Imagining the unimaginable

2014-08-05 00:00

A CENTURY ago on July 28, World War 1, also known as the Great War, started. A month previously on June 28, 1914, Archduke Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife were assassinated in a car, just like John F. Kennedy.

The incident took place in Sarajevo, the capital of the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The world hardly noticed at the time.

As one historian observed: “The crowds in Vienna listened to music and drank wine as if nothing had happened.”

In Britain, women at Wimbledon, Henley and Ascot, were decked out in more vivid colours than in previous years, and the dreaded corset had been dispensed with for a looser fit.

Outside Buckingham Palace, the suffragettes were demonstrating in favour of women getting the vote, and one burly policeman was photographed carrying their leader, Emmeline Pankhurst, away from the scene by lifting her up at the waist.

However, the day after the archduke’s demise, anti-Serb riots started in Bosnia as it was felt that Serbian authorities were behind the hit.

The latter, incidentally, was a total fluke as the car the archduke was travelling in had taken a wrong turn and stopped, to the surprise of the young assassin sipping coffee across the road.

Austria-Hungary then presented Serbia with an ultimatum they knew it was impossible for Serbia to accept and on July 28, the first shots were fired.

Thus began a war in which almost 10 million combatants died, which drew in all major powers of the day and which ended only on November 11, 1918, with the defeat of Germany.

What really strikes me about the whole affair is that nobody saw it coming, and when the conflict did come, the general opinion was that it was going to be over by Christmas.

Nobody foresaw the stalemate of trench warfare, where going over the top meant almost certain death for the sons of millions of mothers. In other words, nobody played the scenario of what actually happened in any shape or form, before it actually happened. It was an unknown unknown or something you don’t know you don’t know.

Now I know as a scenario planner that one will never capture the future precisely because it is too unpredictable. However, as my mentor and the greatest scenario planner of all time, Pierre Wack, once said to me: “It is much better to be vaguely right rather than precisely wrong.”

Nobody was even vaguely right on this one and the world drifted into the biggest war in history, creating a lost generation.

Why is this relevant 100 years later? Because in front of our very eyes it could all be happening again. I have already written two articles demonstrating how the red flags might go up very quickly.

The first one was on the topic of Russians and Americans completely misunderstanding each other, and how they very nearly came to blows in 1962 over the Cuban missile crisis.

The second one was a plea to update nuclear game theory to see if the principle of mutually assured destruction is still valid.

Some strategists think nuclear war is survivable and is one among several exercisable options.

Since then, we have had the potential equivalent of the archduke’s assassination in the form of the downing of a passenger airliner over Ukraine with all lives lost.

This has seriously cranked up the second episode of the Cold War that started with Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Yet no politician, no guru, no newspaper, no news channel, no social-media outlet has mentioned the risk of military confrontation between the great powers.

Markets have shrugged it off. It is a taboo subject and I guess the reason is that the consequences are unimaginable. But as the subtitle of a book titled The Fox Trilogy which I co-authored with Chantell Ilbury says, being a fox is about imagining the unimaginable and dealing with it.

The game between nations is like chess. Every move you make requires that you consider what your opponent’s next move may be as a result of your own move.

You have to play scenarios, consider the flags and attach probabilities as best you can. Otherwise you may blunder into an end-game that is the worst of all possible worlds, which happened 100 years ago.

Do you really think that humankind has become less violent when the chips are down and the instinct for survival kicks in?

Current evidence suggests otherwise, while the weapons of mass destruction are improving all the time. — News24.

• Clem Sunter is a scenario planner and chair of the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24


Book flights

Compare, Book, Fly

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.