The Unfortunate Death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

On November 22, 1913 the Archduke visited the Duke of Portland at the Welbeck Abbey and estate in Nottinghamshire, UK. In OTL A shotgun accident caused a round to fire a few feet from the Archduke. Supposing it kills him instead, is WWI merely delayed or perhaps butterflied away entirely?
 
On November 22, 1913 the Archduke visited the Duke of Portland at the Welbeck Abbey and estate in Nottinghamshire, UK. In OTL A shotgun accident caused a round to fire a few feet from the Archduke. Supposing it kills him instead, is WWI merely delayed or perhaps butterflied away entirely?
You simply cannot butterfly away the Great War without some massive butterflies pre-1900. The path to it was already well-underway by 1900.

The war is most definitely just delayed for a while. Who knows for how long and what will cause it. Might not even be some dumv thing in the Balkans.
 
At most, it may convince the old Emperor that is doomed, after so many tragic deaths on his family after Mayerling. Other than that, the path to war is settled and by 1913 is too late to change it.
 
At most, it may convince the old Emperor that is doomed, after so many tragic deaths on his family after Mayerling. Other than that, the path to war is settled and by 1913 is too late to change it.
Old Franzl was already severely depressed since he lost both Rudolf and his beloved Sisi. The only good thing that can come out of it, since Franz Joseph didn't have a terrible relation with Archduke Karl like he had with Franz Ferdi, is that the old man finally does something to prepare the new heir for the Emperorship.
 
Old Franzl was already severely depressed since he lost both Rudolf and his beloved Sisi. The only good thing that can come out of it, since Franz Joseph didn't have a terrible relation with Archduke Karl like he had with Franz Ferdi, is that the old man finally does something to prepare the new heir for the Emperorship.

Yes, that's the best possible outcome. If that may change the Empire...
 

BooNZ

Banned
You simply cannot butterfly away the Great War without some massive butterflies pre-1900. The path to it was already well-underway by 1900.

But that path was coming to an end.

In both Germany and France the peace factions were rapidly gaining in power - Poincare was an increasingly having to work with doves. By 1914 there had been a notable thaw in Anglo-German rivalry and as I understand it, the British were becoming increasingly suspicious of Russian belligerence. Contrary to many school history books, the balance of power was tipping towards the CP powers, which were generally more satisfied with the status quo in Europe.

Those who subscribe to an inevitable world war frequently cite a Greek pre-emptive war against the Ottomans in late 1914, an inevitable collapse of A-H in 1917, or an unstoppable Russian steamroller in the same year. I do not find any of those scenarios very convincing.
 
But that path was coming to an end.

In both Germany and France the peace factions were rapidly gaining in power - Poincare was an increasingly having to work with doves. By 1914 there had been a notable thaw in Anglo-German rivalry and as I understand it, the British were becoming increasingly suspicious of Russian belligerence. Contrary to many school history books, the balance of power was tipping towards the CP powers, which were generally more satisfied with the status quo in Europe.

Those who subscribe to an inevitable world war frequently cite a Greek pre-emptive war against the Ottomans in late 1914, an inevitable collapse of A-H in 1917, or an unstoppable Russian steamroller in the same year. I do not find any of those scenarios very convincing.
You actually do make a good point, but is it really enough to avoid a world war altogether? That just seems unlikely to me; the tensions were just too high by the 1910s. Plus, the post-Victorian culture (and Victorian culture itself) was arguably itching for a war. Finally, the post-Bismarckian status-quo was, in my opinion, unsustainable at that point. There were too many discontents over it outside of Germany; would Great Britain and Francr simply accept their subordination to a growing German-centric system? Would Russia? German officers and senior politicians were severely concerned (if not actually scared) with Russia. Even if British-Russian relations cool down, they definitely cannot let either Russia or Germany make too much headway against the other. Germany is to gain way too much from Russia and aguably vice-versa with the latter towards the CP.

By the way, I most definitely don't subscribe to any kind of historical inevitability. I just believe that in the case of WW1, the cultural, military and political atmosphere created by the late-Victorian era and after created a situation whereas the thawing of international relations would've required some serious and sudden changes. It's possible, of course, but very difficult after 1900.
 

BooNZ

Banned
You actually do make a good point, but is it really enough to avoid a world war altogether? That just seems unlikely to me; the tensions were just too high by the 1910s. Plus, the post-Victorian culture (and Victorian culture itself) was arguably itching for a war. Finally, the post-Bismarckian status-quo was, in my opinion, unsustainable at that point. There were too many discontents over it outside of Germany; would Great Britain and Francr simply accept their subordination to a growing German-centric system? Would Russia? German officers and senior politicians were severely concerned (if not actually scared) with Russia. Even if British-Russian relations cool down, they definitely cannot let either Russia or Germany make too much headway against the other. Germany is to gain way too much from Russia and aguably vice-versa with the latter towards the CP.

In the decades prior to 1914 Europe had endured an unprecedented period of peace. In that context, the Anglo-German naval rivalry and Russian military threat could be seen as orchestrated attempts to combat public apathy and increase respective military budgets, rather than any concern regarding a genuine threat to British naval supremacy or German eastern territories... ...in my opinion.

In May 1914 French socialists won the general election on a platform of peace in Europe, so the French three year conscription and commitments to Russia were on the table. In Germany, officers and senior politicians were traditionally more wary of domestic socialists than any Russian/French threat as evidenced by their progressive social policies and selective army recruitment policies. It was only a matter of time before the increasingly influential German SPD gained a majority.

Britain was a global power with its territorial interests in continental Europe limited to a large rock in southern Spain. It is sometimes stated Britain could not tolerate a purported German economic hegemony over Europe, yet in 1914 British business interests were emphatically against a war with Germany. Britain would certainly have wanted the territorial integrity of France and the low countries maintained, but those were not objectives of peacetime Imperial Germany.

By the way, I most definitely don't subscribe to any kind of historical inevitability. I just believe that in the case of WW1, the cultural, military and political atmosphere created by the late-Victorian era and after created a situation whereas the thawing of international relations would've required some serious and sudden changes. It's possible, of course, but very difficult after 1900.

By 1914 most of those serious changes had either taken place or were in train. There was no widespread Anglo-German enmity before the two world wars [and one world cup]. As late as queen Victoria's funeral in 1901 the British were putting out feelers regarding an Anglo-German alliance/ understanding. By 1912 the peak of Anglo-German naval rivalry had already passed and by 1914 Anglo-German naval relations could have been confused as quite warm.

As outlined above, in France the doves had taken power and both Britain and France were increasingly skeptical of Russian belligerence.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
But that path was coming to an end.

In both Germany and France the peace factions were rapidly gaining in power - Poincare was an increasingly having to work with doves. By 1914 there had been a notable thaw in Anglo-German rivalry and as I understand it, the British were becoming increasingly suspicious of Russian belligerence. Contrary to many school history books, the balance of power was tipping towards the CP powers, which were generally more satisfied with the status quo in Europe.

Those who subscribe to an inevitable world war frequently cite a Greek pre-emptive war against the Ottomans in late 1914, an inevitable collapse of A-H in 1917, or an unstoppable Russian steamroller in the same year. I do not find any of those scenarios very convincing.
Wouldn't the strength of French doves have been on-and-off, though? After all, Caillaux was already French PM during the Second Moroccan Crisis.

Also, Yes, British-German relations were gradually improving. However, would Britain actually be willing to fight a war on Germany's side as early as 1917? After all, this might be the decisive factor between Franco-Russian cautiousness and Franco-Russian aggressiveness in foreign affairs.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In May 1914 French socialists won the general election on a platform of peace in Europe, so the French three year conscription and commitments to Russia were on the table.

Repudiating the Russian alliance seems to be a step too far, no?

In Germany, officers and senior politicians were traditionally more wary of domestic socialists than any Russian/French threat as evidenced by their progressive social policies and selective army recruitment policies. It was only a matter of time before the increasingly influential German SPD gained a majority.

I agree that the SPD was growing in strength. However, the SPD never acquired a majority in the German Reichstag in the Weimar era, did it?
 
That incident will start WW1 even earlier... this time, Austria vs England is where it will start.
If you add to the original proposition the survival of Frederick from his throat cancer (due to earlier detection and successful surgery in London) and hence a more Anglophile Prussian court, then I'd suggest while there might have been a European war, Britain and Germany would not be fighting each other.
 

Tovarich

Banned
If you add to the original proposition the survival of Frederick from his throat cancer (due to earlier detection and successful surgery in London) and hence a more Anglophile Prussian court, then I'd suggest while there might have been a European war, Britain and Germany would not be fighting each other.

Was there any treatment in London he could not get in Vienna?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Wouldn't the strength of French doves have been on-and-off, though? After all, Caillaux was already French PM during the Second Moroccan Crisis.
French politics was consistently erratic, but support for French militarism had probably already peaked in 1913/14.

Also, Yes, British-German relations were gradually improving. However, would Britain actually be willing to fight a war on Germany's side as early as 1917? After all, this might be the decisive factor between Franco-Russian cautiousness and Franco-Russian aggressiveness in foreign affairs.
British neutrality alone would have sufficed to curb any French enthusiasm for war.

Repudiating the Russian alliance seems to be a step too far, no?
Sure, but limiting its application to exclude Russian adventurism in the Balkans would be almost certain.

I agree that the SPD was growing in strength. However, the SPD never acquired a majority in the German Reichstag in the Weimar era, did it?
Yeah, I probably looked at the post WW1 SPD performance out of context - the SPD was the largest party for a period of time, but it was a very fractured electorate.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
French politics was consistently erratic, but support for French militarism had probably already peaked in 1913/14.

OK. However, there might eventually be a new peak for this--perhaps after Russia becomes sufficiently powerful that France becomes sufficiently confident of winning a European war without Britain.

British neutrality alone would have sufficed to curb any French enthusiasm for war.

Yes, it will probably have some effect on this. However, if a sufficiently good opportunity arises--such as if Hungary attempts to secede in 1917--France might nevertheless be tempted to go to war even without Britain's help.

Also, over the long(er)-run, Russia's growing power might compensate for British neutrality or even British hostility in the eyes of the French. However, this would probably take a couple of decades at the very least.

Sure, but limiting its application to exclude Russian adventurism in the Balkans would be almost certain.

The Balkans, perhaps. However, possibly not to Hungarian secession; indeed, the opportunities there might simply be too good to pass up.

Yeah, I probably looked at the post WW1 SPD performance out of context - the SPD was the largest party for a period of time, but it was a very fractured electorate.

OK.

Thus, what we are probably eventually looking at here is an SPD-dominated coalition government in Germany.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
OK. However, there might eventually be a new peak for this--perhaps after Russia becomes sufficiently powerful that France becomes sufficiently confident of winning a European war without Britain.



Yes, it will probably have some effect on this. However, if a sufficiently good opportunity arises--such as if Hungary attempts to secede in 1917--France might nevertheless be tempted to go to war even without Britain's help.

Also, over the long(er)-run, Russia's growing power might compensate for British neutrality or even British hostility in the eyes of the French. However, this would probably take a couple of decades at the very least.
IMO veery improbable.
France was, as well as Britain though /way ?) behind, a world-wide colonial sea-power empire. To stay so it needs british assent.
Any russian fleet build-up wouldcould never be a substitue, as the russian fleet will stay locked up in the Black as well as the Baltic Sea.

Therefore it can't "trade" Russia for Britain.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
IMO veery improbable.
France was, as well as Britain though /way ?) behind, a world-wide colonial sea-power empire. To stay so it needs british assent.
Any russian fleet build-up wouldcould never be a substitue, as the russian fleet will stay locked up in the Black as well as the Baltic Sea.

Therefore it can't "trade" Russia for Britain.
What's more important to France--getting Alsace-Lorraine back or keeping its overseas empire?
 
--such as if Hungary attempts to secede in 1917--
How and why? Hungary is very unlikely to secede. The entire Monarchy will collapse first.

That incident will start WW1 even earlier... this time, Austria vs England is where it will start.

That's even more ridiculous. A-H won't start a war with Great Britain over a hunting accident that killed an unpopular archduke. They had good-to-decent relations up until the war was declared. It happened with Serbia for many reasons unrelated to the Assassination.
 
You and Grey Wolf disagree on how much of a threat Franz Ferdinand was to the Hungarian elites and thus on the likelihood of these Hungarian elites attempting independence:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ausgang-on-the-ausgleich.2679/
Franz Ferdinand is irrelevant since this PoD has him die in a hunting accident. Grey Wolf has a couple of flaws in his post about him anyways. Nevertheless, the Hungarians were hardly pro-independence at this time despite the nationalistic rhetoric. If their autonomy is maintained, they won't be a problem. Even then, Hungary is so utterly dependent of the Monarchy that their economy would (and did iOTL) collapse of they broke away.
 
Top