What if Kaiser Fredrick III had lived (did not die of throat cancer)?

[Daniel]

After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended
the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was dying
of
throat cancer.

He was the son-in-law of Britain's Queen Victoria and was very liberal
and
pro-British. He would have been a very different Emperor (Kaiser)
than
his son (Wilhelm II). What if Fredrick had lived?

Would he have been Kaiser in 1914? Would he have prevented a World
War?
What would his relations have been with the Hapsburgs of Austria-
Hungary?
Would Germany have formed an alliance with Great Britain?

If Fredrick III had lived to be 88 years old, when would Wilhelm II
have
become the new Kaiser? It is interesting to speculate on what
changes in European history would have happened.


-Daniel

[Mike Stone]

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended
the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was dying
of
throat cancer.
He was the son-in-law of Britain's Queen Victoria and was very liberal
and
pro-British. He would have been a very different Emperor (Kaiser)
than
his son (Wilhelm II). What if Fredrick had lived?
Would he have been Kaiser in 1914? Would he have prevented a World
War?
What would his relations have been with the Hapsburgs of Austria-
Hungary?

Similar to OTL's. The Duel Alliance mas made in 1879, and Fritz approved of
it. But unless he's changed a lot, he won't encourage A/H to go after Serbia
in 1914.

Post by Daniel
Would Germany have formed an alliance with Great Britain?

Difficult. The alliance could only have been against France and/or Russia,
so thta Germany would have been involved in a full-scale land war, whereas
Britain would probably be fighting a naval one from a position of relative
safety. This would be a hard sell in Germany.

Post by Daniel
If Fredrick III had lived to be 88 years old, when would Wilhelm II
have
become the new Kaiser?

In 1919 or 1920.

Post by Daniel
It is interesting to speculate on what
changes in European history would have happened.

The most important difference is that Fritz is a real soldier, not an
armchair one like his son. So he'll play a much more active role in drawing
up German military plans. And he's far more likely to see the political
drawbacks of the Schlieffen Plan, and to take the neutrality of Belgium
seriously. He will surely want to retain at least the _option_ of fighting a
defensive war.

He is also far less likely to get into a naval race with Britain. There will
probably be some Dreadnoughts built (everybody was doing it) but the HSF
will be a lot smaller than OTL's. This may well mean a larger German Army,
if much of the resources spent OTL on the Navy are given to the Army
instead. OTL, by 1913 only 55% of eligible young men were actually being
called up for military service. On this TL, it may be 70% or even higher.

So WW1 is a lot less likely on this TL, but if itr does still happen,
Germany's chances of winning it are significantly improved.
--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".


P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Mike Stone

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended
the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was dying
of
throat cancer.
He was the son-in-law of Britain's Queen Victoria and was very liberal
and
pro-British.  He would have been a very different Emperor (Kaiser)
than
his son (Wilhelm II).  What if Fredrick had lived?
Would he have been Kaiser in 1914?  Would he have prevented a World
War?
What would his relations have been with the Hapsburgs of Austria-
Hungary?

Similar to OTL's. The Duel Alliance mas made in 1879, and Fritz approved of
it. But unless he's changed a lot, he won't encourage A/H to go after Serbia
in 1914.

Post by Daniel
Would Germany have formed an alliance with Great Britain?

Difficult. The alliance could only have been against France and/or Russia,
so thta Germany would have been involved in a full-scale land war, whereas
Britain would probably be fighting a naval one from a position of relative
safety. This would be a hard sell in Germany.

Post by Daniel
If Fredrick III had lived to be 88 years old, when would Wilhelm II
have
become the new Kaiser?

In 1919 or 1920.
 >It is interesting to speculate on what

Post by Daniel
changes in European history would have happened.

The most important difference is that Fritz is a real soldier, not an
armchair one like his son. So he'll play a much more active role in drawing
up German military plans. And he's far more likely to see the political
drawbacks of the Schlieffen Plan, and to take the neutrality of Belgium
seriously. He will surely want to retain at least the _option_ of fighting a
defensive war.
He is also far less likely to get into a naval race with Britain. There will
probably be some Dreadnoughts built (everybody was doing it) but the HSF
will be a lot smaller than OTL's. This may well mean a larger German Army,
if much of the resources spent OTL on  the Navy are given to the Army
instead. OTL, by 1913 only 55% of eligible young men were actually being
called up for military service. On this TL, it may be 70% or even higher.
So WW1 is a lot less likely on this TL, but if itr does still happen,
Germany's chances of winning it are significantly improved.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".
P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

This was in J.C. Squires If it Had Happened Otherwise as "If the
Emperor Frederick had not had cancer" by Emil Ludwig, one of the
oldest What ifs.

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Mike Stone
This would be a hard sell in Germany.

Not to mention it would be a hard sell in Britain. This was the era of
"Splendid Isolation". The UK signed up two treaties (three possibly
depending on how you treat the Entente Cordial) and one or two
conventions. The ones containing military clauses were the Guarantee of
Belgian neutrality and the Anglo-Japanese naval treaty. The Entente
Cordial and the convention with Russia merely defined spheres of
interest and settled some colonial borders.

There were no military commitments to France just vague words about
help. In fact the French General Staff drew up two war plans one
including British help and one without. This was in spite of William's
diplomatic blunders and the Naval arms race. Even so it took the German
invasion of Belgium to get a declaration of war through the UK cabinet.

Without these factors it is likely that the UK would avoid continental
entanglements other than being a guarantor of Belgium neutrality as the
prospect of occupation of those ports by a major power gave British
planners nightmares.

The BEF was not intended for use in Europe. It was a result of the
second Boer War and intended to be able to supply enough force to
suppress any colonial problems before they got out of hand. There had
been no joint planning between the RN and the army about what would
happen if an European war broke out.

Ken Young

[Tzintzuntzan]

 This would be a hard sell in Germany.

 Not to mention it would be a hard sell in Britain. This was the era of
"Splendid Isolation".

And OTL shows the limits the British were willing to
go to. In Wilhelm II's early years, with Caprivi as Prime
Minister, the Germans made a huge effort to make
nice with the British in Europe and overseas. The
British were cordial, and some deals did come out
of it (like Helgioland-Zanzibar), but never a formal
alliance. The British had no desire -- or need --
for one.

It's hard to say whether it was a good idea for
Germany. It did horribly piss off the Russians
and lead them to the pact with France. OTOH,
the Russians were already beginning to drift
away (Bismarck had only managed to keep
them on board by lying his ass off, and they
probably would have caught on eventually).
So they might have left anyway.

Frederick probably wouldn't have gotten
any more out of the British than Caprivi.
OTOH, he probably wouldn't have supported
Tirpitz and the Navy League, so the British
never become hostile.

OTTH, navy or no, the British had a
general policy of opposing any
strong power dominating continental
Europe. If Frederick and Austria-Hungary
fight France and Russia, and it looks like
the Germans are winning...the British
may intervene anyway.

(snip good stuff)

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days,

Try 99 days.

Post by Daniel
as he was dying of throat cancer.
He was the son-in-law of Britain's Queen Victoria and was very liberal
and pro-British.

In some ways.

Post by Daniel
He would have been a very different Emperor (Kaiser)
than his son (Wilhelm II). What if Fredrick had lived?
Would he have been Kaiser in 1914?

If he lived that long. It is highly unlikely that
he would have abdicated or that a revolution
would have overthrown the monarchy.

Post by Daniel
Would he have prevented a World War?

Possibly.

Post by Daniel
What would his relations have been with the Hapsburgs
of Austria-Hungary?

Friendly, but much less supportive of Austria against
Russia or Serbia.

Post by Daniel
Would Germany have formed an alliance with Great Britain?

No. Britain was not much interested, I think,
unless seriously provoked by France and Russia.
Britain might be friendly, and not join any anti-German
alliance.

It is unlikely that Friedrich would have supported Tirpitz
in his project of building a a large German Navy,which
probably did more than anything else to provoke British
hostility.

Also, Friedrich was not a militarist. His father, the old
Kaiser, Wilhelm I, was besotted with his army. Young
Willi was much the same; when he went in for his
"military service", he was deferred to by his comrades
and loved every minute of it. Between them they did
a lot to shape the culture of Imperial Germany: the
enthusiasm for military power and the might-makes-
right philosophy of Bernhardi and Treitschke flourished.

However there is not much evidence that Friedrich
would have opposed or challenged the pattern left
by his father. He was not a strong personality, and
had served his father loyally for many years. Many
important historians have concluded that his liberalism
and the potential for change under his rule were
exaggerated after his death, especially in contrast
with young Willi's follies.

I take a middle view - Friedrich would not have explicitly
opposed the militarist culture, but he would not have
supported or reveled in it the way Willi did. This would
diminish the strength of this sentiment; I think also
he wouldn't get all upset if the military budgets were
diminished.

By 1914, he would be on the throne for a generation.
Germany would have a smaller military and be a
deal less cocky about going to war than OTL. It might
be enough to avoid WW I. ISTM that 1914 was in some
ways a "perfect storm".

(Another WI is if Wilhelm I hadn't reigned so long. He
lived to be 90. He had a lot of influence on young Willi.
If he had died at age 70, Friedrich would come to the
throne early, and 20 years of militarizing culture could
be avoided.)

Post by Daniel
If Fredrick III had lived to be 88 years old, when would Wilhelm II
have become the new Kaiser?

When Friedrich died in 1919. Why is this a question?

[Mike Stone]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Also, Friedrich was not a militarist. His father, the old
Kaiser, Wilhelm I, was besotted with his army. Young
Willi was much the same; when he went in for his
"military service", he was deferred to by his comrades
and loved every minute of it. Between them they did
a lot to shape the culture of Imperial Germany: the
enthusiasm for military power and the might-makes-
right philosophy of Bernhardi and Treitschke flourished.
I take a middle view - Friedrich would not have explicitly
opposed the militarist culture, but he would not have
supported or reveled in it the way Willi did. This would
diminish the strength of this sentiment; I think also
he wouldn't get all upset if the military budgets were
diminished.

Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Paradoxically, I wonder if it might even have been larger under Fritz. In
the early 20C, little more than half the eligible young men were being
called up, for two principal reasons

1) The new-fangled navy was competing with the army for funding.

2) Increasing the size of the army would require a corresponding increase
in the number of _officers_, which would mean commissioning a lot more men
from outisde the traditional officer class. The Junker top brass were none
too keen on this.

I doubt if either consideration would have weighed so much with Fritz. It
amuses me to imagine him "playing the patriotic card" against the army
chiefs themselves, reproaching them for putting narrow class prejudices
ahead of national defence.





--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".


P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Mike Stone
Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Who was threatening Germany?

Not Austria-Hungary, certainly. Nor Switzerland,
Belgium. the Netherlands, or Denmark. There
was no threat of invasion via the North Sea or
the Baltic.

France? Germany had already showed it could
handle France fairly easily. For all the slow-burning
anger over Alsace-Lorraine, hardly anyone in France
wanted to try another war.

Russia was a possible threat, but even in 1914, the
Russian threat was more potential than immediate.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Mike Stone
Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Who was threatening Germany?
Not Austria-Hungary, certainly. Nor Switzerland,
Belgium. the Netherlands, or Denmark. There
was no threat of invasion via the North Sea or
the Baltic.
France? Germany had already showed it could
handle France fairly easily. For all the slow-burning
anger over Alsace-Lorraine, hardly anyone in France
wanted to try another war.
Russia was a possible threat, but even in 1914, the
Russian threat was more potential than immediate.

Germany was caught up in a vice of their own making. The Emil Ludwig
WI I cited above had Fredrick not letting the Russian treaty lapse.
The three-party pact of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary guaranteed
the one flank the Germans had that had a potential for trouble. Once
the Russian treaty was allowed to lapse the French stepped in and
completed the encirclement of Germany.

[Daniel]

What about Otto Von Bismark? Wilhelm II removed him as Chancellor.
Would Fredrick III (Fritz) have
wanted to keep Bismark and his son as German Chancellors? Would he be
friendlier to them
an depend more on the Bismarks' foreign policy advice?

-Daniel

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Mike Stone
Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Who was threatening Germany?
Not Austria-Hungary, certainly. Nor Switzerland,
Belgium. the Netherlands, or Denmark. There
was no threat of invasion via the North Sea or
the Baltic.
France? Germany had already showed it could
handle France fairly easily. For all the slow-burning
anger over Alsace-Lorraine, hardly anyone in France
wanted to try another war.
Russia was a possible threat, but even in 1914, the
Russian threat was more potential than immediate.

Germany was caught up in a vice of their own making. The Emil Ludwig
WI I cited above had Fredrick not letting the Russian treaty lapse.
The three-party pact of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary guaranteed
the one flank the Germans had that had a potential for trouble. Once
the Russian treaty was allowed to lapse the French stepped in and
completed the encirclement of Germany.

[Jack Linthicum]

What about Otto Von Bismark?  Wilhelm II removed him as Chancellor.
Would Fredrick III (Fritz) have
wanted to keep Bismark and his son as German Chancellors?  Would he be
friendlier to them
an depend more on the Bismarks' foreign policy advice?
-Daniel

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Mike Stone
Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Who was threatening Germany?
Not Austria-Hungary, certainly. Nor Switzerland,
Belgium. the Netherlands, or Denmark. There
was no threat of invasion via the North Sea or
the Baltic.
France? Germany had already showed it could
handle France fairly easily. For all the slow-burning
anger over Alsace-Lorraine, hardly anyone in France
wanted to try another war.
Russia was a possible threat, but even in 1914, the
Russian threat was more potential than immediate.

Germany was caught up in a vice of their own making. The Emil Ludwig
WI I cited above had Fredrick not letting the Russian treaty lapse.
The three-party pact of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary guaranteed
the one flank the Germans had that had a potential for trouble. Once
the Russian treaty was allowed to lapse the French stepped in and
completed the encirclement of Germany.

Again, Fredrick is the perfect Emperor, he takes Bismarck aside and
tells him they have had their differences but as far as Fred is
concerned Bismarck is the Foreign Minister and shall continue so. In
the meantime he decided that the untilled Prussian lands should be
colonized, sending landless peasants into the area and building a
constituency among the peasants. Wilhelm had seen the error of his
ways and became the son of the perfect emperor, when Fred dies in
August 1914.

[Tzintzuntzan]

What about Otto Von Bismark?  Wilhelm II removed him as Chancellor.
Would Fredrick III (Fritz) have
wanted to keep Bismark and his son as German Chancellors?  Would he be
friendlier to them
an depend more on the Bismarks' foreign policy advice?

Foreign policy would be the least of it. Part of why
Bismarck and Willi II had their falling out was domestic
policy. Bismarck was so sick of the Social Democrats
that he was considering a complete re-write of the
constitution to basically ban them from elections.
Wilhelm didn't like the idea at all (even though he
hated socialism just as much). Frederick and
Bismarck would probably have a similar feud.

[Mike Stone]

Post by Tzintzuntzan
Foreign policy would be the least of it. Part of why
Bismarck and Willi II had their falling out was domestic
policy. Bismarck was so sick of the Social Democrats
that he was considering a complete re-write of the
constitution to basically ban them from elections.
Wilhelm didn't like the idea at all (even though he
hated socialism just as much). Frederick and
Bismarck would probably have a similar feud.

So it comes down to whether Bismarck could live with being Foreign Minister
only. Improbable.

Of course, it may not matter in the long run. Bismarck was in failing health
by 1895 and died in 1898. The real question is whether Fritz can find a
capable successor.

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".


P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

[Mike Stone]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Mike Stone
Troubles was, as a country in the centre of Europe, without much in the way
of natural boundaries, Germany couldn't reduce her army much.

Who was threatening Germany?

[snip]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Russia was a possible threat, but even in 1914, the
Russian threat was more potential than immediate.

That was even more true in 1814. At that time, Russia and Prussia were
each other's closest allies, not only against Napoleon but even
against the rest of the alliance. Nonetheless, Fritz' grandpa,
Frederick Wiliam III, still wanted Posen back, to provide a defensible
frontier between them.

FWIII wasn't being paranoid, just pragmatic. Russia and Prussia might
be good buddies today, but who could say what the future held? Best
not give hostages to fortune. I rather imagine that Fritz would have
seen things the same way, and kept the army strong whether there was
any immediate danger or not. He was a liberal Hohenzollern, but I
suspect the operative word was "Hohenzollern".


Not that it necessarily matters. The big problem about the German army
was not so much its size as its irresponsibility and its post-Bismarck
escape from political control. Wilhelm II might rabbit on about being
the "All-Highest Warlord", but, as his famous exchange with Moltke in
1914 shows, in practice had only the haziest idea of what his army
chiefs were doing. The drawing up of military plans with total
disregard of their political repurcussions is something Bismarck would
never have tolerated, and for all their differences, I'm pretty sure
Fritz wouldn't either. The crucial thing about him is not that he'd
have stopped being Supreme War Lord (I doubt if any King of Prussia
could have) but that he'd actually have _done_ the job rather than
just glorying in the title.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England


"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts
one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle
empty".


P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

[Per Rønne]

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was
dying of throat cancer.

Of course, Friedrich was King Friedrich III of Prussia. But wasn't he
Emperor Friedrich I of Germany?

Not to confuse with King Friedrich I "Barbarossa" of Germany who was
also Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

[Mike Stone]

Post by Per Rønne

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was
dying of throat cancer.

Of course, Friedrich was King Friedrich III of Prussia. But wasn't he
Emperor Friedrich I of Germany?
Not to confuse with King Friedrich I "Barbarossa" of Germany who was
also Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Actually, I understand that he wanted to call himself Frederick IV, ie use
the numbering of th HREs.

Bismarck was dismisive of the idea, telling him he was Emperor only
_because_ he was Frederick III of Prussia. Fritz, by now a dying man, was
too far gone to argue the point.


--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".


P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless

[s***@ptd.net]

Post by Daniel
After Kaiser Wilhelm I of the German Empire died, his ailing son
ascended
the throne as Fredrick III for only a couple of days, as he was dying
of
throat cancer.
He was the son-in-law of Britain's Queen Victoria and was very liberal
and
pro-British. He would have been a very different Emperor (Kaiser)
than
his son (Wilhelm II). What if Fredrick had lived?
Would he have been Kaiser in 1914? Would he have prevented a World
War?
What would his relations have been with the Hapsburgs of Austria-
Hungary?
Would Germany have formed an alliance with Great Britain?
If Fredrick III had lived to be 88 years old, when would Wilhelm II
have
become the new Kaiser? It is interesting to speculate on what
changes in European history would have happened.
-Daniel

If F3 had lived he would have retained Bismarck as chancellor. Though F3 and Bismarck had marked differences on how the government of Germany should be structured, they agreed more then disagreed when it came to foreign policy. This means the Reinsurance treaty between Germany and Russia would have been renewed, thus preventing the formation of the Russo-French Alliance of 1892. France would have remained isolated for the duration of the 19th century. At the same time, F# would have supported Bismarck's policy of restricting the growth of the German navy. F#'s wife was English and she supported closer ties between Germany and Great Britain, while Bismarck wanted to keep Britain friendly, or at the lease, neutral when it came to the alliance system that he created. F3's wife's influence would have assured that Germany would restrain her imperial expansion, which Bismarck supported. Thus Germany's oversea empire would have been smaller than it eventually was, and this policy not have brought Britain and Germany into competition in Africa and Asia. This does not mean Germany and Britain would have signed an alliance, but even after Bismarck's death in 1898, F3 and his wife would have worked toward a foreign policy that did not push Britain into the arms of France and Russia as Wilhelm 2 did. F3 would also have worked towards a more democratic government modeled on Britain's. Once again, F3 was greatly influenced by his wife's pro-British feelings. This would have meant Frederick 3 and the Britain's Edward 8 (who was hostile towards Wilhelm 2) would have enjoyed a much more cordial relationship.
It is possible a Russo-French Alliance could have eventually been forged some time around 1905 or later due to growing hostile rivalry between Britain and Russia in central Asia (Russian expansion toward India) the Middle East (Russian expansion toward Persia) and the Far East (Russian expansion in China and toward Tibet). But since there would not have been any formal alliance between Germany and Britain, Germany could have played both sides assuring both that Germany would not support the other. This would have taken a greater statesman than the foreign ministers that served under Wilhelm 2, but then Bismarck would have suggested to F3 replacements before he died so that his Bismarckian alliance system would have continued at least into the first decade of the 20th century. The first (1905) and second (1911) Morocco crisis (which helped to drive Britain into seeking closer relations with France against Germany) would not have materialized. Britain actually sought closer relations with Germany in the 1890s (when Britain was confronted with French competition in Sudan and Russia in Afghanistan), but Wilhelm bungled the opportunity to build closer Anglo-German relations with his disastrous boisterous behavior. The chance of Europe sliding into a world war in 1914 is slim. At least the causes that led up to the war in 1914 would not have materialized. There would have had to been a different set of circumstances for a world war to break out.

[Rich Rostrom]

***@ptd.net wrote:

In response to a posting from 2009????

Post by s***@ptd.net
If F3 had lived he would have retained Bismarck as
chancellor.

Fritz had originally opposed Bismarck's appointment
as Minister-President of Prussia; he persuaded his
father not to abdicate, but IIRC later said that if
he had known the king would bring Bismarck into
government, he would not have opposed the abdication.

But by 1888, when Fritz became Kaiser, Bismarck had
become "the indispensable man", and even the new
Kaiser would not dare dismiss him. (Yes, William II did,
a few years later, but that was considered evidence
of William's childish recklessness.)

Post by s***@ptd.net
Though F3 and Bismarck had marked
differences on how the government of Germany should
be structured, they agreed more then disagreed when
it came to foreign policy. This means the
Reinsurance treaty between Germany and Russia would
have been renewed, thus preventing the formation of
the Russo-French Alliance of 1892.

If Bismarck stayed in power, that is very likely.

Post by s***@ptd.net
France would have remained isolated for the duration
of the 19th century. At the same time, F# would
have supported Bismarck's policy of restricting the
growth of the German navy.

Let us say, not promoting a large German navy. Navies
don't grow naturally. Bismarck was not interested in
spending a lot of money on a navy. The navy fad in
Germany was driven by the same sentiments that led
to Germany's overseas colonies: All the cool kids have
them, so we should too. This was amplified by William's
love-hate relationship with Britain.

Post by s***@ptd.net
F#'s wife was English and she
supported closer ties between Germany and Great
Britain, while Bismarck wanted to keep Britain
friendly, or at the lease, neutral when it came to
the alliance system that he created. F3's wife's
influence would have assured that Germany would
restrain her imperial expansion, which Bismarck
supported. Thus Germany's oversea empire would have
been smaller than it eventually was...

IIRC, Germany had pretty much all the colonies it
would ever have by 1888. And I think you overestimate
the Kaiserin's influence. Also, while she was born and
raised in Britain, she was essentially German in ancestry.
(Her most recent non-German ancestor was Elizabeth
Stuart, daughter of James I and VI.)

Post by s***@ptd.net
but even after Bismarck's death in 1898, F3 and his
wife would have worked toward a foreign policy that
did not push Britain into the arms of France and
Russia as Wilhelm 2 did.

I think Fritz would have avoided the foolish provocations
that William committed, such as the "Kruger Telegram".

Post by s***@ptd.net
F3 would also have worked towards a more democratic
government modeled on Britain's. Once again, F3 was
greatly influenced by his wife's pro-British feelings.

Fritz was a liberal to begin with.

[WolfBear]

I agree with everything that you wrote here, Rich. That said, though, I would like to return to an old question of mine: Had Fritz lived longer and attempted to fully democratize Germany, could there have been a coup attempt against him by Prussian conservatives? Also, could Frederick's liberalism have caused some German states to flirt with secession?

Basically, I am wondering if a surviving Frederick III could be to the German Empire what Mikhail Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union in our TL.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WolfBear
I agree with everything that you wrote here, Rich.
That said, though, I would like to return to an old
question of mine: Had Fritz lived longer and
attempted to fully democratize Germany, could there
have been a coup attempt against him by Prussian
conservatives?

Absolutely not. The modest changes Fritz would support
would not be an existential threat to German conservatives.

I would add that while Prussia dominated Germany, it
was not the whole country.

Post by WolfBear
Basically, I am wondering if a surviving Frederick
III could be to the German Empire what Mikhail
Gorbachev was to the Soviet Union in our TL.

The USSR was established and maintained by force,
repression, and censorship. By the 1980s, it was a
failing state. Its elite was thoroughly corrupt, and
the corruption and incompetence spread down to every
level and activity. All sorts of things were going
wrong, and the Party, by taking complete authority for
everything, got blamed for it all - but no one dared
speak out.

When Gorbachev's _glasnost_ exposed all these failings,
that triggered a "preference cascade". Suddenly all the
repressed dissent came out at once. The Party lost
power, and when that happened, the apparatchiks, the
_nomenklatura_, lost all their influence and their
goodies.

Nothing like that was possible in Imperial Germany.
First, the country was very successful: Germany was
famous as the country where everything was done just
right. Second, the conservatives were not a ruling
class, dependent for their jobs on their political
positions. Third, the sort of liberal reforms Fritz
liked were no threat to the lives or property of the
conservatives. Fourth, the idea of _conservatives_
rebelling against the Kaiser is fundamentally absurd.
(Unless he embraced an outright _radical_ program,
and Fritz was no radical.)

Post by WolfBear
Also, could Frederick's liberalism
have caused some German states to flirt with
secession?

Once the Empire was created, the heads of the
former princedoms (and their erstwhile ministers)
were back numbers. They didn't have the political
muscle to resist unification under Prussia; they
wouldn't have the greater muscle needed for
secession.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 19:33:30 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
conservatives. Fourth, the idea of _conservatives_
rebelling against the Kaiser is fundamentally absurd.
(Unless he embraced an outright _radical_ program,
and Fritz was no radical.)

Would you share my view that he was less liberal than his counterpart
in Austria-Hungary Franz Ferdinand? (Who wanted to make the Slavs
fully equal to the Austrians and Hungarians in what was called
'trialism')

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
Would you share my view that he was less liberal
than his counterpart in Austria-Hungary Franz
Ferdinand? (Who wanted to make the Slavs fully equal
to the Austrians and Hungarians in what was called
'trialism')

Fritz was probably more liberal than Franz Ferdinand.
Also, Franz Ferdinand's interest in Trialism has been
exaggerated. He flirted with the idea, but had given
up by 1914.

(In any case, there was no way to construct a "Third
Monarchy" from Bohemia, Moravia, Galicia, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia. The "West
Slavs" and "South Slavs" were separated by Hungary,
and Slovakia, Slavonia, and Croatia were in Hungary,
while the rest were in Austria, with different legal
codes. And the Romanians and Italians would remain
unaccounted for, not to mention the volksdeutsch
scattered through the Banat and Transylvania.)