Der Gute Kaiser Fritz:

[Snake Featherston]

I've sometimes seen books reference Kaiser Friedrich III as somehow bringing into the German Empire a culture of liberalism on the Western European model as a road not traveled by said Empire. But in looking both at Germany and the Kaiser I'm not entirely sure he would. There are plenty of rulers at the time who promise meaningful reform but when it comes to actually giving up any power they had balked and refused to do it. In particular Alexander II is the big example of this, though the Bourbon Restoration and July Monarchy are other examples of it at the other end. Would Kaiser Friedrich III, if he lived long enough, be a genuine reformer or would he be the Alexander II kind of all hat, no cattle?

 

[David S Poepoe]

I have come to believe that biographies of Friedrich III are mostly of the 'what could of' and 'what should of' varieties. They contrast him directly with Wilhelm II and consider that anyone other than Wilhelm would have been better. I agree with you that he would not have been a great reformer, but not to the degree most people would believe or wish.

I am just thinking about placing him in the same dark horse category of Alternative History leaders as Archduke Rudolf of Austria. We don't know how they would have been upon their respective thrones, but earnestly believe that they would be better alternatives to what happened historically.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I have come to believe that biographies of Friedrich III are mostly of the 'what could of' and 'what should of' varieties. They contrast him directly with Wilhelm II and consider that anyone other than Wilhelm would have been better. I agree with you that he would not have been a great reformer, but not to the degree most people would believe or wish.

I am just thinking about placing him in the same dark horse category of Alternative History leaders as Archduke Rudolf of Austria. We don't know how they would have been upon their respective thrones, but earnestly believe that they would be better alternatives to what happened historically.

True, though we do have an example of the kind of reform I think Friedrich III was likely to have been: Alexander II. Friedrich III might like Alexander II accomplish some very big things but when he realizes the end result is going from powerful monarch to human mascot he'll balk and say "You know what, let's never mention this again." OTOH I rather doubt that Friedrich III's reforms would touch off terrorism of the Russian variety in Germany.

 

[carlton_bach]

I have little doubt that he would have tried to run Germany and Prussia among more liberal lines, which would most likely in practice have resembled Baden, Wurttemberg and Hesse more than Britain or the Netherlands. The really interesting part would be, though, not so much what his successes would create but what shape his particular failures would take. The German empire as a political structure was designed to fit one person only, and that person was Bismarck. An influential and unscrupulous chancellor could play it like a piano. Friedrich was not that kind of man, he would most likely havve replaced the irreplaceable early on and bungled in much the way that wilhelm II did - except in a different fashion. That produces all manner of wild cards which would get really interesting.

Still, it bears remembering that even if we handwave away the cancer that killed him, his reign would not be very long. He was not a young man. And then there would be a slightly oldser,mm but very likely also a bitter, ambitious and hostile Wilhelm waiting in the wings. He might turn into a German JFK - all his good aspects magnified and the dark side ascribed to a luckless successor.

 

[carlton_bach]

True, though we do have an example of the kind of reform I think Friedrich III was likely to have been: Alexander II. Friedrich III might like Alexander II accomplish some very big things but when he realizes the end result is going from powerful monarch to human mascot he'll balk and say "You know what, let's never mention this again." OTOH I rather doubt that Friedrich III's reforms would touch off terrorism of the Russian variety in Germany.

The interesting point is could he have stopped the reforms? At some point, the Reichstag will figure out that the constuitution gives it genuine power, and if he goes with the conservative side and either governs by decree (it was a German joke at the time that the Reichstag was elected through biannual constitutional crises) or just overthrows the whole thing, the German people may not take kindly to that. Wilhelm, for all his faults, realised his domestic policy had limits. If Friedrich does not... oh dear.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I have little doubt that he would have tried to run Germany and Prussia among more liberal lines, which would most likely in practice have resembled Baden, Wurttemberg and Hesse more than Britain or the Netherlands. The really interesting part would be, though, not so much what his successes would create but what shape his particular failures would take. The German empire as a political structure was designed to fit one person only, and that person was Bismarck. An influential and unscrupulous chancellor could play it like a piano. Friedrich was not that kind of man, he would most likely havve replaced the irreplaceable early on and bungled in much the way that wilhelm II did - except in a different fashion. That produces all manner of wild cards which would get really interesting.

Still, it bears remembering that even if we handwave away the cancer that killed him, his reign would not be very long. He was not a young man. And then there would be a slightly oldser,mm but very likely also a bitter, ambitious and hostile Wilhelm waiting in the wings. He might turn into a German JFK - all his good aspects magnified and the dark side ascribed to a luckless successor.

While that's a fair point, I don't think Wilhelm I expected a 20 year reign when *he* became King and then to be Kaiser for 10 years.

The interesting point is could he have stopped the reforms? At some point, the Reichstag will figure out that the constuitution gives it genuine power, and if he goes with the conservative side and either governs by decree (it was a German joke at the time that the Reichstag was elected through biannual constitutional crises) or just overthrows the whole thing, the German people may not take kindly to that. Wilhelm, for all his faults, realised his domestic policy had limits. If Friedrich does not... oh dear.

That sounds like Alexander II as well. That........would be rather fascinating from an AH potential.

 

[Blackfox5]

I think the major difference between Freddy and the Tsar, is that Russia did not really have a mass scale liberal constituency while Germany did. In Russia, the boutique liberalism of fashionable young aristocrats and a handful of industrialists was not enough to overcome entrenched interests. In Russia, it was not enough for the liberals to not be opposed, as they did not have the strength to push, and needed someone at the top to actively work for their goals. In Germany, there was a very large liberal element. If they are not actively opposed, then they push Germany into a liberal direction.

It's very likely the Kaiser will not be as liberal as people fantasize him being. But it would not take much for the Reichstag to assert its authority over the government. Most likely the Kaiser will retain powers that the true constitutional monarchies of Western Europe do not have, but the end result will be much harder for the Kaiser to overturn popular positions. The next Kaiser will be very dependent on working through the Reichstag as opposed to over it.

 

[Detlef]

I have little doubt that he would have tried to run Germany and Prussia among more liberal lines, which would most likely in practice have resembled Baden, Wurttemberg and Hesse more than Britain or the Netherlands. The really interesting part would be, though, not so much what his successes would create but what shape his particular failures would take. The German empire as a political structure was designed to fit one person only, and that person was Bismarck. An influential and unscrupulous chancellor could play it like a piano. Friedrich was not that kind of man, he would most likely havve replaced the irreplaceable early on and bungled in much the way that wilhelm II did - except in a different fashion. That produces all manner of wild cards which would get really interesting.

Still, it bears remembering that even if we handwave away the cancer that killed him, his reign would not be very long. He was not a young man. And then there would be a slightly oldser,mm but very likely also a bitter, ambitious and hostile Wilhelm waiting in the wings. He might turn into a German JFK - all his good aspects magnified and the dark side ascribed to a luckless successor.

Just to point it out.
If he had lived as long as his father Wilhelm I (almost 91 years), Emperor Friedrich III would have died sometime in 1922.
His son Wilhelm II too lived for 82 years. Friedrich III died aged 56 in contrast.
So without cancer Friedrich III being Emperor for 20 years (till 1908) wouldn´t seem out of question?

And that´s just the years when the British Empire started to look around for a closer relationship / alliance with another Great Power?
Given his wife Friedrich III might have been a supporter of such an alliance?

Concerning the Reichstag we would have to speculate here.
Friedrich did have some liberal impulses (and his wife might influence him more if he stays on the throne for 20+ years).
This is also the time when conservative parties started to slowly lose ground in the Reichstag (elections 1890). So going with them would mean supporting the losing side. Liberal parties and the Catholic Center though do have a majority? Better to go with the flow?

 

[Snake Featherston]

I think the major difference between Freddy and the Tsar, is that Russia did not really have a mass scale liberal constituency while Germany did. In Russia, the boutique liberalism of fashionable young aristocrats and a handful of industrialists was not enough to overcome entrenched interests. In Russia, it was not enough for the liberals to not be opposed, as they did not have the strength to push, and needed someone at the top to actively work for their goals. In Germany, there was a very large liberal element. If they are not actively opposed, then they push Germany into a liberal direction.

It's very likely the Kaiser will not be as liberal as people fantasize him being. But it would not take much for the Reichstag to assert its authority over the government. Most likely the Kaiser will retain powers that the true constitutional monarchies of Western Europe do not have, but the end result will be much harder for the Kaiser to overturn popular positions. The next Kaiser will be very dependent on working through the Reichstag as opposed to over it.

The question will be what happens when the Kaiser realizes that backing the liberals past a certain point means he'll be sacrificing his own power and prerogatives as an absolute monarch to do it. Somehow I can't quite see Friedrich deciding to push on past that point, but like Alexander II he'd run into the problem of starting reforms only to stop them.

Just to point it out.
If he had lived as long as his father Wilhelm I (almost 91 years), Emperor Friedrich III would have died sometime in 1922.
His son Wilhelm II too lived for 82 years. Friedrich III died aged 56 in contrast.
So without cancer Friedrich III being Emperor for 20 years (till 1908) wouldn´t seem out of question?

And that´s just the years when the British Empire started to look around for a closer relationship / alliance with another Great Power?
Given his wife Friedrich III might have been a supporter of such an alliance?

Concerning the Reichstag we would have to speculate here.
Friedrich did have some liberal impulses (and his wife might influence him more if he stays on the throne for 20+ years).
This is also the time when conservative parties started to slowly lose ground in the Reichstag (elections 1890). So going with them would mean supporting the losing side. Liberal parties and the Catholic Center though do have a majority? Better to go with the flow?

I'm not entirely sure that Friedrich III would be more inclined to ally with England just because his wife was English. Having a German princess for a wife, after all, hardly inclined Nicholas II to a pro-German policy.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

He'd be better than Willy II, but that's an easy task. I don't think he'd introduce more domestic reforms than Willy did. His foreign policy would have been different though, considering he was an anglophile.

 

[Ameise]

He'd be better than Willy II, but that's an easy task. I don't think he'd introduce more domestic reforms than Willy did. His foreign policy would have been different though, considering he was an anglophile.

Wilhelm II was also an Anglophile. He was also a megalomaniac and a staunch imperialist. Just being an Anglophile does not avoid conflict with Britain. The question is: would Frederick have instituted the construction of a modern navy or not?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Wouldnt the title be better as

Guter Kaiser Fritz?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Wilhelm II was also an Anglophile. He was also a megalomaniac and a staunch imperialist. Just being an Anglophile does not avoid conflict with Britain. The question is: would Frederick have instituted the construction of a modern navy or not?

Probably not. Germany didn't really need a big Navy.

OTOH, there was lot of pressure from Tirpitz and the German Navy League. Fritz would not oppose them, but neither would he support them as Wilhelm did.

I'll have to re-read Massie's Dreadnought to see where the decision to build a large German navy was made. And how, and by whom. Bear in mind that the Kaiser couldn't just order ships built; the funds had to be appropriated by the Reichstag.

However, Fritz would be less inclined than vain, insecure Wilhelm to plunge into anglophobia and militarism. Certainly his consort Victoria would be an influence against it - she was very bitter about Wilhelm's transformation into an arrogant, strutting, Prussian officer.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would consult other works besides Massie's Dreadnought, I read it and was astonished how much of a reguritation of other works it was. There has been a lot of new scholarship into the history of the Prussian and German navies before Tirpitz. I recommend the works of Lawrence Sondhaus.

Germany does need a large navy. Britain is not the only threat. As long as Britain remains unalligned and neutral one can not count of it to do anything. The major powers that Germany primarily has to deal with are France and Russia. Until the construction of the Kiel Canal it needs a separate force in the North Sea and the Baltic. The Russians were taken out of the equation thanks to the Russo-Japanese War.