How to avoid WWI in Europe?

[Tibi088]

So I think WWI can only be avoided if the side favouring status quo is decidedly stronger - or at least believed to be so.

There are potentially two landpowers who can be dominant in the continent at this point: Germany and Russia. Germany has been dominant after the war of 1870 and as it acquired everything it really wanted this ment peace. However when this dominance disappeared it resulted pretty fastly in war.

Russia on the other hand has been constantly expanding since Peter the Great and was trying to do so till the end. However at the end of the 19th century this led to conflict wherever they tried to do so. Outside of Europe this ment conflict with Britain and in Europe (Balkans) with Austria (and previously Britain and France).

For the rest: France isnt strong enough alone to attack Germany and im not sure if they would have started a world war for Alsace even if they thought they were stronger. Brittain has clearly won the naval race against Germany and after that I dont see them starting a war themselfs. Austria IMO wont take more on the Balkans than OTL and be content if he can have the peninsula (or a part of it) under his influence - it already had huge minority problems and couldnt even decide what to do with Bosnia. Italy wont start anything serious on his own.

So IMO if we take out Russian expansionism of the equation the result should be a more permanent peace. However how to do that? OTL it took the end of the regime. Is there any other way?

 

[trurle]

No way. The political practices of the era used brinkmanship extensively. Combined with the poor communications and cultural gaps, brinkmanship makes the war inevitable, regardless of intentions of all major power.

 

[Livius wannabe]

As butterfly, what if Wilhelm II doesn't have his left arm ruined by forceps
and consequently doesn't grow up to be such a megalomaniac?

 

[BooNZ]

No way. The political practices of the era used brinkmanship extensively. Combined with the poor communications and cultural gaps, brinkmanship makes the war inevitable, regardless of intentions of all major power.

Political practices that had substantially lead to over 40 years of peace prior to WW1 - without the threat of MAD

As butterfly, what if Wilhelm II doesn't have his left arm ruined by forceps
and consequently doesn't grow up to be such a megalomaniac?

Aside from a passion for military regalia and some off-colour speeches, could you illustrate the manifestations of this megalomania?

 

[michael1]

In my view war at some point was inevitable as policymakers and the public generally weren't aware in advance how terrible great power war would be in the industrial age and so saw war as preferable to some other options which they probably regretted with hindsight. The date, alliances and participants can be altered by butterflies but I find it hard to believe there's not going to be some sort of great power war in the first half of the twentieth century.

Interestingly in the crisis leading up to the first world war all the great powers (including the Russians) saw themselves as acting defensively, with the partial exception of the Austrians who were acting offensively to try to restore the status quo of just a few years before (when Serbia was more or less a client state). Also, all the European great powers (with the partial exception of Austria) had been expanding since at least Peter the Great, this wasn't a particularly Russian characteristic.

 

[Tibi088]

I think that many owerestimate the importance of Wilhelm 2. I also believe that Germany started the war as a preemtive strike because they feared that if they let Russia complet its military preparations than the antant will attack. Im not sure if they are right - we can only make assumptions.

However if Russia is either too preoccupied with inside troubles or simply is less expansionist that solves a lot of troubles. No russian activity in the Balkns or if they keep to their treaties with Austria in 1878 means that the three emperors league doesnt end - that prevents any serious war in Europe as long as it exists.

 

[trurle]

Political practices that had substantially lead to over 40 years of peace prior to WW1 - without the threat of MAD

Peace? Where?
Even in Europe, in 40 years before WWI, 4 large wars happened:
1) Russo-Turkish war
3) 3rd Carlist war in Spain
3,4) Balkan wars
And i am not talking about all the "gunboat diplomacy" incidents, rebellions and wars between European and non-European parties. Rsso-Japanese war and Spanish-American war were may be the largest.

 

[BooNZ]

Peace? Where?
Even in Europe, in 40 years before WWI, 4 large wars happened:
1) Russo-Turkish war
3) 3rd Carlist war in Spain
3,4) Balkan wars
And i am not talking about all the "gunboat diplomacy" incidents, rebellions and wars between European and non-European parties. Rsso-Japanese war and Spanish-American war were may be the largest.

I was referring to wars between major powers that you asserted were destined for war due to their political practices. Most of your examples relate to Russian belligerence or sponsorship of belligerence, which really supports the OP's observations...

edit: was the 3rd Carlist war in Spain "large"?

 

[ShortsBelfast]

If the Empress Dowager does not come to power in China and the "Internal Self-Strengthening Movement" were to gain a bit more traction. Part of the problem was one of imbalance in Eurasia due to a weak China. Russia didn't have to worry about a strengthening modernising China and could afford to be provocative/adventurist in the Balkans. China doesn't have to do a full Meiji, just get up to somewhere around late Ottoman standards for the Central Powers to seriously contemplate be able to offer China an anti-Russian expansion treaty around 1908 to negate their Franco-Russian encirclement. A Russia worried about a Far Eastern front and a France worried about losing Indochina aren't going to be quite so keen to back Serbia to the hilt in 1914.

 

[BooNZ]

So IMO if we take out Russian expansionism of the equation the result should be a more permanent peace. However how to do that? OTL it took the end of the regime. Is there any other way?

I don't think you necessarily need to end the Russian regime, since it would likely lose its French and British enablers after 1914. Many of the French socialists who had come to power in early 1914 had the intent to reconcile with Germany, be less beholden to Russia and work on repealing the French 3 year service. If any of those come to pass, I can't see France backing Russian adventurism anywhere. Further, It was even dawning on Grey that his infatuation with French affections had resulted in Britain's free hand being chained to the bed with Russia...

 

[Derek Jackson]

Persuade Germany and Russia that a war is not going to happen

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

No way. The political practices of the era used brinkmanship extensively. Combined with the poor communications and cultural gaps, brinkmanship makes the war inevitable, regardless of intentions of all major power.

Yes, that's one of the 'precipitants' I think. iIRC the model for 'conflict outbreak' I studied a couple of years. The problem for avoiding WWI is that by 1912/3, the Great Powers were locked in a system where brinkmanship meant war became almost inevitable once a trigger occurred. That being iOTL the assassination of FF but it could have bee anything else that brought Russia and A-H/Germany into dispute in the Balkans.

of course, that system could have become "unlocked" had war been avoided in 1914. the UK and Germany were undergoing a slight thaw in relations as the Naval Arms had reached a satisfactory (to the UK) position. The French guarantee to Russia that it would support it in a Balkan conflict might have been rescinded in a year or two. Or Britain decided it was becoming as wary of Russia than Germany, and so pulled away from the Entente into neutrality gain.

So WW! probably wasn't inevitable - but it had become very likely from 1912 onwards.

 

[anotherlurker]

OTL war can be avoided by simply not having Serbia lose control over its border to rogue elements of the military and "secret" societies.

 

[BlondieBC]

I think that many owerestimate the importance of Wilhelm 2. I also believe that Germany started the war as a preemtive strike because they feared that if they let Russia complet its military preparations than the antant will attack. Im not sure if they are right - we can only make assumptions.

However if Russia is either too preoccupied with inside troubles or simply is less expansionist that solves a lot of troubles. No russian activity in the Balkns or if they keep to their treaties with Austria in 1878 means that the three emperors league doesnt end - that prevents any serious war in Europe as long as it exists.

Russia was the first to begin mobilization, even before A-H.

 

[Tibi088]

If the Empress Dowager does not come to power in China and the "Internal Self-Strengthening Movement" were to gain a bit more traction. Part of the problem was one of imbalance in Eurasia due to a weak China. Russia didn't have to worry about a strengthening modernising China and could afford to be provocative/adventurist in the Balkans. China doesn't have to do a full Meiji, just get up to somewhere around late Ottoman standards for the Central Powers to seriously contemplate be able to offer China an anti-Russian expansion treaty around 1908 to negate their Franco-Russian encirclement. A Russia worried about a Far Eastern front and a France worried about losing Indochina aren't going to be quite so keen to back Serbia to the hilt in 1914.

Or alternativly Russia could win the Russo-Japanese war and annex Manchuria and/or maybe Korea. Either of that completly sours the russo-british relations to the point that Brittain wont be part of the antant which will make France more reluctant to get into a war. Russia will have its hands full with the occupation and organization of its new provinces for a time. However when he is done he will seek something else to acquire elsewhere again (likely Persia or Balkans) so its a short term solution. Maybe gives a few extra decade of peace in Europe.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Wars are inevitable, or nearly so. But, a global catastrophe like the Great War can be avoided. There's lots of political variation already mentioned that would dodge around a total war engulfing Europe and other regions.

...
1) Russo-Turkish war
3) 3rd Carlist war in Spain
3,4) Balkan wars
...

These large but far less spread & destructive wars are example of what might have occured in the 20th Century absent the circumstances of WWII.

 

[Dominic]

Avoid Franz Ferdinand getting shot. Seriously. The idea that WW1 was inevitable is incorrect historical determinism, the reality of Europe in the 1910's was that very few Europeans wanted war and war only broke out under very specific circumstances. These could certainly be repeated, but the more likely scenario is that Europe continues to develop economically and politically and avoids going into ruinous conflict.

 

[Catspoke]

Persuade Germany and Russia that a war is not going to happen

This really should have been the first commandment of German diplomacy at the time.

There is really no reason for it. German-Russian borders are 1815 congress of Vienna and not in dispute at all. Both Germany and Russia are holding down populations of Poles no need for either side to add more. Both are reactionary monarchies.

Nothing that happens in the Ottoman Empire or the Balkans is worth a war. Germany should guarantee the 1878 boundary of Austria and no more and Russia would have no problem wit that.

 

[anotherlurker]

This really should have been the first commandment of German diplomacy at the time.

There is really no reason for it. German-Russian borders are 1815 congress of Vienna and not in dispute at all. Both Germany and Russia are holding down populations of Poles no need for either side to add more. Both are reactionary monarchies.

Nothing that happens in the Ottoman Empire or the Balkans is worth a war. Germany should guarantee the 1878 boundary of Austria and no more and Russia would have no problem wit that.

While there's no A-H problems with Russia the Serbs made the Balkans a Russian problem though - remember, it was the Russian foreign minister who proposed to A-H to annex Bosnia after they held it for 30 years as a protectorate, afterwards the Serbian ultranationalists handwaved an irredentist claim on it despite even their ancient motherland maps (at that time) not showing Bosnia as Serbian lands to be redeemed and successfully lobbied the Russian ambassador who got sucked into Serbian secret societies to make the Russians act in their favor.

There's that old joke about Russia thinking it's playing chess with Serbia as a pawn while in truth Serbia was playing chess with Russia as a pawn.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Have the 1905 Russian Revolution succeed after a protracted civil war. Then Russia will be in no position to back the Serbs. With Russia out of it France is as well. With no French involvement there's no invasion of Belgium. Without that Britain is happy to sit, watch and sell arms to all who'll pay. There's no blockade, no unrestricted submarine warfare, no Zimmerman Telegram and a happily uninvolved US.