Friedrich III

[Wendell]

How would Frederick, and/or his successor, alternate Chancellors, &c. treat the colonies, assuming World War I is prevented...

 

[Max Sinister]

Britain and France let their colonies go after WW2, and one can say that the two world wars weakened their empires. If they're butterflied away, the colonial empires might last longer - maybe even 'till today? Expect a less crowded Africa (since I guess that the rulers won't bother to start the Green Revolution to feed their subjects)

 

[Susano]

Not actually true. The only reason the two Wilhelms had the same "number" in both the Prussian Royal and German Imperial regnal chronology is that Wilhelm I of Prussia was also Wilhelm I of Germany.

Using an example, if the first German Kaiser had been Wilhelm I's son Friedrich instead of Wilhelm, then he would have been King Friedrich III of Prussia and Kaiser Friedrich I of Germany. His son, the OTL Kaiser Wilhelm II, would have become King Wilhelm II of Prussia and Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany.

You seem to forget, though, that Frederick was indeed Emperor for 99 days. And he was offically Frederick III., so the Prussian count was most definitly continued.

As for the Colonies: For all its autocracy at home, compared to the other colonials powers the German colonies were (as said, comperatively) well treat. And, of course, there never were many German colonists, anyways. That both sems to idnicate with me that giving independance to the colonies, and then remaining on cordial terms with them is a strong possibility. But as Max has pointed, it is dependant on how Europe will treat its empries in general. If there is a movement to free the coplonies, Germany will for said reasons ost likely be at the forefront - and if not, then it will keep them like everybody else.

 

[Martel]

As for the Colonies: For all its autocracy at home, compared to the other colonials powers the German colonies were (as said, comperatively) well treat. And, of course, there never were many German colonists, anyways.

OK two big mistakes in one sentence. The German Empire was definitely not an autocracy at home, although Bismark and William II both had autocratic pretentions. It was not as democratic as some parts of Europe, but the power of King-Emperor was definitely checked by the Reichstag and the Landsraat.

Second, the German Empire in Africa was one of the worst of the colonial empires, at least during William II's reign. Cameroon was almost as notorious as Leopold's Congo. I say almost because there was less international outcry against the atorcities in Cameroon, largely because Germany was a lot more powerful than Belgium. The suppression of the Herero (Hottentot) Rebellion in South West Africa was the single worst war in the history of colonial Africa. Between 80 and 90% of the African population were killed or expelled.

I'm not saying the other imperial powers covered themselves in glory. Atorcities were far from uncommon no matter who was in charge. But when you're led by a man who compared his soldiers to Atilia, you have to expect things are going to go bad.

 

[stevep]

Britain and France let their colonies go after WW2, and one can say that the two world wars weakened their empires. If they're butterflied away, the colonial empires might last longer - maybe even 'till today? Expect a less crowded Africa (since I guess that the rulers won't bother to start the Green Revolution to feed their subjects)

Not too sure of that Max. There were nasty sides to colonialism in Africa, the Congo and the German colonies probably being the worst but not all. However there was also a degree of paternalism and also I suspect the colonial authorities would generally have been less corrupt. Probably a lot less internal conflict as well. [ Unless national unrest means continued guerrilla conflict but I think your presuming that is not too common?] Furthermore at least some colonial governors and businessmen might realise that richer subjects mean bigger markets.

You might see more large farms as they would probably be seen as more efficient although not sure what the situation is in Africa nowadays. In bad places like Zimbabwe a lot of the land has been seized by Mugabe and his cronies.

Steve

 

[Wendell]

Not too sure of that Max. There were nasty sides to colonialism in Africa, the Congo and the German colonies probably being the worst but not all. However there was also a degree of paternalism and also I suspect the colonial authorities would generally have been less corrupt. Probably a lot less internal conflict as well. [ Unless national unrest means continued guerrilla conflict but I think your presuming that is not too common?] Furthermore at least some colonial governors and businessmen might realise that richer subjects mean bigger markets.

You might see more large farms as they would probably be seen as more efficient although not sure what the situation is in Africa nowadays. In bad places like Zimbabwe a lot of the land has been seized by Mugabe and his cronies.

Steve

Some colonies may have also been better than others with regard to how they were run, and the rights alotted to the locals.

 

[oberdada]

Not actually true. The only reason the two Wilhelms had the same "number" in both the Prussian Royal and German Imperial regnal chronology is that Wilhelm I of Prussia was also Wilhelm I of Germany.

Using an example, if the first German Kaiser had been Wilhelm I's son Friedrich instead of Wilhelm, then he would have been King Friedrich III of Prussia and Kaiser Friedrich I of Germany. His son, the OTL Kaiser Wilhelm II, would have become King Wilhelm II of Prussia and Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany.

Nope, at least wikipedia tells differently.
Frederick first wanted to call himself Frederick IV. , using the count of the old Holy Roman Empire.