A Wilhelmine Regency - Wilhelm II does a George III

Grey Wolf · Feb 22, 2004

We all know that Kaiser Wilhelm II was prone to bouts of severe depression, so let's base a what-if on one of these making him incapable of ruling and Kronprinz Wilhelm becoming Regent on and off, as George IV did for his father.

You would have some interesting parallels, especially if under the Regency the First World War was avoided

The monarch would be this vaguely loved but largely disregarded figure. The Regent would be this hated figure with a playboy image

You could extend it to the other sons of Wilhelm II, for like George III he had a whole bevy of them. You have the Duke of York figure in Eitel Friedrich who in the 1920s could have risen towards the army command. You have the Duke of Clarence (William IV) figure in Adalbert who could have risen highly in the naval command. You have some relative non-entities with military careers - August Wilhelm and Oskar taking on the roles of Kent, Sussex and Cambridge. And you have the loose cannon, likely to create trouble and difficult to control figure with Joachim, analogous to Cumberland

Throw in the rise of the Left under this Regency and all the struggles over extending the franchise, making democracy work etc, and you have some very interesting parallels possible to Georgian Regency

Grey Wolf

David S Poepoe · Feb 22, 2004

Well, Grey Wolf, I have to say that this is an interesting proposal. I'm thinking right now what if Franz-Josef had been struck down by a massive stroke and Franz-Ferdinand became Regent of the AH Empire. I think that that is a far better way to avoid the Great War. I don't think a Hohenzollern Regent for Wilhelm II will find himself left with too many other options than in OTL come August 1914.

Grey Wolf · Feb 22, 2004

David S Poepoe said:
Well, Grey Wolf, I have to say that this is an interesting proposal. I'm thinking right now what if Franz-Josef had been struck down by a massive stroke and Franz-Ferdinand became Regent of the AH Empire. I think that that is a far better way to avoid the Great War. I don't think a Hohenzollern Regent for Wilhelm II will find himself left with too many other options than in OTL come August 1914.

Well, that's avoiding the personal role that the Kaiser's bombastic and mercurial nature contributed to both the gathering storm (if you will) and the events of the July Crisis. For example, would a Regent Wilhelm have allowed the blank cheque to be given to Austria-Hungary, would he have absented himself from Berlin and gone sailing up the Norwegian coast etc ? Might not the Crown Prince, a career military officer, have a better idea of what Conrad and co were really up to ? If the Crown Prince had proved to be a vaccilating character then without the secure backing of Germany, what would Austria-Hungary do ?

Grey Wolf

David S Poepoe · Feb 22, 2004

I think Berlin has no other choice but to stand by Vienna and consent to its crushing of Serbia. The AH Empire, unreformed, is on a steady road decline, tho not as fast as everybody else believes. Things were totally in the toilet for them until the Army was totally defeated in the field. I consider it more likely that perhaps the Crown Prince and Moltke the Younger could have reached an understanding in the last few hours that would not have seen the invasion of Belgium. Perhaps the Crown Prince could have told Moltke to stuff his French invasion plan (erroneously called the Schlieffen Plan after WWI) and hold the French while the German Army wipes out the Russians.

The Triple Alliance is spinning apart, or at least has been since 1901, so the German blank cheque to the Austrians is neccessary. The Russians and French are committed to going to war as soon as they have sufficient force, which they probably will have by 1916 or 1918.

What year are you considering the Crown Prince becoming Regent? I don't quite think he will come soon enough to calm Anglo-German relations, those have been deteriorating since 1900, if not earlier.

NHBL · Feb 22, 2004

Regency Germany--no Great War?

Austria-Hungary made some strong demands of Serbia--which accepted those demands, IIRC. Suppose that the German regent said, "OK, they accepted your demands--we backed you on them. GO NO FURTHER!" Austria is also warned in no uncertain terms not to invade, bombard, or otherwise take military action. Russia is upset, but no one has started shooting yet. Relations sour between some of the nations. With some luck, war is narrowly averted. With a lot more luck (perhaps closer to a miracle?) the various nations see jst how close to the brink they came, and someone tries to start talks at defusing the powderkeg.
Muzzeling von Tirpitz's demand for such a big navy would help, too--some sort of volentary naval limitations accepted by Germany would do much to satisfy Britain--and seperate it from the European political mess.. (I don't think he was a vilain, but his policies did contribute to the Great War--as did many others')
Without majopr successes in some sort of pan-European talks, things blow up later instead--perhaps before the dust from this near miss has even settled.

Grey Wolf · Feb 23, 2004

Germany tried to rein in Austria-Hungary when it realised that Conrad's policies would lead to a general war - the compromise suggeted was the 'Halt in Belgrade' and moves were made to convene an international congress (probably under the auspices of the standing London Conference) to calm everybody down.

Take it into the ATL with the Regent realising sooner that there is a real threat of general war, and compromise could be suggested and reached earlier. Guarantees of Serbian territorial integrity and sovereignty weighed against a short-term symbolic military occupation of Belgrade could be the basis for the compromise.

Grey Wolf

David S Poepoe · Feb 23, 2004

Tirpitz's great fleet plans were not even originally his, it was an idea shared by other officers in the Imperial Navy and had the support of the middle class and major industrialists. Germany had every right to large surface navy, even if it would only be facing the French and Russians.

I think more fault for the outbreak lies with St. Petersburg and Paris. I'm not disagreeing that Berlin and London were also at fault, and Berlin certainly didn't make things diplomatically smooth in the years immediately before (the Moroccan Crisis, etc.).

Susano · Feb 23, 2004

I have to side with Scott here (now where did I put that "hell frozen over" pic

), while Germany surely had a right to s abig surface fleet, you do not make friends by arming up. And really, how did Germany need a fleet? Not at all, or only to be used against GB. London had to see it as direct threat.

In the end every government made its hands dirty, VERY dirty. But IMO, as much as I REALLY would like to, lol, I cant give particular blame to Russia or France.

David S Poepoe · Feb 23, 2004

Susano said:
I have to side with Scott here (now where did I put that "hell frozen over" pic ), while Germany surely had a right to s abig surface fleet, you do not make friends by arming up. And really, how did Germany need a fleet? Not at all, or only to be used against GB. London had to see it as direct threat. QUOTE]

It certainly did need a fleet starting in 1900. The state of world affairs in 1900 was the Russian-French Entente vs. the Triple Alliance of Germany, AH Empire and Italy. Britain is remain aloof of European affairs, tho has long been continueing its usual arms race, complete with 'naval scares' with the French or Russians the bad guys. The Entente is decidedly anti-German, the French are set upon redressing the European balance of power as set in 1871. In the eventuality of war with the Entente the Germans have to defend themselves against the combined Franco-Russian Fleets. Between 1830 and 1871 Prussian trade and its merchant marine suffered terribly whenever problems flared up between Prussia and Denmark. The Prussians know what its like to be blockaded.

Matthew Craw · Feb 23, 2004

Germany does not need a battel fleet to fight Russia and France, they can do coast defense, and arguably even close the Baltic, perfectly well with mines and submarines and won't benefit even a little from the destruction of the Russian and French battefleets, this would be a LAND WAR, navies simply wouldn't matter.

Case in point, in 1870 the French were the second strongest naval power, they easily defeated and bottled up in port the pathetic Prussian fleet, and it simply didn't matter becasue they lost on land.

David S Poepoe · Feb 23, 2004

Matthew Craw said:
Germany does not need a battel fleet to fight Russia and France, they can do coast defense, and arguably even close the Baltic, perfectly well with mines and submarines and won't benefit even a little from the destruction of the Russian and French battefleets, this would be a LAND WAR, navies simply wouldn't matter.

Case in point, in 1870 the French were the second strongest naval power, they easily defeated and bottled up in port the pathetic Prussian fleet, and it simply didn't matter becasue they lost on land.

Wrong. The situation changed to a great degree following German unification. The explosion in Germany's population made it dependent upon the importation of grain and food stuffs. As mentioned in Edward McCullough's "How the First World War Began: The Triple Entente and the Coming of the Great War of 1914-1918":

p. 195

"Meanwhile Germany had begun to expand her navy, the last of the Great Powers to do so. Germany had the second largest merchant marine but only the fifth largest navy. It was generally believed that a navy was needed to protect trade and the fact that Germany was now dependent on food supplies from overseas added a still further argument for naval expansion."

p.106

"Germany had the same argument for building a navy that England had, namely that she depended on overseas sources for food and raw materials....A much more common view was that expressed by Churchill when he described the German fleet as an unnecessary luxury. Modern writers continue to quote those lines with approval, after a war which saw the starvation death of over 600,000 German by the illegal food blockade of the British navy."

p.108

"In the fall of 1902, a memorandum by Lord Selborne developed the idea that the German Navy was being built simply to fight England. Itwas based on his argument that the German fleet appeared to be designed to operate only in the North Sea. All the efforts of British diplomacy were being used to prevent Germany from acquiring a port or a coaling station anywhere in the world, so the German shortage of bases dictated this German strategy. Both Tirpitz and the British admiralty recognized this. Selborne was thus using a symptom of German inferiority as proof that Germany intended to attack England."

Matthew Craw · Feb 23, 2004

Neither FFrance nor Russia had any capability to impose a close blockade on FGermany, so the threat to commerce would have been posed by raiders. A short ranged battle fleet in the North Sea (which is what the Germans built)does nothing to counter this threat. If you want to do commerce protection you build armoured cruisers and long ranged ships fpr escort, the Germans built some of these, but not many. The argument that they couldn't engage in actual commerce protection may have some validity, but is surely not an argumnet for constructing a battle fleet that does nothing at all to protect shipping.

The threat of a blockade oinly came into existence AFTER the German fleet had helped make Britain an enemy. France could block the Channel, but not the North Sea and the North Atlantic.

Grey Wolf · Feb 23, 2004

High Seas Fleet

Regarding the fleet there are only two logical positions :-

1. Build a fleet that is superior to Britain's in order to properly protect trade, project power and be a decisive element in any future conflict

2. Build a fleet focused on besting the forces that France or Russia could bring against them.

Obviously, OTL's High Seas Fleet fell between these two positions. Admittedly, it was not at the completion of the intended building programme and it is arguable that after a certain size of fleet the actual totals do not matter because it would be impossible to get all the battleships into action. Jutland shows the possibility of this, and if the German battleline had included in the van ships of the same quality as the Queen Elizabeths then it is quite possible that Tirpitz would have been vindicated.

What, however, was not built into the equation was that the High Seas Fleet would always be playing catch-up. Thus Britain would always have the bigger battleships with larger guns before the Germans moved to lay down their own ones. One could certainly see a continuance of the Anglo-German Naval Race progressing to where Britain has 16"-gunned battleships, then 18"-gunned battleships whilst in turn the Germans are countering with 15" and 14", and later 16.25" always being that qualitative step behind.

Grey Wolf