Latest PoD Preventing WWI

[John Fredrick Parker]

When did World War I, or a conflict of similarly grand scale become inevitable at some point in the 20th Century? (Let's say "grand scale" means upwards of a million casualties, or no more than 0.25% of Europe dying in conflict per year.*) Put another way, with the latest possible PoD, how could the 20th Century have been a peaceful one for Europe?

*OTL, WWI saw 16 million deaths in a continent of 400 million over four years, so it alone is about four times that. However, the OTL period between the wars and after time after WWII easily fits this definition.

 

[Delta Force]

Interestingly, there was an attempt to solve the crisis in a 1910s analogue to the Red Phone in the form of the Willy-Nicky telegrams. It helped to alleviate tensions between Germany and Russia in the days before the outbreak of war, even (temporarily) leading to the cancellation of the Russian mobilization, but unlike the Red Phone it wasn't a secured system. The German Foreign Office forwarded messages to Wilhelm, allowing them to steer the conversation. One of the messages from Nicolas that they failed to forward was a proposal to submit the Austro-Serbian dispute to the Hague tribunal for a peaceful resolution. If that had gone through, the war might have been completely averted only a few days before the outbreak of war.

 

[eliphas8]

It was never innevitable. Franz Ferdinand doesn't die and you avoid other potential fladhpoints or even have them resolved like other ones in the past and eventually the whole powder keg probably gets disassembled over time as alliances shift and economic interdependence becomes more obvious. In effect the old system will break down long term as the socialists continue to catch on and an 1848 style general revolution becomes more likely. From there the old system is so different that the war is no longer comparable.

 

[TRH]

Has anyone actually taken a serious stab at a timeline where WWI is averted at the last minute (by which I mean 1910 or later)? I remember one or two where Ferdinand lives, but those never got far.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

e8, are you actually saying that Franz Ferdinand not getting shot is an early enough PoD to keep a general European War from flaring up for the next century? Does anyone agree with this? Disagree?

 

[Delta Force]

e8, are you actually saying that Franz Ferdinand not getting shot is an early enough PoD to keep a general European War from flaring up for the next century? Does anyone agree with this? Disagree?

World War I happened because one of the many war scares that occurred during that era progressed into war. Something earlier could have caused the war, something afterwards could have caused the war. It's entirely plausible that the Franz Ferdinand incident could have become just another war scare. Reactions to incidents cause wars, not incidents themselves. It's not like the Cuban Missile Crisis was destined to resolve in a peaceful manner. To expand upon that analogy, Austria-Hungary and the United States may have desired to take the annoying little nations of Serbia and Cuba (respectively) down a few pegs, but they weren't looking to fight a war with the Russians/Soviets. It's just that in one case a peaceful resolution wasn't reached, and in the other it was.

 

[Armot]

By collapsing Germany and Russia?

 

[Lord Malikai]

e8, are you actually saying that Franz Ferdinand not getting shot is an early enough PoD to keep a general European War from flaring up for the next century? Does anyone agree with this? Disagree?

Avoiding the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is quite likely enough to postpone the war for at least a decade. The reason for this is the Central Powers have a very brief window 1913-1916 in which they can favorably fight a war. 1913 is significant for the opening of the BASF Oppau plant which allowed the Germans to produce nitrates (read artillery shells and fertilizer) that they would otherwise have to import from Chile. Before 1913 it's very easy to have the Entente cut off Germany's imported nitrates and then just sit back and watch the Germans shoot themselves dry and/or starve.

By 1916 Russia has completed a significant railroad expansion eroding the window Germany has to attack France before Russia fully mobilized. Additionally 1916 is the eve of the renegotiation of the agreement between the Austrian and Hungarian halves of Austria-Hungary. Based on this Germany will at least need to revamp all its strategic plans and mobilization timetables and could quite conceivably put an end to German plans for an offensive war until the alliances drastically change in the future.

So if no one pulls the trigger 1913-1916 it'll be a good while before any country tries something. Obviously this isn't a firm statement that there will never be a general European war, but it certainly shows the start of how there could be no European war.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Then let me put it another way -- when did the underlying causes of WWI (define how you like) grow to such an extent that a "Great War" in the early 20th Century become probable?

 

[miketr]

If anything tension in Europe had gone down in 1914 till it all imploded.

 

[Delta Force]

Then let me put it another way -- when did the underlying causes of WWI (define how you like) grow to such an extent that a "Great War" in the early 20th Century become probable?

The moment HMS Dreadnought was ordered, making all existing battleships obsolete overnight. Ironically, the plurality (if not majority) of battleships made obsolete were those possessed by the Royal Navy. That moment sparked the naval arms race because everyone started on an even footing. The naval arms race was one of many factors that increased tensions and mistrust, which contributed to the start of World War I.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The moment HMS Dreadnought was ordered, making all existing battleships obsolete overnight. Ironically, the plurality (if not majority) of battleships made obsolete were those possessed by the Royal Navy. That moment sparked the naval arms race because everyone started on an even footing. The naval arms race was one of many factors that increased tensions and mistrust, which contributed to the start of World War I.

Ok, so how long does war need to be avoided, after the Dreadnaught, until the naval arms race plays out and tensions play out? Or conversely, how could the arms race have been curbed?

 

[katchen]

I have to wonder if the next flashpoint for a resurgent European War by 1934 or 1944 might be ITTL, a resurgent and industrializing Young Turk Ottoman Empire, which is really an Empire of Islam. Give the Ottomans time to reconsolidate their Empire, particularly by defeating the Rashidi and Sauidis in Arabia and retaking Yemen (which went independent in 1913) unless the British prevent it. And then trying to get back Al Hasa and Al Qatif, where much of the Persian Gulf's oil is from Great Britain's clutches.
It is easy to see how a newly industrialising Sultan or President could embark on the same irredentist path that IOTL, Hitler did. Because the British and the French are sitting on Muslim territory and as Christians (who by their lights should be dhimmi) are ruling over Muslims, To Muslims, that is as much of an outrage as Czechs ruling Germans in the Sudetenland.
It can easily start with an Ottoman takeover of a weaker Iran (and oppression of the Shia Muslims there). Then Afghanistan. Then an Ottoman Empire, which by this time (1940s) as the industrial might that Nazi Germany did IOTL starts making ultimata over British control of Egypt, then wanting Libya back from the Italians and Tunisia and Algeria back from the French--Morocco and West and Equatorial Africa too. And Turkestan from Russia and the KMT. And Muslim parts of British India.
It can be hard for us to get our heads around, but this is because the British (perhaps wisely) acted to foster local Arab nationalism and thereby divide the Islamic world, preventing it from progressing. If this dosen't happen, between the oil wealth and other mineral resources (Saudi Arabia and Iran IOTL have plenty, not to mention Afghanistan) the West can face an Islam that industrialised at the same rate as Wilhelmian Germany or even faster. That could be the real next threat to world peace assuming the British and Russians and French do stay out of war with Germany.

 

[Lord Malikai]

Ok, so how long does war need to be avoided, after the Dreadnaught, until the naval arms race plays out and tensions play out? Or conversely, how could the arms race have been curbed?

By and large it already was played out by 1913. In that year The British finished laying down 5 of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. In response the Germans laid down the 4 Bayern class battleships from 1913-1915. But while this is a rate of 5:4 that isn't the whole story. Each new German battleship except for the Bayern itself was considered a replacement for a ship already serving in the High Seas Fleet. So in terms of actual shifts in number the British increased Home Fleet by 5 BB while the Germans only added 1 to the HSF.

What this means is that the arms race was not a military factor in contributing to the desire for war, having already been played out by 1913 really. Additionally the Entente Cordial had already been signed in 1904, which was before Dreadnought was even laid down. In that light the arms race was much more of a wake up call highlighting Germany's growing industrialization than a serious military factor in bringing Britain into the war.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

By and large it already was played out by 1913. In that year The British finished laying down 5 of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships. In response the Germans laid down the 4 Bayern class battleships from 1913-1915. But while this is a rate of 5:4 that isn't the whole story. Each new German battleship except for the Bayern itself was considered a replacement for a ship already serving in the High Seas Fleet. So in terms of actual shifts in number the British increased Home Fleet by 5 BB while the Germans only added 1 to the HSF.

What this means is that the arms race was not a military factor in contributing to the desire for war, having already been played out by 1913 really. Additionally the Entente Cordial had already been signed in 1904, which was before Dreadnought was even laid down. In that light the arms race was much more of a wake up call highlighting Germany's growing industrialization than a serious military factor in bringing Britain into the war.

Wasn't it Tirpitz who calculated a "danger zone"-where the expansion of the HSF would cause the British to want to outbuild Germany but before the German fleet would be large enough to win control of the sea lanes-that he thought would last until 1916?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What this means is that the arms race was not a military factor in contributing to the desire for war...

Then what were those factors, and when did they coalesce to make a Great War at some point probable?

 

[Delta Force]

Then what were those factors, and when did they coalesce to make a Great War at some point probable?

Not sure if these are factors per se, but they did create tensions:

1. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway was nearing completion, which would have allowed German and Austro-Hungarian trade to bypass the Suez Canal and enter British dominated markets. It would also give them access to the vast petroleum reserves of Mesopotamia. To prevent this, the United Kingdom signed a treaty with the ruler of Kuwait, making it a British protectorate without the approval of Ottoman authorities.

2. Russia was undertaking a large military improvement program, which if I remember correctly was set to complete around 1917 or so. German war planners thought Russia would be much more difficult to defeat once the program was completed.

3. The previously mentioned naval arms race, especially the rapid growth of the Imperial German Navy. The British actually helped train and develop the German Navy in the 1880s and 1890s and were willing to accept some growth. When Germany started producing vast numbers of capital ships instead of cruisers they became very alarmed, especially since they were too short ranged operate far outside the North Atlantic. It seemed to the British that the German battleships could only be aimed against them.

4. France wanted revenge on Germany to avenge the lost provinces and humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War.

5. Italy had its own revanchist claims, including those on France and Austria-Hungary. Relations between Italy and Austria-Hungary were so strained that there was an Adriatic naval arms race going on between the two nations before the dreadnought race started.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

<snip>

Well, it looks like factors #1-3 at least had the capacity to resolve themselves without war, if the Great War could be prevented until 1920 or so. But that's assuming that the underlying eagerness for war shared by the major powers could be resisted, which it seems is the real question (behind #1 and 2 anyway) -- when did national leaders start to see war as a preferable alternative to the peaceful political and economic rise of other nations? FWIG, the concern Germany had with Russia's rise, and Britain with Germany's, etc, boiled down to fear that they would perform better in a war that was regarded as inevitable anyway -- but if that's the reason, the real question is, when did "this war" become inevitable in the minds of the respective nations?

 

[Lord Malikai]

Not sure if these are factors per se, but they did create tensions:

snip

Indeed they were all factors. But the point I've been haphazardly making is that tensions do not make war probable, merely explain it after the fact.

The actual chain of decisions that led to the war required a very large number of things to go through to make the war happen. The most important is Germany's 1913-1916 window. If there is no major crisis in this window then as I said the war simply won't be started by the Germans within the decade. Then you need the actual assassination, which was a ridiculous long shot. Then Germany's "Blank Cheque" to Austria. The failure of the Nicky-Willy telegrams. The Russians having access to the Austrian mobilization plan. The Germans and Austrians failing to cooperate. The Schlieffen plan requiring the invasion of Belgium thus providing an easy way in for the British. And finally Admiral Souchon forcing the Ottoman Empire into the war. Literally changing any "success" on this list into a "failure" or vice-versa will result either in a complete avoidance of the war or the absence of at least one major power which radically changes the outcome and shortens the war by years. Answering the OP, the latest PoD to prevent the war entirely could very well be the Nicky-Willy telegrams merely a week before the Battle of the Frontiers started.

A great example of a way the war could have been further expanded and was no less of a long shot than any of these is the possibility that the Russian Admiral Essen was about to force Sweden into the Central Powers if he hadn't been recalled to port before the plan went off.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Does anyone believe Tsarist Russia could continue to exist without a revolution?

And if that revolution occurs that Germany And AH will stay out of it?

The question would be when Russia has its revolution (or whatever shape it turns out to be) will France and UK decide to attack the central Powers or will they fight a Spanish Civil War type analogue by arming and supply the pro-Monarchist / constitutional monarchists.

You still have tens of millions dying but mostly in Russia