What if Kaiser Wilhelm II died in an accident in November 1911, what happens what rep does he and KW III have?

[raharris1973]

What if Kaiser Wilhelm died in an accident in November 1911, shortly after the resolution of the 2nd Morocco Crisis (aka the Agadir Crisis). I don't care about the accident it could be in sporting, driving, a military or naval demo, it just has to be clear there's no foul play or assassination to be blamed on a foreigner or political movement.

Crown Prince Wilhelm takes the throne as Kaiser Wilhelm III at 29 years old. He, Germany, Europe, mourn his father's untimely death.

During succession, Germany is not in the middle of any foreign policy crises, having just resolved Morocco. However, the Italo-Ottoman War is 7 or 8 weeks old by the time Wilhelm takes the Crown, and unbeknownst to others at this time, the Balkan states were watching with interest, preparing to launch the Balkan Wars in less than a year.

What happens in Europe over the coming months and years.

How likely are the Balkan Wars and World War One to occur on schedule? Would they be knocked off track and if so could we attribute it in any way to the new monarch in Germany?

In any case, history will roll on, similarly or differently. How will casual history buffs and professional historians look back and judge the reigns of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1911, 23 yrs) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (1911 - ?, xx yrs)?

 

[stevep]

What if Kaiser Wilhelm died in an accident in November 1911, shortly after the resolution of the 2nd Morocco Crisis (aka the Agadir Crisis). I don't care about the accident it could be in sporting, driving, a military or naval demo, it just has to be clear there's no foul play or assassination to be blamed on a foreigner or political movement.

Crown Prince Wilhelm takes the throne as Kaiser Wilhelm III at 29 years old. He, Germany, Europe, mourn his father's untimely death.

During succession, Germany is not in the middle of any foreign policy crises, having just resolved Morocco. However, the Italo-Ottoman War is 7 or 8 weeks old by the time Wilhelm takes the Crown, and unbeknownst to others at this time, the Balkan states were watching with interest, preparing to launch the Balkan Wars in less than a year.

What happens in Europe over the coming months and years.

How likely are the Balkan Wars and World War One to occur on schedule? Would they be knocked off track and if so could we attribute it in any way to the new monarch in Germany?

In any case, history will roll on, similarly or differently. How will casual history buffs and professional historians look back and judge the reigns of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1911, 23 yrs) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (1911 - ?, xx yrs)?

I suspect the drivers are there for some sort of conflict by 1911, unless Wilhelm III takes a considerably different stance than his father. Which may be unlikely and could also be fairly irrelevant given the other issues at work. Having established a defacto bloc of France, Russia and Britain against them and with German fears over Russian strength growing its quite possible Berlin will decide to risk a war while they think they have a chance of winning. Alternatively it might also depend on what happens in Austria with 1916 and the need to renegotiate the deal between Austria and Hungary and also when Franz Joseph dies and what his successor, either FF or Karl does.

In terms of the judgement of Wilhelm II I suspect it would depend on how things went in that war and what period of time we're talking about. If Germany ended up victorious then, at least while the dynasty and German military dominance over Europe lasts he will get a good review. If the allies win or in a Germany that becomes a republic and/or suffers a serious period of decline his erratic behaviour and picking of fights with neighbours could well give him a bad press.

 

[ATP]

What if Kaiser Wilhelm died in an accident in November 1911, shortly after the resolution of the 2nd Morocco Crisis (aka the Agadir Crisis). I don't care about the accident it could be in sporting, driving, a military or naval demo, it just has to be clear there's no foul play or assassination to be blamed on a foreigner or political movement.

Crown Prince Wilhelm takes the throne as Kaiser Wilhelm III at 29 years old. He, Germany, Europe, mourn his father's untimely death.

During succession, Germany is not in the middle of any foreign policy crises, having just resolved Morocco. However, the Italo-Ottoman War is 7 or 8 weeks old by the time Wilhelm takes the Crown, and unbeknownst to others at this time, the Balkan states were watching with interest, preparing to launch the Balkan Wars in less than a year.

What happens in Europe over the coming months and years.

How likely are the Balkan Wars and World War One to occur on schedule? Would they be knocked off track and if so could we attribute it in any way to the new monarch in Germany?

In any case, history will roll on, similarly or differently. How will casual history buffs and professional historians look back and judge the reigns of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1911, 23 yrs) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (1911 - ?, xx yrs)?

Nothing change,germans belived that they must attack before Russia become too strong.Unless he do not let his generals fuck Schieffen plan and send dyvisions to East Prussia,war lost on schedule.

 

[Buba]

Wilhelm II becomes the posterboy for the "good old days" of the Kaiserreich, a Good King, Husband and Father, under whose rule one did not lock the doors at night, the trains ran on time and every girl found a husband.


IMO Balkan War(s) happen on schedule.
A World War may happen - e.g. in 1913, 1914 or later. Or never, Europe lurching from one diplomatic crisis and saber rattling and penis waving event to another, with no armed clash but only hot air resulting.
FF's murder escalated into WWI in great part by accident, easy to butterfly away. Not to mention the assassination resulting from a ASB chain of events .

With Wilhelm III on the throne the Empire gets a Fussbal Kaiserliga half a century earlier than in OTL. He was a football fan and horndog.

 

[raharris1973]

In terms of the judgement of Wilhelm II I suspect it would depend on how things went in that war and what period of time we're talking about. If Germany ended up victorious then, at least while the dynasty and German military dominance over Europe lasts he will get a good review. If the allies win or in a Germany that becomes a republic and/or suffers a serious period of decline his erratic behaviour and picking of fights with neighbours could well give him a bad press.

Wilhelm II becomes the posterboy for the "good old days" of the Kaiserreich, a Good King, Husband and Father, under whose rule one did not lock the doors at night, the trains ran on time and every girl found a husband.

All interesting views.

I gotta say I agree more with Buba. I think no matter what happens, Kaiser Willhelm II's reputation will be improved over OTL.

If Kaiser Wilhelm III oversees and peace and prosperity, well, KWII (and KWI and Bismarck) got the peace and prosperity rolling, and it was as Buba said "good old days" and a simpler time.

If Kaiser Wilhelm III oversees war and victory, well, his daddy kept the Army and Navy strong enough, and the days of KWII were more "light and care-free".

If things go to crap, and there is a war and defeat on Kaiser Wilhelm III's watch, KWII's time will also be remembered as the last of the "good old days", his time as 23 years of peace and prosperity. For any grumbles that Wilhelm II left Germany isolated or his son unprepared, they will be outnumbered by statements that "if only Wilhelm II had lived, he would never have let things come to war".

Basically, if Germany has a happy future, Kaiser Wilhelm II gets positive credit, if Germany gets a sad future, like OTL, or worse, Kaiser Wilhelm III takes the blame, and his Dad's reputation improves by comparison and contrast, kind of like Bismarck's in OTL. Heads Wilhelm II wins, Tails Wilhelm III loses.

 

[stevep]

All interesting views.

I gotta say I agree more with Buba. I think no matter what happens, Kaiser Willhelm II's reputation will be improved over OTL.

If Kaiser Wilhelm III oversees and peace and prosperity, well, KWII (and KWI and Bismarck) got the peace and prosperity rolling, and it was as Buba said "good old days" and a simpler time.

If Kaiser Wilhelm III oversees war and victory, well, his daddy kept the Army and Navy strong enough, and the days of KWII were more "light and care-free".

If things go to crap, and there is a war and defeat on Kaiser Wilhelm III's watch, KWII's time will also be remembered as the last of the "good old days", his time as 23 years of peace and prosperity. For any grumbles that Wilhelm II left Germany isolated or his son unprepared, they will be outnumbered by statements that "if only Wilhelm II had lived, he would never have let things come to war".

Basically, if Germany has a happy future, Kaiser Wilhelm II gets positive credit, if Germany gets a sad future, like OTL, or worse, Kaiser Wilhelm III takes the blame, and his Dad's reputation improves by comparison and contrast, kind of like Bismarck's in OTL. Heads Wilhelm II wins, Tails Wilhelm III loses.

Good point. Wilhelm II may have created a mess but its likely in this case that his son would be blamed if it ended in disaster. Although in the longer term I would still suspect this might be moderated somewhat.

 

[ATP]

Good point. Wilhelm II may have created a mess but its likely in this case that his son would be blamed if it ended in disaster. Although in the longer term I would still suspect this might be moderated somewhat.

In that case,we could have Hohenzollerns coming back after WW2.

 

[DarthOne]

Good point. Wilhelm II may have created a mess but its likely in this case that his son would be blamed if it ended in disaster. Although in the longer term I would still suspect this might be moderated somewhat.

That he did to an extent, but we’ve also got a century of history written by the victors, especially the French and British. Mostly the British.

 

[ATP]

That he did to an extent, but we’ve also got a century of history written by the victors, especially the French and British. Mostly the British.

What is important - we could have Hohenzollern instead of Hitler in 1933.Even if he conqer Poland again,it would be still better for rest of the world.Even Poland - prussians could beat few polish children to death for speaking polish,but they genocided only black people.

So - no genocide in Europe,and soviets destroyed.No Mao and other commie states.As a result,many leftist would say,that true communism was never tried - but they say that anyway,so why bother ?

 

[DarthOne]

What is important - we could have Hohenzollern instead of Hitler in 1933.Even if he conqer Poland again,it would be still better for rest of the world.Even Poland - prussians could beat few polish children to death for speaking polish,but they genocided only black people.

So - no genocide in Europe,and soviets destroyed.No Mao and other commie states.As a result,many leftist would say,that true communism was never tried - but they say that anyway,so why bother ?

This is all true more or less.

Though I'd also be remiss not to point out that the genocide thing was ONE TIME. And it was in the late 1800's, everyone and their dog was being horrible to people who weren't European, and even to those who were! Look at all the Boers who died in British concentration camps! Never mind the people who died in American ones in the Philippines! And let's not even get started on Russia! I'm not trying to defend what happened here, just trying to give a wider context of what was going on.

 

[ATP]

This is all true more or less.

Though I'd also be remiss not to point out that the genocide thing was ONE TIME. And it was in the late 1800's, everyone and their dog was being horrible to people who weren't European, and even to those who were! Look at all the Boers who died in British concentration camps! Never mind the people who died in American ones in the Philippines! And let's not even get started on Russia! I'm not trying to defend what happened here, just trying to give a wider context of what was going on.

Of course.All colonial powers belived,that they could treat not white much worst then white.
Well,with exception of british.They led irish die in 1848 cosplaing that free market do not let them help,and genocided 10% of population.
And still considered themselves more noble then other colonial powers.

USA in Philiphines - the same.

 

[Navarro]

Though I'd also be remiss not to point out that the genocide thing was ONE TIME. And it was in the late 1800's, everyone and their dog was being horrible to people who weren't European, and even to those who were! Look at all the Boers who died in British concentration camps! Never mind the people who died in American ones in the Philippines! And let's not even get started on Russia! I'm not trying to defend what happened here, just trying to give a wider context of what was going on.

The incident also sparked a near-collapse of the German government, which resulted in widespread reforms to the German colonies which saw the introduction of actual "nation building" in those areas, making them the most well-off and developed African colonies by 1914.

 

[WolfBear]

In such a scenario, "Kaiser Bill" (Wilhelm II) might be remembered as a type of German Putin, only with ADHD. As in, a leader who made his country better (more powerful/formidable and more economically robust) and who was not afraid to grab small territories or to wave his sword from time to time but who was also wary of taking major risks.

Don't believe me? Read for yourself what the New York Times had to write about "Kaiser Bill" in 1913, when his reign reached the quarter-century mark:

Kaiser Hopes for 25 More Years of Peace

“Twenty-five years of peace, Mr. Carnegie, and I hope there will be twenty-five more!” Thus Kaiser Wilhelm II greeted Andrew Carnegie, the world-famous industrialist and peace advocate, who had come to Berlin to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Kaiser’s reign. Carnegie replied with evident...

www.mentalfloss.com

On the occasion of his silver jubilee the New York Times opined: “Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world—an organisation built up by himself—into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.” The former U.S. President Taft agreed: “The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.”

 

[WolfBear]

Good point. Wilhelm II may have created a mess but its likely in this case that his son would be blamed if it ended in disaster. Although in the longer term I would still suspect this might be moderated somewhat.

How Kaiser Wilhelm III will be viewed will depend on whether there is still a WWI, on when exactly WWI occurs, and on how exactly Germany will handle WWI. For instance, does Franz Ferdinand still get assassinated in Sarajevo in June 1914?