What if Bismarck and Wilhelm were actually successfully assassinated

hey guys,

This is my first post on this board so please be gentle with your feedback and comments, lol.

I'm trying to imagine a plausible alternative history scenario where the assassination attempt on the life of Otto von Bismarck was assassinated in 1866 by Ferdinand Cohen-Blind and one of the four attempts on Wilhelm I were successful.

I think politically on an international level, Bismarck was instrumental in instigating the alliance between Prussia and Italy, which precipitated the Austro-Prussian war. The conflict was largely a contest, to decide which regime would go on to dominate the German States and eventually lead to the German Unification. Would his death reduced the impetus for Prussia's drive to unite the German States into a union under its sway, making way for Grossdeutschland, dominated by Austria? Did the regime of Franz Joseph I have the capacity to govern these disparate States who were often at odds with each other? His track record after Austria's defeat doesn't bode well for the longevity of such a union.

On a domestic front, in OTL Bismarck had used the assassination attempts on Wilhelm I as a pretext to suppress the socialists and enact the anti-socialist laws. With Bismarck not surviving until the first, let alone second attempt on the life of Wilhelm I, would there have been a potential successor strong enough to attempt to suppress the radicalized element of the newly emerging socialist movement? Would anyone else had have been able to enact the welfare reforms which Bismarck instigated in order to sideline the radicals and bring the moderates into the Establishment?
 
Last edited:
No Bismark and Willhelm would lead to Frederick III taking power far earlier, however no Bismark means no one to create the Alliance system, no Elms dispatch or the resulting Franco-Prussian war, a potentially later German Reunification and no German Welfare laws to curb socialist power.

I don't think Frederick would allow for an Austrian led Germany to happen so we would see an Austro-Prussia war. Yet with no Bismark against more Catholics in Germany we could see a Germany with Austria and maybe the Hapsburgs forced out of Austria, or a faster break up of the Austrian Empire?
 
No Bismark and Willhelm would lead to Frederick III taking power far earlier, however no Bismark means no one to create the Alliance system, no Elms dispatch or the resulting Franco-Prussian war, a potentially later German Reunification and no German Welfare laws to curb socialist power.

I don't think Frederick would allow for an Austrian led Germany to happen so we would see an Austro-Prussia war. Yet with no Bismark against more Catholics in Germany we could see a Germany with Austria and maybe the Hapsburgs forced out of Austria, or a faster break up of the Austrian Empire?

thanks for the well considered reply.

I agree and though he was an able military commander seeing success in the Danish, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars, I think he lacked the diplomatic and political prowess of Otto von Bismarck. He also had no love of war, in fact he remarked to two French journalists during the Frano-Prussian War, ""I do not like war gentlemen. If I should reign I would never make it." Illustrated London News. He was also one of the most liberal European monarchs and was publicly fundamentally at odds with the policy of his father and Otto von Bismarck who sidelined him at every opportunity he could.

I think Europe would have been much better off if he had come to the throne earlier, with Otto von Bismarck removed from the scene of history with a successful assassination.
 
No Bismark and Willhelm would lead to Frederick III taking power far earlier, however no Bismark means no one to create the Alliance system, no Elms dispatch or the resulting Franco-Prussian war, a potentially later German Reunification and no German Welfare laws to curb socialist power.


Would removing the Ems Telegram have made any difference in the end?

Even without it, neither William nor Frederick would have accepted the French demand for a permanent guarantee that the Hohenzollern candidature would never be renewed. If anything Frederick, somewhat more of a "European" than his father, was keener than William to put a Hohenzoller on a foreign throne. So France probably still declares war.


I don't think Frederick would allow for an Austrian led Germany to happen so we would see an Austro-Prussia war. Yet with no Bismark against more Catholics in Germany we could see a Germany with Austria and maybe the Hapsburgs forced out of Austria, or a faster break up of the Austrian Empire?

Frederick was firmly opposed to war with Austria, regarding it as a kind of civil war.
 
War with France

hey MikeStone,

thanks for your input.

I think it would have, because it was the public outrage sparked by the altered text of Viscount Benedetti, which fueled widespread calls for the declaration of war against Prussia. Otto von Bismarck edited the notes of Wilhelm's secretary deliberately design to inflame French nationalist passions in order to provoke public outcry to declare war.

I think Viscount Benedetti likely was acting on his own. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family withdrew candidacy of Leopold in July of 1870, so there was no longer any threat to the nation of France which would justify a war footing. It was an unusual political defeat for Bismarck, soon to prove temporary, but if Frederick was on the throne earlier the demand likely would never have been made.
 
hey MikeStone,

thanks for your input.

I think it would have, because it was the public outrage sparked by the altered text of Viscount Benedetti, which fueled widespread calls for the declaration of war against Prussia. Otto von Bismarck edited the notes of Wilhelm's secretary deliberately design to inflame French nationalist passions in order to provoke public outcry to declare war.

I think Viscount Benedetti likely was acting on his own. The Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family withdrew candidacy of Leopold in July of 1870, so there was no longer any threat to the nation of France which would justify a war footing.


Have you a source for that?

Both Michael Howard (The Franco-Prussian War) and AJP Taylor (Struggle for Mastery) state that Gramont specifically ordered Benedetti to make this demand. Taylor adds that Gramont in turn was acting on an instruction from Napoleon III, dated July 12.

I fear you are underestimating the sheer boneheadedness of Louis Napoleon's regime.
 
I think that the German welfare system comes up nevertheless. Krupp and other big German Industry had social systems runing before Bismarck, which he got the idea from.
 
hey MikeStone,

I bow to your superior knowledge. It was just pure speculation on my part, stemming from my reading of the event's description in the secondary sources (internet, my bad) I'd read. The conversation appeared to be off the cuff, with Benedetti effectively waylaying Wilhelm I in the street.

Perhaps with the death of Otto von Bismarck two months prior due to his successful assassination, Napoleon III may not have felt as threatened by the Prussian state, knowing they had Prussia had lost one of the leaders most insistent on expanding Prussian influence. Who knows? Its pure speculation on my part, but then that's what this board is about, isn't it?

I'm just trying to piece together a plausible alternative timeline for a story I'd like to write.Thanks for your input. Further input from others would be appreciated too.
 
Of course if Bismarck has been removed as early as May 1866, that may be (just) in time to avert the Austro-Prussian War, in which case France may just not be worrying about Prussia as much as OTL. In particular, if Austria is still holding on to Venetia, Nappy III will be far more hung up about that than about anything the Prussians do.

Incidentally that is not the only point at which Bismarck could have been removed. Are you familiar with the story of his near-drowning in Biarritz - in August 1862? His death then would have huge consequences.

Regarding the attempts on Wilhelm, if you mean the ones in 1876 and 1878, the success of either results in Frederick III reigning for about a decade. I can see him pushing for a more democratic reform of the Confederation than the one Franz Josef offered in 1863, but don't give much for his chances, given the tendency of the smaller states to vote for the status quo when Austria and Prussia disagreed. He might, however, give Prussia itself a more liberal franchise.

The $64,000 question is what happens when Wilhelm II becomes King of Prussia. Does he challenge Austria for leadership of Germany, or does dynastic sentiment lead him to play the role of "faithful vassal" to Franz Josef? Could get interesting. If he remains King of Prussia only, he won't command the resources to go into naval competition with Britain. That's a good start at least.
 
hey MikeStone,

Thanks for your continued dialogue. Sorry I haven't been able to respond until now, but I've been away from the web.

Thanks for informing me of the second point at which Bismarck may have been removed from the political scene of Europe. I guess that death would have caused fewer domestic reprecussions and he was removed before he could do much lasting damage, which is good for my story.

As for Frederick III ascending the throne a decade earlier and without the influence of Otto von Bismarck stirring up conflict and war, perhaps Europe's international political climate may have been more stable It may have allowed Europe's rulers to devote more attention to domestic issues and be more open to change without the constant threat of war hanging over their heads. With the threat of war they may not have been able to risk the domestic upheaval due to social change. In my timeline, Europe's map would be drastically different.

As for Wilhelm II, a further twist is that while attending Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, he was accidentally shot by Mary Oakley while participating in her performance. In 1890 in OTL he volunteered to allow Mary Oakley to shoot the cigar out of his mouth. She insisted that he hold it in his hand instead, but in my timeline he hold it in his mouth and the gun misfires putting off Oakley's aim. Is that too contrived for such a pivotal moment in an alternate timeline? Who would have been his most likely successor if Frederick were to outlive his son?

Wars

No Prussian-Danish War
No Austro-Prussian War
No Franco-Prussian War
No World War I or II

Political scene
No German Unification
No Nation of Italy or at least a less complete one.
No Berlin conference, German colonalization, or Scramble for Africa
 
As for Wilhelm II, a further twist is that while attending Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, he was accidentally shot by Mary Oakley while participating in her performance. In 1890 in OTL he volunteered to allow Mary Oakley to shoot the cigar out of his mouth. She insisted that he hold it in his hand instead, but in my timeline he hold it in his mouth and the gun misfires putting off Oakley's aim. Is that too contrived for such a pivotal moment in an alternate timeline? Who would have been his most likely successor if Frederick were to outlive his son?


Coming to the throne sooner won't necessarily make Frederick live longer. We don't know what triggered the cancer, but istr that he smoked, which probably didn't help.

Had Wilhelm died in 1890, his OTL heir would have been Kronprinz Wilhelm, born 1882. However, a PoD in late 1862 means that he may marry differently, and in any case butterfly effects may gave him a totally different set of children. If he hasn't had children (or had only girls) at the time of his death, then the heir is his brother Heinrich, who seems to have been sensible enough.

But, as noted before, a Wilhelm II who doesn't rule Germany (though he's a powerful figure in it) may be less of a weirdo that OTL's. Less power will mean less responsibility, and he may be stabler that way.
 
Wars

No Prussian-Danish War
No Austro-Prussian War
No Franco-Prussian War
No World War I or II

Political scene
No German Unification
No Nation of Italy or at least a less complete one.
No Berlin conference, German colonalization, or Scramble for Africa

Are you sure about these statements?
I mean it might be nice to "blame" everything on Bismarck and Wilhelm I. :)
And I even admit that Bismarck was an able politician who "shaped" events somewhat.

But...
You seem to forget nationalism? Introduced to "the Germanies" and the Italian peninsula by the French Revolution and Napoleon several decades earlier.

I mean there already was a first Schleswig war in 1848. And at that time supported by the elected Frankfurt Diet and most Germans. IIRC the "London Protocol" ending that war especially forbade integrating Schleswig into Denmark. So if Denmark acts the same as in OTL in 1863, public opinion in the German states will demand an intervention even without Bismarck. The only thing different might be that an independent Duchy of Schleswig and Holstein as part of the German Confederation would be created.

The Austro-Prussian war of 1866 might have been avoided for now. But the antagonism between Prussia and Austria-Hungary still remains.The smaller German states will support the status quo for as long as possible. They don´t want to be ruled by Prussia but they also don´t want to become involved in Austria-Hungary´s adventures in Italy and the Balkans.

The German Zollverein (not including Austria-Hungary) already exists. Meaning closer economic cooperation. And given an external threat the German states will draw closer together.

Notice that Napoleon III in OTL had designs on Luxembourg (part of the German Zollverein and a German Confederation fortress) and had dreams about the Rhineland...

Think about it. Just 4 years ago in 1866 the armies of the southern German states were defeated by Prussian armies. Do you really think they joined the Prussians in 1870 against Napoleon III just for fun?
From what I´ve read public opinion did play a role. Like, memories and stories of several centuries of invading French armies. From Louis XIV to Napoleon. Quite simply put, starting with the 30 Year War in the 17th century up to Napoleon it were French armies invading Germany, not German armies invading France. Sooner or later civilians might be a bit angry about that?
And Napoleon III (nickname "little Napoleon") seems to want to emulate Napoleon. Crimea, Rome / Italy, Luxembourg, Rhineland for example.
Do you really think he´ll stop meddling in Germany just because Bismarck and Wilhelm I are dead?

So in summary.
Unless the Danish act differently in 1863 some sort of German - Danish war will happen even without Bismarck and Wilhelm I. The difference might be the creation of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein instead of annexing the territories into Prussia.
The Austro-Prussian war might not happen. But the interests of Austria-Hungary (Italy, Balkans) and the German states are too divergent. I´m not sure if a German Confederation including Austria-Hungary could survive for much longer.
And as mentioned Napoleon III had some ideas about the "proper" east French border. Ideas including Luxembourg and the Rhineland. Ideas that might have lead to a Prussian / German - French war sooner or later even without Bismarck.

Concerning German unification.
As I mentioned you´ve already got several decades of "nationalism". Without Bismarck (Wilhelm I was very happy being King of Prussia, not that happy being German Emperor instead of Emperor of Germany) you´ll probably still see more and more cooperation between the German states. The "Zollverein" already exists. Simply given the pressure (economically, militarily and politically) from unified nation states (France, Britain, USA, Russia for example) I´d expect closer and closer cooperation between the German states.
Nationalism, economic pressure and some sort of external threat will lead to some sort of "German unification". Probably different from OTL.

And concerning Italy.
The beginnings of the Italian unification started even before Bismarck became Minister President of Prussia in 1862. Piedmont and Cavour 1858. Garibaldi 1859.
You seem to assume that without Bismarck, Napoleon III (and France) would keep a garrison at Rome indefinitely?
So Napoleon III or an imagined Napoleon IV would never remove those troops sometime in the future? Just because Bismarck got assassinated?

No scramble for Africa?
Are you kidding me? Even if you remove a unified Bismarck German Empire from the equation, you still have quite a lot of European powers interested in enlarging their colonial empires in Africa. The British will be interested in "German East Africa" (Cape - Cairo railway). British South Africa will be interested in "German South West Africa". The French and Belgiums will be interested in German Togo and Cameroon. The British, French, Japanese and Americans will be interested in the "German Pacific colonies".
No need for some sort of a "Berlin conference"? A honest broker?
(Bismarck actually discouraged colonial adventures. Without him, countries like Prussia actually might have acquired a few colonies earlier?)

Care to tell me how the Fashoda Crisis 1898 in your TL might have worked out?
With Napoleon III or an imagined Napoleon IV as Emperor of France? And without a unified German Empire threatening France in the east as in OTL? Maybe the France in your TL might be more "forceful"?

Forgive me, but I think you made an error when you practically blamed a hundred years of European history on just two people.
Some wars might still happen (Denmark - Germany). And different wars are still likely to happen.

It´s absolutely ridiculous to assume that without a unified Bismarck Germany, no large scale wars will happen in Europe. However, it is very likely that any future European war in your TL will be mainly fought on German territory without some sort of German cooperation / unification.
After all, that was standard operating procedure in Europe for 2 centuries.
Fight wars (Britain-France, Habsburg-France and so on) on German territory so that your domestic territory will be safe.
 
Top