If you could pick one European country to travel to in 1913, which one?

Interesting question! Austria is high on the list, Prague and Vienna were really hopping back then. But I think I'd go with France and especially Paris -- all the new art and music and architecture. Very exciting.

I've often thought I'd like to see London before the Great Fire, then again before WWII.

Paris! Always Paris.

Paris. I find everything about Paris fascinating.

That's a tough one. Barcelona just after the Moderniste building boom, or Vienna. But if only one country, I think Spain.

Paris is obvious for obvious reasons, so I'll pick Switzerland. Maybe I'd bump into Lennin and arrange an accident for him.

Berlin. I'd like to see the build up to the Great War.

No surprise, Rob... I'm going with Germany to see it in all it's pre-bombed-out glory... from the Crown Prince's Palace on Unter den Linden to Dresden's original Frauenkirche to cute little half-timbered towns free of war memorials to the dead. While no one was looking, I would probably slip across the border into Austria.

Only choice --- Paris and the cafe scene.

Paris. For obvious reasons, as Eddie said. A fascinating and exciting time to be there.

I think I would stay put here in Frankfurt, to see all the places and streets that I already know by heart, to see what it was like then. 2nd choice would be Berlin.

Dresden, before the bombings of WWII.
This city was known as "the Florence of the north"

I think Russia would be the most interesting choice, historically.

I don't think middle class travelers like me existed in 1913. But I would definitely take Paris, and maybe have a good seat for the premiere of The Rite of Spring.

Ms Jo,

You get to do both in this fantasy question because it’s country, not city!

This question is tougher than I thought. Reading the question, I immediately thought of Paris, of course, so France. But then I read Dave's response and changed my answer to Germany. One can walk through Paris and London today, and get a sense of what those cities looked like a century ago. This is not the case with the cities of Germany because of the devastation of World War II. And in 1913, Germany was the economic and military powerhouse of Europe--the center of Europe in not only geography, but raw power--and the question or "problem" of Germany was the great issue of that era and would shape the 20th century.

Tom and Stan: Czarist Russia. Interesting choice.

Paris is solid but too obvious a choice. 1960s?

I’d need to see numbers proving Germany more of an economic powerhouse than Britain in 1913.

Here ya go...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

German GDP in 1913 ~$237 billion, GB ~$224 billion, in 1990 US dollars

Tom, certainly in 1913 Britain was a great industrial and commercial nation, but by that time it overall had been overtaken by Germany, which had a population of 67,000,000 to Britain's 46,000,000. More important, Germany's rates of growth were considerably higher, a trend that was noticed by and concerned London.
My comments are based on the text and tables in chapter 5 of Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Ypres, Belgium

The figures are there, in graph form, in section 2.3.

The graph I assume you're referring to--in section 3.1--also shows Germany with a larger GNP than the UK.

Not to rain on anyone's parade, the physics of time travel to the past is not favorable. Time travel to the future is more realistic, so maybe another question would be, where would you like to visit in 2113?

It seems I had a hand in pushing this thread momentarily in a different direction. Hopefully, I can help with getting things back on track. I think I read recently that of her books, Barbara Tuchman considered The Proud Tower her favorite. The book's subtitle was A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914. The book not surprisingly focused on four countries: England, France, Germany, and the United States. People travel to and like different places for different reasons. Regarding the question posed, my choices in order are Germany, France (solely for Paris), and Britain. Any other country for me would be a distant fourth (though a peek at Vienna has some appeal).

I'm going to cheat a little bit and say the UK! that way I can see England, Scotland Wales and possibly Ireland. London, Inverness and the Highlands and the Snowdonia area of Wales would be top on my list. I know the 'natural' landscape hasn't changed much, but the crowds would be less! Of course, if we are doing a sf/fantasy trip, I'll have plenty of Pounds to spend and be able to afford the services of a private guide!

rob in cal picked 1913, to provoke considering countries just before the start of World War One. So I considered what countries would be most radically changed by that war, and Russia came to mind first. Or, as he suggested the Austro-Hungarian Empire would also be a good choice. I'm not picturing Paris as being recognizably different in 1913 from 1923 or 1903. Eastern France maybe, but I'm not sure what you'd want to look at there.

Lots of good choices for this interesting question, but in terms of what's changed the most, I might choose the Ottoman Empire -- start in old Constantinople (in Europe, so it qualifies), and continue on to Aleppo, Beirut, Jerusalem, Damascus, Baghdad, a trip on the Hejaz Railway . . . (but not Egypt unfortunately, as it was a British protectorate then rather than part of the Empire).

Big Mike, didn't the delayed double split experiment show that subatomic particles could actually go backward in time?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand; I would agree with those who have mentioned England, particularly London, prior to so much of it being destroyed. That would be a real treat for me. Paris would be a very close second.

This is a great, fascinating question, with a huge number of possible answers, each with a wide range of intriguing arguments. No bad answers, then, but when considering locations that would’ve been markedly different in 1913, compared with just a few years later, Russia certainly came to mind. Thinking a bit more, I realized that a place I haven’t been, but from where one great-grandfather escaped to the USA, is Armenia. Better to have seen it in 1913 than a couple of years later, and maybe not for a while yet, nowadays.

And from what BigMike (WbGVa) mentioned, I wonder where folks in 2121 would consider seeing, if they could travel back to 2021?

And as rob in cal mentioned, tourism infrastructure in 1913 certainly couldn’t have been what it became many decades later - besides transportation, there wasn’t any Frommer/Fodor’s/Steves guidebook information, no TI, certainly a lot fewer no multi-lingual signage. All those royal palaces that now provide a mesmerizing look for us commoners at how they lived before WW I weren’t available for public viewing. A lot of archeological digs hadn’t yet taken place, so countless evocative and fascinating sites now would’ve just been a pile of rocks, ame still buried. A lot of places today are still piles of rocks, or bits of wall, but at least they have some context, and wonderful museums with amazing displays.

Oh, I bet what sights there were in 1913 didn’t require reservations, didn’t have roped entry mazes, and the gift shops were less extensive. Probably fewer Websites available, and less selfie sticks, too.

But still pickpockets?

"there wasn’t any Frommer/Fodor’s/Steves guidebook"

Not those, perhaps, but there were certainly guide books in 1913. Thos. Cook and Baedeker for example. Windsor Castle printed its own guidebook in 1742 and by the 19thC was running ticketed tours so some palaces, etc., at least, were open to the public.

Whilst international tourism in 1913 wasn't what it is today (or was pre-virus!), it wasn't a novelty either, at least for those with money and time. As had happened for centuries, plenty of souvenirs were still being picked up along the way as people visited "foreign parts". Museums today are full of them, which is obviously great for us modern tourists.

I'd go to Constantinople.

Here are a few more tips for a visit to 1913 (but remember, you're just a tourist, you can see history but not try to change it).
Stay away from the Balkans as the Balkan Wars are raging.
Ireland is tense due to the "Home Rule" dispute, so it's best to converse about the weather or the beauty of the countryside rather than politics or religion (of course, that's good advice for Ireland any time).
In January, the young Hitler, Stalin and Tito are all (separately) living in Vienna -- Hitler will make a fateful move to Munich later in the year.
In May, the first performance of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" causes an actual riot in Paris (if you Paris-lovers aren't up for that, the cabaret at the Folies-Bergere is pretty much the same then as it is now).
In June, suffragette Emily Davison throws herself in front of the King's horse in the Derby, and is killed. For something less traumatic this month, visit the first Aldi store which has just opened in Essen, Germany.
In August, the "Little Mermaid" statue is completed in Copenhagen (note that this sight, even with its original head, is likely no more exciting in 1913 than it is today, but those with sticker shock from modern visits to Scandinavia will appreciate the region's poor, agrarian character back then).
In December, the thief who stole the Mona Lisa in 1911 tries to sell it in Florence, but is arrested and the painting returned to Paris (but remember, you can't change history, and even if you could quietly buy it for yourself and bring it back to 2021 with a good cover story of how you bought it at a yard sale because you thought that enigmatic smile would look good in the den, the art world will not have forgotten about this long lost treasure and the Louvre will still want it back).

Easy- London. But there is Paris...hmmm maybe Rome, or Florence...or Venice (when Venice really was a city lived in by locals—plus an interesting cast of expats)..oh but wait. How about 5 cities...yeah 5 cities pre-RS “discovery”...the Cinque Terre!!, Now seeing the Cinque Terre when it was 5 simple villages would be stunning.

Bohemia. It was gone just five years later.

I don’t feel the need looking further than my home country as it must have been a completely different world and hard to imagine it was not that long ago. There are some wonderful video’s on Youtube showing the Netherlands during that period. Even this one is from 1927 it gives to my opinion a good impression about how daily life was before WW1. Knowing the Netherlands remained neutral in WW1 life was not so much different from even 14 years earlier and traditional clothing was as common as jeans nowadays. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5W20LyWgeE

Sorry for not following the question precisely, but it's too beautiful for not showing it. Search for Rick88888888 (8 times 8) if you want to see more.

To answer emma’s question:
“A number of people have said that Paris is the obvious choice and I’m curious why?
I’m not disagreeing with anyone’s choice but I’m struggling with why Paris in 1913 is so “obvious”.”

Paris in the Belle Époque was a period in the history of the city between the years 1871 to 1914, from the beginning of the Third French Republic until the First World War. It saw the construction of the Eiffel Tower, the Paris Métro, the completion of the Paris Opera, and the beginning of the Basilica of Sacré-Cœur on Montmartre. Three lavish "universal expositions" in 1878, 1889 and 1900 brought millions of visitors to Paris to sample the latest innovations in commerce, art and technology. Paris was the scene of the first public projection of a motion picture, and the birthplace of the Ballets Russes, Impressionism and Modern Art.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Belle_Époque

I would also add: the music, writers, lifestyle, fashion, café culture, great chéfs...
The Belle Époque was an amazing and exciting time in Paris.

Wil, thanks for the link to the video of the Netherlands in the early 1900's. You are right, it is beautiful and so much fun viewing people in the traditional dress.

Very popular here on tv is the BBC series Great Continental Railway Journeys with Michael Portillo. He retraces the journeys featured in the 1913 edition of (George) Bradshaw’s Continental Railway Guide. With the original guide book in his hands he shows what you can find in different destinations now and then.

I'm so pleased that I do not live in 1913. Things are so much better now. In 1906, my great-grandmother was cleaning a chicken, and was scratched. She was dead of sepsis in 5 days. No antibiotics. Dental care was terrible. Of course, the mass use of sugar was not common so there were fewer cavities. No electricity in a lot of places. No cars for the masses. Every country of Europe was a hereditary monarchy, and most of the monarchs were incompetent idiots. While serfdom had been abolished, many of the lower classes lived lives that were "nasty brutish and short".

Finally, save for the very very rich, there was no travel. The vast majority of humans were born, lived, and died in small villages. If they went 20-30 miles, this was a huge event. I remember my wife's grandmother telling us over and over again how she had traveled from rural Wisconsin to Chicago as a young girl, in roughly 1900. None of us would have traveled to any of these places unless we were very wealthy. The notion of the "grand tour" really started with the British, who could do a "grand tour" by traveling from Bristol to Calais and then by rail to Italy or France. None of us would have gone even to Chicago from Wisconsin. And if you lived in South Dakota, you were marooned in the sticks for a long long time. Getting to Europe from the USA was a very difficult proposition, which required a sea voyage of 2 weeks. Most USA visitors to Europe went there and never returned - James McNeil Whistler, the painter, is an example - he went to Europe as a young man and never returned to the USA.

Paul - at least for Britain and much of Western Europe, your description seems more like 1813 (or even 1713), than it is true of 1913. In England, for example, the urban population was already a third of the total by 1811, it passed half the total in 1851 and by 1911 was about 80%. The idea that most people were living in small villages wasn't the case in 1913 and hadn't been for decades. Nor is the idea that people didn't travel unless very rich. Leisure travel began only for the very rich, in the 18th century, but by the early-Victorian era most middle class people could take holidays away from home (but usually not internationally). Later in the 19th century that was also true of better paid (white collar), working classes. By 1913 in England, most people had certainly travelled more than 20 miles from their home. The railways had opened everything up.

Of course, your descriptions might well be more true for backwards eastern and southern Europe in 1913. But they are not generally accurate for the wealthier, more advanced West.

Also, incidentally, the Atlantic crossing from England to Canada/USA was about two weeks in 1813. But by 1913 it was five days. Many people went in both directions. Those that didn't were mostly those migrating. Whistler may not have chosen to go back, but Dickens had made journeys back and forth long before 1913. So had Twain.

PS "Every country of Europe was a hereditary monarchy, and most of the monarchs were incompetent idiots." The first part of that is factually incorrect in 1913 (France, most obviously), and the second part is merely an opinion. Some sovereigns certainly were idiots (or worse, like the Kaiser), but to say "most" sounds like republican bias.

You're right. It was a typo and I meant 1843, when the westbound crossing to New York was achieved in under two weeks (just). Eastbound that had been possible a couple or so years earlier. But it did take more time for this to be common.

In addition to the time for crossing, there was the cost. Nick mentions Dickens and Twain. These were professional presenters, who made money speaking before crowds. There was a financial incentive for their travel. Travel for touristic purposes? Very uncommon before WWII. Of course, from the UK, it's a short hop to France, so there was no bar to travel there, and many in the UK learn French and speak it well. But travel to Scandinavia? Far less common. No one wanted to go there before 1980. Everyone wanted to leave. The communist countries were closed to tourism mostly from either 1917 to 1990 or 1945 to 1990. My family of birth visited Yugoslavia in 1961, and had a rough time of it (we lived in Germany at the time).

Leisure travel really did not get going until the 1980s. Cheap transatlantic flights were not common until then. And I will double down on my contention about the geographical distribution of persons in 1913. Certainly the UK, one of the most developed countries in the world of 1913, was mostly urban. That's not true for the USA, for much of "south" Europe, for many other countries in the world. In the USA, the population migrated to the big cities starting in 1910-1914. Today's rural world in the USA is dominated by huge farms. In the 1920s, farms were still being settled - my grandparents homesteaded in rural N IL in 1925, and it was a place where small towns were the rule.

Those sound like valid points, Paul. And a family farm couldn’t just put the cows and chickens (and crops) on hold for a couple of weeks to sightsee. And there really wasn’t a large travel industry (or guidebooks) to help Americans who weren’t “front-door” tourists make trip-of-a-lifetime trips. Still, this is intriguing to consider.