Sign in to follow this  

Could the first world war have been avoided?

Recommended Posts

I am interested to hear the views of this community as to whether the first world war could have been avoided. I think all of us know how the war started, with the assassination of the Archduke Frank Ferdinand in Sarajevo but could the reactions and events that unfolded in the aftermath have gone differently?

For one hundred years the blame for the first world war has been squarely laid at the door of Germany. At the time German imperialism and militarisation was a concern to every nation in Europe, it was no secret at the time that Germany desired an empire that could match that of France and dreamed of an empire that could match that of the British. It was for these reasons that treaties were made left right and centre. 

But the question is this; if Britain had refused to join the French, which would have resulted in a French defeat in less than two years, how would things be different? And also was Britain right to join the war? Did Britain even have a choice?  Lets not forget, in 1914 Britain was the worlds foremost superpower and it is well known that Emperor Willhelm did not want war with Britain both for cultural and military reasons. 

I will keep my opinions to myself until a debate has begun, but i hope a lively debate ensues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If a world-wide spread war didn't ignite when Franz died, it would happen at some point later on down the road. What lead to such a war was a system to stop someone like Napoleon. Napoleon conquered much of Europe so the European countries in response made this deal where they create an alliance system where if a country invades another country their friends must join in. It worked for about 100 years but then it caused big countries to fight over little countries like Bosnia and Belgium. The main things that lead to WW1 was Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, and Nationalism, which despite if the arch duke died or not would still remain. What might change though is who fought on what side, like for instance, would France have Russia and Britain on their side if Kaiser Wilhelm II didn't fire Otto Van Bismarck. The only reason France and Russia became friends is because Bismarck wasn't there to ensure that Germany never got sandwiched by Russia and France. France and Germany had always been enemies and Bismarck was afraid that they would befriend Russia and fight Germany on two fronts, which did happen when he was fired. The only reason France and Britain was on the same side was because the Kaiser was building up a naval army and it scared Britain into friendship. Britain and France were never allies before that since the crusades. 

TL;DR: Yes, World War 1 was bound happened but it probably would be much different, like France not having Britain and Russia on their side.

Edited by Sono Raitā
Misspelled a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2016 at 7:45 AM, Spurgle said:

I am interested to hear the views of this community as to whether the first world war could have been avoided. I think all of us know how the war started, with the assassination of the Archduke Frank Ferdinand in Sarajevo but could the reactions and events that unfolded in the aftermath have gone differently?

For one hundred years the blame for the first world war has been squarely laid at the door of Germany. At the time German imperialism and militarisation was a concern to every nation in Europe, it was no secret at the time that Germany desired an empire that could match that of France and dreamed of an empire that could match that of the British. It was for these reasons that treaties were made left right and centre. 

But the question is this; if Britain had refused to join the French, which would have resulted in a French defeat in less than two years, how would things be different? And also was Britain right to join the war? Did Britain even have a choice?  Lets not forget, in 1914 Britain was the worlds foremost superpower and it is well known that Emperor Willhelm did not want war with Britain both for cultural and military reasons. 

I will keep my opinions to myself until a debate has begun, but i hope a lively debate ensues.

I'm a bit late, but this is kinda my niche and I will do my best. 

 

I think if the Archduke wasn't assassinated, the war would happen later on. Perhaps another problem in the Balkans. 

Great Britain really got involved when Germany started to build up her navy. The naval arms race was one of the reasons why Britain was gearing for conflict. The final straw was German troops violating Belgian neutrality as they swung around the French defenses at the border. 

 

There's a lot more though, and I think this video helps explain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.