DBWI Kaiser Wilhelm not assassinated

March 13th 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm was about to leave for a vacation a man rushed through the crowd and fired 5 shots killing both the kaiser and his wife. The man responsible was Pablo Martin a french soilgier who had deserted his post and had a history of mental instability.

The Kaiser and his wife died almost instantly, and the event changed world history forever but what if this event had never happened? What if Pablo had been caught by the french, or the germans before he could kill the Kaiser how would the world change if Kaiser Wilhelm had not been assassinated?
 
March 13th 1914 Kaiser Wilhelm was about to leave for a vacation a man rushed through the crowd and fired 5 shots killing both the kaiser and his wife. The man responsible was Pablo Martin a french soilgier who had deserted his post and had a history of mental instability.

The Kaiser and his wife died almost instantly, and the event changed world history forever but what if this event had never happened? What if Pablo had been caught by the french, or the germans before he could kill the Kaiser how would the world change if Kaiser Wilhelm had not been assassinated?


Not a lot at first. His actions during the July Crisis would probably have differed little from those of Wilhelm III.

One possible biggie is whether he would have left Moltke in charge rather than appointing the more decisive Falkenhayn. This might conceivably have cost Germany her 1914 victory, and produced a long stalemate; but this is extremely unlikely.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The UK probably wouldn't have taken a "you made your bed" attitude while the Germans savagely beat the French halfway to death (cause let's be honest. Europe 1914 was a giant garbage fire waiting to happen. Something would have set the thing off eventually)

I mean IOTL even the UK had to just sit back after how recalcitrant France was after the assassination. I mean didn't their response to German repetition requests translate to "we recomend a better guard detail"?


So we'd end up with France and UK in the West, and the Russians in the east. The big question is if the UK can draw off enough troops from the east that the Austrians don't get bailed out.

Let things drag on for another 6 months, and Russia would basically overrun Austria-Hungary, and then Germany is screwed.


And of course the UK probably slows or stops its build program for however long it drags on for, and a fair bit of the RN and HSF sink each other. So no big 40 battleship/cruiser fleet to bludgeon the Japanese with I'm 31.

Having Kaiser Willy get plugged might have been the best thing for Germany, ironically.
 
Having Wilhelm the III in charge in the 1930s caused a bit of a scandal though. He was an infamous womanizer. How would that play out if his father was still alive?
 
Well - If Wilhelm was not assassinated we probably would have not had a July crisis. The French would probably never have attacked Germany if Wilhelm II was still alive.

I assume without the French attack happening the year 1914 would have ended peaceful - The Balkans powder keg was pacified after the Balkan wars and in Vienna the "doves"with the Emperor and his Thronfolger had the upper hand.

With Russia becoming stronger the likelyhood of agressive Germany and/or Austria would have diminished from 1915 on. - And Britains foreign policy would have switched from the "German" enemy to the "Russian" enemy as Russia would have been the bigger threat of becoming the dominant European power.

I keep seeing the: - Germany would loose a war with UK/France/Britain because it would have to "bail" out the Austrians - "meme". While its true that the Austrians had some trouble with (slavic) elements of the army, but the performance of otl would not have changed for the worse - I could see the Austrians getting in trouble if they had to fight on three fronts (That is if out Italian brothers had switched sides) but the A-H army was able to hold the line against the Russian/Serbian/Romanian alliance - and being able to supply the German army with siege mortars for the attack on Warsaw at the same time.

I believe the War was not won in the West - It was the quick rout of the Russian army that secured the CPs sucess in the war of 1914...

In the End the French agrsiion was probably the best that could happen to Europe :D
 
The UK probably wouldn't have taken a "you made your bed" attitude while the Germans savagely beat the French halfway to death (cause let's be honest. Europe 1914 was a giant garbage fire waiting to happen. Something would have set the thing off eventually)

I mean IOTL even the UK had to just sit back after how recalcitrant France was after the assassination. I mean didn't their response to German repetition requests translate to "we recomend a better guard detail"?


So we'd end up with France and UK in the West, and the Russians in the east. The big question is if the UK can draw off enough troops from the east that the Austrians don't get bailed out.

Let things drag on for another 6 months, and Russia would basically overrun Austria-Hungary, and then Germany is screwed.


And of course the UK probably slows or stops its build program for however long it drags on for, and a fair bit of the RN and HSF sink each other. So no big 40 battleship/cruiser fleet to bludgeon the Japanese with I'm 31.

Having Kaiser Willy get plugged might have been the best thing for Germany, ironically.

Is Britain willing to try deploying the Army to the Continent during such a critical time on Ireland? Remember, the Curragh Loyalty Rally occured less than a week after the assasination, after the whole "Churchill's Sealed Envelope" scandle. The British public was thrown into shock when it was revealed the kind of military crack-down that unofficial committee of Liberals was planning on imposing on the Ulstermen to enforce Home Rule, especially once the "Hoolagins" of the Irish Volunteers started their own pogroms after reading and exaggerating the unproven allegations of the Ulster Volunteer's conspiracy to seize British garrisons the Envelope Plotters were using to justify their actions. Without the critical presence of armed British troops under officers fully dedicated to the cause and with the trust of their troops to prevent the violent clashes between the radicals among the Nationalists and Loyalist factions from spiraling out of control during the Parliamentary Elections and the Balfour government's delicate negotiations, you run the very real risk of compromise getting eluded and civil war/disorder breaking out in your rear just when your army is tied down on the Continent.

Even then, where exactly would the British squeeze their troops? The French army was packed to the bursting on the Franco-German border at the start of the war: it's part of what contributed to their being so disorganized and short on ammunition during the campaign. Too excited to show their elan and bayonets to remember to leave room in the train cars for artillery shells, replacement gear, and all the other "sinews of war" which we'd all quickly learn would have been vital to getting combat-ready again after their early loses. Instead, units just kind of... wore down as the Germans chased them down. I suppose the arrival of fresh British divisions, if they had their own dedicated logistics system under British management, could "stopgap" the German counter-attack and give the Frenchies time to resupply, reposition, and regroup for a more extended campaign if you had enough of them. But diden't London's warplans only have 6 divisions earmarked for expeditionary force at the time?

Money would definatively be re-routed from the Royal Navy to the Army, though, so you're definatively right on the build program.

Having Wilhelm the III in charge in the 1930s caused a bit of a scandal though. He was an infamous womanizer. How would that play out if his father was still alive?

To be honest, I think Wilhelm II would be secretly proud of his son no matter what the public reaction was. Wasen't the man a little obsessed with being "Manly"?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
I think if war happens, the army gets expanded significantly, and that six divisions figure only matters for the first 9 months or so.

So plenty of men to keep a lid on the micks (and their pick of the litter as far as loyalty goes), and send a good 20 divisions to France. Though I doubt they could manage to sustain much more than that for any period of time, since they'd be building the army up from scratch near enough.

And there's no way in hell the British would put their men under the logistical purview of the French.


I think the interesting bit would have been UK response to the German heavy guns. Being out ranged isn't a fun thing in artillery duel isn't a fun thing. So do they adopt the French 155 or do they develop their own heavy field gun from scratch with their own idiot nomenclature and calibers?
 
I think if war happens, the army gets expanded significantly, and that six divisions figure only matters for the first 9 months or so.

So plenty of men to keep a lid on the micks (and their pick of the litter as far as loyalty goes), and send a good 20 divisions to France. Though I doubt they could manage to sustain much more than that for any period of time, since they'd be building the army up from scratch near enough.

And there's no way in hell the British would put their men under the logistical purview of the French.


I think the interesting bit would have been UK response to the German heavy guns. Being out ranged isn't a fun thing in artillery duel isn't a fun thing. So do they adopt the French 155 or do they develop their own heavy field gun from scratch with their own idiot nomenclature and calibers?

Some people say that that period of time was a fragile time for the empire and that they needed that period of peace to reform itself into something that could last long term, your opinion?
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Some people say that that period of time was a fragile time for the empire and that they needed that period of peace to reform itself into something that could last long term, your opinion?
Well crippling debt and mass war casualties do have a way of destabilizing things.

The UK was always a fairly wealthy nation for its size, but for its size is the key factor, and it's wealth comes mostly from the empire, not internally. Which makes things a bit difficult to fund during war time since the empire still needs to be policed and guarded and taxed, but colonials tend to not have very deep pockets, so gouging them for taxes only does so much.

Assuming a strictly monetary calculation of the costs of war, the United States could out spend the UK near 10:1. And Germany could likely pull 1.5-2:1. And it's only gotten worse as the years went by.

Sure it's still "the empire", but India and Palestine and Malaya et al have long since stopped being taxable populations, and the UK is still committed to ensuring their independence and defense alongside regional forces.

Who was that Indian field marshal that said "The Empire once took our nation, and now funds our independence"?
 
I think if war happens, the army gets expanded significantly, and that six divisions figure only matters for the first 9 months or so.

So plenty of men to keep a lid on the micks (and their pick of the litter as far as loyalty goes), and send a good 20 divisions to France. Though I doubt they could manage to sustain much more than that for any period of time, since they'd be building the army up from scratch near enough.

And there's no way in hell the British would put their men under the logistical purview of the French.


I think the interesting bit would have been UK response to the German heavy guns. Being out ranged isn't a fun thing in artillery duel isn't a fun thing. So do they adopt the French 155 or do they develop their own heavy field gun from scratch with their own idiot nomenclature and calibers?

Could Aquith's government survive the domestic debate of bringing Britain into the war, though? Especially if it was accompanied by an expansion of the military (A highly Conservative institution, and naturally going to draw the suspicion of the Irish Nationalist and Labour PM's that kept his Coalition in a slim majority), normal wartime crackdowns on civil rights and shortages to the civilian economy, ect? Because if they coulden't, it would necessitate new elections and require the Liberals to willingly toss away the more extreme elements of their reforms during the last decade and handing the full authority of a wartime government to the Unionists. That's clearly a betrayal of trust to their constituency that would ruin their prospects for year's to come... Labour could come to eclipse them.

Even then, such an expansion is going to be inefficient and would probably necessitate the uncomfortable introducing the practice of conscription to the British Isles. While they had some fine generals, how are they going to find enough NCO's to effectively manage them in the field, much less make up for the years of training and mandatory service their Continental counterparts are going to have over them without relying on the expedient of fitting into the French system? Even ignoring the artillery advantage, throwing fresh-faced boys at the hardened German formations would be a bloodbath.

As to how the British would handle the gun's issue, though, I'd say they adopt the 155 to start with. If they can drag the war out long enough to the point they can re-tool their heavy industry to a full war footing though I imagine British industry would produce their own, modern indirect fire design so it could be deployed at the required ranges. Perhaps they could model them after the Royal Navy's heavy main guns?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Especially if it was accompanied by an expansion of the military (A highly Conservative institution,
Yep. The Haldane Army reforms were not yet completed at that time. IOTL, Haldane needed 5 more years to replace the current officer corp with a more liberal one.

they can re-tool their heavy industry to a full war footing though I imagine British industry would produce their own, modern indirect fire design
I think that would not be a great problem. During the 1920s-1930s, the Liberals had proven that they were very adept in making industrial policy, way better than the Unionists.

And of course the UK probably slows or stops its build program for however long it drags on for, and a fair bit of the RN and HSF sink each other. So no big 40 battleship/cruiser fleet to bludgeon the Japanese with I'm 31.
The naval program would be slowed down of course.
 
Top