What if Kaiser Wilhelm II Had Done Things Differently ?

[BAYLOR]

If he taken a more active role in things than he did . For example , listening to Otto Von Bismarck and keeping the alliance with Russia , returning Alsace-Lorraine to the French a good will gesture , agreeing not to make Germany's navy larger or as large the British Royal Navy and , scaling back imperial ambitions of Germany in Africa and other places. And Instead of agreeing to supporting Austria militarily , pressuring them into give the Balkans more autonomy early on. If those things had occurred, how does world history likely unfold and , does the Kaiser get to keep his throne in this scenario?

 

[BAYLOR]

Would there have been a world war?

 

[CupofJoe]

There was a documentary about the Kaiser's relationship to most of Europe's other monarchies. If I remember correctly the British and Russian royal families dissed him at every turn. Apparently he was very stuffy and a bit uncouth for their tastes. There was even a huge party of some kind where the British and Russians and loads of other royals met up and it was held in Germany and they didn't invite any one from Germany.
Then there was the two pretty Danish Princesses. after Germany invaded Denmark in 1864, they "escaped" to London and became the talk of society and wasted no time spreading their anti-German feelings.
This is my long way around of saying that Germany knew it was land locked, in some ways limited for resources, had been utterly outpaced in empire building and had few friends in Europe [aside fro Austro-Hungary, that had its own problems]. And they felt slighted by most of the continent. I don't think Germany or the Kaiser was in the mood to be conciliatory or accommodating.
How I see it was that the war was going to happen, almost at any cost, at some point. It just needed a spark, or a badly thrown bomb.
What I do think is no-one for saw how technology would affect the war and lead to those incredible death toles.

 

[BAYLOR]

There was a documentary about the Kaiser's relationship to most of Europe's other monarchies. If I remember correctly the British and Russian royal families dissed him at every turn. Apparently he was very stuffy and a bit uncouth for their tastes. There was even a huge party of some kind where the British and Russians and loads of other royals met up and it was held in Germany and they didn't invite any one from Germany.
Then there was the two pretty Danish Princesses. after Germany invaded Denmark in 1864, they "escaped" to London and became the talk of society and wasted no time spreading their anti-German feelings.
This is my long way around of saying that Germany knew it was land locked, in some ways limited for resources, had been utterly outpaced in empire building and had few friends in Europe [aside fro Austro-Hungary, that had its own problems]. And they felt slighted by most of the continent. I don't think Germany or the Kaiser was in the mood to be conciliatory or accommodating.
How I see it was that the war was going to happen, almost at any cost, at some point. It just needed a spark, or a badly thrown bomb.
What I do think is no-one for saw how technology would affect the war and lead to those incredible death toles.

And when it was all over , the Hohenzollern, Hapsburgs , Romanovs and Ottoman Dynasty were all gone , millions dead, and the map of Europe changed. And of course , the stage was set for a far worse and more destructive second world war 20 years later .

The sad part is all of it could have been avoided, had the right choices been made.

 

[sknox]

But that would have meant the old regime would have persisted even longer than it did. Good riddance to old despots.

 

[.matthew.]

But that would have meant the old regime would have persisted even longer than it did. Good riddance to old despots.

True, but there's a good chance the holocaust wouldn't have happened, and perhaps even communism wouldn't have taken over Russia if they'd had some support from Germany. Lesser evil perhaps?

That said, WW2 did usher in an age of peace for Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is pretty much the longest we haven't all been fighting with each other?

 

[BAYLOR]

True, but there's a good chance the holocaust wouldn't have happened, and perhaps even communism wouldn't have taken over Russia if they'd had some support from Germany. Lesser evil perhaps?

That said, WW2 did usher in an age of peace for Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is pretty much the longest we haven't all been fighting with each other?

A world without Hitler and the Nazis would have been a good thing, the million who died would have gotten to live . It would have also been a world in Lenin, Trotsky Stalin all died in obscurity and that would other ramifications for the timeline . Without Joseph Stalin's aid, Mao ends up a footnote in history because Chang would crushed him . Communison never happens in in the rest of Asia, Africa South America, .Latin America and Cuba.

 

[.matthew.]

A world without Hitler and the Nazis would have been a good thing, the million who died would have gotten to live . It would have also been a world in Lenin, Trotsky Stalin all die in obscurity and that would other ramifications for the timeline . Without Joseph Stalin's aid, Mao ends up a footnote in history because Chang would crushed him . Communison never happens in in the rest of Asia, Africa South America, .Latin America and Cuba.

All good things but we can't predict what would have taken its place. Perhaps without two major world wars, we'd still be fighting constant smaller wars within Europe. Perhaps Britain would finally have vanquished our most persistent foe... Perhaps the atomic bomb would have been developed but without the fear caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would have been used in an all-out conflict where both sides would have many more.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it'd still be a better timeline than what we've got now, but I doubt it'd be peaceful and with technology advancing throughout the century, the wars would have always gotten bigger.

 

[sknox]

Post-WWII has been peaceful for Europe. Not so much for the rest of the world. There's been much fighting and killing, but we've become canny about not actually declaring war.

 

[Tirellan]

True, but there's a good chance the holocaust wouldn't have happened, and perhaps even communism wouldn't have taken over Russia if they'd had some support from Germany. Lesser evil perhaps?

That said, WW2 did usher in an age of peace for Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is pretty much the longest we haven't all been fighting with each other?

Are you discounting the violence following the breakup of Yugoslavia?

 

[.matthew.]

Are you discounting the violence following the breakup of Yugoslavia?

Indeed I was and had completely forgotten that was even a thing :/

Wasn't it more of a civil war though?

 

[BAYLOR]

Are you discounting the violence following the breakup of Yugoslavia?

Hello Tirellen .

The Balkans should have stayed separated.

 

[CupofJoe]

Indeed I was and had completely forgotten that was even a thing :/

Wasn't it more of a civil war though?

I don't think "civil" ever applies. A long time ago, back in the early 90s, I had a "friend" that made a great deal of money playing one group off against another in that part of the world. I call them "friend" because I never wanted to get on their bad side.
As for Yugoslavia, at the time [before, during, and just after WWI] there was a mood for union in territories that became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. A single [theoretically] strong nation between Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans rather than half a dozen smaller countries. Actually from what I've been reading much of the impetus may have come from people who had left for America [and other places] and want a Homeland. More romantic than political or economic.

 

[Tirellan]

Not a civil war with NATO bombing Belgrade and the RAF hitting Serb forces.
Example BBC News | UK | RAF videos show Serbia bombings

 

[CupofJoe]

Not a civil war with NATO bombing Belgrade and the RAF hitting Serb forces.
Example BBC News | UK | RAF videos show Serbia bombings

But the fighting started in 1991. I think NATO turned up late to the party...

 

[reiver33]

The German war plan had 2 options regarding France; block them along the fortified frontier in Alsace or knock them out in a swift campaign before Russia had mobilised. Military arrogance, based on the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, opted for the latter. Unfortunately (for the plan), it was based on the assumption that Belgium would stand aside and allow the passage of German troops bypassing Alsace in a ‘right hook’. Aggressive nationalism tends to have a blind spot for the same trait in other, smaller, nations and ‘rational logic’ dictated that the Belgians wouldn’t resist - hence Germany wouldn’t be violating the Franco-British-German treaty that guaranteed their neutrality and national integrity.

“What do you mean, they’re shooting at us?”

Great thing, plans.

Having said that, Germany achieves its war aims in the 1917 treaty of Breast-Livtosk; independent Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and Russia (now the fledgling USSR) humbled and in the throes of revolt/counter-revolution. These new nations would be fearful of a resurgent Russia and would seek the protection of a strong Central European power in exchange for favourable trade deals.

Hmmm, I wonder who that would be?

Unfortunately (for all concerned) military pride and stubbornness- on both sides - prevents Germany getting out of the war at this point.

“A political solution would dishonour the sacrifice of our glorious dead! We must fight on to final victory!”

Welcome to 1918 and it’s aftermath...

 

[Tirellan]

Well you could say it started as a civil but then broadened to a wider conflict

 

[Hetkey]

True, but there's a good chance the holocaust wouldn't have happened, and perhaps even communism wouldn't have taken over Russia if they'd had some support from Germany. Lesser evil perhaps?

That said, WW2 did usher in an age of peace for Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is pretty much the longest we haven't all been fighting with each other?

Additionally, WWII forced women into the workplace to supplant the men sent overseas. Thus creating, among other things, the post-war dual-income family, the Equal Rights Movement, and perhaps the Civil Rights Movement as well. All of which increased the diversity of the pool of grey matter in the workforce and led to the technological advances we "enjoy" today. Oh, and the returning soldiers brought ideas of the modern highway, sports cars, and foods like pizza. Which, I suppose led to other things as well.

 

[AllanR]

Additionally, WWII forced women into the workplace to supplant the men sent overseas. Thus creating, among other things, the post-war dual-income family, the Equal Rights Movement, and perhaps the Civil Rights Movement as well. All of which increased the diversity of the pool of grey matter in the workforce and led to the technological advances we "enjoy" today. Oh, and the returning soldiers brought ideas of the modern highway, sports cars, and foods like pizza. Which, I suppose led to other things as well.

Ended overt colonialism as well.

 

[bedyak]

I think the above are some solid ideas. WW2 might have been avoided but one might argue that a greater conflict with the Soviets might have loomed on the horizon. Oh gosh I am just realizing this is the plot for Red Alert 2 the PC game lol...

To be brief many nations were on a budget in the 1930's military spending was down at this time throughout Europe until Hitler agitated. Leaves a lot of imaginative scenarios, social movement or revolutions, dictators like Mussolini would have still existed, perhaps we would have seen him operate a solo war in Africa trying to regain Roman glory...