What Is The World Like If 'The Shot Heard Round The World' Is Never Fired?

[Lancer]

Franz Ferdinand is never shot. Major changes or no difference?

Why?

[Andrew1999]

No real changes. WWI could have just as easily started in 1908 or 1913, and I'm sure there would have been a crisis in 1917 or 1920 to set everyone off. Once it starts you have the same general turn of events: stalemate in the west and Russian collapse in the east. The only major variable I can think of is when/if the US decides to intervene.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No major changes... WW1 happens either later 1914 or in 1915, by some crisis.

[orange]

War begins by 1918, the longer before war, the more powerful Germany is going into it, and the better they do. They'd still probably lose, with US intervention, but it would have been a longer, harder war, and air power would have played more of a role. Russia obviouysly wouldn't have collapsed as early as it did, but would have eventually.

[OldWarrior_42]

The Brooklynn Dodgers would have won the pennant, instead of the NY Giants. And they would have lost the World Series.... as usual.

[Lancer]

Anyone think that Russia might have had a communist inspired civil war by 1918 or 20 that would have allowed even a wimpy German general to implement the Schliffen plan as it was designed?

As I'm sure most of you know, Schliffen planed to use 90% of mobile forces in the right hook to Paris. In fact only 60% were used, and Paris almost fell. I forget the guy's name that screwed it up, but it has been said that a German victory in WW1 would have save the world a steaming heap of trouble, and victory would have resulted from a full right hook.

Trouble being, WW2, the death camps, the cold war with half of europe under the thumb of the soviets, the nuclear arms race, etc...

[DanS]

I firmly believe that Europe wanted to go to war. They even thought they'd have fun at it. Doesn't seem like there was a peacenik constituency.

So until the European powers were disabused of these foolhardy notions, the situation was always unstable...

[TCO]

WWI would not happen. colonialism would last longer but end more smoothly. Romantic ideals (good and bad) would endure. Russia would not become Communist. US would continue same economic trajectory but be a more quiet world player until 1970's. World would be way better off.

[Lancer]

What a nice, optimistic view GP.

Serbs eh?

[KrazyHorse]

WWI would not happen

I doubt that. Europe was aching for a pissing contest by that point. Increased German ambition and French antipathy would have done the job in the end.

[orange]

Originally posted by Lancer
Anyone think that Russia might have had a communist inspired civil war by 1918 or 20 that would have allowed even a wimpy German general to implement the Schliffen plan as it was designed?

As I'm sure most of you know, Schliffen planed to use 90% of mobile forces in the right hook to Paris. In fact only 60% were used, and Paris almost fell. I forget the guy's name that screwed it up, but it has been said that a German victory in WW1 would have save the world a steaming heap of trouble, and victory would have resulted from a full right hook.

Trouble being, WW2, the death camps, the cold war with half of europe under the thumb of the soviets, the nuclear arms race, etc...

The Schlieffen plan was brilliant, but it made two major assumptions that caused it to fail.

A) It assumed British neutrality.
B) It assumed US neutrality.

but it was otherwise a damn good plan, and a solid one at that. Damn limeys and yanks, always ruining : points to avatar : 'our' fun

[Lancer]

Orange, in my view it didn't fail because it was never really
implemented. If it had gone off as Schlieffen had drawn it up, I believe it would have worked. France would have been KOed, the BEF destroyed in the process, and the war over long before the US joined.

[orange]

Originally posted by Lancer
Orange, in my view it didn't fail because it was never really
implemented. If it had gone off as Schlieffen had drawn it up, I believe it would have worked. France would have been KOed, the BEF destroyed in the process, and the war over long before the US joined.

That is possible, but consider that French was stronger during WWI than it was going into WWII, comparative with the other nations. The resistance would have been MUCH stronger. Despite how we all like to joke about France surrendering, it's obvious that the staggering losses from World War I are a very high factor in why they surrendered in WWII. So even if the Germans could encircle Paris while containing the attack in the Vosges, they still would not have defeated France. Though I do agree that the longer the preparations for war went on (IE, the longer the war was postponded) the stronger Germany would have been, and the weaker Russia would have been. So I'm not ruling out your proposition, I'm only saying that the plan did have obvious flaws. I'd agree that, when implemented correctly, it had the capability of taking Paris, but not winning the war altogether. Not in 1914 anyway.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I doubt that. Europe was aching for a pissing contest by that point. Increased German ambition and French antipathy would have done the job in the end.

Yeah...but y'all all said that. I gotta go against the grain...

[MrFun]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a result of unresolved problems and tensions within the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, with its dual monarchy government.

There would been some other crisis I'm sure, that would have culiminated from the resentment of imperial rule over the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and among others.

So I think World War I would have definitely occurred around the same time period.