When would WW1 have started if Franz Ferdinand wasn't assassinated

>>3299377
March 3rd 1916 at 14:53:22 pm, GMT.

How the fuck would we know? We might surmise where tensions might brew in the future, but it's hard to guess when exactly the keg blows given that the assassination was almost a failure and occurred through dumb luck.

File: buds.gif (2MB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x450px

>>3299377

Are you familiar with the infinite multiverse theory?

>So basically somewhere between sometime soon after and never.

>>3299377
The real question is who would have won between 1941 austro-hungary and 1917 serbia?

It was just the casus belli. The war was going to happen anyway, it was just a matter of time.

>>3299407
the anglo

>>3299407
>who would win, a nation that doesn't exist in 1941 or a nation that existed in 1917?
gee golly

File: wwdf.png (45KB, 1058x485px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1058x485px

>>3299377
Yes, Germany wanted its big war
They'd have needed another excuse to start it, but that's all

>>3299431
i know m8 its a meme

>>3299377
G*r"man"y wanted a war anyway. They'd find another way to start ine

File: guardian1914.jpg (78KB, 537x551px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 537x551px

>>3299438
>Germany wanted its big war

>>3299438

A little context to that, Serbia could have been easily beaten if they had invaded immediately, but by dithering, AH allowed the Serbs to mobilize and thus a war that should have lasted a week dragged on for four years. It's roughly comparable to the days after 9/11, when US special forces were in position to take out bin laden, but Bush delayed in giving the go ahead, which allowed him to skip the border to pakistan and start the never ending war on terror.

>>3299482
Remind me which country invaded Belgium for not being a staging area for their attack on France to "drag us into an enormous war on behalf of Servia?"

>>3299520
Germany and Britain were both manipulated into war by their slavonic allies, who used the aryan sense of honor to gain their armies

>>3299534
I never really considered invading neutral countries that simply didn't want two nations to fight a war within their borders to be a particularly honorable action, but I will reconsider those views.

>>3299534
Britain wasn't manipulated by anyone
They did as always, when the war broke out they counted how many countries were on each sides, and consequently joined the most numerous one

>>3299520

If GB cared so much about neutrality why didn't they respect the neutrality of US and other nation's vessels? They didn't give a shit about neutrality, they only intervened when Germany threatened an upset.

>>3299553
Being part of the entente (UK,Russia France) and being a signatory to Belgiums neutrality ment Britian was honor-bound to declare war on Germany, and in turn, Germany was honor-bound to declare war on an entente member(Russia) which was mobilizing for war, against A-H

>Serbia started World War I
Reasonable.
>Austria-Hungary started World War I for declaring war after Serbia met all but one of its demands
Reasonable.
>Russia started World War I for declaring war on Austria-Hungary knowing Germany would intervene
Reasonable
>Germany started World War I for encouraging the Austro-Hungarians and then declaring war on France and Belgium for not giving them land for free/letting them fight a war on their land
More than Reasonable

>France started World War I for retreating all of its forces 15 miles from its border and refusing to hand over Verdun and Toul for free
What
>Belgium started World War I for refusing to allow Germany to treat it as a staging area for an invasion of France
What
>Britain started World War I for declaring war in accordance to a treaty signed with Belgium like everyone else except Serbia France did to justify going to war
What

You can reasonably argue that Russia, Serbia, Austria-Hungary or Germany were all willing perpetrators to the war, but France, Belgium and Britain were all involved solely due to German Autism.

>>3299576

France was a legitimate target because it was allied with Russia. Attacking Belgium was the only thing Germany did during WW1 that was actually bad.

>>3299500
AH didn't mobilise immediately because their soldiers were at home for harvest.

>>3299438
That's a myth. The German generals held the opinion that if a war were to happen it should happen better sooner than later since Germany was still in a position of superiority in contrast with France and Russia. However, the Kaiser and the German chancellor, Bethmann-Holwegh both were opposed to war. In fact, Kaiser Wilhelm was on vacation during the July crisis, which is probably not what a Monarch would do who plans to take over the world in that very moment.

File: Untitled.jpg (56KB, 206x464px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 206x464px

>>3299581
The thing was that France actually TRIED to defuse the situation and stay neutral. President Poincare tried to get Russia to back down too:
>Viviani sent a telegram to Nicholas affirming that:
>"in the precautionary measures and defensive measures to which Russia believes herself obliged to resort, she should not immediately proceed to any measure which might offer Germany a pretext for a total or partial mobilization of her forces.[20]"
>Additionally, orders were given for French forces to pull back six miles from the frontier with Germany.[20]
The casus belli Germany invoked was literally France's refusal to hand over two of its cities just to guarantee its neutrality.

>>3299595

>needing to mobilize to defeat serbia

nigga please, just give me a few good divisions

>>3299600
It should be considered that Germany was in geo-strategic much worse position though, being surrounded by both France and Russia. Demanding for them to show a sign of good-will instead of trusting their word alone was not unreasonable. However, France had no ambition to declare themselves neutral, they were willing to go to war with Russia and Poincaré himself said so. To claim that it were unreasonable demands by Germany that prevented a neutral France does not do justice to historical reality.

>>3299377
There was so much tension. Germany wanted a war. They'd have gotten it one way or another

>>3299646
>It should be considered that Germany was in geo-strategic much worse position though, being surrounded by both France and Russia.
Only because they autistically felt obligated to partake in Austrian retardation
Neither Russia nor France attacked Germany before it did
Germany saw A-H start a war and decided to involve itself in it

>Demanding for them to show a sign of good-will instead of trusting their word alone was not unreasonable.
France removing its troops kms away from the borders and not declaring war when Germany offered them a perfect casus-bellu by using the fact mentioned above to raid a French village is enough of a proof of good-will to me

>>3299670
>Neither Russia nor France attacked Germany before it did
Russia mobilised first.

>Germany saw A-H start a war and decided to involve itself in it
Germany essentially told A-H that they would have their backs. Russia did the same towards Serbia, and France did the same towards Russia.

>France removing its troops kms away from the borders and not declaring war when Germany offered them a perfect casus-bellu by using the fact mentioned above to raid a French village is enough of a proof of good-will to me
My point is: they did not have that good-will in the first place. France would have joined Russia either way if it came to war as they were obliged to. Do you honestly think France would have ignored their ally entering a war with their arch-enemy and standing by? That would not only have been seen as cowardice and traitorous behaviour it would also have not made sense from a strategic point of view. This was their opportunity to defeat Germany and making use of it made perfect sense, because if Russia was beaten there would be no way for them to ever challenge Germany again.