter through the use of superior tactics and better maneuver.

The Boer War was always thought by the British to have been unfair as the dodgy Boers used camouflage and fought in irregular units in a semi-guerilla campaign. The British always thought that if the war was fought fairly, they would have won.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Imperialism as a business model has the largest market, profit margin, and least regulations of any scale. It is the logical progression from Capitalism- if you consider things more important than people.
http://pinterest.com/cooperdegrace/imperialism/

Change economic values higger ranked countries are those selling the most products needed and not needed to the less capable countries.
To protect this top dog model, you will need an army capable of defending ur resouce lines and trade lines.

No, just no.

Imperialism is a system that by far predates smithian capitalism and is based on Merchantilism, a system diametrically at odds with capitalism. Merchantilism presupposes that wealth is fixed and thus in order for a nation to get rich it must take the wealth of another nation. This is how Africa became the hellhole it is today. Whereas capitalism presupposes that wealth can be created, so when I, a capitalist, say I make fishing poles, would meet someone, who makes baskets. The baskets I make are complete shit and the fishing poles he makes are also shit, but I have a need for his basket and he my fishing pole. We make a trade. Neither of us are worse off, he got what he wanted and I got what I wanted. A Merchantilist would merely march up to the basket maker and force him to hand over his baskets.

Sadly no nation that has ever existed ever ran a purely capitalistic system. It's always been tainted by merchantilism and thus everyone always mistakes Merchantilism for capitalism, even though Adam Smith catagorized capitalism as an alternative to merchantilism.
 
The Boer War and the Russo-Japanese War were plenty bloody and they barely caused Europe to bat an eyelid.

Well don't forget that in large part the information people recieved were either censored in large part or so dated that there was always going to be a disconnect. Each paid attention to his own really. Germany poked its nose into the Boer war, but for the most part it was Britains affair as far as France and Russian and the world was concerned. Most attention given to the R-J war was more due to the danger of the Czarist ragime crumbling rather than the war itself.

Well, this would probably a naval war to begin with and the French would be whooped. Most likely, Kaiser Willy uses the opportunity and dogpiles on them. Russians wisely stay out. It might not be bloody, but it would probably prevent WWI as per OTL.

Do you mean to suggest that Germany would opt into war against France during a conflict with Britain? Thus also triggering a Russian front as well? I would think even the most hawkish members of the German government would see the good sense in sitting back and watching. Depending on what mood the German foriegn ministry is in ... it would have been a goldmine for reaping diplomatic ties and connection with Britain. The severing of the relationship in even a pre-1904 Anglo-French connection would have major repercussions.

Well, Fashoda would be a good place to look. An Anglo-French War, even if the politicians were working to cool it, would see cross-Channel naval clashes and manoevrings by other powers.

A US-German war over Samoa would be...well, it would feel to me a little like a Russo-Japanese War in the sense of the distances involved between the main bases of the combatants and whether or not anybody else gets involved.

Would Italy ever be stupid enough to go to war with France over Tunis? Maybe if they thought they had British support?

Fashoda is a good point to use.


It's getting really close to 1914 but Russian intervention in one of the Balkan wars ... drawing in Austria, Germany, France, and the Turks. Britain remains neutral as their fears over long standing Russian eyes on Constantinople.

Maybe the Turkish navy is able to defeat the Greek navy to the point where reinforcements on a scale to tip things in their favor take place. Russia steps in, followed by Austria both offering 'assistance' though distinctly separately ... troops clash and poof Austria and Russian come to blows. France did inform Russian that it would be unable and unwilling to come to their aid in the event of Austro-Russian blows. Germany juggling both assistance to the Turks while also courting Bulgaria also doesn't jump in fully. As Austrian and Russian (still weakened by the events of 1905) forces sweep the region of Turks, the conflict turns into one of micro alliances and political lines being drawn between Austrian and Russian areas of occupation. Russian troops are also alarmingly close to occupying Adrianople again. The UK (playing the role of Bismarck during the Treaty of Berlin) steps in and exerts pressures to bring the conflict to the negotiating tables. Losses are heavy among the Balkan and Turkish forces and when the Austrian and Russian forces collided the small but bloody clashes cause each side to reevaluation the strength of their respective armies involved. After a Treat of London settles things, there exists a heavy weariness for future conflict in St. Petersburg, Vienna, and due to alliance relations; France and Germany. The British too see a strengthening in forces opposed to any direct involvement of British forces being involved in continental wars. When or if OTL (or similar) events happen ... there is an attitude of containment rather than opportunity exerted from the great powers.
 
Top