AHC: Prevent World War I After the Formation of Germany

[Witch0Winter]

Yeah, a pretty simple, oft-used idea but one that I'd like to see some discussion on as I plan to make a map out of the idea. So, the challenge is to prevent World War I at any point after 18 January 1871 (leaving a little leeway in for, perhaps, a change in Germany's constitution) and before 28 June 1914.

As a caveat, there still can be a war/wars, just not one on the scale of World War I.

 

[Kaiser K]

The easiest way is for Kaiser Wilhelm II to never assume power (dies or abdicates for whatever reason), through I am sure there are good POD's even up to Archduke's assassination.

 

[Tonifranz]

The easiest one is to have Princip and his co conspirators have an accident on June 27, 1914.

Or Francis Ferdinand deciding not to go to Bosnia at all.

Or Francis Joseph I dying in early 1914 (he was 84, so it was plausible).

Or even hiring a different chauffeur (which would happen before June 28, 1914).

After all, before 1914, there were a lot of crisis, and they did not lead to war. The Bosnian crisis, the Morrocan crisis, etc and it did not lead to a World War. In fact, change the actions of one or more individuals during the July Crisis, which they could easily have done so, would avert war in 1914 even after the assassination.

One could easily construct a timeline that made sure all subsequent crisis did not escalate to a general war.

 

[Witch0Winter]

The easiest one is to have Princip and his co conspirators have an accident on June 27, 1914. After all, before 1914, there were a lot of crisis, and they did not lead to war. The Bosnian crisis, the Morrocan crisis, etc and it did not lead to a World War. In fact, change the actions of one or more individuals during the July Crisis, which they could easily have done so, would avert war in 1914 even after the assassination.

One could easily construct a timeline that made sure all subsequent crisis did not escalate to a general war.

The problem is that, to my understanding, the impetus of war was still there. Russia was still allied with France and Russia's army was undergoing its transformation which would, by 1917, create an army that was nigh unbeatable by Germany, and that any Russian offensive would end more like in 1945 than in 1917. While Russia could, with the right politics, be tamed or even brought to the German side (as Bismarck had always tried to do), none of the politicians in 1914 were really able to do so.

Coupled with Britain's hostility against Germany's High Seas Fleet and France's almost fanatical desire to get back Alsace-Lorraine, it seems like stopping World War I needs a POD much further back than 1914.

 

[Tonifranz]

The problem is that, to my understanding, the impetus of war was still there. Russia was still allied with France and Russia's army was undergoing its transformation which would, by 1917, create an army that was nigh unbeatable by Germany, and that any Russian offensive would end more like in 1945 than in 1917. While Russia could, with the right politics, be tamed or even brought to the German side (as Bismarck had always tried to do), none of the politicians in 1914 were really able to do so.

Coupled with Britain's hostility against Germany's High Seas Fleet and France's almost fanatical desire to get back Alsace-Lorraine, it seems like stopping World War I needs a POD much further back than 1914.

Yes, but an impetus for war and actually going to war are two different things. Besides, why 1914? Why not use the earlier Balkan Wars, or the Morrocan Crisis, or any of the innumerable crisis before, to provoke a general war, if the actors really want a World War?

In fact, if Germany really wanted a war with the strongest possible position, it would have done so in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, or would wait while Britain was involved in a Civil War in Ireland which would happen a few months later had WWI not happened. It started in July 1914 because of a series of blunders of statesmen in Russia, Austria and Germany that would not occur if Francis Ferdinand were not assassinated.

And in 1914, it was only a series of misunderstandings that led to a general war. Why wait for the actions of a Serb assassin to grab their chance?

In fact, none of the actors were like Hitler who deliberately started a war with the other powers.

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The problem is that, to my understanding, the impetus of war was still there. Russia was still allied with France and Russia's army was undergoing its transformation which would, by 1917, create an army that was nigh unbeatable by Germany, and that any Russian offensive would end more like in 1945 than in 1917. While Russia could, with the right politics, be tamed or even brought to the German side (as Bismarck had always tried to do), none of the politicians in 1914 were really able to do so.

Coupled with Britain's hostility against Germany's High Seas Fleet and France's almost fanatical desire to get back Alsace-Lorraine, it seems like stopping World War I needs a POD much further back than 1914.

The Key, is for France and Germany, to Conclude Something Similar to The Israel-Egypt_Disengagement_Treaty_of_1974 ...

Instead of Answering Desires, The Treaty Focused on The Needs, of The Warring Parties ...

If Western Europe had been Governed by Mutual Respect, and Not Gamesmanship, who Knows What could Have been Accomplished!

 

[Halagaz]

Let's say what we know as WWI is avoided in one of the last moments: Franz Ferdinand gets drunk, or Willy gets his way and reins in the Austro-Hungarians, etc. If no other pretext presents itself in the next two years, Germany will become increasingly terrified of the Russian Empire and committed to avoiding war. However, that still leaves some issues like Alsace-Lorraine and Austria-Hungary's instability, especially in 1917. WWI will be less likely but still a danger.

I suppose you could also try to revive the Three Emperors League. Maybe if Franz Joseph doesn't live quite as long and Ferdinand becomes the new Emperor in the 1890's; he could build better relations with Russia and act as a bridge for the revival of the German-Russian-Austrian alliance. While also reducing tensions with the Serbs as a bonus.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The problem is that, to my understanding, the impetus of war was still there. Russia was still allied with France and Russia's army was undergoing its transformation which would, by 1917, create an army that was nigh unbeatable by Germany, and that any Russian offensive would end more like in 1945 than in 1917. While Russia could, with the right politics, be tamed or even brought to the German side (as Bismarck had always tried to do), none of the politicians in 1914 were really able to do so.

But none of that means the July Crisis had to lead to war. Or that, if such outbreak was avoided, it was bound to happen in the next couple of years. And if a German-Russian War (with or without other players) can be avoided before 1917, it naturally becomes far trickier (at least for Germany) after, no?

Of course, that's not to say once Russian Army's transformation was complete, European War becomes impossible -- but it does mean likely more geopolitical maneuvering as, as an example, Britain starts to see Russia's Balkan and Dardelles ambitions as more dangerous than Germany's.

 

[Morningfog]

Frederick III does not suffer from Laryngeal Cancer and thus does not die 3 months into his reign.

 

[Samuel Von Straßburg]

Frederick III does not suffer from Laryngeal Cancer and thus does not die 3 months into his reign.

If this happens you will see a change in German polotics towards a more English like system with cabinet inatead of chancellor.

You would not get the navel build up and this would lead to better relations with the UK meaning that the if some form of WW1 happened the sides would be radically diffrent.

As to when Willy takes the throne (if he does) well that would be very diffrent to OTL with better UK relations. He may mess it all up or he mighht not.

 

[Tibi088]

How about this:
Let Russia win the Russo-japanese war. This is enough i think to prevent a russo-brittanian entente and Russia would be busy with the far east in the many years to come and had much less capacity to want to do anything on the Balkans.This could mean much better relations between Russia and Austria-Hungary.

Or let Austria annex Serbia in 1906 after a short war (instead of the tariffs war of the same time). Maybe let them not lose it in 1740(they annexed northern Serbia in 1718 i think). Anyway, make the Austrian-Serbian conflict is an internal one.

 

[avernite]

If this happens you will see a change in German polotics towards a more English like system with cabinet inatead of chancellor.

You would not get the navel build up and this would lead to better relations with the UK meaning that the if some form of WW1 happened the sides would be radically diffrent.

As to when Willy takes the throne (if he does) well that would be very diffrent to OTL with better UK relations. He may mess it all up or he mighht not.

I disagree that a cabinet would prevent naval buildup. Germany had too vast trade and enough coast to make a serious navy worthwhile, and given its position said navy would primarily have to bottle up the Russians in the Baltic and keep the North Sea safe for Germany (ergo unsafe for Britain if it opposes Germany).

That said, other issues might still delay the naval buildup AND keep Britain more worried about other risks than the German fleet, and a cabinet/reichstag-run Germany is a big enough change it might accidentally do so.

I suspect the easiest way is to make France more overtly hostile in the 1870's so we get a Franco-Prussian war rerun before 1890. The pieces haven't moved enough for this to be a serious risk to Germany (although it should set the pieces moving), but it's also a clear enough risk for France that I don't see why they'd go for it.
If it happens, though, it might neuter France enough that Germany is safe in the west, and doesn't have to worry about the French. Eventually a Russo-German war over some unknown issue also occurs, but now it's mostly just that, Russo-German, rather than a world war.

 

[Alex1guy]

Yes, but an impetus for war and actually going to war are two different things. Besides, why 1914? Why not use the earlier Balkan Wars, or the Morrocan Crisis, or any of the innumerable crisis before, to provoke a general war, if the actors really want a World War?

In fact, if Germany really wanted a war with the strongest possible position, it would have done so in 1905, during the Russo-Japanese War, or would wait while Britain was involved in a Civil War in Ireland which would happen a few months later had WWI not happened. It started in July 1914 because of a series of blunders of statesmen in Russia, Austria and Germany that would not occur if Francis Ferdinand were not assassinated.

And in 1914, it was only a series of misunderstandings that led to a general war. Why wait for the actions of a Serb assassin to grab their chance?

In fact, none of the actors were like Hitler who deliberately started a war with the other powers.

While that would technically butterfly the war as we know it, it doesn't really solve the massive tensions that were running in Europe at the time. Taking a tally of what you had in play.

1. Austria-Hungary having tensions with it's slavic minority. (Among others).
2. Russia having recently been humiliated in Russo-Japanese war and undergoing a massive reformation of it's military.
3. Germany fearing what Russia had the potential to become.
4. Incredibly sour Franco-German relations based on old grudges and territorial disputes.
5. Anglo-German naval arms race thanks to Willy
6. A complex web of alliances that if triggered can pull everyone into a fight.

While I'm not saying no WWI is not impossible, these issues do present a serious threat to continued peace and may provide the catalyst for conflict. Everyone may not have been itching for a fight, but there's a lot of unresolved issues that can very easily boil over.

 

[Witch0Winter]

While that would technically butterfly the war as we know it, it doesn't really solve the massive tensions that were running in Europe at the time. Taking a tally of what you had in play.

1. Austria-Hungary having tensions with it's slavic minority. (Among others).
2. Russia having recently been humiliated in Russo-Japanese war and undergoing a massive reformation of it's military.
3. Germany fearing what Russia had the potential to become.
4. Incredibly sour Franco-German relations based on old grudges and territorial disputes.
5. Anglo-German naval arms race thanks to Willy
6. A complex web of alliances that if triggered can pull everyone into a fight.

While I'm not saying no WWI is not impossible, these issues do present a serious threat to continued peace and may provide the catalyst for conflict. Everyone may not have been itching for a fight, but there's a lot of unresolved issues that can very easily boil over.

Which is why that I was asking in pre-1900 for an answer, since I figure the only real way to avoid a world war completely would be for something different to happen sometime before 1900. Because I agree with you, once Europe had settled into its current state in 1914, something was going to go down. It might have looked like a different war from OTL and might have happened later, but it would be very, very hard to avoid a war with all the issues going on as you mentioned.

 

[avernite]

Well, I would say it's not impossible. Imperialism had run its course, the world was carved up. WW1 was caused by a specific set of conflict breaking out - but by 1914, Germany had lost the naval race. Who knows what other crises will eventually blow over? Maybe, if all the time there's a crisis noone actually manages to get anywhere, new tensions between Britain/France/Rusia or Germany/A-H/Italy will erupt, driving the blocks apart (of course there's equally a risk that such a driving apart would result in the other block pouncing on the weakened side).

 

[Yossarian]

Easy! Ferdinand getting shot at all was a flukey situation, easily avoided. So let's say he just has a nice trip in Sarajevo and goes home.

After that there's of course always the possibility that some other major war will flare up, but preventing it would just entail a few more crises blowing over without starting a war, just as happened many times before WWI IOTL.

There was certainly an elevated risk of a major European war in the early 20th century, but clearly it wasn't inevitable. A few more years and the balance of forces would have shifted farther against Germany, and Ferdinand would be on the throne of Austria-Hungary, meaning that neither of those countries would be as eager for war as in 1914. The risk would just pass, and no one would think it strange that 'the long 19th century' had continued into the 20th century past 1914.

 

[BlondieBC]

Yeah, a pretty simple, oft-used idea but one that I'd like to see some discussion on as I plan to make a map out of the idea. So, the challenge is to prevent World War I at any point after 18 January 1871 (leaving a little leeway in for, perhaps, a change in Germany's constitution) and before 28 June 1914.

As a caveat, there still can be a war/wars, just not one on the scale of World War I.

The easiest way is to keep the Three Emperor league going. Or if it still splits, to chose Russia over Austria as an ally.

Really lots of POD in this multi-generational window of time.

 

[BlondieBC]

The problem is that, to my understanding, the impetus of war was still there. Russia was still allied with France and Russia's army was undergoing its transformation which would, by 1917, create an army that was nigh unbeatable by Germany, and that any Russian offensive would end more like in 1945 than in 1917. While Russia could, with the right politics, be tamed or even brought to the German side (as Bismarck had always tried to do), none of the politicians in 1914 were really able to do so.

Coupled with Britain's hostility against Germany's High Seas Fleet and France's almost fanatical desire to get back Alsace-Lorraine, it seems like stopping World War I needs a POD much further back than 1914.

You are putting too much weight on post WW1 sources and in some ways reading history backwards. So some issues.

1) The A-L issue was losing power over the years. It was WW1 that greatly reflamed the issue. Avoid WW1, and over time, it becomes a minor issue.

2) The tension over the High Seas Fleet was also declining as the German Naval lobby was finding it harder to raise enough money for fleet that could really rival the UK. The UK wanted a 0.5 ratio. The Germans had a 0.6. They were not really that far apart on position, and could have easily endup with an agreeable formal or informal agreement that 0.55 or so is ok. Or the Germans could simply reblance their fleet with the right mix of smaller ships since the total tonnage of the German Navy was well under 0.5 compared to the RN.

3) The Russian army was improving, and by 1917, the Germans probably have to switch to a Russia first or defense first war plan. But the Austrians were also rapidly modernizing. It is far from clear the Entente win a WW1 that starts in the 1920, much less quickly win.

4) UK still liked balance of power. If Germany really slides to second strongest army in Europe or CP to second strongest alliance, there will be a tendency for the UK to weaken ties with France under the old balance of power idea. Or even switch sides. The UK at her peak was a fickle friend.

 

[matzeskatze]

Is it me, or is the focus mostly on what Germany should / could do?

Why all that scorne over the German Navy? It also was a reaction toward British aggression.
So Imo a more open foraign policy of the Empire would do wonders in clearing up may issus over the Alliance Politics. Most importantly the reactions and causes for intervention.
But that realy goes towards all Powers. So maybe a Grand Conference style council to create a platform for diplomatic exchange and problem solving. There were enough crisis points during that time to make the idea interesting Imo.

 

[JLBB]

If this happens you will see a change in German polotics towards a more English like system with cabinet inatead of chancellor.

You would not get the navel build up and this would lead to better relations with the UK meaning that the if some form of WW1 happened the sides would be radically diffrent.

As to when Willy takes the throne (if he does) well that would be very diffrent to OTL with better UK relations. He may mess it all up or he mighht not.

No, read Müllers biography "Der 99 Tage Kaiser" which does away with a lot of the myth.
If anything Frederick dreamed of expanding the Kaisers powers, as seen in his diaries as well as he mentions in some of his letters and texts. You can find all that in Müllers book.

You can also look into Friedrichs diaries, "Kaiser Friedrich III. Tagebücher 1866-1888" from Winfried Baumgart. At the end of it there are some texts that were either undated or not written by Friedrich, among them an undated one by him in which he outlines his ideas for the future German system. Let's just say it's rather close to an absolute monarchy.

There were liberal ideals, but those were closer to the Nationalliberalen then the progressives and when it came to his own powers there was no thought about reducing those.