What if the archduke ferdinand was never assassinated

The world might never have entered the First World War, and as a result history would have unfolded quite differently. If GavriloPrincip had missed his mark, had not been given the opportunity to commit his crime, or had simply not picked up the gun, Archduke Ferdinand would have survived and the world would have potentially become a much different place.

The First World War led to the deaths of millions. It lasted four years, and involved nearly every major nation in existence at the time. New methods of violent military strategy were innovated on a constant basis during the war, and soldiers were either down in the trenches or gunned down going over the hill.

When Archduke Ferdinand died, a chain of events was set in place that doomed nearly countless numbers of soldiers to die in the defense of their allies. He believed that a war with Russia would lead to the downfall of both empires. Professor Lebow says the assassination of the Archduke "removed this brake on going to war", and created "a pretext and incentive to go to war".

The Austro-Hungarian empire itself might not have collapsed if it had not gone to war, Holger Herwig from the University of Calgary believes.

Posing such "what if? How did an assassination in Sarajevo lead to war? The living legacy of Gavrilo Princip. Was there an alternative strategy? Was there an alternative political approach to this? He says it is important for historians to recognise there were choices to be made. Professor Lebow says counterfactual history is not just about the past, but has lessons for contemporary politicians and decision makers. He says leaders have a tendency "to exaggerate their ability to control events, which they all did in World War One with fatal consequences".

The second lesson, he says, is that leaders convince themselves that while they have no freedom of action, the other side does. The third lesson, he says, is that leaders tend not to question the set of assumptions they bring to problems and, in crisis situations, surround themselves with people they feel comfortable with. It doesn't matter how clever your policy-making is, he warns. During the 19th century, rising nationalism swept through Europe. As people took more pride in country and culture, their desire to rid themselves of imperial rule increased.

In some cases, however, imperialism fed nationalism as some groups claimed superiority over others. This widespread nationalism is thought to be a general cause of World War I. For instance, after Germany dominated France in the Franco-Prussian War of , France lost money and land to Germany, which then fueled French nationalism and a desire for revenge.

Entangled alliances created two competing groups. In , Germany and Austria-Hungary allied against Russia. As war was declared, the allied countries emboldened each other to enter the fray and defend their treaties, although not every coalition was set in stone—Italy later changed sides.

Militarism sparked an arms race. In the early s, many European countries increased their military might and were ready and willing put it to use. Most of the European powers had a military draft system and were in an arms race, methodically increasing their war chests and fine-tuning their defense strategies. Between and , France, Russia, Britain and Germany significantly increased their defense budgets.