Constitutional Kaiser

Yes lets say insert reason here kaiser wilhelm agrees to a constitutional monarchy some time before the advent of WWI.

I'm not saying Wilhelm gives up all or most of his powers just he passes powers to the Reichstag like choosing its own chancellor. foreign affairs and for good measure fiscal policy.
KWII would retain contol of the military but can only order there use in conjunction with the Reichstag and chancellor.

What happens now in the world?

What would the world look like in the 20's and 30's?

There is plenty of scope for change and wilhelm can now sit in the background and take credit for other peoples work.
 
Well, technically, he was a constitutional monarch- just one with a constitution that didn't limit him in the ways you mention here.
As for what would happen if he did agree to give up his powers like that, well, hm, to begin with, I'd ask why he does it.
 

Deleted member 1487

A good reason would be either Wilhelm's father gets in and does it, or Wilhelm is liberal like his father.
 

Markus

Banned
Yes lets say insert reason here kaiser wilhelm agrees to a constitutional monarchy some time before the advent of WWI.

I'm not saying Wilhelm gives up all or most of his powers just he passes powers to the Reichstag like choosing its own chancellor. foreign affairs and for good measure fiscal policy.
KWII would retain contol of the military but can only order there use in conjunction with the Reichstag and chancellor.

You are describing OTL! Germany was a constitutional monarchy and the Reichstag controlled the finances! Pretty sure Willy II needed the Reichstag´s OK to delacer war too.
 
You are describing OTL! Germany was a constitutional monarchy and the Reichstag controlled the finances! Pretty sure Willy II needed the Reichstag´s OK to delacer war too.
Well, it wasn't the Reichstag that choose the Chancellor, and if I remember correctly, foreign policy was mostly the government's job, not the parliament's.
I'm fairly certain the Reichstag didn't have to OK a war as such, but de facto it was so- you can't fight a war without money, and it was the Reichstag that had control of the money.
 
Well, it wasn't the Reichstag that choose the Chancellor, and if I remember correctly, foreign policy was mostly the government's job, not the parliament's.
I'm fairly certain the Reichstag didn't have to OK a war as such, but de facto it was so- you can't fight a war without money, and it was the Reichstag that had control of the money.

The Reichstag certainly supported the war upon declaration - the way things were in Europe at the time I strongly doubt that any legislature would have done anything but support war.
 

General Zod

Banned
Imperial germany was a constitutional monarchy, it just happened not to be one with parliamentary supremacy. The Reichstag had full legislative powers (but no initiative) and the Kaiser had no possiblity to rule by decree. The Reichstag had full power of the purse, but the Chancellor (one-man cabinet in theory, other ministers were subordinate deputies) was nominated by and responsible to the Kaiser, not to the Reichstag (although the chancellor needed the Reichstag's support to accomplish pretty much anything worthwhile). The Kaiser/Chancellor had full control of the foreign policy and military, although it needed the approval of the Reichstag to appropriate any funds for wars or treaties.

It certainly was not a constitutional monarchy in the Westminster sense, an all-powerful parliament with a figurehead monarch, but it was no autocracy, either. Best way it could be described is the monarchical equivalent of a presidential republic with a president-for-life. Still no rule by decree, a elected legislature with significant powers, and rule of law in full force. It is easy to see how it could resemble an autocracy to people accustomed to the Westminster system, but it was none.

Note: pre-WWI Italy had a very similar constitution, although parliamentary responsibility had evolved into something of a custom. On the other hand, even the Kaiser generally sacked Chancellors that could get no collaboration from the Reichstag.
 
Last edited:
Agree with General Zod. - In fact, the US President today has more power than the Kaiser ever had. - Only difference, the US guy is elected by the Americans, the Kaiser was just the son of his father. But having seen G.W.B. at work, one comes to doubt that there really is a difference...
 
The big thing, I think, was control og the military.

If that goes to parliament, you're going to see some changes. Maybe even integration of AL.

If not, then no significant changes from OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

Agree with General Zod. - In fact, the US President today has more power than the Kaiser ever had. - Only difference, the US guy is elected by the Americans, the Kaiser was just the son of his father. But having seen G.W.B. at work, one comes to doubt that there really is a difference...


Care to offer some comparisons on this claim?
 

General Zod

Banned
The big thing, I think, was control og the military.

If that goes to parliament, you're going to see some changes. Maybe even integration of AL.

If not, then no significant changes from OTL.

Parliamentary control of the army would be exceedingly unlikely IMO. The best you can likely have as liberalization of the German 19th Constitution goes is the St.Paul's Church 1848 Constitution standard, which was a monarchical equivalent of a semi-presidental republic with a president-for-life: i.e. the Reichstag gets legislatve initiative, and the government becomes responsible both to the Kaiser and the Reichstag. See here. Anything more than that gets close to ASB IMO. Even most German liberals would not want to depower the Kaiser, the Chancellor, the Army too radically in front of the Reichstag. It took Germany the shock of Nazism to go all the way to Parliamentarism, and they still created powerful checks to it.
 
The big thing, I think, was control og the military.

If that goes to parliament, you're going to see some changes. Maybe even integration of AL.

If not, then no significant changes from OTL.

This is pretty much the problem: it seems to me that for all the good points that have been made here, limiting the Kaiser's power can't really help Germany that much, since it already was very limited, but in the wrong way. You have to limit the power of the nebulous landowning-industrialist-military classes, which is hard. Ironically, one potential way to do it would be "Have fit-as-a-fiddle FIII put his foot down on stuff".
 
This is pretty much the problem: it seems to me that for all the good points that have been made here, limiting the Kaiser's power can't really help Germany that much, since it already was very limited, but in the wrong way. You have to limit the power of the nebulous landowning-industrialist-military classes, which is hard. Ironically, one potential way to do it would be "Have fit-as-a-fiddle FIII put his foot down on stuff".

Wouldn't expanding the suffrage help?
 
Wouldn't expanding the suffrage help?

As Lord Insane says: the Reichstag was already pretty wide by the standards of the time. Damn Prussians, though! Stealing the capital-spot from Frankfurt, having a 19th-century mess of a constitution... grumblemumble

Come to think of it, though, the Reichstag can let absolutely anyone vote and the Chancellor still won't be responsible to it. It would be a step forward, but hardly decisive.
 
Top