Frederick III Lives

Well, for obvious reasons he can't stay on beyond 1898, and health problems might lead to his retirement c1895. That's if Friedrich hasn't sacked him (or "provoked" his resignation) already.
True - but wasn't he also his most irritable towards the end of his rule? Do you think Bismarck and Frederick would clash prior to his death? If so, would Bismarck be sacked or would Frederick back off?

Well, as I said Italy would likely play both sides against each other like OTL, while only joining the winning side. Ottomans could never side against an alliance with both UK and Germany, so they either join on their side, or just sit the war out. France and Russia are in a clear disadvantage. The Ottomans would be stronger since both the Italo- Ottoman war and the Balkans wars would be butterflied away.
I obviously need to read up on the conflicts between Austria/Russia/Italy/Ottomans in the Balkans.

---

I had a random thought: knowing France/Russia will lose this war handily, what type of concessions could Britain/Germany demand? (Germany already has Alsace-Lorraine :D )
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
True - but wasn't he also his most irritable towards the end of his rule? Do you think Bismarck and Frederick would clash prior to his death? If so, would Bismarck be sacked or would Frederick back off?


I obviously need to read up on the conflicts between Austria/Russia/Italy/Ottomans in the Balkans.

---

I had a random thought: knowing France/Russia will lose this war handily, what type of concessions could Britain/Germany demand? (Germany already has Alsace-Lorraine :D )
There might not even be a war.

About Frederick and Bismarck. They'd clash fairly early. Frederick didn't like Bismarck at all.
 
So right now I have complied:

Frederick III rises to the throne in 1888. Early clashes with Bismarck leads to his dismissal fairly early, and Frederick's distaste for the Dreikasierbund leads to him not renewing the Reinsurance Treaty. Russia, feeling isolated, allies with France. I have read that there were talks between Britain and Germany between 1898 and 1901, but the accession of Edward in Britain ended this (afterwards IOTL the Entente Cordiale happens). In this timeline, the Anglophile Frederick gets along very well with the aged Victoria and her Britain, so the beginnings of Anglo-German agreements emerge. Even after Victoria's death in 1901, Edward builds on Victoria's foundation with the kind Frederick (or if he has died by this point by natural causes, Henry I of Germany). Now by around 1902 you have France/Russia and Britain/Germany beginning to emerge.

Beyond this, France and Britain do not resolve their colonial differences and neither do Britain and Russia. The Entente Cordiale and the Anglo-Russian Entente do not occur. These colonial tensions will be the spark later down the line that leads to the Great War. As for the Balkans, if the Ottomans align themselves early enough with Berlin/London, then Italy will be unable to take Libya and show the minor Balkan states that beating the Ottomans is possible - hence no wave of nationalism and no Balkan Wars. Austria continues to follow Germany.

What do you guys think of this summary? Plausible?
 
Bump - could I get a critique on the basic summary I wrote above this post?

Of course, any new information or discussion is also appreciated. Thanks!
 

Susano

Banned
Secondary point of discussion, back to 1888: Frederick III, was known to be liberal and influenced by his very liberal wife, and also known to be an admirer of liberal Albert and Victoria. But would he have the guts (and ability) to attempt liberal reforms in deeply conservative Germany? Would they be successful? Would Bismarck be dismissed again, or manage to hang on? Would the German masses appreciate social/liberal reforms?

In short, no. Thats why I said his liberalness has been overstimated. I think primarily he just was weak-willed and under the influence of his wife (who in personal life seems to have been quite a had, and the primary reason William II turned out so bad). Now, thats still better than William II, but the point remains that he is no convinced liberal, and certainly not the right personality to box reforms through.

OTOH, if the Reichstag initiates the reforms, he surely wouldnt be in their way...

As for your summary, any designs of an Anglo-German alliance will meet opposition in Britain. I could see a series of agreements between the two sides eliminating diplomatic problems, some sort of great compromise, and I could see Britain seeing that as a corner stone of diplomacy, but an active alliance with a nation that stands to be dominator of the mainland would go against the British main principle in diplomacy for the last 400 years.
 
err until the early 20th century Anglo German relations had tended to be quite positive-witness the KGL in the Peninsular Wars, the Battle of Minden, and the links between the aristocracy and even in the names of things eg German Sea (renamed North Sea during WW1)
 

Susano

Banned
err until the early 20th century Anglo German relations had tended to be quite positive-witness the KGL in the Peninsular Wars, the Battle of Minden, and the links between the aristocracy and even in the names of things eg German Sea (renamed North Sea during WW1)

Rather until the late 19th century. Until then Germany was a mess of different little states, and the main candidate to become a hegemon on the mainland was France, with the German states being mostly opposed to that. Hence of course Germany was Britains best friend, and France its opponent. But once Germany formed, and then even industrialised to such an extent to outprocue Britain proper (sans Empire) it was Germany which was the most likely candidate to become hegemon in Europe, and hence the British now feared Germany, not France.
 
Could Germany and Britain possibly be forced into a close relationship (if not alliance) by circumstances? I envision a situation where huge colonial disputes between France and Britain do not end with Fashoda - perhaps some argument over the rights to the Suez Canal or over some controversial border in Africa. If Britain is worrying about the integrity of its African and Asian empire, wouldn't it seek help against the French? Especially with a German emperor who has limited interest in colonies anyway.

note: such a partnership need not be long term anyway. Perhaps after the first major war Britain and Germany again turn on each other. But for now, I am only talking about the 1888-~1920 time frame.

Also, regarding liberalization: you mention that Frederick III would not actively hinder the Reichstag from liberalizing itself. Without William II or Bismarck to suppress the socialist and liberal parties, do you think that the reforms would happen so long as Frederick/Henry don't get in the way?
 

Susano

Banned
Could Germany and Britain possibly be forced into a close relationship (if not alliance) by circumstances? I envision a situation where huge colonial disputes between France and Britain do not end with Fashoda - perhaps some argument over the rights to the Suez Canal or over some controversial border in Africa. If Britain is worrying about the integrity of its African and Asian empire, wouldn't it seek help against the French? Especially with a German emperor who has limited interest in colonies anyway.
As said, they could probably rather easily (from the point of view of a TL writer, that is) become co-belligerents, but thats not quite the same as allies, after all. Especially, as Ive said, once it comes to drawing up the peace treaty... And as Ive said the colonies are not the primary point of contestion between Germany and Britain. Its Germany position in Europe thats the problem. So, loose butf riendly relationships yes, and co-belligerence yes - but then, it seems that is all you need...

Also, regarding liberalization: you mention that Frederick III would not actively hinder the Reichstag from liberalizing itself. Without William II or Bismarck to suppress the socialist and liberal parties, do you think that the reforms would happen so long as Frederick/Henry don't get in the way?
well, the liberal parteis never were opressed, even though they did fear it. For a time, Bismarck even based his government on the national liberal party. The problem is the Social Democrats only became strong in the very late (by IOTL measuring) Empire, and they didnt necessarily like the Liberals better than the Conservatives, though at least they did have some common goals. And the Liberals alone might not be enough to push through reforms. At least in the OTL time frame of the Emperor. As said, eventually the SPD did get strong, so who knows, we might see reforms in the 20s or so...
 
France is going to be looking for allies if a clear Anglo-German alliance arises; they know that Russia just isn't enough. (And furthermore they know that the Brits and Jerries know it too). Might we see France courting Spain, Italy, Persia, Japan, some Balkan states, and most importantly - America?
 
France is going to be looking for allies if a clear Anglo-German alliance arises; they know that Russia just isn't enough. (And furthermore they know that the Brits and Jerries know it too). Might we see France courting Spain, Italy, Persia, Japan, some Balkan states, and most importantly - America?

Spain is rather useless; Italy will always side with the winning side (Britain/Germany); Persia I don't know about, but I know the Ottomans would stick with Germany; Britain may or may not align itself with Japan; the Balkan states vary; America? With no unrestricted submarine warfare from Germany, since Germany and Britain are allied and thus Germany would have no need to disrupt British/American shipping, America may not even get involved (aside from selling arms).
 
France is going to be looking for allies if a clear Anglo-German alliance arises; they know that Russia just isn't enough. (And furthermore they know that the Brits and Jerries know it too). Might we see France courting Spain, Italy, Persia, Japan, some Balkan states, and most importantly - America?


No reason for America to be interested. She wasn't looking for foreign alliances, and basically the situation would be the same as in OTL's WW1. She'd have rows with Britain over the Blockade, but would be doing well enough from trade with GB and her allies (in this case the CPs) to make the situation just about tolerable, though that could change if Britain gets into financial straits and the trade dries up. Interesting question whether France adopts submarine warfare, but it probably doesn't matter. With no blockade and no BEF to fight, Germany can probably win the Continental war before those issues arise.

Japan has nothing to gain by siding against Britain in this era. The other way is more likely. Italy can't take on the Austrian Army (let alone the German) and the British Navy at once. The others don't really count.
 
Okay, what do you suppose the 'spark' could be? I suggested earlier some colonial dispute, but if so, what kind? Or, if Britain does ally with Japan, the Russo-Japanese War could set things up for the Great War with Britain and France rallying to their respective ally. Or perhaps something else? I think a smaller-scale 'world war' with 1904-1905 tech would be interesting, actually.
 
On possible Alliances, lets look at the little guys first, then work into the big boys club.

- Italy, as everyone has pointed out at this point, isn't going to do anything that's going to hurt them. Especially considering how young and fragile they still are at this point. So they're not going to be fighting Britain or France in the Mediterranean, and they're not going to fight a ground war against Germany or France, alone. This does come with the qualifier alone though - Italy might be persuaded to fight France if Germany is hammering their Northern border, or attack Germany/Austria is France is doing the same vice-versa. Really Italy is going to go whichever way the wing blows. They won't, however, ally easily with the Ottomans, who are 99% going to be in the London-Berlin clique. So perhaps if France is winning versus Germany on the Western Front, and at least matching or containing the Brits in the Med, and Russia is hammering the Ottomans and keeping the majority of their fleet penned up in the Black Sea; than further into the conflict Italy could be swayed to the French side with promises of African colonies and territories taken from them by the Austrians. A big if. Most likely Italy does as it does OTL; plays both sides, then jumps on the winning bandwagon at the last moment when the victor is clear.

- Persia is another 'minor' player that could be persuaded to join France. Persia by this point has both had major incursions and foreign interference by the Ottomans and the British. On the other hand though, Russia also has its hands in the cookie jar. Really this would be a move for France to keep some of the Brits and Ottomans penned up in the Middle East, allowing them more room to maneuver in the Mediterranean and Indochina. And what does Persia get out of it? Well... if France can make the Russian's promise to curtail their involvement in Persia, that alone might be enough.

- Balkan States, are again, as far as a possible French alliance, going to be merely aiding France to get at the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians. Allies of convenience, they open a new theatre in the war, and keep Austria and the Ottomans from devoting all of their resources towards Russia (or in Austria's case, France and/or perhaps Italy). The Balkans gain greater independence from the Ottomans and Austrians, but court the possibility of even more Russian influence in their affairs. Bulgaria in particular is going to be very upset with Germany, Britain and the Ottomans, and not-so against Russian influence as the others. Again, it'll probably cost the French a promise of protections in the post-war scene to get these minor players into the game.

- Spain at this point in time has just suffered the Spanish-American War, El Desastre, in which Spain lost its two most important colonies to the Americans. It'd be very easy to see revanchism take off here. Generación de 1898 leads to the major anarchist, communist, fascist, and other movements that eventually lead to the Spanish Civil War. OTL, in 1909 a revolt in Catalonia was bloodily suppressed. So, long-story short, Spain's not really in any sort of position to take sides during a hypothetical Great War ITL. If, however, they did swing in any direction, its going to be with whoever is against the Americans, and/or whomever is going to put them into a place to reacquire/acquire old/new colonies. It would take quite a lot of French support to get Spain up on its feet again and onto their side. Which really wouldn't be in France's interest, because Spain would be gunning for the elephant in the room..

- America is psedu-isolationist at this point. They've stretched their muscles a bit, and have gained a colonial empire in all-but name in the Caribbean and Pacific. However, on the face of things America continues to assert its non-imperial ambitions, and its lack of an empire. Both of these facts lead America to clash with Britain over several minor points. Historically America has never had a good relationship with the British, from the Revolution to the Civil War to general border disputes ongoing throughout the 19th century. In fact America and Britain becoming so close on the eve of WWI would be ASB if it wasn't historical. Historically, the Americans were against the British, and allied (or friendly belligerents) with the French. France is also the only republican government in Europe at this time, which highly endears itself to the American public and government. Reciprocating, many French people held the United States in high esteem, as a land of opportunity and as a source of modern ideas. The ties between the two were never overly formal, but ran deep; In 1906, when the German Empire challenged French influence in Morocco Theodore Roosevelt sided with the French. However, its going to take a lot for France to be able to pull America into a formal (or even secret) alliance. Regardless of the realities, the perception of the time is that the British Empire is the best of the best, and America is not interested in challenging them either on land in Canada or at sea against the Royal Navy at this time. America stays out of the war, but might be convinced to sell supplies to the French. If so, then the big question becomes does America become more upset about France attacking and stopping American trade with Britain/Germany, or about Britain attacking & stopping American trade and supplies to France?

- Japan isn't exactly in a position to challenge Britain at this point in time, and won't be for several decades. So they're not going to want to go against the Brits; at best they wage an indecisive naval campaign, and at worst they lose Formosa. On the other hand though, the German colonies in the Pacific are very far away from the Fatherland and very close to Japan. IOTL the German colonies were the first European territories to be seized by the Japs, when they jumped on the bandwagon against the Central Powers in 1914. Japan really is just looking to expand its colonial empire one way or another, and Germany's are the easiest to take. So their up in the air. Japan doesn't want to piss off Britain, but they want what Germany has - so any sort of Angle-German Alliance or against their wishes. It'd take a lot for France to swing the Japs to their side, but even if the situation can be changed so that once war breaks out, Japan stays neutral (or, Japan attacks German Pacific holdings but doesn't get into a shooting war with Britain, and ignores French Indochina) that's going to be a win for France.

- Wildcards: various OTL neutral powers.

So in summary, the Franco-Russian alliance is pretty much screwed ;) They might be able to drag some players into any war involving Berlin-London-Istanbul vs Paris-Moscow that have major and minor grievances against either of those three great powers, and not so much against either France or Russia. But a lot of that is going to depend on Franco-Russian successes in the early months and year of the war, and/or some very amazing diplomatic feats on the part of the French.

So ultimately we'll see an alliance system somewhat like this when it comes to major powers;

Central Powers
-British Empire
--British Imperial Dominions & Protectorates
-German Empire
--German Colonies
-Austro-Hungarian Empire
-Ottoman Empire

Entente
-French Republic
--French Colonial Empire
-Russian Empire

??
-Italy
-Japan
-America

In regards to a 'spark' for the war, I could imagine a greater Fashoda incident or similar colonial dispute being the imperitus for a Grand European War; however for the most part France and Britain stayed out of each other's spheres of influence in colonial matters, so that's a no-go. And with Britain in the German camp, France may not feel strong enough to demand Alsace-Lorraine returned. So we may very well yet still a Balkan Affair, or something involving Russia getting involved in Anatolia.

And that's my two cents and a bit.
 

Wow, this is really good stuff! Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I needed this kind of information, and with this kind of depth as well. Your input is very much appreciated. ;)

Once I parse through all of this and maybe ask a few more questions, perhaps I'll be ready to write a better framework for this timeline. Again, thanks!

Also, anyone else wanting to add or debate the points relating to this is welcome to do so. The more the merrier!
 
??
-Italy
-Japan
-America
QUOTE]

Considering Japan, I'd point out several things:
1. Russia. Will Japan help Russia winning a war which should increase its power? After winning a war in Europe, it should be clear that the Russians sooner or later look into East Asia and hence will clash with the Japanese again. Furthermore, the CP can promise Russian land (Maritime Provinces, Sachalin, Kamtchatka...)
2. RN. Clearly, Germany is not able to defend its Pacific colonies against Japan or a Japanese-Russian alliance. But the Royal Navy is. The combined British-German alliance in the Pacific is quite a serious threat to Japan.
3. If the CP win, Germany can get French pacific colonies such as Tahiti or New Caledonia. It's not that bad to cede OTL mandates to Japan and keeping New Guinea.

Interestingly, the RN makes a major difference for Italy as well. They might be predominantly interested in their irredentist claims on Austria-Hungary, but as frequently stated in other threads they likely cannot hope to stand against the RN, in this case the RN plus the AH navy. So siding with France offers the better gains, but a more difficult war. If Britain and Germany together convince the Austrians to give up minor territories, that should be more than enough to get the Italians on their side, no matter what the French promise them. Quite probably, though, Italy wouldn't join the war from the start, I just think that the Anglo-German arguments would be more convincing in the end.

And finally the US. As frequently stated above, blockading of trade should be a major issue for the US. Now the question is whether such a blockade is that necessary against the French at all? If ome Schlieffen-plan is enacted like IOTL and the BEF is lacking on the French side, we'll see large parts of French industrial and agricultural potential falling to the Germans early in the war. France therefore is heavily dependent on imports, so a blockade is reasonable. But the blockade could be restricted on military equipment and would still be threatening to France. Question for the experts: If the Germans manage to grab the channel coasts up to and including Le Havre and the British blockade completely only the Mediterranean coast and manage to shell some Atlantic ports, will the French still have sufficient port facilities?
 
Last edited:
Top