Preventing WW1 a Smarter Kaiser 1

Well, that's the one power that every monarch has: To make whatever bizarre statement he or she wishes to. What should they do if he refused to go on that cruise? Get him there handcuffed and in chains? What if he threatened his immediate resignation if he was denied the right to give that speach?

Ok, the German contribution to WWI doesn't stop with Wilhelm, and perhaps the postulated leap of insight is better placed in von Bethmann Hollweg brain than in Wilhelm's, but Wilhelm is no innocent victim.

I wonder what happenes if Wilhelm says no. My first guess is that those who didn't think he was an idiot so far will do so now. But IMO he WILL get the credit for resolving the July crisis.

What do you think would happen if a British monarch wanted to openly speak out against the policies of the British government? Imagine that, but with a government with very little tradition of free speech and which already regards its current monarch as an idiot.

My assumption is that without the Blank Cheque Austria would be satisfied with Serbia being a humiliated pariah and would not have invaded, thus no WW1 in the summer of 1914

Sort of yes and sort of no. Serbia's response was a politely worded refusal; it accepted most of Austria-Hungary's points but denied the only points that permitted Austria-Hungary to enforce the rest of the points. Austria-Hungary had two choices: to suffer the humiliation of a small, poor rogue state getting away with assassinating its heir apparent, and to invade. If Austria-Hungary is forced by lack of German support to back down, the Triple Alliance is dead and in 1915 Austria-Hungary will seek to side with another power which dislikes Russia more and more by the moment (due to tensions in Persia) and which (by 1915) will have severed its alliance with Russia: the United Kingdom. Germany's nightmare scenario will have happened; it has lost its only great power ally, both of the two main alliance blocs in Europe (the hypothetical Austro-British pact and the Franco-Russian Alliance) are unfriendly to it and both of them (due to Russia's steadily increasing economy and the UK's steadily increasing lead in the dreadnought race) are increasing in power, relative to Germany, all the time.

This does not sound like a stable international situation at all. So there might not be war in 1914 but there will be in 1915, 1916 or 1917.

{edit} Come to think of it, that would make an interesting TL.
 
What do you think would happen if a British monarch wanted to openly speak out against the policies of the British government? Imagine that, but with a government with very little tradition of free speech and which already regards its current monarch as an idiot.

And with a much stronger monarchy.

Wilhelm had actual control of who the chancellor was, for example.

Wilhelm may not have had de facto absolute authority, but the idea that he was a figurehead . . . he sure didn't act like one before 1914, and I'm not even referring to his runaway mouth.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
No, he had no control. He could fire a chancellor, but even that was problematic. Wilhelm could indeed only nominate a chancellor, who had support in the Reichstag. Once this support was gone, he had to fire him. Bismarck is the first example for that! And firing a prominent and potent chancellor was also not possible. That never happened. All others, who were fired, had massive problems. That, too, did not happen only because of his will.
 
No, he had no control. He could fire a chancellor, but even that was problematic. Wilhelm could indeed only nominate a chancellor, who had support in the Reichstag. Once this support was gone, he had to fire him. Bismarck is the first example for that! And firing a prominent and potent chancellor was also not possible. That never happened. All others, who were fired, had massive problems. That, too, did not happen only because of his will.

Nor did it happen with him just rubberstamping the Reichstag's preferences.

Bismarck was fired because Wilhelm wanted him gone, not because the Reichstag put pressure on the kaiser to do something against his will.


I don't think we can blame Wilhelm II for WWI specifically, but he was too unignorable to be merely an embarrassment to the "real powers" - however much he had to work within the structure of the government Bismarck set up rather than making things by his will alone.

As far as Germany's role in what lead up to WWI is concerned, responsibility has to include all the parts of Germany that were part of the tense and problematic situation that saw the alliances that mean Serbia being attacked by Austria-Hungary can lead to France being attacked by Germany. That goes beyond any one man, whatever power the kaiser wielded, but a smarter kaiser could certainly have discouraged that instead of fed it.
 
Last edited:

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Nor did it happen with him just rubberstamping the Reichstag's preferences.

Bismarck was fired because Wilhelm wanted him gone, not because the Reichstag put pressure on the kaiser to do something against his will.


I don't think we can blame Wilhelm II for WWI specifically, but he was too unignorable to be merely an embarrassment to the "real powers" - however much he had to work within the structure of the government Bismarck set up rather than making things by his will alone.

As far as Germany's role in what lead up to WWI is concerned, responsibility has to include all the parts of Germany that were part of the tense and problematic situation that saw the alliances that mean Serbia being attacked by Austria-Hungary can lead to France being attacked by Germany. That goes beyond any one man, whatever power the kaiser wielded, but a smarter kaiser could certainly have discouraged that instead of fed it.

The Kaiser wanted to oust Bismarck, true. But he had still parlamentarian support by a coalition of his conservatives and the national liberals. However, Bismarck wanted now to make a new socialist law, which was not accepted by the national liberals. It would have destroyed this coalition and thus Bismarck lost his support. Wilhelm, who despite of his saying he would oust Bismarck after half a year, it were nearly 2, had now a good reason to do so.
 
The Kaiser wanted to oust Bismarck, true. But he had still parlamentarian support by a coalition of his conservatives and the national liberals. However, Bismarck wanted now to make a new socialist law, which was not accepted by the national liberals. It would have destroyed this coalition and thus Bismarck lost his support. Wilhelm, who despite of his saying he would oust Bismarck after half a year, it were nearly 2, had now a good reason to do so.

"Had a good reason" does not mean that he could not have done it otherwise. There are levels of power between "royal fiat determines everything" and "Willy is having a temper tantrum again, ignore him."
 

Perkeo

Banned
What do you think would happen if a British monarch wanted to openly speak out against the policies of the British government? Imagine that, but with a government with very little tradition of free speech and which already regards its current monarch as an idiot.

The German Emeror had a lot more powers than the British Monarch. He could de-facte - rather than merely de-jure - sack the government.

Sort of yes and sort of no. Serbia's response was a politely worded refusal; it accepted most of Austria-Hungary's points but denied the only points that permitted Austria-Hungary to enforce the rest of the points. Austria-Hungary had two choices: to suffer the humiliation of a small, poor rogue state getting away with assassinating its heir apparent, and to invade.

There would have been a third option: Play for time. They still could attack Serbia for not complying.

The strategic initiative was lost when Russia started to mobilize, and the German France-first strategy required a convincing pretext for declaring war to France.

If Austria-Hungary is forced by lack of German support to back down, the Triple Alliance is dead and in 1915 Austria-Hungary will seek to side with another power which dislikes Russia more and more by the moment (due to tensions in Persia) and which (by 1915) will have severed its alliance with Russia: the United Kingdom. Germany's nightmare scenario will have happened; it has lost its only great power ally, both of the two main alliance blocs in Europe (the hypothetical Austro-British pact and the Franco-Russian Alliance) are unfriendly to it and both of them (due to Russia's steadily increasing economy and the UK's steadily increasing lead in the dreadnought race) are increasing in power, relative to Germany, all the time.

This does not sound like a stable international situation at all. So there might not be war in 1914 but there will be in 1915, 1916 or 1917.

{edit} Come to think of it, that would make an interesting TL.

IMHO the breakup of the ties between Germany and A-H would have been the solution to Germany's problems: The disputes with Russia and Italy had a dispute with A-H, not Germany, so no reason for either of them to remain hostile.

So the alliances in TTL's WWI are:

Russia, Germany, Italy

vs.

Britain, A-H, France

doesn't sound that bad for Germany, does it?

OK, I'm not saying I know this would have worked let alone that the German government should have known that. However, I do blame the German government for not ralizing that the OTL strategy was not gonna work, and that they do have to do SOMETHING about the web of alliances in Europe.
 
"Had a good reason" does not mean that he could not have done it otherwise. There are levels of power between "royal fiat determines everything" and "Willy is having a temper tantrum again, ignore him."

Yes. But I would argue that Germany was closer to the latter than the former. When Wilhelm II gave explicit instructions on extremely important matters of national policy relating to the war, he was ignored. He wasn't utterly irrelevant (see: Naval Laws) but "royal fiat determines everything" is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

My own explanation of affairs is that Wilhelm II started off with much more power than he later had, and that the reduction of his de facto power was a direct result of his various indiscretions.

The German Emeror had a lot more powers than the British Monarch. He could de-facte - rather than merely de-jure - sack the government.

Earlier, perhaps yes, but what do you think would have happened if he'd tried to sack Hindenburg in 1916?

There would have been a third option: Play for time. They still could attack Serbia for not complying.

I would think that the better option would be to attack Serbia immediately, rather than issuing ultimata; that would leave lots of people on Austria-Hungary's side. As it is, with their ultimatum and their attempt to consider things carefully, the Austro-Hungarians made it look like a bigger power bullying a smaller one.

The strategic initiative was lost when Russia started to mobilize, and the German France-first strategy required a convincing pretext for declaring war to France.

Yes. The moment Russia ordered a general mobilisation, war between Serbia, France and Russia and the Central Powers was inevitable. Even if the Central Powers won such a war it would be a huge and immensely damaging war, not a peaceful one.

IMHO the breakup of the ties between Germany and A-H would have been the solution to Germany's problems: The disputes with Russia and Italy had a dispute with A-H, not Germany, so no reason for either of them to remain hostile.

I'm afraid I disagree in regard to Italy. Italy was enormously dependent on and vulnerable to the Mediterranean; with France, the United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire on the same side, the Mediterranean is utterly in their pocket. Italy cannot go to war against them all, not unless the war is already very nearly over.

On Russia, however, I agree.

So the alliances in TTL's WWI are:

Russia, Germany, Italy

vs.

Britain, A-H, France

More like:

Russia + Germany vs UK + Austria-Hungary + France + Japan + Ottoman Empire

doesn't sound that bad for Germany, does it?

I disagree here, however counter-intuitive it seems. Russia will be under major pressure on several sides, fighting the Ottoman Empire in its own territory, the British Empire all across South Asia, both the Japanese and the British in the Far East and perhaps Austria-Hungary in Eastern Europe too. Especially given how poor Russia's infrastructure was in many of those areas, that's not going to be easy for Russia to fight, unless they receive massive German support, which would greatly weaken the German effort in Western Europe.

Given how few troops Germany sent to the Eastern Front compared to the Western Front IOTL, I don't think the lack of a Russian front would help it very much on the Western Front, especially since Austria-Hungary's armies would no longer be on Germany's side and Germany would be cut off from its enormous trade with Austria-Hungary. The German initial offensives in France might do slightly better than they did IOTL, but they'll still bog down, and in time the USA will still enter the war and as soon as that happens Germany is doomed.

Counter-intuitive though it seems (given how much more powerful Russia was than Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire put together), I actually think OTL's scenario was better for Germany than this.

OK, I'm not saying I know this would have worked let alone that the German government should have known that. However, I do blame the German government for not ralizing that the OTL strategy was not gonna work, and that they do have to do SOMETHING about the web of alliances in Europe.

The Germans did realise that things looked bad, but they couldn't guarantee that they'd get a new ally in the form of Russia, they only knew that they'd lose their old ally Austria-Hungary. They didn't know what we know about the terms of the Franco-Russian Alliance which required France to mobilise if Austria-Hungary did (even if Germany wasn't involved) and about how unwilling France was to do such a thing, so they didn't know that a German abandonment of Austria-Hungary would be likely to break up the Franco-Russian Alliance which was such a threat to them.

What I blame the German government for was failing to force the German Army to understand that military practicality was much less important and that an invasion of Belgium was a really bad idea for political reasons. Had Germany not taken that step, it's possible (not certain, but possible) that the UK would have stayed out of the war, and in that case Germany and Austria-Hungary would have won the war by 1917 at latest and 1914 at earliest (the BEF was very important to France's eventual success in halting the initial German offensive).
 
Could the Kaiser have refused the blank cheque, I rather assume that most of Europe (Russia reluctant but potentially isolated) would be happy to see Serbia a humiliated pariah after the Sarajevo murders
 
Sorry to ask, but I thouht that the British Monarch was even more Anti-German than the British Government?

Or is that only because the british prpoaganda went to an Anti German campaign and all that sGerman is bad (Saxe Coburg Gotha = BAD, so change name to Windsor, Battneberg as 1st Sealord must resign and change name to Mountbatten... Title Deprivation Act?)

Can my british friends help me with this.

Thanks.
 
Sorry to ask, but I thouht that the British Monarch was even more Anti-German than the British Government?

Or is that only because the british prpoaganda went to an Anti German campaign and all that sGerman is bad (Saxe Coburg Gotha = BAD, so change name to Windsor, Battneberg as 1st Sealord must resign and change name to Mountbatten... Title Deprivation Act?)

Can my british friends help me with this.

Thanks.

I don't know if I count as a 'British friend' :)… but no, he wasn't. George V responded to public pressure to give up his German titles and change his House's name. In fact, his personal preference was for neutrality in the war (something that was somewhat problematic when he said so to a German diplomat before the war had started, thus causing even more German confusion as to the British position, as if there weren't enough already—the statement was hastily taken back).
 
Yes. But I would argue that Germany was closer to the latter than the former. When Wilhelm II gave explicit instructions on extremely important matters of national policy relating to the war, he was ignored. He wasn't utterly irrelevant (see: Naval Laws) but "royal fiat determines everything" is so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

My own explanation of affairs is that Wilhelm II started off with much more power than he later had, and that the reduction of his de facto power was a direct result of his various indiscretions.

I find that credible, although I think the level of his royal power in 1914 may be understated in comparing him to George V.

But it does make sense that whereas George V making a suggestion would at least be politely listened to (if possibly told diplomatically that he's an idiot), Wilhelm did not have his government's cooperation with his wishes.

It might have been possible to force it through, but the kaiser demanding X explicitly on penalty of (consequences for disobeying the sovereign) is not a sign royal will was held in very great esteem, or that it had anything to do with what everyone else would do unless so coerced.

Not so much disobedient as just clinging to every possible way to work around him, instead of leaping to obey.

And with increasing disrespect of him, I don't see anyone whose sentiments did not shift in that direction - and reaching actual disobedience at this point.


I'm not familiar with the ins and outs on the war years as far as running the show went, but the generals seem to have elbowed out civilian government altogether from what I've gathered. Maybe not in defiance of the kaiser, but certainly pushing him off stage in the process.
 
The - de lege - powers of the Emperor were considerable under the 1871 constitution:

der Oberbefehl über die Armee,
die Entscheidung über Krieg und Frieden,
die Repräsentation Deutschlands nach außen,
die Führung der Außenpolitik,
die Ernennung des Reichskanzlers

+ commanding the army
+ decision to go to war (and make peace)
+ represent Germany to foreign nations
+ conduct of foreign policy
+ nomination of the chancellor

Those prerogatives are checked primarily by the decision that finances need a law each year - the emperor has no right to determine the army and navy budget. In reality (especially during the war) the above rights were diminished considerably - (OHL did take much away - the Brest Litovsk treaty was done with CONSENT of the Reichstag,...)
 
Don't know if its a smarter Kaiser but the proximate cause for WW1 is the German actions of declaring war on Russia, invading Belgium, Luxemburg and France and bombarding various coastal towns that cause the war.

Its that and not the Austro Serb war that spreads things. The Austrians do not invade Serbia until 12 August i.e. 12 days after the declaration of warr and after land sea and air actions just about everywhere else.

Even a blank cheque (i.e. guarantee of German support in the event of war with Russia) does not require a world war as it places the onus of starting a war on Russia with no guarantee of French support (who now have no guarantee of British support).
 

Anderman

Donor
The - de lege - powers of the Emperor were considerable under the 1871 constitution:

der Oberbefehl über die Armee,
die Entscheidung über Krieg und Frieden,
die Repräsentation Deutschlands nach außen,
die Führung der Außenpolitik,
die Ernennung des Reichskanzlers

+ commanding the army
+ decision to go to war (and make peace)
+ represent Germany to foreign nations
+ conduct of foreign policy
+ nomination of the chancellor

Those prerogatives are checked primarily by the decision that finances need a law each year - the emperor has no right to determine the army and navy budget. In reality (especially during the war) the above rights were diminished considerably - (OHL did take much away - the Brest Litovsk treaty was done with CONSENT of the Reichstag,...)

The Kaiser couldn´t declare war by his own he needed the constent of the Bundesrat.
 
One of my favorite Kaiserreich What-ifs besides Friedrich III. not taking up smoking is actually the prudish quack who delivered Willi 2 without daring to look under Princess Victoria's skirts in time and causing the crippling of the infant's arm as well as (likely) low-grade brain damage either growing a pair or breaking his leg and being replaced with a pro on short notice.

Willi 2 would have had a much happier upbringing (especially by that cold bitch of a mother) and Europe a likely happier future...
 
Top