Plausibility Check: The Great War Started by one Man

Hey guys, I've been working on quite a narrative Fashoda TL (Yes, it's been done a million times before but I think I have sufficient twist to this one) and one of the key points in the coming war kicking off is the assassination of a British General by a French officer bent on war. Now I have two questions;

A) Would the French stand by an officer who committed such a crime, if he had a vaguely plausible excuse?

and

B) Would this be sufficient reason for the two to go to war, or would diplomacy prevail?
 
Hey guys, I've been working on quite a narrative Fashoda TL (Yes, it's been done a million times before but I think I have sufficient twist to this one) and one of the key points in the coming war kicking off is the assassination of a British General by a French officer bent on war. Now I have two questions;

A) Would the French stand by an officer who committed such a crime, if he had a vaguely plausible excuse?

and

B) Would this be sufficient reason for the two to go to war, or would diplomacy prevail?

A) I doubt it. Even in wartime, I would imagine assassinating a general is kind of frowned upon.

B)If tensions were high enough, sure. Maybe French and British troops fire on one another, and the son of some British lord (or a general) is killed in the crossfire?
 
Last edited:
The original plan was for Kitchener to be shot during peace talks, which I feel would be eenough for the British but the French Government might back pedal.
 
Send Archie Hunter instead of Kitchener. When Archie and Marchand meet someone will get shot! And keep Sir Herbert Jackson away also. He spoke French and contributed to the calm handling of matters at Fashoda.

archibald_hunter.jpg

Archie Hunter
 
Top