WI ~ Kaiser Wilhelm II had a regent

This thought just jumped into my head.

Lets say in 1905 an act of random chance, an accident of some kind left Kaiser Wilhelm II in an incapacitated state that although not life threatening meant that he would require a regent for the rest of his reign?

How would this effect history?
How would become regent?
Would it be better for Germany or worse?

lets discuss
 
The heir becomes regent if the heir is an adult, which the Crown Prince was.

Its interesting that through a fair period of the German Empire, Bavaria was governed by a Regent

The Crown Prince as Regent would probably revitalise things by importing a younger generation where he has the opportunity

Opinions of his character vary greatly and its hard to say what he would do if in the position of power

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This thought just jumped into my head.

Lets say in 1905 an act of random chance, an accident of some kind left Kaiser Wilhelm II in an incapacitated state that although not life threatening meant that he would require a regent for the rest of his reign?

How would this effect history?
How would become regent?
Would it be better for Germany or worse?

lets discuss

1) Yes. Large.

2) Don't personally know.

3) Very likely better. 1905-1918 turned out very poorly for a German perspective, so anyone probably does better. Kaiser Wilhelm probably had a second percentile performance, so there is automatically a 98% chance a new person does better.
 
The heir becomes regent if the heir is an adult, which the Crown Prince was.

Its interesting that through a fair period of the German Empire, Bavaria was governed by a Regent

The Crown Prince as Regent would probably revitalise things by importing a younger generation where he has the opportunity

Opinions of his character vary greatly and its hard to say what he would do if in the position of power

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well the Crown prince was an army man so I'd think that Tirpitz wouldn't get his naval bills through as they were?

This brings up the question of Germany not being a naval threat does GB still get involved in a european war?

1) Yes. Large.

2) Don't personally know.

3) Very likely better. 1905-1918 turned out very poorly for a German perspective, so anyone probably does better. Kaiser Wilhelm probably had a second percentile performance, so there is automatically a 98% chance a new person does better.

So how much better does Germany get.

If the war doesn't become navalised how does this effect WWI if it even happens.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So how much better does Germany get.

If the war doesn't become navalised how does this effect WWI if it even happens.


Very hard to say on how much better. Without a war, Germany should still have its 1914 borders, and possibly the German majority areas of A-H. A lot will depend on how the Dual Monarchy crisis of 1917 is solved. Does A-H survive? Is it weaker or stronger? Does Russia still collapse eventually or does the Tsar revitalize Russia at some point?

But if limited to 1920, I would say Germany would likely be in stronger position that 1910. France would likely have to cuts its army budget by 1920. I doubt Russia fixes its issues, and I think Hungary compromises. But these are all guesses.

The surface navy did not do much in WW1, so few less large ships maters little. If the freed up resources for a couple of dreadnoughts are spent well, it helps some, but I would say Germany still loses WW1. IMO, Hungary lost WW1 for the CP and Russia won it for the Entente. Germany having one or two more corps will not save the CP under most ATL. IMO, Britain will still enter the war even with a lesser naval race. But it was a very close war, so almost any major change with the right butterflies changes the outcome. IMO, there are at least a dozen changes which would change who won the war, unlike WW2 where it is hard to have the Nazi's win.
 
Top