John Francis Donaghy said:

---

RVAg02 said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

titanmaster_race said:

---

He said similar. Not identical.

In both cases someone was assassinated who belonged to a vast and powerful nation/empire.

---

But in that case it was a member of a royal family and a direct heir to the throne, and in this one it was a mid-level bureaucrat. If Dmitry Medvedev had been assassinated, I'd see some similarities. A bureaucrat? Not so much.

---

I was probably more focused on who the other players are and their intentions. The Austro-Hungarians weren't what made it become a World War, but rather Germany's Imperialistic intentions. Ferdinand's assassination would have slid by if Kaiser Wilhelm wanted it too. He used it as a kickstarter. Or at least that's how I understood it.

---

Germany wasn't really after any land grab at the outset of WW1, that was more of a WW2 thing.

Leading up to the outset of WW1, Austria-Hungary and Serbia were competing for control of the Balkans, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria Hungary annexed Bosnia against Serbia's wishes, and Serbian operatives assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. In response, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia, as an ally of Serbia, Declared war on Austria Hungary. Germany tried to convince Russia to stand down, but Russia declared war on Germany in recognition of Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary (which Germany had recently prioritized over their now lapsed alliance with Russia), and Germany declared war on Russia out of necessity to defend themselves in the midst of the outbreak of military mobilizations going on all around them.

That is the general gist of the "powder keg" of military alliances in that part of the world that existed at the time of the assassination. Everyone in the region was bound by alliance to enter conflict on behalf of someone else, so the whole thing escalated really quickly.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

RVAg02 said:

---

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

titanmaster_race said:

---

He said similar. Not identical.

In both cases someone was assassinated who belonged to a vast and powerful nation/empire.

---

But in that case it was a member of a royal family and a direct heir to the throne, and in this one it was a mid-level bureaucrat. If Dmitry Medvedev had been assassinated, I'd see some similarities. A bureaucrat? Not so much.

---

I was probably more focused on who the other players are and their intentions. The Austro-Hungarians weren't what made it become a World War, but rather Germany's Imperialistic intentions. Ferdinand's assassination would have slid by if Kaiser Wilhelm wanted it too. He used it as a kickstarter. Or at least that's how I understood it.

---

Germany wasn't really after any land grab at the outset of WW1, that was more of a WW2 thing.

Leading up to the outset of WW1, Austria-Hungary and Serbia were competing for control of the Balkans, particularly Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria Hungary annexed Bosnia against Serbia's wishes, and Serbian operatives assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. In response, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia, as an ally of Serbia, Declared war on Austria Hungary. Germany tried to convince Russia to stand down, but Russia declared war on Germany in recognition of Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary (which Germany had recently prioritized over their now lapsed alliance with Russia), and Germany declared war on Russia out of necessity to defend themselves in the midst of the outbreak of military mobilizations going on all around them.

That is the general gist of the "powder keg" of military alliances in that part of the world that existed at the time of the assassination. Everyone in the region was bound by alliance to enter conflict on behalf of someone else, so the whole thing escalated really quickly.

---

We call that "NATO", now...

---