What's the earliest WWI could've broken out?

The common saying it the war was inevitable, but hypothetically if some spark had gone off before 1914, what's the earliest that the whole of Europe would have been pulled into a 'Great War'?
I ask mainly because I had a thought of US troops fighting in the trenches with Krag and Trapdoor rifles, so I was wondering if that theoretically could've happened

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WW1 has its roots in the fall of Rome, which laid the foundation for the medieval power structure that made everyone so eager to kill each other. When you think about it, all european wars have been a result of a 2,000 year power vacuum

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's some Putin logic but you're still right that it often comes back to that.

      I'd check out the book The Sleepwalkers about the run-up to the war. I don't know but there were repeated diplomatic crises over every goddamned little thing. Like German troops in Morocco (or something, I can't remember), two wars in the Balkans, the autistic Kaiser saying some dumb meme shit to the newspapers insulting multiple countries (he did that a lot) while fearing the British would carry out a surprise naval attack on Germany for no particular reason, it goes on and on.

      I am too lazy to look up the morcco incident, but I know what you are talking about. As I recall the Germans did some half-hearted offerance of recognizing Moroccan sovereignty and pretty much implying (Until they did some backtracking or whatever) that they would fight the French if they violated it. This is somewhere in 1900 to 1913.

      Fashoda was a case where the Brits and French almost went to blows.
      Boer War was not one that would result in war, but it was one that made Britain realize how isolated she was from anyone in Europe sympathy wise and thus urged a need to rapprochement with the French.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >which laid the foundation for the medieval power structure that made everyone so eager to kill each other
      Romans wiped out tribes of germanics and killed almost all druids in gaul, enslaved 1 million, killed 1 million.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Fall of Rome is not connected to WW1, but is indirectly related in the sense that the conditions that led to WW1 were a consequence of a series of conflicts stretching all the way back into the depths of human history, each one of which had consequences leading to the next.
      Rome, its rise, its fall and the many conflicts it was involved in during its existence, were all just a part of this great historical kill chain, in which we forge new links each and every day

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd check out the book The Sleepwalkers about the run-up to the war. I don't know but there were repeated diplomatic crises over every goddamned little thing. Like German troops in Morocco (or something, I can't remember), two wars in the Balkans, the autistic Kaiser saying some dumb meme shit to the newspapers insulting multiple countries (he did that a lot) while fearing the British would carry out a surprise naval attack on Germany for no particular reason, it goes on and on.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for no particular reason
      The British strategy against Napoleon was to isolate France in Europe while using global resources to finance anti-French coalitions. This strategy would be even more devastating in the Industrial Age due to the necessity of non-European natural resources to industry, like manganese and oil

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In reality there were multiple 'Great Wars' over the history of Europe.

    Prior to 1914 it was the common term of the Napoleonic Wars so it really depends on how far you want to go, a general European conflagration involving all the Great Powers? Probably assuming Austria backing Russia in the Crimean War.

    >I ask mainly because I had a thought of US troops fighting in the trenches with Krag and Trapdoor rifles, so I was wondering if that theoretically could've happened

    Don't worry, by the time the US gets involved the war will be in its last year or two anyway.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The absolute earliest would be in the 1890s when Bismarck was kicked out of office. The realistic start would be after 1908 when the Kaiser's autism managed to willy waggle Britain and Russia into allying with France, undid Bismarck's successful attempts to geopolitically isolate France and allied with the dying failed empires of Austria and the Turks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also the Krag rifle was used by Norway in WW2 so there's that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the frick does that have to do with anything?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well there was the time the Kaiser and Theodore Roosevelt came within 24 hours of open war between the USN and High Seas Fleet over friggin Venezuela. You can bet your ass that France and Britain would have jumped in on a German-US naval war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ywn live in the timeline where Teddy Roosevelt led America to victory against the German Imperial fleet
      VGH

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There's absolutely no reason Britain or France would get involved two emerging powers knocking the shit out of each other in a way that couldn't possibly lead them to dominating their respective hemispheres. Anglo-American relations especially were cordial but both saw a realistic possibility of war between Britain's increasing influence on South America and US intentions (and actions) in the Pacific or towards Canada.

      The situation would end either with:

      1. The USN being sunk and a failed German raid on the continental US - the chief outcome being European interests pushing into the Americas for a generation
      2. The Kaiserliche Marine would be defeated in the western hemisphere leading to the US seizing bases that fell to Japan in OTL but at a great loss of ships for both sides that enhances British naval primacy.

      https://i.imgur.com/adJXcW7.jpeg

      The absolute earliest would be in the 1890s when Bismarck was kicked out of office. The realistic start would be after 1908 when the Kaiser's autism managed to willy waggle Britain and Russia into allying with France, undid Bismarck's successful attempts to geopolitically isolate France and allied with the dying failed empires of Austria and the Turks.

      Bismarck was forced to resign in 1890, which forced an end to his highly effective diplomatic strategy of not pissing off everyone around Germany. Therefore, the Kaiser's autistic militarism, which was a popular political meme that he seized on, could have started WW1 as early as 1891

      >muh Bismarck

      Ahistorical nonsense pushed by Germans in need of a father figure. Bismarck created the conditions for the Great War and largely succeeded owing to rising a German nationalism that could harness an already established industrial base and military establishment.

      >b-but the Kaiser

      Called him a madman and had him sacked, a big reason being his intention to ferment and then crush a workers uprising. Not by letting extremists expose themselves but by creating conditions so bad that it triggers and uprising.

      Would love to know how well you euroshits would have fought if we didn't sell you ammo, food, and materials.

      >We helped you by taking advantage of the situation to sell shit and get you into vast debt whose repayments crippled you and made you subject to our increasing domination

      Britian would have intervened against a German occupation of Belgium no matter what, but it's most likely it would be navally to sink any attempts to rebase the High Seas Fleet in a Channel port. A non-existant BEF would probably be to Britain's direct advantage

      British Cabinet was still split in OTL on whether to intervene. It was a combination of French expectations, German aggression (but even then Britain and Germany were drifting together) and Belgium's position that triggered a declaration of war - but only by a slim margin. I don't see Britain acting unless all 3 exist.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They didn’t sell anything. They forwarded credit in exchange for gold and debt bonds that funded the war. While this was a powerful factor in securing victory, I’m under no illusions as to the reasons why they did that. They would have gladly done business with the Germans if it weren’t for the blockade.

        To answer OP’s question, most likely the war could have started in 1910 with the Balkans wars for the same reasons as 1914 and, depending if you change out certain people, as early as 1904-05 over Morocco, the Fashoda affair (Germany trying to trick Britain and France into attacking each other) and the Pink Map Affair in which Germany is waging an undeclared colonial war against Portugal, a British ally.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Germany existing caused the Great War
        moron
        >the Kaiser disagreed with Bismarck
        Wilhelm disagreed with a lot of Bismarcks ideas. Bismarck had a lot of bad ideas like kulturkampf but he also had a lot of good ones, like creating social security to cuck the SPD.
        You sound like a Green homosexual, tbh

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Germany having Alsace alone wouldn't cause WW1. They key is the alliances that could lead to a small conflict over germanic pigmies in northern france becoming a world war.

        Guess which german leader out of the Autistic kaiser and the greatest european statesman of his generation was smart enough to realize that geopolitically isolating france was a good idea and saw that trying to get in a naval pissing match with the royal navy was a terrible idea that would bite germany in the ass with a turnip winter?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I doubt a "world war" could have broken out before 1904. The Entente Cordiale was the beginnings of the Anglo-French alliance, and more pertinently, the beginnings of British preparations for expeditionary warfare, not in the colonies but on the European continent. Would Britain have intervened to protect Belgian neutrality if they didn't already have military ties with France? Probably. But the BEF wouldn't be as quick to deploy or as effective in coordinating with their French allies.
    With Russia having ten years' less industrialization (especially railroads), they would be slower to mobilize than in 1914. If the Russian advance had been delayed, von Prittwitz wouldn't have had a chance to panic and suggest abandoning East Prussia, which meant the General Staff wouldn't have redeployed two army corps from France halfway through the fricking Schlieffen Plan.
    Otherwise, that shit might have been over by Christmas in which case, there wouldn't have been a Great War. Just a big war.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Britian would have intervened against a German occupation of Belgium no matter what, but it's most likely it would be navally to sink any attempts to rebase the High Seas Fleet in a Channel port. A non-existant BEF would probably be to Britain's direct advantage

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >for no particular reason
        The British strategy against Napoleon was to isolate France in Europe while using global resources to finance anti-French coalitions. This strategy would be even more devastating in the Industrial Age due to the necessity of non-European natural resources to industry, like manganese and oil

        >mfw I rememeber I’m trapped in the timeline where Henry Wilson convinced the government to be sucked into a continental meatgrinder to save the French, of all people.
        Without a BEF on the left flank of the French army, the Germans either steamroll the French in the first month of the war or the French revise their red pants on head moronic Plan XVII to bash their heads in the Ardennes to "lop off the shoulder" of the Germans’ right hook.
        Or they simply carry on as they planned and lose anyways.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The boer war was basically everyone against Britain
    Like seriously if Willy didn't lower tensions kruts would have backed the boers, the russians would smell blood in the water in afghanistan and japan and they would then rope the french to either neutrality, alliance or risking their only real ally of russia abondoning them like austria
    Basically UK+Japan vs Germany, Russia with France and US discreetly dogpiling on the UK whenever they can to exploit the war

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a theoretical WW1 stemming from the Spanish American war has always fascinated me

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >two tiny irrelevant powers fighting over a couple of islands full of spics
      >world war
      Peak delusion only an amerimutt could conjure up. Literally no one gave a shit when the USA entered WW1, the Ottoman Empire had collapsed, the Austro-Hungarian Empire had collapsed, Italy had switched sides and the Kaiser was days from abdicating when the first fatass mutt set foot in France.

      50% of mutt deaths in WW1 were from Spanish Influenza on the boats on the way over to Europe. America’s contribution to WW1 was equivalent to El Salvador’s contribution to the war in Iraq.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Would love to know how well you euroshits would have fought if we didn't sell you ammo, food, and materials.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >nooo le heckin lend lease America gave yurop so much stuff
          Lmao big talk for an Army which went to war with British 1917 Enfields and French Chauchat machine guns while literally paying Germany royalties every Mauser-action 1903 Springfield produced.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        i'm sure the exhausted germans and french most definitely gave a shit

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >J'attends les chars et les Américains
        >Philippe Pétain

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >France 1914-1918
          >fighting all out war on their home turf
          >whilst fighting in all of their colonies against both the local population and against the standing colonial armies of other powers
          Meanwhile mutts were getting BTFO by 4 foot naked Filipinos with sharp sticks and the literal continental US was being successfully invaded and occupied by homeless Mexican militiamen in their own civil war.

          Yeah it was about time mutts actually did something so no wonder Petain wanted to wait for your worthless asses to stop dying of the flu and actually participate in the war they’d been fighting for 4 years

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Germans trying to snatch Philippines from the US could have triggered a naval war between the two, but Britian, France, and Russia have literally no reason to get involved unless they're already itching for a war with one or the other, which they werent

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bismarck was forced to resign in 1890, which forced an end to his highly effective diplomatic strategy of not pissing off everyone around Germany. Therefore, the Kaiser's autistic militarism, which was a popular political meme that he seized on, could have started WW1 as early as 1891

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The whole of Europe? Basically at any point. The Franco-Prussian War was only 34 years ago, and Britain only stayed out of it because they wanted Prussia to win.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1909. Bismark got the boot. There was a slew of issues

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    28 July 1914.
    As all of history follows a causal chain set in motion since the very beginning of existence, the time things happen is the only time those things could have happened.
    Hypotheticals are irrelevant, because if events could have unfolded any other way, they would have done so, as there is only ever one way for events to unfold.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >German citizens and Navy coup the government and stab the military (Army) in the back instead of fighting to the last stand in Germany.
    >They all act angry they somehow lost the war when the civilian government they installed surrenders to the Entente
    >Supports fhe Nazis afterwards while Army leadership tries to ignore and later try to kill Hitler multipls times.

    The frick was their problem?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1914? Well you could argue anytime post 1907 when the British, French and Russians all had treaties among one another leading to the alliance cascade off WW1.
    But it's not like Europe was overly peaceful in that time and some passing contest in Serbia didn't necessarily have to be the cause compared to the other shit in the Balkans.
    >both balkan wars in 1912 and 1913
    >Italo-Turkish war in 1911
    >tons of conflicts and rebellions involving the ottomans between 1903 - 1912
    >Russo-Ottoman war in 1877
    etc.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Milner and Rhodes and the rothchilds learned multi continental wars were logically possible with the Boer War, so any time after 1900

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I could see the two Balkan Wars or Moroccan Crisis spiralling out of control and dragging in the great powers. It'd likely boil down to a similar set of circumstances, just with a bit older tech.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    during the balkan wars when the great powers wanted to get involved

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you mean a general european great power conflict then the answer is that it could've broken out anytime. If you mean a long stalemated war that grinds away the strength of the European great powers, then probably the Morocco crisis any earlier and its likely the Russians get pancaked faster and defensive fire isn't strong enough to impose a stalemate.

    Any later than 2-3 years from 1914 the Russians get closer to closing the rifle gap and improving their rail networks, all the while the Austrians get weaker, the Russians probably crush the Austrians and overwhelm the Germans. WW1 was very much a phenomenon of a very short period of time.

    The wars breakout is bounded by Russian strength and Austrian Weakness, any sooner and the russians get flattened rapidly, any later they crush the Austrians then Germans

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *