Preventing WW1

Not in the sense of one solitary individual who if they die young or are never born, no one can take their place.
 

Arrix85

Donor
The idea seems interesting, but it's not a matter of individuals. Something must change in the colonization process, the balance of power (and its related system of alliances).
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Kaiser Wilhelm II is the closest to that person, even though him dying early probably just changes the dates of the war and the alliance setup. And with the alliance system, when it starts, everyone tends to get involved.

The problem is that is is 4 generations from the last Great European war, and people had forgotten the horrors of war. They also did not emotionally comprehend how lethal the newer weapons and industrial warfare would be. And the leaders like to play brinksmanship, and eventually it always blows up. Look at some of the chances for war.

1) Boer War - Germanic people see the crushing of free white settler colony/state with Horrific war crimes by the standards of the day.

2) A-H grabbing Bosnia 1908.

3) Italy carving off slices of the Ottomans 1912. It would only take one power getting involved to swing it into General war. For example, Russia moves on the straights.

4) Balkan Wars 1912-1913

5) First or Second Morocco Crisis. You can find lots of analysis on how a bad the Kaiser upset the UK, and people talk about how war could have been avoided, and this is possible. But is also possible if Germany finds a way of addressing the UK concerns, we could see WW1 early. All it would take is the Kaiser trying a partial mobilization to intimidate France, and 48 hours later, we could be at war. Or maybe the more neutral UK sees Morocco for the French Equitoral Africa as fair compensation and France begins to mobilization. A lot of the issues relate to the leaders not comprehending that mobilization was war.

Even if A-H does not reject the Serbian reply, and is instead talking internally on the reply, WW1 may still happen. Russian mobilization started 4 hours BEFORE A-H received the reply.

IMO, you have to change the leadership (not a leader) of 2-3 countries to make WW1 unlikely. You need a situation where war is not seen as desirable by the decision makers.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Kaiser Wilhelm II is the closest to that person, even though him dying early probably just changes the dates of the war and the alliance setup. And with the alliance system, when it starts, everyone tends to get involved.

Agree that Kaiser Wilhelm II is the best choice for a single individual, but I'm a little more optimistic than you. Without Wilhelm (or even with him, if you add a few small PODs) events might transpire so that Britain is allied with Germany rather than France. In such a case, the chance of war is considerably diminished, as a Franco-Russian alliance would know its chances for victory against a alliance of Britain, Germany and Austria-Hungary are effectively nil. This would tend to reduce the brinkmanship to which you refer.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Agree that Kaiser Wilhelm II is the best choice for a single individual, but I'm a little more optimistic than you. Without Wilhelm (or even with him, if you add a few small PODs) events might transpire so that Britain is allied with Germany rather than France. In such a case, the chance of war is considerably diminished, as a Franco-Russian alliance would know its chances for victory against a alliance of Britain, Germany and Austria-Hungary are effectively nil. This would tend to reduce the brinkmanship to which you refer.

I see the UK a bit different here. If the UK does not feel threaten by Germany, it may well go back to Splendid Isolationism (or never leave), and just profit from the war, much like the USA did from 1914-1916. It might also want to see France knocked down a notch, so it may just be trying to get Germany to agree to some prewar conditions. For example, France just paying reparations and losing some African Colonies to Germany combined with a "free" Poland helps both Germany and the UK. Germany gets a partial buffers state in the east, so the Russian mobilization will be easier in any future wars and it would get to cripple France and expand its MittelAfrika. The UK gets a weaker France, it historical enemy. And it can feel good about "freeing" the Poles. And if German gets big chunks of West Africa, the UK can do a colony swap/colonial treaty with German to handle any UK concerns.

Or maybe Germany would be ok with stripping not the industrial areas of France but Brittany and Normandy into a new, neutral country. The UK would love to see only weak, neutral countries across the Channel. A lot of its strategic issues can improve in this situation. And less take the opposite with Poland where Germany annexes most of it. UK leaders might well realize that Germany was turning itself into more of an A-H, and would spend much of its efforts on internal issues.


Your scenario is possible, but not most likely. I have trouble seeing the UK actually helping its rival, it will be more allowing things to develop and to steer towards its goals.
 
I see the UK a bit different here. If the UK does not feel threaten by Germany, it may well go back to Splendid Isolationism (or never leave), and just profit from the war, much like the USA did from 1914-1916. It might also want to see France knocked down a notch, so it may just be trying to get Germany to agree to some prewar conditions. For example, France just paying reparations and losing some African Colonies to Germany combined with a "free" Poland helps both Germany and the UK. Germany gets a partial buffers state in the east, so the Russian mobilization will be easier in any future wars and it would get to cripple France and expand its MittelAfrika. The UK gets a weaker France, it historical enemy. And it can feel good about "freeing" the Poles. And if German gets big chunks of West Africa, the UK can do a colony swap/colonial treaty with German to handle any UK concerns.

Or maybe Germany would be ok with stripping not the industrial areas of France but Brittany and Normandy into a new, neutral country. The UK would love to see only weak, neutral countries across the Channel. A lot of its strategic issues can improve in this situation. And less take the opposite with Poland where Germany annexes most of it. UK leaders might well realize that Germany was turning itself into more of an A-H, and would spend much of its efforts on internal issues.


Your scenario is possible, but not most likely. I have trouble seeing the UK actually helping its rival, it will be more allowing things to develop and to steer towards its goals.


This is good. I believe that the UK-Germany may have come closer to a "Vereinbarungherzlich" of sorts (bad google translate from "entente cordiale"). There was nothing that made the German Empire inately evil to the British, the concern was the balance of continental power. Not having seemingly unstable war-mongerer, as some saw Wilhelm II to be (perhaps he was), could only help Anglo-Germanic relations. Joseph Chamberlain is probably the best bet to get this done.
 
Dimitrijevic. Head of the Black Hand.

If the assassination of Franz Ferdinand had been attributable only to independent terrorists rather than what was essentially an arm of the Serbian government, Austria would not have declared war.

The war might have been sparked at a later time by a different incident, but we'll never know. Except for Serbia, I don't think any of the countries wanted one in 1914.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
Also, Russia not entering the war, would give no reason for France to get in, and therefor Germany doesn't feel threatened and invade Belgium keeping Britain out of the war. If the war never leaves the Balkans, the US won't enter.
The conflict still happens, but it's just Austria crushing Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria getting in on the action, snatching Serbian Macedonia.
Greece either remains neutral, or attacks Bulgarian Thrace.
That could scare the Ottomans enough to attack Greece.
It's just the Third Balkan War.
I don't which person in Russia would be responsible though.
 
Dimitrijevic. Head of the Black Hand.

If the assassination of Franz Ferdinand had been attributable only to independent terrorists rather than what was essentially an arm of the Serbian government, Austria would not have declared war.

The war might have been sparked at a later time by a different incident, but we'll never know. Except for Serbia, I don't think any of the countries wanted one in 1914.

What's to stop someone else from being the head of the Black Hand?
 
I wonder whether WW1 or its equivalent could be prevented if one great power in Europe was broken. But which one? And would the other powers allow this?

- Prussia, if you get rid of Bismarck, and they lose a major war against whomever?
- A-H, because they are unable to keep their twelve different people together?
- France, because Germany wants revenge?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Austro-Hungarian General Count Conrad von Hotzendorf is another potential choice.

Agreed. A different defense minister might have taken a different path. The Serbia did agree to many harsh demands, so you might avoid the war if A-H just accepts them.

Or if early death is appropriate, then the Emperor dying younger and the United States of Greater Austria might prevent the war. It was a very risky plan, but it might have worked enough to butterfly away the Balkans issue.
 
Bismarck

Without him the pace of German Unification would be much slower and may not have been completed fully at all.

If Bavaria, Saxony and Hannover all remain outside of the Prussian sphere the possibilities for a general war in Europe are not likely.
 
Top