How to avoid WWI with POD in late nineteenth century

Been bouncing a possible timeline around my head for a while, with a POD in 1894. While the POD will have immediate social and cultural effects, there aren't really any political implications, so I was looking for other possible POD's with the explicit goal of avoiding WWI. I would also like to set up a twentieth century without major military conflicts between the largest global powers of the time (Great Britain, France, Germany, United States).

Does anyone with better knowledge of the politics of the time know any good PODs that might achieve this? Thanks in advance.
 
Does it have to be in 1894, or is that just the one you're looking?

My recommendation is to have Wilhelm I of Prussia/Kaiser Wilhelm I die of something between 1866 and 1870; he'd be about 70, so no great surprise.

This brings his liberal, anglophile sone Friedrich III to the throne 20 years sooner. "Fritz" disliked Bismarck, and would get rid of him.

So, IMO, no Franco-Prussian War, no permanent Franco-German antagonism. Also, the prestige of the German army will be much less, and Germans will be much less likely to feel they are the natural tough-guys bosses of the world.

Thus a less militaristic and aggressive Germany. This change would be reinforced by the different personality of Fritz - unlike Wilhelm, he did not drivel about "sacred regiments", nor wallow in military displays and ceremonies. This influence would be IMO be carried forward, as Wilhelm II would not be influenced by his grandfather for 20 years.

So we remove some of the major forces driving Europe into WW I:
  • Franco-German antagonism
  • Bismarck's power-driven diplomacy
  • German militarism
  • German master-racial arrogance
I think that's enough to steer Europe clear of a Great War.
 
Last edited:

trajen777

Banned
Does it have to be in 1894, or is that just the one you're looking?

My recommendation is to have Wilhelm I of Prussia/Kaiser Wilhelm I die of something between 1866 and 1870; he'd be about 70, so no great surprise.

This brings his liberal, anglophile sone Friedrich III to the throne 20 years sooner. "Fritz" disliked Bismarck, and would get rid of him.

So, IMO, no Franco-Prussian War, no permanent Franco-German antagonism. Also, the prestige of the German army will be much less, and Germans will be much less likely to feel they are the natural tough-guys bosses of the world.

Thus a less militaristic and aggressive Germany. This change would be reinforced by the different personality of Fritz - unlike Wilhelm, he did not drivel about "sacred regiments", nor wallow in military displays and ceremonies. This influence would be IMO be carried forward, as Wilhelm II would not be influenced by his grandfather for 20 years.

So we remove some of the major forces driving Europe into WW I:
  • Franco-German antagonism
  • Bismarck's power-driven diplomacy
  • German militarism
  • German master-racial arrogance
I think that's enough to steer Europe clear of a Great War.

Bismarck kept the peace in Europe for decades. Have William 2 die and his brother prince henry take over. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1862–1929)....

He was well liked around the world ... Henry had little in common with his brother, the German Emperor. He lacked, for example, William II's erratic nature and egotism. Unlike the popular belief the kaiser and the prince where both truly popular in Germany, and on account of his humble and open manner was beloved by those under his command. On foreign travels, he was a good diplomat, who, unlike his brother, was able to strike the right tone. Thus, on his 1902 trip to the United States, Henry made a favorable impression with the critical American press and succeeded in winning the sympathy of more than just the numerous German-American segment of the population.


The situation is Bismarck kept the peace in Europe. He avoided war and had little interest in additional conquests. With a solid emperor after Bismarck u would have no naval race with gb so most likely an allied gb and germany ( France and Russia could not win vs germany ah italy and gb) so peace.
 
Perhaps if Franz Joseph had not lived- as he
did IOTL- until 1916. Say he instead dies c.
1902. Franz Ferdinand than becomes emp-
eror. He pushes through- somehow- reforms
he planned to give the Slavs in the empire
equal voice with the Austrians & Hungarians.
This could have torn the Empire apart- but it
might have rejuvenated it too. FJ also did
not like war- IOTL he did much to keep
AH from intervening in the Balkan Wars- & I
can thus see him in any European crisis
doing all he could to keep the peace(unlike
the way all too many people acted in that
fateful summer of 1914). So maybe this
POD could have butterflied away WWI.
(I know, I've gone past 1900- sorry but I
can't see any earlier POD)
 
To be honest, you could probably avert the war in 1914, by either having the government in Vienna be more reasonable or having Wilhelm II come back from holiday. Despite popular belief, Kaiser Wilhelm II liked to think of himself as a peacemaker, der Friedenkaiser, and until WWI his Germany did not actually go to war. That said, the German emperor was a lot less powerful than popular opinion would have it, the Reichstag and the government of the day actually had more than enough power to start or stop a war, even if they couldn't officially declare it. Hell, postpone things until the next federal election and you are highly unlikely to see Germany enter a war, as the SPD were on track to win a majority in the Reichstag.
Honestly, all you really need is for cooler heads to prevail in 1914 like they did during the Fashoda incident and who even knows how many others. The Edwardian era was no more predestined for apocalyptic war than our own. That came about because of people's choices.
 
Avoiding war in Europe with a PoD in the 1890's is extremely easy. Avoiding war in Europe with any PoD before the July Crisis is extremely easy. The European Great Powers did not want to fight each other, which is why war did not occur for so many decades after the post-Napoleonic order collapsed. War between the major powers is always a possibility even today, but with the notable exception of WW2 is usually a case of the powers finding themselves in a situation in which war appears less damaging than backing down. These instances happen very rarely, and if one looks at Europe in the early 1910's it is clear that the structural changes taking place were making war ever less likely. It never becomes impossible, but all you need to do to avoid it is prevent a July Crisis-esque scenario emerging, that is, avoid the powers finding themselves faced with humiliation or war. This happened far more than it didn't.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Europeans need to do the following:
-Don't expand into Asia, Polynesia and Africa.
-Cut the Opium trade.
-Stop antagonising the Ottomans so much.
-Stop antagonising China and Japan so much.
-Don't play the ethnic card in the Balkans.
-Listen to the concerns of the oppressed classes.
-Stop crushing revolutions.
-Stop engaging in superpower rivalry.
-Implement more isolationist policies.
-Implement economic development.
 
What if the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires (and perhaps the Ottomans) either completely collapsed or went through much more severe internal strife during the first decades of the nineteenth century? I imagine Europe would be less prone to go to war if a few major powers were out of commission. Hell, if France and Germany and Great Britain were all distracted by colonial wars or internal political crisis that could also get the job done. On the other hand maybe a more unstable Europe is more likely to descend into war?

I'm really considering two options. Either a Europe were at least a few major powers are incapable of going to war at any one time (because of civil insurrection, colonial wars, economic crisis, political instability, etc.), thus the rest avoid war (France won't attack Germany if Russia and/or Great Britain are unlikely to come to their aid). Or I could go with a Europe that's pretty stable and doesn't have any crazy event (like an assassination) that throws the entire country into upheaval, hopefully helped by political leaders with a more pacifist deposition

Am I missing anything? Thoughts?
 
What if the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires (and perhaps the Ottomans) either completely collapsed or went through much more severe internal strife during the first decades of the nineteenth century? I imagine Europe would be less prone to go to war if a few major powers were out of commission. Hell, if France and Germany and Great Britain were all distracted by colonial wars or internal political crisis that could also get the job done. On the other hand maybe a more unstable Europe is more likely to descend into war?

I'm really considering two options. Either a Europe were at least a few major powers are incapable of going to war at any one time (because of civil insurrection, colonial wars, economic crisis, political instability, etc.), thus the rest avoid war (France won't attack Germany if Russia and/or Great Britain are unlikely to come to their aid). Or I could go with a Europe that's pretty stable and doesn't have any crazy event (like an assassination) that throws the entire country into upheaval, hopefully helped by political leaders with a more pacifist deposition

Am I missing anything? Thoughts?

An unstable Europe is much more likely to be war-prone. If the remaining GPs see a chance to expand their influence on the cheap (i.e. with Great Power war) then they are very likely to do that. This is what led to WW1; AH thought it could wreck Serbia without consequences. The easiest solution is to have a 19th century in which European borders are fairly stable but with fewer flashpoints, so for example Alsace-Lorraine remains French, Italy somehow acquires its claims on A-H, Russia is able to achieve its immediate goals without sparking a major war i.e. Constantinople*, etc. Europe was reasonably stable after Germany united, compared to earlier in the 19th C. It did not need serious changes. Peace is the status quo.

*IMO this is actually quite possible if the Ottomans outright collapse and Britain is not quick on its feet. By no means guaranteed, but could be put in a narrative without stretching plausibility.
 

kernals12

Banned
You need to get rid of Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II to prevent WWI. I did this in my own TL. (Spoiler: The 20th century is very very different, for the better).
 
Europeans need to do the following:
-Don't expand into Asia, Polynesia and Africa.
-Stop antagonising the Ottomans so much.
-Stop antagonising China and Japan so much.
-Don't play the ethnic card in the Balkans.

[I'm going to focus on these four points because all the others are either too vague, don't have much to do with the First World War, are outside of the time frame, or some combination of all three.]

I think no formal colonization is probably the best option of all, although you would need a very radical PoD to achieve it in practice at any time post-1850. The European industrial economy was so much more advanced than anything in any part of the non-Euro-American world that is hard to see anyone resisting the temptation forever. Maybe avoid the Indian Revolt and keep the East India Company in place, which might convince the other European powers that they can control their colonies better through front companies. As a result, wars in the colonies and in Europe are decoupled as they were in the 18th century. I don't know, I'm not sure this would work given the globalized nature of the global economy by the 19th century - losing colonies even through a front organization would still cause serious prestige and economic troubles. The same goes for not intervening in China and Japan - both were very tempting targets. I suppose you could have both China and Japan be so strong in the late 19th century that they can't be messed around with but I think that would cause even more instability, not less.

The other two points both have potential but again, I'm not sure how to achieve them. You have to consider that in 1850, while the Ottoman Empire was in terminal decline, it had been serving as Europe's main apparent threat for several hundred years between 1453 and 1683, and it was still the stereotypical oriental despotism in the minds of many Europeans. Which means there will be lots of people in European capitals who see liberating Balkans and Levant from the Ottoman Empire as the perfect combination of good economics, good geopolitics, and good morality. And breaking bits off the Ottoman Empire pretty much means getting involved in the ethnic politics. Perhaps the worst effects of this could be circumvented by having Austria and Russia as allies against Germany. (maybe have Prussia lose the War of 1866 but still unite northern Germany?) Again, you could have the Ottoman Empire itself be a great power that cannot be interfered with but as with China and Japan, I think it would make a war more likely, not less. Its hard to see a resurgent Ottoman Empire, possibly facing the same tensions that were plaguing Germany and Russia, being able to resist the prospect of calling a jihad to claim some lost part of the House of Islam.

Wilhelm dies in that sharpshooting incident I vaguely remember reading about?

I believe that was the incident with Anne Oakley? It was one of the PoDs I considered for what ultimately became A Setback on the Yalu and it is really remarkable Wilhelm wasn't killed because Oakley was apparently tipsy at the time. Whatever higher power exists seems to have bestowed a great deal of luck upon the least deserving German leaders possible. That said, I'm not sure bumping off Wilhelm II will do it though. While he was impulsive and feckless with a dash of quiet cowardice thrown in (sounds familiar doesn't it?), I don't believe his role in 1914 was so dominant that his absence alone would have prevented the outbreak of war.

I think if there is any single PoD that would avoid the outbreak of the First World War it would be this - avoid the assassination of Alexander II or better yet, stop his reform programmes stalling. Just about every single crisis between Alexander II's death and 1914 was caused in some degree by the domestic crisis within the Russian Empire and the only outlet Nicholas II seemed able to offer was distraction through war. In those circumstances, war is inevitable.

teg
 
There was a policy of detente between Austria-Hungary and Russia starting in 1897 and ending (unfortunately) in 1908. What if it was more of a secret treaty outlining preferential outcomes in the Balkans--division into spheres of influence? Serbia is left in the lurch in favor of Bulgaria, which gains independence in 1908 and wins the Balkan Wars (with covert Austro-Russian aid). Bosnia is not annexed by Austria, but does become a protectorate. Russia builds a naval base on the Bulgarian Aegean. No WWI.
 
With a solid emperor after Bismarck u would have no naval race with gb so most likely an allied gb and germany ( France and Russia could not win vs germany ah italy and gb) so peace.
Germany is not going to let itself be blockaded and commerce raided by the French navy, there is going to be a German cruiser navy with some battleships. They could be political about it, make lightweight centerline fast battleships and incorrectly call them "protected cruisers" or something else that will not arouse British dreadnought ego like (I am fond of "slaughter-ships"). Maybe pass off some type of early carriers (observation craft), torpedo destroyers, and submarines as an eccentric Kaiser playing with his toys but actually providing an effective fighting force.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
There was a policy of detente between Austria-Hungary and Russia starting in 1897 and ending (unfortunately) in 1908. What if it was more of a secret treaty outlining preferential outcomes in the Balkans--division into spheres of influence? Serbia is left in the lurch in favor of Bulgaria, which gains independence in 1908 and wins the Balkan Wars (with covert Austro-Russian aid). Bosnia is not annexed by Austria, but does become a protectorate. Russia builds a naval base on the Bulgarian Aegean. No WWI.

Yes, any deal that has a German/Austrian/Russian agreement on the Balkans will likely avoid WW1, at least as we know it. Other major wars can still pop up.

Another idea might be to have a Polish rebellion. Without a common border with Germany, then the Franco-Russian alliance would not be practical.

Or since we can go back to 1897, why not just have the Ottomans have a revival and hold the Balkans. A early German/Austrian/Ottoman alliance could be fascination. Might even have Austria gain a bit of lands in the Balkans.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Germany is not going to let itself be blockaded and commerce raided by the French navy, there is going to be a German cruiser navy with some battleships. They could be political about it, make lightweight centerline fast battleships and incorrectly call them "protected cruisers" or something else that will not arouse British dreadnought ego like (I am fond of "slaughter-ships"). Maybe pass off some type of early carriers (observation craft), torpedo destroyers, and submarines as an eccentric Kaiser playing with his toys but actually providing an effective fighting force.

You are reading history backwards. Read Mahan for analysis on why a blockade on Germany CANNOT work.
 
Just get a country be brave enough to not honor their alliance when the folly of war is seen. Germany declares that the Serbia AH issue is internal and won't get involved.

This makes Russia the bad guy and the aggressor and could influence Britain and even France to stay nuetral. This could even propel Germany to get involved later in the war without western interference.
 
Top