...but instead, lives to the ripe old age of 87, after a thirty-year reign as Emperor. So for 30 years, instead of the Imperial Doofus Billy the Younger, the Deutsches Reich is treated to the reign of a fairly liberal individual who was a great admirer of the British system, and (through both blood and marriage) had extremely close ties to the British Crown, closer even than Wilhelm II. So gentlemen and ladies....what would happen if Providence had given Frederick II a long reign as Emperor. Thoughts?
Frederick III does not contract cancer in 1887....
- Thread starter Foreign Shadow
- Start date
Susano
Banned
One should not overestimate Frederick III. He was basically a weak man and easily to influence man, it just so happened he was influenced most by his British and (by the standards of Germany o fthe time) liberal wife. He certainly wouldve been way better than the alternative, but lets not forget he is as father of William II a good deal responsible for how that turned, out, too! (And also, William still IS the crown prince...)
IMO, a better PoD might be if William predeceases his father (and befoe giving borth to a son, too!, so before 1882), so that his brother Prince Henry of Prussia becomes German Emperor Henry I. Kabraloth initially advocated that, and I agree!
IMO, a better PoD might be if William predeceases his father (and befoe giving borth to a son, too!, so before 1882), so that his brother Prince Henry of Prussia becomes German Emperor Henry I. Kabraloth initially advocated that, and I agree!
They certainly weren't as hands on as modern parents. I think I disagree with the contention that Frederick was a weak man. If he was close to his wife and deeply influenced by her, that makes him weak? I think there are a lot of married men who would wish to file a protest against that contention. Besides, a move towards a more liberal status quo would have been immensely helpful to Germany.
Edit: Susano, after reading the link to Prince Heinrich, I'd agree that Henry I might be an even better Kaiser than Frederick.
Edit: Susano, after reading the link to Prince Heinrich, I'd agree that Henry I might be an even better Kaiser than Frederick.
Susano
Banned
Oh, certainly it was Prussian traditioon, but a bad one and especially bad for William because of his, err, handicaps. What astounds me is how even his suppsoedly so liberal mother didnt intervene in that...
And I mean Frederick was easy to influence in general, not just by his wife. As said, hell be better than his son, no doubt, but Frederick the Great? Unlikely. And William II still is Crown Prince, as said...
Yeah. But 30 years on a different course could be critical. And it would be very nice to see a solid reign from Frederick followed by Henry (see my Edit above).
Susano
Banned
Hmhm...And Henry was married to a lady of the House of Hesse, even better
- of coruse that meant his descendants carried the haemophiliac gene. Yeah, I admit, Hesse-Darmstadt (or Hesse and by Rhine as the line was called then) was very responsible for its spread...1871-1888: William I.
1888-1905: Frederick III (assuming 72 years of life)
1905-1926: Henry I
1926-1956: William II (I dont think hed choose the name of Waldemar...)
1956-1978: Sigismund I (brother of the above)
1978-Nowadays: Frederick IV
No World War I...that's what I was thinking. At least, not a WWI that Germany loses...
A more democratic regime probably avoids some of Wilhemine Germany's downfalls (the Naval Race and Worldpolitick), but the fundamental fear of France and Russia aligning against Germany probably remains. An SPD government probably keeps the country from going to war. I'd imagine there's some greater conflagration caused by Austria-Hungary's decay / implosion / revolution. France endorses one party, Germany feels threatened and intervenes. Presto chango, world war.
Susano
Banned
Its all about psychology. A Germany under Frederick III will appear less threatening to GB, most likely. Its not ensured, of course - ironically enough William II was a huge Anglophile, too. Still, I think thats likely. With GB feeling less trheatened, they might seek a return to "blissful neurtality" etc.,a nd hence dont intervene in any Great War.
On the other side, with GB not coming nearer to France, Germany will also feel less encircled, and hence probably wont do such desperate measures as the Panthersprung or the carde blanche to the Austrians of OTL. There might still be war, but under much better conditions for Germany, Id assume.
On the other side, with GB not coming nearer to France, Germany will also feel less encircled, and hence probably wont do such desperate measures as the Panthersprung or the carde blanche to the Austrians of OTL. There might still be war, but under much better conditions for Germany, Id assume.
Blissfull neutrality and being an arbiter are slightly contradictory in my mind. If Britain is netural a la 1870, then she choses not to care about affairs on the Continent and leaves Germany to ravage France (or vice versa, I suppose, however unlikely that seems). Britain being an arbiter in my mind requires precisely the kind of commitment they were averse to make in 1914; namely, a promise of war against an aggressor. This is slightly different than OTL since it would be a blanket promise to oppose aggression.
A disinterested Britain may be well placed to provide third party arbitration in the event of a cascade of events, like the Summer of 1914, but there's no guarantee that Britain wouldn't be distracted (by an Irish Civil War or the like) or that Britain's efforts would succeed.
Finally, even without overt acts to "take a place in the sun," Frederick's Germany will still be the truer threat to British interests than any other power because of Germany's economic position on the contintent. The problem for Britain is that colonial clashes with Russia and France may dilute this appearance of this threat. And of course if Germany remains peaceful, the threat is not of war, but of declining supremacy, a much more subtle problem.
I agree with Susano on the importance of psychology involved, but I think it also depends a lot on the outcome of the Naval Policy decision. OTL it's the outgrowth of Wilhelm's personality but I seem to remember there was something of a devil's pact in the Reichstag because Naval Policy became a convienent method to unite the middle classes and thwart the SPD and other socialists efforts to restrict the budget. Hence, I think the real import is how Frederick might manage to change the nature of the German government. And that's a pretty open question.
It's a possibility to be sure, but that's not typically how Britain played its neutrality in Europe. Although it might have been a better policy! Certainly, "ignore things until intervention to protect the status quo is necessary" didn't prevent wars.