WI: Frederick III had lived longer?

attachment.php


The Five Years of the Good King, part one
(a historical analysis)

By Markgraf Rüdiger von Bülow-Merckatz, 13rd Duke of Lower Lothringen
translated from the Straßburger GHG


The death of Kaiser Wilhelm I was, at the same time, publicly mourned and privately celebrated. While many within the newly formed Kaiserreich saw him as a hero of German Unification - the Prussians among them, and none as much as Chancellor von Bismarck - others still held the 'blood and iron' involved in such unification process close to their hearts. The Imperialists stood staunchly opposed to the Reichstag, which was further divided within itself between the Kartell and the Social Democrats. The Chancellor, although a very clever and flexible man, had been at odds with Friedrich for decades, using all sorts of measures to isolate him from power during his tenure as Crown Prince. Germany was now united - but its politics were at risk of growing more and more divided.

The transition of power to the hands of Frederick III was relatively smooth, but not without its share of controversy and concern. Frederick was an acrid opposer to his father's (and Otto's) militaristic view of the world, and saw Bismarck's multiple held offices with distrust. At the same time, he did not agree with the legislative structure of the Reich, referring to it as "ingeniously contrived chaos". His desire for reform was great, but so was his concern - having been diagnosed with inoperable throat cancer, he believed he might not live to see it all through. Luckily for the Kaiserreich, time proved him wrong.


______________________
Hi everyone.

Before I begin: this is my very first thread, so please forgive any mistakes and breaches of etiquette, and - please - take them for mistakes of ignorance and not for bad faith.


I've always been personally interested in the What If scenario of a German victory. I've been reading a lot of your threads about World War I, however, and have come to realise that, under the OTL starting conditions for WWI, a German victory would be nigh-impossible, and even if it had come to pass it would have been almost certainly a pyrrhic victory (loss of colonies, massive war exhaustion, resource and manpower depletion, massive revolts in the following years, etc.).

Which led me to the question: how on Earth did Germany put itself in such a bad position? Of course, many factors can be pinpointed, but I find one factor to be preponderant and unanimous: Wilhelm II's Weltpolitik was a train-wreck. Berlin managed to analyze wrong, act wrong and simply be wrong at every aspect. They misread France, Russia, Britain, Italy, the colonies, and more. Even if they somehow were to win the war on the field, they were certainly doomed to lose it on the round table. And that perception is what brought me here. What if Frederick the Third had waited, say, four or five more years to die?

I intend to write further on the subject when I find some spare time between my job, college, my other job, my other job and my freelance work. Until then, please do write your input on the subject.


Best regards to all.
MadExpansionist
 
Last edited:
I think you have your Kaiser Wilhelms mixed up. There is no proof that Frederick III would have been as liberal as many wished he would be.
 
I'm referring to Kaiser Friedrich III, son of Wilhelm I and father of Wilhelm II. And maybe he was not a liberal, but he certainly was a moderate. He was married to Princess Victoria, daughter of Queen Victoria of England; he admired the constitutional provisions of England and saw the Reichstag as a mess. This poor bastard ruled for less than four months.
 
attachment.php


The Chancellor, although a very clever and flexible man, had not expected to live long enough to see Wilhelm die...

Interesting premise, M-E. When you refer to Kaiser Wilhelm II, am I right to assume you really mean Kaiser Wilhelm I? This guy...


Forgive a little nitpick but since the emperor above was born 22 March 1797 and Bismarck on 1 April 1815, why would the latter think he wouldn't outlive his sovereign? Eighteen years is quite a difference in age after all.
 
Good point on the "not expected". I can't remember where I got that from. I will have to re-write that part. Please do not apologize for nitpicking. I wouldn't be posting it on the internet if I did not expect people to point out my blunders. Please do - it helps me improve as a writer.

PS. Oh fer Chrissake! I just found the typo. I meant Wilhelm I, of course I did. Damn it. Yeah, I guess my revising skills are just like my car.
 
Last edited:
w4w.gif


The Five Years of the Good King, part one(continued)
(a historical analysis)

By Markgraf Rüdiger von Bülow-Merckatz, 13rd Duke of Lower Lothringen
translated from the Straßburger GHG


As if the public dispute between the Kaiser and the Chancellor wasn't enough of a problem, their disagreements were present even within the Kaiser's family. During Wilhelm I's tenure, Wilhelm II (Friedrich's adolescent firstborn) would often be sent as a family representative in diplomatic missions under the direct custody and supervision of Otto von Bismarck. The Chancellor took it upon himself to serve as the boy's mentor, and as a result Wilhelm II would grow as a fierce supporter of Bismarck's political views. In a letter to her mother Queen Victoria of England, dated March 1891, Kaiserine Victoria wrote the following about her son:

[...] and, during the worse days, it can grow to be unbearable. Wilhelm would storm out of his father's room, pouting loudly about weltpolitik and mitteleuropa and other political quarrels that foul Bismarck imprinted on him, in an unfit tone for a son to talk to his father! [...]

[...]Sometimes it feels like the old crow is again in this house. Wilhelm emulates [Bismarck], down to the accent. [...]

What in other conditions could be perceived as a common prepubescent behavior amounted to a serious concern to Frederick. One of the main flaws Friedrich perceived in Prussian constitutionalism was its dependence on the person of the Kaiser. The Chancery (along with many other positions) was directly subordinate to the Kaiser, and thus susceptible to Imperial maladministration. If his son did not learn to rein in his belligerence, Friedrich feared his death would place too wild a man at the helm of the Reich. Twenty-six years was how long Friedrich had to wait to ascend to the throne; these years in court as Crown Prince were years of learning. Only time would tell if Wilhelm could still be made into the Kaiser the Reich needed - but time was something Friedrich did not have.

As if seething opposition both at home and in the court weren't enough trouble, Friedrich also faced challenges abroad. Germany's foreign relations were strained by the successive wars of German unification. The long-standing kinship between German and English royal families was strained; while Kaiserine Victoria was daughter to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, she was also sister to Edward, Prince of Wales (son-in-law to Christian IX of Denmark, who lost the dukedom of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia), placing the family at both sides of the war. In the continent, France had become a permanent threat to Germany, its esprit de revanche a driving force behind its policies. The Russian Empire, formerly a close ally, now sought an alliance with France after Germany's siding with Austria-Hungary on the Congress of Berlin. Other problems could be found within the Triple Alliance - Italy, while a cordial ally to Germany, was far less amicable towards Germany's other ally, Austria-Hungary, due to their hold on Trieste and Trentino.


_____________________
As I stated before, please wreck everything I wrote apart if you find inconsistencies.


Warm regards
MadExpansionist
 
Last edited:
Still very interesting. A good overview of the flaws in Germany's domestic and foreign policies. The only nitpicks I can think of is titles and country names. England would be called Britain or the United Kingdom, not England. And Edward VII would be called Edward Prince of Wales pre-ascension. Or maybe Albert-Edward, that was his legal name. Though probably Edward Prince of Wales.
 
I think you have your Kaiser Wilhelms mixed up. There is no proof that Frederick III would have been as liberal as many wished he would be.

Liberal or not, Wilhelm II was just so very aggressive, well, bizarre, that it is hard to imagine that Frederick III or anyone else would not have provided a considerably more cool-headed and tactful leader in the area of foreign policy.

Germany was going to butt heads with other powers, yes, but the Kaiser's position did matter and Wilhelm almost seems to have gone out of his way to make trouble with other powers. I for one am of the opinion that the Kaiser's own personal actions and policies did play a role in the way WWI would unfold.
 
Last edited:
"The long-standing kinship between German and English royal families was strained; while Kaiserine Victoria was daughter to Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, she was also sister to Edward, Prince of Wales, who lost the dukedom of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia, placing the family at both sides of the war."

I think you have to edit this part. Edward, Prince of Wales, did not lose the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. Those were Danish territories and Edward was married to Alexandra, who's father was King of Denmark.
 
Liberal or not, Wilhelm II was just so very aggressive, well, bizarre, that it is hard to imagine that Frederick III or anyone else would not have provided a considerably more cool-headed and tactful leader in the area of foreign policy.

I think there were a lot individuals in High Government and the Kaiser's close circle that made use of his vanity. He wasn't compared to a weather vane for nothing.
 
Funnily enough I've currently got Miranda Seymour's Noble Endeavours: The Life of Two Countries, England and Germany, in Many Stories about the historically rather close relations between Great Britain and Germany up until the late unpleasantness in the early twentieth century. If you're sidelining Bismarck and keeping Wilhelm away from power for the foreseeable future then I'll put in my normal recommendation for an Anglo-German alliance to counterbalance the growing power of Russia and to a lesser extent France. :)
 
Correction as ponted out - and ideas for update

I think you have to edit this part. Edward, Prince of Wales, did not lose the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. Those were Danish territories and Edward was married to Alexandra, who's father was King of Denmark.

Well, yeah, you are right. I re-read that part, and what I think I meant was that Christian lost the territories, and the fact that he was father-in-law to Edward got lost in translation, I guess. I'm gonna fix it.
___________________

Before I start with part two of the article - dealing with Friedrich's first movements as Kaiser - I thought about doing some brainstorming here.

Simon - an Anglo-German alliance is, in fact, the first diplomatic move I thought for Friedrich. The specifics of it, however, are still fuzzy to me. Who should he send? I thought about him sending his wife, son and some high-profile diplomats for the first four months, then his wife'd come back and Wilhelm would stay for a longer while, being tutored by said diplomats in the British way of life. I'm not entirely sure that would be a good idea, though, and I have no clue on who he would send (other than, maybe?, Leo von Caprivi). Any input?

At home, I figured his first moves would be to push for reform in the Reichstag (not too fast, though - he is limiting his own power after all) and politically isolating Bismarck (maybe giving him the lands of the Duchy of Lauenburg and making him a mediatised nobleman as he always wanted, in return for most of his held offices?). I know that second one would be a bit problematic - Bismarck was immensely popular - but perhaps if he waited for Otto to make a mistake like IOTL... Then again, waiting shouldn't become Fritz's style, throat cancer and all. I don't know.

I was also thinking: in mid to long-term, a friendship between Britain and Germany (or even a cordial neutrality) would drastically change the outset to WWI, butterflying it to something unrecognizable. And by the way - I believe a WWI to be inevitable despite any changes made by a longer-lived Fritz III. There's just too much pent-up pressure, and he's only gonna live until 1893 anyway. So, I think the most visible consequences would be: France becoming more desperate, altering Plan XVII; the US being far far less willing to enter the war; a postponement in the beginning of the war (with all the technological changes this would entail).

Ok, guys. Throw your two pfennig in!
 
David S Poepoe: Fixed. Check it out.

Stolengood: Hadn't thought of it! Nice idea. He was a kind guy - I wonder what would Europe look like today if two 'milquetoasts'* had ruled the two strongest Empires back then.

BBadolato: I found no reason to believe differently for what I wrote, but I could be wrong.


*As compared to George 'Hates-Liberals' V and Wilhelm 'Hates-Everyone' II.
 

Stolengood

Banned
Stolengood: Hadn't thought of it! Nice idea. He was a kind guy - I wonder what would Europe look like today if two 'milquetoasts'* had ruled the two strongest Empires back then.
Thanks for considering! :)

Might be interesting, for instance, if either of Albert Victor's initial two suitors had not come to nought; by which, I mean Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, in 1889 (right after your POD), and Princess Hélène of Orléans, in 1890. Does either sound suitable? ;)
 
n Anglo-German alliance is, in fact, the first diplomatic move I thought for Friedrich. The specifics of it, however, are still fuzzy to me. Who should he send? I thought about him sending his wife, son and some high-profile diplomats for the first four months, then his wife'd come back and Wilhelm would stay for a longer while, being tutored by said diplomats in the British way of life. I'm not entirely sure that would be a good idea, though, and I have no clue on who he would send (other than, maybe?, Leo von Caprivi). Any input?
Thinking on it some more it might not be very achievable in the timeframe you've set, 1888-1893, to get an alliance with Britain. At this point IIRC they're still in their splendid isolation phase and will want to try and avoid any continental entanglements, it won't be until Russia is seen as a growing threat thanks to their increasing industrialising and modernising her armed forces that you can probably start looking at Britain entering any formal or informal alliances. If you can keep relations cordial and avoid Germany expanding their fleet too much when the only realistic target is the Royal Navy that could possibly pave the way for later agreements. I'm fairly sure that one of the Austrian archdukes, either Franz Ferdinand or Charles, and his wife were pretty pro-British, have memories of them actually having a holiday in the UK scheduled that got cancelled because of the war.
 
Stolengood: I looked it up, and I believe Hélène would be a more logical spouse for Albert. First of all, Alix of Hesse detested Albert, and was a defender of the autocratic regime later on so I don't see how she would go well with the British monarchy. Second, Albert and Hélène loved each other, and she was willing to convert had her father not been a fool.


Simon: While a full-fledged alliance would maybe not be in the UK's best interest at the time, other agreements certainly would. Trade agreements, royal marriages et cetera. As a newly formed monarchy and a great power, Germany would try to strengthen its ties to the UK (very traditional monarchy and #1 GP), alliance or no. I believe a pact of non-aggression, or an agreement on neutrality, are quite feasible by 1892-1893, given a minimally favorable diplomatic scenario.
 
I remember from an old textbook I read that their were treaty discussions between Germany and Britain pre WW1 OTL but that they soured when a new party was elected in the UK. I'll see if I can find the reference for it.
 
Top