Centennial Anniversary of the death of Franz Ferdinand

[Boges]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10930447/World-War-One-anniversary-what-if-Archduke-Franz-Ferdinand-had-lived.html

It was like something from a film - what started as a farce ended as a tragedy. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand arrived in Sarajevo on June 28 1914, someone threw a bomb at him but it missed.

Gavrilo Princip was meant to shoot him there and then but couldnt get a clear shot. So he went to sulk in a café instead.

It was only when Ferdinands car later went down the same street by the same café and got stuck in the road - that Princip took his chance and shot the Archduke dead.

But what if Princip had missed? Would 16 million people have survived instead of perishing in the trenches in the Great War? Historian and columnist Dr Tim Stanley explores some of the possibilities.

This was the day the world truly changed. The video in the link indicates that the alliance system that dragged all the Western Powers into a 4-year war because of a spat between the Serbs and the Austria-Hungarians would have eventually led to some sort of conflict. The fact that some monarch was assassinated was simply the spark that lit the global powder keg that led to the history we see today.

It's worth remembering how June 28th, 1914 truly changed the course of history.

It's also worth considering what the world might look like had Ferdinand never died and somehow war was avoided. Imagine how different the 20th century would unfolded. But if history has taught us anything, humanity doesn't always need a good reason to go to war and kill each other.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Boges

[Remiel]

What exactly about a world that was different is worth considering? That virtually everyone alive today would never have been born? Am I supposed to wax poetic about an alternate history in which sixteen million lived so that over 7 billion could cease to exist?

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's worth remembering how June 28th, 2014 truly changed the course of history.

I assume you mean 1914...not 2014. The only thing that happened today is Brazil defeated Chile with penalty kicks.

[monty16]

There's no harm in reminiscing and wondering what could have been or what should have been. Just as long as it doesn't serve to distract from the pressing issues of the day. There's no need to point out what country is the biggest threat to world peace right now!

[Argus]

There's no harm in reminiscing and wondering what could have been or what should have been. Just as long as it doesn't serve to distract from the pressing issues of the day. There's no need to point out what country is the biggest threat to world peace right now!

Russia, I guess.

[Boges]

Russia, I guess.

I thought he meant Austria-Hungary.

[Boges]

What exactly about a world that was different is worth considering? That virtually everyone alive today would never have been born? Am I supposed to wax poetic about an alternate history in which sixteen million lived so that over 7 billion could cease to exist?

No Communism, No Hitler, No Hawkish United States. We would live in a far different world had these things not happened and considering the one event 100 years ago could easily have not happened.

[bush_cheney2004]

....but we would still have monarchies, imperialism, and "Crowns".

[Boges]

....but we would still have monarchies, imperialism, and "Crowns".

Perhaps. But would those things just have gone out of style without a World War or Two? Also would another event have caused alliances to be dragged into a conflict.

[bush_cheney2004]

This is all a very Euro-centric view, which ignores what was happening in the Asia Pacific region regardless of stupid wars for kings and queens. So yes, wars for other reasons would have still ensued...and did.

[Bob Macadoo]

No Communism, No Hitler, No Hawkish United States. We would live in a far different world had these things not happened and considering the one event 100 years ago could easily have not happened.

When you mean No Communism, did you mean No "Stalinism". I do believe communism would've continued, which most likely caused a little hawkishism abroad.

[Boges]

I mean no Russian Revolution.

[monty16]

Perhaps. But would those things just have gone out of style without a World War or Two? Also would another event have caused alliances to be dragged into a conflict.

You can pretty well bet that we would have had another world war if the Soviet Union didn't have the deterrent to war. Powerful nations such as the US will, don't ever doubt it. This is why it's so important that Iran finally procures it's own deterrent to US aggression.

And it will serve on behalf of the rest of the Muslim world which will no longer be trampled upon.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Muslim world tramples upon itself with total disregard for "human rights".

[Boges]

You can pretty well bet that we would have had another world war if the Soviet Union didn't have the deterrent to war. Powerful nations such as the US will, don't ever doubt it. This is why it's so important that Iran finally procures it's own deterrent to US aggression.

And it will serve on behalf of the rest of the Muslim world which will no longer be trampled upon.

I'm not sure if you know this but the USSR didn't exist pre-WW1. Russia was actually an ally of France. Therefore a Western Ally.

The cold war wouldn't have existed if not for two Super powers created in the wake of WW2.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Boges

[monty16]

I'm not sure if you know this but the USSR didn't exist pre-WW1. Russia was actually an ally of France. Therefore a Western Ally.

Is my suggestion that we would have had another world war without the fact that the Soviets had nukes, in some way suggesting that I wasn't aware of the fact that the Soviet Union didn't exist pre-WW1? Huhhhhhh?

The cold war wouldn't have existed if not for two Super powers created in the wake of WW2.

Not exactly the truth but it's not worth my time to point out the distinction.

[Boges]

Is my suggestion that we would have had another world war without the fact that the Soviets had nukes, in some way suggesting that I wasn't aware of the fact that the Soviet Union didn't exist pre-WW1? Huhhhhhh

It's an irrelevant suggestion to this thread.

[monty16]

It's an irrelevant suggestion to this thread.

Thanks. It's insulting to think that anyone wouldn't be aware of what I know about Russia and the Soviet Union at this stage of the game. LOL

[Boges]

Thanks. It's insulting to think that anyone wouldn't be aware of what I know about Russia and the Soviet Union at this stage of the game. LOL

Was just checking ;-)

[-TSS-]

I've noticed that in the Anglophone countries there is even some romanticism surrounding WW II. After all, the war was about fighting a tyranny and freeing nations from under dictatorship when as WW I has been seen as a futile tragedy and mostly about greedy leaders of collapsing countries fighting over meaningless plots of land but yet getting hundreds of thopusands of people killed. Hence it has become a custom to celebrate November 11th as the remembrance-day and a day reminding of insanity of war.

Of course, in reality the end result of WW II was to replace one set of dictatorship with another for half of Europe.

[Boges]

I've noticed that in the Anglophone countries there is even some romanticism surrounding WW II. After all, the war was about fighting a tyranny and freeing nations from under dictatorship when as WW I has been seen as a futile tragedy and mostly about greedy leaders of collapsing countries fighting over meaningless plots of land but yet getting hundreds of thopusands of people killed. Hence it has become a custom to celebrate November 11th as the remembrance-day and a day reminding of insanity of war.

Of course, in reality the end result of WW II was to replace one set of dictatorship with another for half of Europe.

The Half that didn't include the ones who have those romantics notions of WW2. Gotta wonder if Poland sees WW2 as such a successful event as those in North American and Great Britain.

The problem with WW1 is there was not Hitler or Tojo. The enemy wasn't as clearly defined. They weren't fighting to free Europe, they were fighting to honour alliances.

Interestingly, what's the difference between the Serb, Russians, French, British Commonwealth Alliance then say NATO? If Russia invades a NATO nation because Putin gets assassinated there, All NATO nations are obliged to declare war.