Wilhelm I of Germany assassinated in 1878

[MRig]

I've been thinking about this as a point of divergence for my first timeline. Either Max Hoedel or Karl Nobiling is successful in his attempt on the Kaiser's life. Friedrich III will have perhaps a decade of rule before being succeeded by his infantile son. I'm interested to hear what the boards think about the consequences of this event. I've got a list of questions, but nobody feel the need to answer more than they'd like, or respond to questions I didn't ask. They represent questions I've been turning over in my own head about this.

Short term:
1. What are some possible reactions to the assassination, especially on the German political system?
2. How might Freddy III's character change by the loss of his immortal father? What about Willy II's?
3. What will the relationship between Friedrich and Bismarck be like? They will butt heads for certain, but what are the chances Friedrich dismisses him as his son would?

Long term:
4. How much more liberal would or could Friedrich make the Kaiserreich?
5. How does pre-war balance of power politics unfold? What are the chances of Anglo-German detente?
6. How does the Scramble for Africa unfold? A more liberal Germany does not mean a less colonial one.

If I write this TL, I'd like to make it on the realistic side, especially about what Friedrich III would actually be capable of doing under his reign, rather than letting wishful thinking propel him into implausible heights of enlightened greatness and 21st century social values. On the other hand, I do think he had potential to be the leader Germany needed, and the TL would reflect that. Whether it's enough is the question.

Lastly, are there any pertinent books anyone, especially the historians here, can recommend?

Omnibus thread I know. I hope it is interesting enough to justify its scope.

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

My first impression is that without the living figure of the popular "Unifier of Germany" Wilhelm I.,
the broad influence of Bismarck on German policies as a whole will consolidate.

I imagine he would be able to pursue his designs quite successfully
(e.g. no needless provocation of other powers, especially no colonies).

But I did not study the character of Friedrich III. intensively.
Maybe me impression is biased by his obvious feebleness due to his
lung cancer later on, as Emperor in OTL ...

 

[antisocrates]

1. Difficult to say. Bismarck was already gearing up for his great conservative realignment, so a successful assassination could've led to either of two consequences: 1) the National Liberals are tossed overboard sooner; or 2) Lasker and the NL capitulate in the name of national unity, and he enters the government, marking complete subjection of the National Liberals to Bismark's whims. 2 & 3. I suspect it would be pretty similar to their experiences during the year of three kaisers: At the mercy of Bismarck.

long term

4. Too late for a more liberal kaiserreich, I think. You have to understand, Fred was never a true liberal; at best, he was a Sybellian right-wing liberal in the old sense of the word liberal. Further, by this time, he was in full hero-worship mode. In the words of Bismarck's secretary Busch attributed to Fred, "that fox in the Wilhelmstrasse proved to be right after all." Victoria still disliked Bismarck, but Fred had come around to viewing Bismarck rather favorably. Of couse, Fred could grow backbones eventually had he not contracted cancer. We know he had no backbone after William I had died and even before the cancer impaired his judgment, but he simply didn't live long enough to gauge long-term just how much of backbone he could have grown. One certain thing that diffentiated him from Wilhelm II was that Fred was eminently malleable and too nice of a guy to hold grudges for long, whereas Will II was too mercurial for anyone to control for long and too stubborn for his own good.

5 & 6

These two depend entirely on Fred's backbone, and therefore unanswerable without coming on one side or another about #4. I am, however, skeptical about any Anglo-German entente, for the simple reason that Britain absolutely did not want continental commitment that promised British boys to die for the kaiser, while any entente without such commitment would be nothing more than scrap of paper that put Germany at Britain's beck and call without putting Britain at Germany's beck and call.

 

[MRig]

My first impression is that without the living figure of the popular "Unifier of Germany" Wilhelm I.,
the broad influence of Bismarck on German policies as a whole will consolidate.

I imagine he would be able to pursue his designs quite successfully
(e.g. no needless provocation of other powers, especially no colonies).

But I did not study the character of Friedrich III. intensively.
Maybe me impression is biased by his obvious feebleness due to his
lung cancer later on, as Emperor in OTL ...

This is interesting. A more conservative Germany? Bismarck's practical foreign policy may be more resilient to Wilhelm's meddling later on.

1. Difficult to say. Bismarck was already gearing up for his great conservative realignment, so a successful assassination could've led to either of two consequences: 1) the National Liberals are tossed overboard sooner; or 2) Lasker and the NL capitulate in the name of national unity, and he enters the government, marking complete subjection of the National Liberals to Bismark's whims. 2 & 3. I suspect it would be pretty similar to their experiences during the year of three kaisers: At the mercy of Bismarck. 4. Too late for a more liberal kaiserreich, I think. You have to understand, Fred was never a true liberal; at best, he was a Sybellian right-wing liberal in the old sense of the word liberal. Further, by this time, he was in full hero-worship mode. In the words of Bismarck's secretary Busch attributed to Fred, "that fox in the Wilhelmstrasse proved to be right after all." Victoria still disliked Bismarck, but Fred had come around to viewing Bismarck rather favorably. Of couse, Fred could grow backbones eventually had he not contracted cancer. We know he had no backbone after William I had died and even before the cancer impaired his judgment, but he simply didn't live long enough to gauge long-term just how much of backbone he could have grown. One certain thing that diffentiated him from Wilhelm II was that Fred was eminently malleable and too nice of a guy to hold grudges for long, whereas Will II was too mercurial for anyone to control for long and too stubborn for his own good.These two depend entirely on Fred's backbone, and therefore unanswerable without coming on one side or another about #4. I am, however, skeptical about any Anglo-German entente, for the simple reason that Britain absolutely did not want continental commitment that promised British boys to die for the kaiser, while any entente without such commitment would be nothing more than scrap of paper that put Germany at Britain's beck and call without putting Britain at Germany's beck and call.

Again a more conservative Germany. Did Wilhelm I put the brakes on Bismarck's conservatism? I had the impression they were largely on the same page ideologically.

"Liberal" is a relative term I know. For instance, I know that Frederick is unlikely to support universal male suffrage. It's sort of a miracle that Bismarck brought it about, and he never would had he known how much it would benefit the Socialists. But Frederick is more liberal than his heir. The idea is not to "fix" the Kaiserreich but to set it on a long-term trajectory that gives it a better shot at survival. It's clear to me now that there will still be a German Revolution, except perhaps if the Great War is avoided entirely.

Frederick does have a stronger connection to Britain than Germany ever will until the EU. If a full-on alliance is impossible, what about a sort of mutual neutrality? Germany caps its fleet at some percentage of Britain's, Britain agrees not to interfere with German interests on the mainland. This sort of agreement seems to go against strong currents in British foreign policy, but might those be overcome with an Anglophile Kaiser, a Germany less interested in colonies, and a crisis or two with France magnified compared to OTL?

 

[xt828]

If the German fleet consists of torpedoboats and cruisers, Britain will not feel particularly threatened by it. The pre-Tirpitz fleet was very defensive, being designed to take on the Russians in the Baltic with torpedoboats, while cruisers were recognised as a very reasonable way of defending colonies and long sea routes. Short range, heavily armed and armoured battleships and speeches about an enemy standing between Germany and world power were what got Britain's back up.

 

[David S Poepoe]

If the German fleet consists of torpedoboats and cruisers, Britain will not feel particularly threatened by it. The pre-Tirpitz fleet was very defensive, being designed to take on the Russians in the Baltic with torpedoboats, while cruisers were recognised as a very reasonable way of defending colonies and long sea routes. Short range, heavily armed and armoured battleships and speeches about an enemy standing between Germany and world power were what got Britain's back up.

However, the officers of the 'pre-Tirpitz' era wanted battleships and the like. In fact, it is they that converted Tirpitz from the torpedo faction to the big gun club.

 

[Geordie]

Could this have an effect on the Balkans?

At this point, Russia had imposed the treaty of San Stefano on the Ottomans, and the international outcry caused a rethink in Berlin later in the year.

Would this congress have went ahead after the Monarch's assassination? Obviously, he wouldn't exactly be pivotal to negotiations; but might Bismarck decide to focus on home politics in the event of such a succession?

 

[BernieP2]

As I understand it, the first Kaiser was quite willing to "Reign" and allow his Chancellor to "Rule", at least domestically. Frederick would have had the need and willingness to change that formula of his father's.

William II 's 'education' by was partly prompted by a desire to be able to hold his own against the chancellor.

BEP

 

[Boto von Ageduch]

The assassination of the ruler is taken to be a weakening,
as usually it leads to incapability of action for some time.
The perception would be the same in this case,
but I doubt Bismarck would need any interval.

 

[MRig]

If the German fleet consists of torpedoboats and cruisers, Britain will not feel particularly threatened by it. The pre-Tirpitz fleet was very defensive, being designed to take on the Russians in the Baltic with torpedoboats, while cruisers were recognised as a very reasonable way of defending colonies and long sea routes. Short range, heavily armed and armoured battleships and speeches about an enemy standing between Germany and world power were what got Britain's back up.

Ah, this is important. I was aware that a Tirpitz style navy needs to be butterflied away for any sort of Anglo-German cooperation to be possible. You're suggesting that this is not mutually exclusive to a well-defended colonial empire.

However, the officers of the 'pre-Tirpitz' era wanted battleships and the like. In fact, it is they that converted Tirpitz from the torpedo faction to the big gun club.

But of course there are structural forces beneath the celebrities. What does it take for the torpedo faction to triumph?