IGNORE

If Kaiser Wilhelm II had died in 1906, Crown Prince Wilhelm would have succeeded to the throne. The latter, while poorly supplied with tact, was less of a loose canon than his father. He was also less interested in naval matters.

So, we would have seen less in the way of funding for the German Navy and more for the Army. This would have reduced tensions with Great Britain. It may also have led France and Russia to be a little more circumspect when dealing with Germany while, at the same time, adding more in the way of resources to the build up of their respective armies.

We might also have seen better coordination among the diplomats, senior soldiers, and the senior sailors. There might even have been some sort of formal body for such consultation. This would have improved the quality of German strategy and may even have led to alternatives to the Schlieffen Plan.
 
The big question is how would work the Alliance system under Wilhelm III and under what circumstance ?

If this constellation exist in 1914: the Triple Alliance (German Empire - Austria-Hungary Empire - Italy) vs. Triple Entente (France -Russia- Britain)
You got war

Can by Diplomatic effort Wilhelm III do changes ? certainly,
By tune down the build up of German Imperial Navy, Wilhelm III could assure the Britain Government, that Germany is not Rival at Sea.
This could let to, that The Triple Entente is never signed in 1907, Britain remain Neutral in there "splendid isolation" policy, except someone attack Belgium...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
What do you think would happen.
May I ask why you have choosen the year of 1906 for your POD ?

If Kaiser Wilhelm II had died in 1906, Crown Prince Wilhelm would have succeeded to the throne. The latter, while poorly supplied with tact, was less of a loose canon than his father. He was also less interested in naval matters.

So, we would have seen less in the way of funding for the German Navy and more for the Army. This would have reduced tensions with Great Britain. It may also have led France and Russia to be a little more circumspect when dealing with Germany while, at the same time, adding more in the way of resources to the build up of their respective armies.

We might also have seen better coordination among the diplomats, senior soldiers, and the senior sailors. There might even have been some sort of formal body for such consultation. This would have improved the quality of German strategy and may even have led to alternatives to the Schlieffen Plan.
Well, he also had less of his fathers intelligence (though the latter was unable to focus it AND ... keep it focused on a theme for more than a/the moment) and definitly much less of a backbone.

His main (if not sole) interest were ... women, preferably not his own.
(Tbh : not understandable for me, giving what a beatifull and otherwise seemingly great woman she was)

With the cromw prince becomming Wilhelm III you would see even more behind-the-scenes-courtly politics controlled by whoever catches the new Kaiser's ear.
And here it is where we have to look for whatever might happen politically or who might get the leading position.
 

Deleted member 94680

As @NoMommsen says, why 1906?

Other than that, your best hope would be Wilhelm III becomes a “ceremonial monarch” and concentrates on his... private life. This, then, allows diplomacy and military affairs to be run by the professionals.

Problem is, by 1906, Germany’s course is fairly well set. You would probably avoid the 2nd Morocco Crisis but the Kaiser’s (Wilhelm II) visit that precipitated the 1st Crisis (Tangier) has already happened. If WIII disavows WII’s actions, that becomes a massive German climb-down. Although clearly the sensible course of action, does there exist the support for such a volte-face in German foreign policy so early in WIII’s reign?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If Kaiser Wilhelm II had died in 1906, Crown Prince Wilhelm would have succeeded to the throne. The latter, while poorly supplied with tact, was less of a loose canon than his father. He was also less interested in naval matters.

So, we would have seen less in the way of funding for the German Navy and more for the Army. This would have reduced tensions with Great Britain. It may also have led France and Russia to be a little more circumspect when dealing with Germany while, at the same time, adding more in the way of resources to the build up of their respective armies.

We might also have seen better coordination among the diplomats, senior soldiers, and the senior sailors. There might even have been some sort of formal body for such consultation. This would have improved the quality of German strategy and may even have led to alternatives to the Schlieffen Plan.

Largely incorrect analysis.

  • The naval bills are passed about every 5 years. We will not see a big impact until probably 1910 since he ship building schedules are largely complete.
  • In 1906, the UK was driving tensions by doing things such as threatening to do "Copenhagens" in the press and holding full fleet exercises in the Baltic practicing invading Germany.
  • Army funding is also largely set in multi-year funding bills. The limitation was not really tax revenue, but willingness of Reichstag to approve spending. Funding for Heer might go up or down.

You basically start will a flawed factual position and do analysis from there. Kaiser Wilhelm II was only a small part of the tensions between Germany and England. He has a small role in setting overall funding level. His death will cause butterflies, but these can go many ways.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
As @NoMommsen says, why 1906?

Other than that, your best hope would be Wilhelm III becomes a “ceremonial monarch” and concentrates on his... private life. This, then, allows diplomacy and military affairs to be run by the professionals.

Problem is, by 1906, Germany’s course is fairly well set. You would probably avoid the 2nd Morocco Crisis but the Kaiser’s (Wilhelm II) visit that precipitated the 1st Crisis (Tangier) has already happened. If WIII disavows WII’s actions, that becomes a massive German climb-down. Although clearly the sensible course of action, does there exist the support for such a volte-face in German foreign policy so early in WIII’s reign?

Disavowing his WII action is very unlikely. And it not a sensible course of action since the UK is driving more of the tensions than Germany. We have obviously butterflied away OTL WW1, and we may not even have a major war. So let's go through some actions that would make Germany in a better diplomatic and military position.

  • Naval funding is about right. The funding can be spent better by having a more balanced navy. The UK advice was actually correct. Germany need more cruisers, more small ships, more port defenses and a few less BB. The ratio of the fleet ships is off, not the total tonnage or funding level.
  • Germany needs a larger army. If Germany army was 50% bigger, Germany would still be less militaristic than France. A lot of the planning limitation of Germany are driven by the small army.
  • Keeping Italy and A-H friendly is a difficult task, but well worth doing.
  • Since Germany and A-H are happy with the borders in the east, a plan of lowering tensions with Russia would be wise. Again, a hard task but worth trying.
  • Better relation with Ottomans is desirable, but this is complicated due to two allies.
 

Deleted member 94680

In 1906, the UK was driving tensions by doing things such as threatening to do "Copenhagens" in the press and holding full fleet exercises in the Baltic practicing invading Germany.

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times recently on this board, by no means doubting it by the way, but do you have a source for this? I’ve tried finding a list of the locations of fleet exercises, but so far no luck. I know Royal Navy Fleet planning involved operating in the Baltic, but I’ve not seen anything about exercises in the Baltic. As for the “Copenhagening” of the German Navy, that’s (as you say) in the press, so hardly to be construed as British policy.

Disavowing his WII action is very unlikely. And it not a sensible course of action since the UK is driving more of the tensions than Germany. We have obviously butterflied away OTL WW1, and we may not even have a major war.

Have we? That’s a bold claim. Also an interesting way to analyse the Moroccan Crises as the British driving the tensions.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I’ve seen this mentioned a few times recently on this board, by no means doubting it by the way, but do you have a source for this? I’ve tried finding a list of the locations of fleet exercises, but so far no luck. I know Royal Navy Fleet planning involved operating in the Baltic, but I’ve not seen anything about exercises in the Baltic. As for the “Copenhagening” of the German Navy, that’s (as you say) in the press, so hardly to be construed as British policy.



Have we? That’s a bold claim. Also an interesting way to analyse the Moroccan Crises as the British driving the tensions.

On part two of your query, it is clearly how the butterflies and the human brain work. I would recommend reading books by Daniel Kahneman and Nassim Taleb. It is a complicated topic on why are brain see patterns where there are not and why our brain removes luck, but these two authors do a good job covering the topic. The only down side to their work is that the topic of assigning casuality and inevitablity where it does not exists is not the main focus of their books, so the material will be spread out over about 15 hours of audiobooks.

As to the first topic

War planning and strategic development in the Royal Navy, 1887-1918
Grimes, Shawn

It goes over about 300 pages of British War Plans. If you read the actions of the British, you can clearly see the shift to an anti-Germany policy.
 

Deleted member 94680

On part two of your query, it is clearly how the butterflies and the human brain work. I would recommend reading books by Daniel Kahneman and Nassim Taleb. It is a complicated topic on why are brain see patterns where there are not and why our brain removes luck, but these two authors do a good job covering the topic. The only down side to their work is that the topic of assigning casuality and inevitablity where it does not exists is not the main focus of their books, so the material will be spread out over about 15 hours of audiobooks.

Yeah, not a real answer though, is it? I take it you’re implying a “victors write history” bias to historical records have unfairly laid the blame on the Germans whilst the British have got away scot-free? Which is fine, I mean, something like the naval arms race takes two parties, otherwise it’s simply ‘the expansion of the German navy’. Thing is, I mentioned the Moroccan Crises specifically. How do you come to the conclusion it’s the British driving the tensions when it was the Kaiser who made the declaration of support for the Sultan? When von Bulow threatened war? The second crisis I suppose you can blame the British for the impact of Mansion House speech but that’s the tail end of the whole thing for something started over what? German trading rights in Morocco? The need for Wilberg to mine to his heart’s content?



War planning and strategic development in the Royal Navy, 1887-1918
Grimes, Shawn

It goes over about 300 pages of British War Plans. If you read the actions of the British, you can clearly see the shift to an anti-Germany policy.

Thank you. I had seen that one on the google searches I ran, I will endeavour to get a copy.

Heh, “anti-German policy” I like it.
 
Top