@@frankgesuele6298how does it change history? Even if Kaiser Frederick went better or wrose from Wilhelm II, history woukd stayed the same WWI happens but even if Kaiser Frederick knows helping A-H would be a mistake, theres nothing he can do, if he lets A-H die then more enemies would surround him, Germsny alreaey had enemies all around, no matter the Kaiser, Germany was always doomed to ne surrounded by foes
@@TherealSoggyCan If he keeps the treaty with Russia that Bismarck made it keeps Germany from a 2 front war. By continuing to follow Bismarck's policy Germany remains strong & unrivaled in Europe.
Yeah Kaiser Frederick was a very weak father he let his wife torture their own son for 10 years and because of his mother's uncaring heart towards him really shaped him as a man especially towards his mother's home country I really feel bad for Kaiser Wilhelm unlike his cousin Nicholas which was a great father and loved his family Kaiser Wilhelm got nothing
@@Rensune Now, that is an excellent alternate history scenario, and I think Wihielm would be better off living with the Romavos, where he could get the love and affection he needed from his mother. I doubt Victoria ( the actual Queen of Great Britain) would actually take part in raising her eldest son, but if she does, would she give love and affection to Wihielm? Would cause Princess Royal Victoria ( Queen Victoria's eldest daughter) to be envious of her mother, showing Wihielm, the son she despised for having a crippled arm. Wilhelm would have gotten a better childhood and actual development living with the Romanovs. Maria Fedorovna ( Dagmar of Denmark, Russian Empress, and Nicholas II's mother) would be the mother figure Wihielm II needed in his life. Is it possible for Princess Royal Victoria to have given her eldest up for adoption, or is it possible because Wihilem is the future heir to the throne? I really like that idea, my friend!
What do you mean Kaiser Wilhelm "got nothing"? What something did Kaiser Wilhelm lack that Tsar Nicholas II had in comparison? If you could please kindly explain more to me?
Actually Queen Victoria did spend time with Wilhelm even after he became Kaiser as she admired his takes on foreign and political affairs. It also helped that she despised her son Crown Prince Albert aka King Edward VII who she blamed for her beloved husbands early death.
Yes, Frederick was more “liberal” than his son, but he was also a seasoned veteran of the unification wars. There’s no doubt he would’ve made a FAR better emperor than Wilhelm II.
3:50 To the contrary, Wilhelm was pro-British up until the years leading to WWI, when the relationship soured. He adored Queen Victoria: he was in the room when she passed. And he greatly admired the British navy, and was an honorary Admiral. Read Dreadnought by Robert K Massie for more info
Wilhelm II, that is. And of Prussia, because in Württemberg, there were two contemporary yet older kings named Wilhelm, plus a King Friedrich/Frederick, and even a King Karl/Charles.
If he had loved the navy less and didn't build one of his own the army corps he could have built with that manpower combined with Great Britain not fearing him, he would have probably crushed France as badly as in 1870 with England sitting it all out.
@@Xandtar The matter was a little more complicated. The Navy story was just the tip of the iceberg. Great Britain feared Germany mainly because of its economic strength and therefore viewed it as a rival. After the United States, Germany was the fastest growing economy. The French saw it in a similar way, which is why an alliance between England and France was only possible in the first place. It wasn't that long ago that the British and the French hated each other.
@@cemkesici2020 France saw it in more direct terms. Imperial Germany had "reclaimed" Alsace and Lorraine from France as part of the peace after the 1870/71 war. France (or French Nationalists) wanted those territories back. Bismarck opposed the annexations for exactly that reason, but was overruled. We can debate Elsass and Lotharingia and who they should belong to (they had been part of the Holy Roman Empire until a French King (Louis XIV ?) used some legal trickery and inheritance laws to claim them for France) but the effect was that France had a huge bone to pick with Germany afterwards.
Kaiser Willhelm II was far from anti-British he adored his Grandmother Queen Victoria, He adored the Royal Navy when made an honorary admiral he was very proud. It is true he had issues with certain members of the family but the idea that he was anti-British is simply not true he strongly admired Britain. Yes, he did sell guns to the Boars but he also helped the British on multiple occasions.
Actually he hated his English mother Yes he loved her and sent her kind letters but he hated England and the English doctors his mother forced him to visit and painful experiments he endured to do something about his Lil withered left arm. Yeah He may have loved his mother as a dutiful son but he fucking hated anything English.
Kaiser Wilhelm’s relationship with the UK is quite bit more complicated. He disliked his mother and British politics but her loved aspects of its military especially the navy. The naval race between the two nations was one of the causes of WW1
@@ghiaccio4179 I would dissagree with this, id reccomend watching "The Daily Telegraph Crisis" by Sir Manatee as it shows Kaiser Wilhelm II's (failed) attempt to create good relations with the UK and how it back fired
I really appreciate you tackling this subject, virtually no one on UA-cam has ever addressed what would have happened if Kaiser Friedrich III had lived and reigned longer. This is an event that would change the rest of the 19th century and the 20th century and people don't realize it. If he had lived for another 10, 12 or even 20 years, I think that even then he would not be able to transform the German Empire into a Liberal country like the United Kingdom, I think it is impossible, but with Germany becoming a country that follows National Liberalism or Conservative Liberalism would be good enough. The British and the Germans would maintain good relations without all those frictions caused by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the First World War would probably continue happening there would be no way to avoid it, but the alliances would be different. With the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia on one side and France, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire on the other, with this war lasting less than the Great War of our reality, with these nations becoming after the war. I leave here my congratulations for your great work.
The austro-Hungarians were natural allies with the Germans, even Bismarck thought so, it’d be out of norm for the Germans to completely ditch the Austrians for the British. Agree with the conservative liberalism and the friction caused by Wilhelm II’s aggressive stance towards basically every nation in Europe (😂) though. Another thought I had is that it’s weird that you regard the Great War as something inevitable, what makes it so? As well as the Ottoman Empire being part of it but not the Italians? Seems like the nature of the war would be even more European centric without the joining of the ottomans, although there’s a lot of amazing information and ideas that come out of this dramatic change in Germany’s history, as well as the world’s, the only thing that seems lacking is nuance, a deeper understanding and thought
@@emilianohermosilla3996 Well since Bismark eventually died. Freidrich could have thinked of unification with Austrian Proper and left the rest of Austria to be partitioned by its neighbours and Hungary
@@oooshafiqooo The problem is and alway will be. What to do with the Balkan my friend. I am asking this very very seriously. What will be the border of the Balkan. Because even the great Bismarck failed his task of making alliance between Austria and Russia due the Balkan. The question that lead to WW1 was never in Germany Austria or Russia. It in the Balkan. So if like you said he reunify with the Austria that fine. But what of the rest of it Empire. Hungary and Croatia plus Czech will not willingly give it land to the other or those in the Balkan want their land back from them.
@@oooshafiqooo What will Fredrick do............ The best outcome i can get out of this that screw the Balkan. Germany will not take part in any Balkan war.
It is an example of medical malpractice and history. Wilhelm II was an example of a botched forceps delivery, and his father was misdiagnosed early on, when the cancer was still treatable. Both times by British doctors, oddly.
Don't let the terminology confuse the subject. To 19th-century Prussia and the rest of Germany, "liberalism" meant a government that included universal male suffrage and a parliament that made laws, under a constitutional monarch. Frederick was in favor of an elected parliament, and was willing to accept the role of King in cooperation with the Landtag, rather than the role of an absolute monarch.
I saw Fall of Eagles, which told the rise and fall of the monarchies of Germany, Russia and Austria. I also wondered how Frederick III would rule if he hadn't smoked his whole life.
Yup. He wanted to marry some Polish noblewoman, I believe, but was forced into marrying Augusta, who he hated. Wanted to mention that, but I didn't think it was all that relevant to Fred.
@@georgecampbell9638 If I remember correctly she was a noble from the prominent Radziwiłł family who were the governors of the Grand Duchy of Posen until the 1840s
I used to blamed Wilhelm II for ww1, but after growing up, I now only blame him for 50% of it Edit: a lot of people are commenting without knowing a lot of basic things that Wilhelm did such as his continuous alliance to Austria Hungary despite ending the alliance of the three empire, him sabotaging germany's possible alliances to England multiple times, despite that being one of his goals, his decision to follow the generals who wanted to pursue unrestricted submarine warfare, and I could go on and on, how he sabotaged Germany's diplomacy and fucked over Bismarck.
Wilhelm II actually contributed more to trying to prevent the war than starting it. During the July Crisis he asked Tsar Nicholas II to stop mobilization, which he actually did, before going back on his actions due to peer pressure. Had Nicky not been so prone to peer pressure, it's very possible WWI would have merely been the Austro-Serbian war, or probably some other catchy title, maybe even the Third Balkan War.
@@i-dislike-handles he could have actually contributed by not giving a full carte blanche to Austria. I’m sorry but while not the entirety some of the fault lies with Germany for the war.
Hey Josh, it's nice you're back doing videos. How are you doing, man? This a fantastic video on an alternate history of Kaiser Frederick Survived, for I wanted to see an alternate history video with Frederick III living longer. I feel bad for Frederick having a rough childhood. I thought Wihielm had the worst, but Frederick III's childhood is way traumatizing, with his parents bickering and being alienated by his father for his view of being liberal. But thank you for the video, my friend. This video is both educational and entertaining at the same time; with Frederick being the German Emperor, it most likely Germany would have been a monarchy today with the Hohenzollerns being celebrity figures similar to the British Royal family! If you're interested in hearing them out, I have some suggestions for future alternate history videos. Anyway, unique what-if history Josh; keep up the incredible work, always be proud of who you are, and stay true to yourself and your dreams!
According to Bismarck's draft of the Constitution of Imperial Germany, the Chancellor is appointed by the Emperor and thus solely responds to him. This made Bismarck untouchable since everyone knew that Wilhelm I would never have ditched him during his reign. But it is likely that without that damn cancer Frederick III would have searched for a suitable replacement as soon as the situation allowed for it. His choice might have fallen on Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, a prominent southern german liberal and a relative to the Imperial family. In our timeline he actually became Chancellor in 1894 under Wilhelm II, adopting the Civil Code aka Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) into german law.
Objection: I read the a book about Frederick III and his diary stated that he told Bismarck that he would let him in office due to his contribution and popularity. Bismarck also knew of Frederick‘s limited moderate liberalism. A replacement of Bismarck was highly unlikely under Frederick III.
@@fwiii1831 This book might be interesting, especially the diary passage. Can you give me the title and author, so that I may look it up? When did he tell Bismarck that he would remain in office? If it was before his diagnostication of cancer around May 1887, this would effectively attest his trust towards the chancellor. But if he acknowledged it after May 1887, he likely knew that he could die way sooner than he expected and that his son would need at least one seasoned statesman to assist him at the beginning of his reign.
@@alexandrekan8589 The title of the book is "Der 99-Tage-Kaiser: Friedrich III. von Preußen - Prinz, Monarch, Mythos", author: Frank Lorenz Müller. The acknowledgements in the book state, that the English book was published under the name:"Our Fritz, Emperor Frederick III and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany" in Harvard University Press in 2011. I have only 50 more pages to go to finish the book, I like it in spite the time jumps that are sometimes a little bit exhausting to read. The book is great so far but I do not understand why the train accident of 1851 was not mentioned that nearly killed Frederick... The book stated that Bismarck despised Frederick and his bossy wife but since the Kaiser determines who is chancellor he started flattering him... At the bottom line it is hard to summarize so many pages which is why I recommend you reading it. The problem with dying was that Mackenzie the British physician spreaded so much enthusiasm that everythingwas OK with Frederick, he only admitted that he had cancer when other physicians pooved it. This could have made Frederick III uncertain concerning the chancellory question…
First person I have seen cover this topic on UA-cam. I am a member of a mod team that is trying to portray this exact scenario in Hearts of Iron IV, so it is nice to see this topic get more attention.
@@jackthetimberlog7023 Oh damn, I know that name! Awesome to see it’s still being worked on. It’s probably impossible to even predict a release date I’m guessing? :D
@@TheGoodluckjonny Release Date is aiming for some time this year, originally it was quarter one this year but we had some delay because of lack of manpower on certain countries.
First, the term liberal has a much different meaning in 2023 compared to 1850. Victorian England was hardly a liberal by our standards. If you don't believe me I would refer you to the Sepoy Mutiny in which the Brits blew Indian rebels out of cannons as punishment. Victorian England was a nation with a very wealthy, but miniscule, class of aristocracts, bankers and industrialists and the masses (99% of the people) living in hunger and squalor without much hope. The Victorian idea of democracy didn't include a vote for everyone. So it's wrong to paint England as some pillar of democracy. Britain's only concern was its wealthy class making lots of money. Liberalism in the 19th century really meant unrestricted capitalism, while conservativism often represented agrarian interests. Second, without Bismarck, there would have been no Germany. A union could not have happened without war. It's as simple as that. It had been the foreign policy of France since Richelieu to keep Germany divided. France had to be defeated. The Hapsburgs wouldn't have given up neither. Interestingly, Bismarck was responsible for much social welfare legislation in Germany. Yes, he was autocratic, but he knew how to keep the peace once Germany was built. I agree that Germany would have benefitted from BIsmarck's leadership for another decade or so. Third, while its true that Bismarck was opposed to colonial expansion, it's doubtful that would have changed the foreign policies of France, Britain and Russia that sought to maximize their control of Asia and Africa. With or without Germany, China would have been divided up into economic spheres. Wilhelm II merely went with the flow on that.
And which then we brought the elephant on the table. What to do about the Balkan Crisis and the Eastern question. We Germany let Austria be destroy. Because i known it only a matter of time of the 3rd Balkan War happen.
I'm not certain that Bismarck and Frederick would've had the relationship you're thinking of. And as far as Austria collapsing, I'm not sure if the Germans would've allowed that.
And if Austria collapsed the Balkan time bomb will be explode ten folds. With everyone clamming land. I can already see Serbia and Romania on the first list of grabbing lands.
The video is based on the rather ridiculous idea that the hostile British attitude towards Germany was based on the behaviour of Wilhelm II. In reality, Germany had become a strong economic competitor for Britain - what Britain would never have tolerated, under any circumstances.
Although if the political situation in Germany had been different, it would've been more difficult for the British political establishment to convince the average Brit that Germany was an enemy.
Great! This is a very realistic scenario, I liked it! Maybe another Alt. History - What if the 1848 Revolutions succeeded? Its a scenario I haven’t really seen, it would be cool to see your take on it!
honestly i think he might have actually stood up to bismarck in things where he was shure that there was a better solution so there is achance that if he would have ruled for longer there is a maybe that he might have reduced the hostilitys between france and germany at least a bit.
He was a true chad! Standing for to his ideals but also serving his nation in war flawlessly even tho he disliked it. His treatment of french prisoners tells of respect, something he shared and earned himself. For me his son, Wilhelm II. will always be a wannabe. He tried to follow his grandfather politically and his father in terms of personal achievements but never really reached them.
I think it might caused America to remain very much on expansionist. Already having the Philippines. You mentioned on turning China into a bunch of Colonies. I wouldn't be shocked to find America attempting to take a part of or a good chunk of China. Which the US seeing the idea of if they could change the Chinese territories into English speaking and mostly protestant Christian faith. It would then utilize them and the Filipinos to leverage Britain over Canada. Britain could only be so many places at once. This giving Germany a chance to find means to take advantage of the situation.
I think this is a great video, but, I’m also hesitant about some of the assumptions. I’m really not sure if Bismarck would be able to keep ahold of power. Bismarck’s realpolitik had been effective, except that by 1888 most of the reichstag didn’t like him anymore. He’d teamed up with the liberals….only to make them hate him after he betrayed them once the kulturkampf was won. By 1878 he had to abandon the liberal party to join the center party as his chief allies, as a guard against more liberal parties, like his former Allies. Then he opposed free trade, and these two factors ended any liberal support for Bismarck. He could’ve teamed up with the conservatives…but refused them an international empire or other land gains, which also pissed them off. Additionally, after the fiasco of the anti-socialist bill he attempted to pass in 1889. He could’ve theoretically kept allying with the centre party. However, with Bismarck becoming increasingly unpopular I have to wonder how this would reflect on the Centre in elections, as conservatives and liberals increasingly become frustrated with Bismarck. Another TEN years, by which he would be rather old, might be impossible without a friendly Kaiser or Reichstag.
Not to mention the Balkan. Bismarck literally failed 2 to form an alliance with Russia and Austria because of the Balkan happen. The problem with world war 1 is the Balkan problem.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 yes, very true! Especially the Bulgarian Crisis. To his credit Bismarck did organize a lot of secret treaties, like the Mediterranean agreements, to stop Russian aggression. However, they were secret. So to the public it basically looked like the three emperor’s agreement snapping away, while Russia begins consuming the Balkans with no German resistance. This along with the Berlin conference (which with his anti-colonial policy made Germany look lower than other European powers) definitely put a dent in his reputation
@@pandastical9205 To be honest this rising nationalism it only a matter of time when the one those Balkan states wanted more land. With the Turk gone. They will definitely look to the Austria Hungary next ( which Serbia nationalism did) Honestly i felt sorry for the Ottoman Empire fighting so hard just to keep the mess of Europe lands.
@@pandastical9205 But at least Bismarck was right about the war being start in the Balkan. Which basically narrow down to Austria or Russia action or one of those Balkan state. Man the Ottoman Empire should have gather those loyal of their people and left. Focus on the middle east after all those region became more valuable in the world.
This was a very interesting video with a pretty unique premise! However I disagree with some of it. Frederick keeping Bismarck would not result in cordial relations with Russia and an isolated France. The things that set in motion the formation of the Russo-French alliance already happened, with Bismarck personally negotiating the Berlin Congress, which the Russians saw as a disgrace. From that point on German-Russian relations were essentially in free fall, where the liability of the Austro-Hungarian alliance would cut off any attempt to save them. The German Empire may have still been victorious in the resulting war if they could manage to keep tensions low enough to keep Britain in splendid isolation or go into an alliance with them when they offered, but yeah, Russia was gone and the great war was going to happen.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754Fredrick was most likely see Austria was a sinking ship and jump to Russia. Which is highly likely but keep good good relations with Austria.
@@Clueless-political-guy Until the Balkan happen that it. Either way It is still basically Bismarck work. When the result came he realpolitik of needing Austria if need to fight against Russia or France is i said a great work. But the only problem is that well how can Bismarck sure that Austria strong enough as a valuable allies. Either If Frederick choose Russia that mean 100% Britain will take France side. The problem is that if Germany support Russia over the Balkan. The British will definitely not allowed Russia to get to the sea.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Yes however we must remember that Britain was a key supporter of the concert of Europe and wanted it not to be too intense. They would most likely protest but not be able to do much without causing any wars.
“We are no longer looked upon as the innocent sufferers of wrong, but rather as arrogant victors, no longer content with the conquest of the foe but determined to bring about his utter ruin…at the moment it must seem as though we are neither loved nor respected, only feared.” -Crown Prince Frederick, 1870, during the climax of the Franco-Prussian War
As an English person, I personally think we sided with the wrong people/the bad guys. We literally sided with Serbia, a country that murdered someone (Franz Ferdinand) for no reason. Then again, we only sided with them, cause we were scared of Russia.
You actually sided with Belgium, a completely neutral country that Germany invaded for nothing but logistical reasons. Whatever you think of the British reasons to enter the war, or Serbia, Germany was clearly the agressor against Belgium
@@tjsquibbofficial I wasn’t arguing about the British motive (even though you were actually obligated to protect Belgium as per the treaty of London). I am just saying Germany absolutely wasn’t the good guy. They attacked and destroyed a completely neutral country Serbia on the other hand didn’t do nearly as much “wrong” as Germany did. They even agreed to almost all Austrian demands. But even then, at worst they conspired to kill one Heir, they didn’t invade anyone
@@sebe2255 I'd say murdering someone who was meant to rule a country is very much wrong. The war should have stayed between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Everyone in Europe should have condemned Serbia for what they did and say that they wouldn't get involved if Austria-Hungary was rightfully angry. Besides, it's not like Serbia is a good country in the modern day either. They are still in denial about Kosovo being its own country.
@@tjsquibbofficial You can argue if it is wrong but attacking a neutral country and killing many more is absolutely worse Germany wasn’t the good guy by any definition. And the UK didn’t intervene on behalf of Serbia
Also had the same thought alot, glad to see a vid about it. One thing however, I see it as unlikely that something like the boxer rebellion *wouldn't* have happened. The Chinese at that time were sick of colonial powers slowly taking over their country and I don't think that the Americans just wouldnt insist on the open door policy. So I see your point of just 'boxer rebellion not happening' as unlikely. Edit: take a shot everytime he says liberalism or liberal
But then you forget america wasn’t a big power yet. Fredrick would probably forcibly make other powers somewhat back down. However I agree with the fact the boxer rebellion would happen.
Top 10 Idea Recommendations: 1. What if Manchuria developed to become its own independent country instead of being a part of China? 2. What if the Mensheviks formed the USSR instead of the Bolsheviks? 3. What if the 1979 Iranian Revolution failed? 4. What if the Industrial Revolution began in the Middle East instead of Europe? 5. What if the United States just colonized Edo Japan in 1854? 6. What if World War 1 ended in a draw? 7. What if the state religion of the Roman Empire was Buddhism instead of Christianity? 8. What if the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s ended similarly to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989? 9. What if the 9/11 terrorist attack never happened? 10. What if Napoleon Bonaparte won the Battle of Waterloo?
I don’t know if it’s Britain’s complete fault, but Wilhelm certainly should not take the full blame. The people who I blame the most are the ministers & generals.
@@xLobius Britain supported the Black Hand in serbia which caused the assasination of the Austrian Crown prince which lead to Austro-serbian and austro-russian conflicts fanning up. Then Germany supporting Austria lead to France getting involved (they would have joined anyways due to an alliance with Russia) and Britain decided to use Belgium as an easy justification to join the war as to destroy a Potential european hegemon and rival. Belgium was just an excuse. Now that does not make Germany the Good guy nor excuse the invasion of Belgium but.. at that Time Belgium was basically a buffer state whose autonomy was irrelevant to the great powers when their needs were greater. If France had marched into it the brits wouldnt have cared Then Britain supported France against Germany
Think Brazil on the Pacific. Poverty, deforestation of what forests Australia has, and corrupt government. Despite Britain's flaws, they were better off colonizing Australia then Spain or Portugal.
Or when the British started gaining interests in Australia by the end of the XVIIIth century, the british would simply have kicked the portuguese out of Australia. Just like they did when they kicked the dutch out of Ceylan
@@napasadalol how is sending civilized men to Australia somehow gonna end up worse than sending prisoners? also dont bother saying UK colonization or some shit is better, look at Africa and India. No colonizers did good shit and if they did, those shit wasn't good enough.
While I agree with some of your points, I don't really believe a lot of changes that you're suggesting would've actually happened. Fredrick being on the throne would've changed practically nothing when it came to the alliances of Russia and Britain. For one, Germany didn't even have an alliance with Britain to begin with because of the fact that Britain, at the time, was still trying to stay neutral in most European affairs. And let's be completely honest, the league of the three emperors was as fragile as a dry noodle. It collapsed twice already because of Austrian arrogance in the Balkans and only lasted three years before the German Government allowed it to lapse considering how weak it was. Not to mention how fast Russia was to immediately seek a treaty with France right afterwards. Russia never truly liked Germany and always had issues with such a powerful nation right on their doorstep. Hell Wilhelm II even tried to create a new treaty ensuring an alliance between Russia and Germany with the The Treaty of Björkö, also known as the Treaty of Koivisto, which was a secret mutual defense accord signed on 24 July 1905 in Björkö between Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. But after the Tsars ministers found out about the agreement, they forced the weak-willed Nicolas to go back on his promise and revoke the treaty from being ratified. Not to mention how the Germans were naturally getting more and more economically powerful as time went on, which was something that Frederick wouldn't been able to control. German economic output was so incredible that it outclassed Britain in nearly every aspect, and in turn, created a lot of national resentment for Germany's economy. Why else do you imagine that King Edward VII went on a tour around Europe to specifically isolate Germany. Even if Wilhelm ii didn't say those tactless things, such as the Daily Telegraph affair, it's highly doubtful that Britain, with all of it's economic and colonial might, would've had a happy relationship with such a powerful and "dangerous" new nation constantly overshadowing them. I don't see a universe where simply Fredrick being on the throne would affect Britain's growing jealousy of Germany and prevent Russia from wanting to try and create other treaties elsewhere. In turn, I doubt that Frederick would've been able to prevent WW1. (Not to mention how some sort of major global conflict with all the major powers was bound to happen at some point or another)
Well i can still name the region will 100% start WW1, it gonna in the Balkan. Bismarck falied in task of making alliance between Austria and Russia due to the Balkan happen. So Fredrick.... stood no chance. Unless he said screw the Balkan. After i researched and learn about the 2 Balkan War.Yeb Bismarck was right....... It gonna be in the Balkan.
The British were actually very open to a German alliance, so that change is realistic. And Russia was infact very pro-german, since alot of their aristocracy was ethnically german. But pulling both into an alliance is unrealsitic I think. Not without the french being very aggressive.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Russian German alliance is dead by Bismarck hand when he didn't supported Russian claim of a greater Bulgaria. Then again after that is the Austrian annex Bosnia herzegovina. Either way the problem is that the Balkan. What to do with it. Because if Germany support the Russian influence in the Balkan. The Austrian and British will definitely sided with the France.
It all falls to the question if Frederick would be able to turn Germany to constitutional monarchy, had he done that Wilhelm won't have the power he had to lead into WW1
i think assuming that the UK would side with germany over france just because the current kaiser was a reformist is a bit naive I think. The UK has always tried to maintain the balance of powers in europe, so if germany gets too cosy with russia, the UK would absolutely support france to prevent the continent from falling between the hands of germany. Also germany is too easily blocked from the world's oceans to really take advantage of colonies, so they would effectively have to break France on land long before fights happen in the colonies, but france can pull support and manpower from its colonies while germany cannot. that is unless the brits side with germany, but that leads us back to the original issue that it immediately throws the balance of powers in europe through the window.
Great job withe the musik ther mate all the right marches at the right time. And all in all a great Video would have loved to see how the wold would look like today if this cenario were true. Sorry for my bad english grammar its my second language. :)
That’s something I have always wondered, it would have been better to slowly liberate the Christians in the Muslim world and expunge the Muslims themselves from those lands. Those crusades would have been as successful as the northern crusades against the pagans.
@@HocDaddy The Crusades lifted muslim attention from the Roman Empire and also stopped arabian reinforcements to the Maghrebi and Iberian rulers, thus weakening both fronts. If the first crusade had not hit the near east it would have been feasible that Rome could have been driven out from asia minor completely or even an earlier Seljuk forray into Greece
The year of three emperors was a travesty for europe. Otherwise good Deutsch pronounciations with the exception of Z which transliterates into TS, so Hohenzollern would sound like Hohentsollern using english orthography.
For all the only english speakers in the world who want to make videos about german aristocrats: the preposition „von“ (meaning from) is pronounced like fond without the d.
Whilst Willhelm II wasn't the Jews biggest fan, even he didn't like what Hitler was doing, especially post- Kristallnacht. He himself was quoted to say he was ashamed to be German after that
The much more interesting question is: What would have happende, if Friedrich (not Frederick!) had died 100 days earlier? Who would have become Kaiser then? And what would have happened without Wilhelm II at all?
What if Kaiser Wilhelm I died when Nobling shot him? That was almost 10 years before he actually died. How would Friedrich have shaped Germany during those years, and would Wilhelm II have been able to undo it?
Overall I appreciate that you tried to get the names right. Here is some help with it: If there is an 'o' in German it is always pronounced 'o'. We never swap vocals around like the English do. You had also some other minor errors in your pronounciation, but I cannot explain those to you by text.
Well, from what we know from Russian documents there was an offer to invite deputy from Zemstvos to the State Council. Despite common myth it wasnt a draft of Russian constitution. Maybe they could make a new programm of reforms? Who knows... Russia was not in a bad condition, they just failed diplomatically in Berlin congress of 1878. Anyway Alexander 2 himself believed that Russia is not ready for installing any constitution.
The ultimate scenario for the 19th Century world is where Abraham Lincoln, Frederick III and Alexander II all survive and rule longer. The western hemisphere would likely have been 5x better off.
From what I've read about Kaiser Wihelm II, he was the only European head who was truly trying to advocate for peace and prevent a large scale conflict. Blaming him for WW1 is foolish. WW1 started for a multitude of reasons. Neither Wihelm II nor Germany is responsible for the war.
wait a moment... named Frederick, liberal leanings, bad relationship with his dad, reluctant military success, tolerant of all religions, museum lover? sounds like the reincarnation of Frederick the great!
Wilhelm's biggest bullshit was breaking Bismarck's policy with Russia. He favored Austria Hungary a weak failed state not viable because of its ethnic configuration which no longer conformed to the idea of the nation state. Frederik should not make this mistake if he wishes the survival of the empire, fighting on two fronts was the kiss of death for Germany.
The hate for Kaiser Wilhelm II is ridiculous he tried to avoid the war at any cost but when france INVADED german territory germany fought back but its germanys fault
Fredericks death was a tragedy. Blood hell, how might the worlk look today if he would have been given only 10 more good years? Hell and damnation on his british doctor Mackenzie.
Interestingly this video essay is a good argument why Frederick had to die. Preventing big industrial warfare until after full industrialization or even the invention of nuclear weapons. Denying humanity the bitter lessons from both world wars without devastating the planet or even outright destroying humanity.
You have a lot of historical inaccuracies here and i dont think its much your fault. It seems your sources may have been from German and English media at the time which held an overwhelmingly negative view on Wilhelm II. They hated him so much they would simply ignor and flaws his father had in an effort to make it impossible to reasonably support Wilhelm II. I would encourage you to read the diaies of Wilhelm, Victoria, and so on instead of relying on a 3rd parties biased opinions of how someone thought or their ideals.
Videos had some important aspects missing or wrong, especially propaganda by the 19th century Britain, most about Wilhelm Ⅱ. One of the first things Wilhelm Ⅱ did was improve worker conditions, he didn't hate Britain at all but even wanted to form an alliance with Britain, which of course didn't work because of Edward 7th that hated Wilhelm and Germany and did all to build tensions in Europe and isolate Germany, as well as the big British jealousy of Germany. Wilhelm wasn't an antisemite either, he even donated to synagogues, and he also had good relations with Tsar Nicolas, and worked for an alliance with Russia, which of course was hindered by politicians that didn't like each others countries. Wilhelm also didn't fire Bismarck as portrayed, Bismarck controlled Wilhelm Ⅰ with resignment, and when he did the same with Wilhelm Ⅱ, Wilhelm simply was like "ok, there's the door", Wilhelm even offered Bismarck the post as foreign minister, which Bismarck didn't take. Also Bismarck was ooold. Wilhelm Ⅱ had no aspirations for German expansion in Europe and focused mostly on improving Germany and keeping peace. Another thing said in the video about China, Germany had a treaty port in China AND NOT A COLONY, and never questioned Chinese authority over that territory, with exemplary good relations with China. Germany after all also build a Chine wide famous German school, which had students from all over China So basically Britain did everything that it accused Germany of. Best would be that this comment gets pinned to undo British history revisionism.
Have to disagree on this one. Saying that Wilhelm II = WW1, and Fred = peace and prosperity, is very very very simplified and naive, as the war was not caused by just one man, but by a plethora of situations and reactions from many many parties.
You forgot his most heartbreaking remark in his diary "I can't die, what will happen to Germany?"
@Random Guy Or not at all.
His death changed World history.
UA-cam:"DIE VERBORGENE GESCHICHTE" TEIL1 UND TEIL2 / 👋🇩🇪
@@frankgesuele6298how does it change history? Even if Kaiser Frederick went better or wrose from Wilhelm II, history woukd stayed the same WWI happens but even if Kaiser Frederick knows helping A-H would be a mistake, theres nothing he can do, if he lets A-H die then more enemies would surround him, Germsny alreaey had enemies all around, no matter the Kaiser, Germany was always doomed to ne surrounded by foes
@@TherealSoggyCan If he keeps the treaty with Russia that Bismarck made it keeps Germany from a 2 front war.
By continuing to follow Bismarck's policy Germany remains strong & unrivaled in Europe.
Yeah Kaiser Frederick was a very weak father he let his wife torture their own son for 10 years and because of his mother's uncaring heart towards him really shaped him as a man especially towards his mother's home country I really feel bad for Kaiser Wilhelm unlike his cousin Nicholas which was a great father and loved his family Kaiser Wilhelm got nothing
What if the Kaiser was raised by the Romanovs? (or the British Royals?)
@@Rensune butter fly effect
@@Rensune Now, that is an excellent alternate history scenario, and I think Wihielm would be better off living with the Romavos, where he could get the love and affection he needed from his mother. I doubt Victoria ( the actual Queen of Great Britain) would actually take part in raising her eldest son, but if she does, would she give love and affection to Wihielm? Would cause Princess Royal Victoria ( Queen Victoria's eldest daughter) to be envious of her mother, showing Wihielm, the son she despised for having a crippled arm. Wilhelm would have gotten a better childhood and actual development living with the Romanovs. Maria Fedorovna ( Dagmar of Denmark, Russian Empress, and Nicholas II's mother) would be the mother figure Wihielm II needed in his life. Is it possible for Princess Royal Victoria to have given her eldest up for adoption, or is it possible because Wihilem is the future heir to the throne? I really like that idea, my friend!
What do you mean Kaiser Wilhelm "got nothing"? What something did Kaiser Wilhelm lack that Tsar Nicholas II had in comparison? If you could please kindly explain more to me?
Actually Queen Victoria did spend time with Wilhelm even after he became Kaiser as she admired his takes on foreign and political affairs. It also helped that she despised her son Crown Prince Albert aka King Edward VII who she blamed for her beloved husbands early death.
Yes, Frederick was more “liberal” than his son, but he was also a seasoned veteran of the unification wars. There’s no doubt he would’ve made a FAR better emperor than Wilhelm II.
3:50 To the contrary, Wilhelm was pro-British up until the years leading to WWI, when the relationship soured. He adored Queen Victoria: he was in the room when she passed. And he greatly admired the British navy, and was an honorary Admiral. Read Dreadnought by Robert K Massie for more info
Wilhelm II, that is. And of Prussia, because in Württemberg, there were two contemporary yet older kings named Wilhelm, plus a King Friedrich/Frederick, and even a King Karl/Charles.
If he had loved the navy less and didn't build one of his own the army corps he could have built with that manpower combined with Great Britain not fearing him, he would have probably crushed France as badly as in 1870 with England sitting it all out.
@@Xandtar The matter was a little more complicated. The Navy story was just the tip of the iceberg. Great Britain feared Germany mainly because of its economic strength and therefore viewed it as a rival. After the United States, Germany was the fastest growing economy.
The French saw it in a similar way, which is why an alliance between England and France was only possible in the first place. It wasn't that long ago that the British and the French hated each other.
@@cemkesici2020 France saw it in more direct terms. Imperial Germany had "reclaimed" Alsace and Lorraine from France as part of the peace after the 1870/71 war. France (or French Nationalists) wanted those territories back. Bismarck opposed the annexations for exactly that reason, but was overruled. We can debate Elsass and Lotharingia and who they should belong to (they had been part of the Holy Roman Empire until a French King (Louis XIV ?) used some legal trickery and inheritance laws to claim them for France) but the effect was that France had a huge bone to pick with Germany afterwards.
Oh, thanks.
I love Massie. I just got a copy of that book, but haven't gotten to it yet.
Kaiser Willhelm II was far from anti-British he adored his Grandmother Queen Victoria, He adored the Royal Navy when made an honorary admiral he was very proud. It is true he had issues with certain members of the family but the idea that he was anti-British is simply not true he strongly admired Britain. Yes, he did sell guns to the Boars but he also helped the British on multiple occasions.
Tbf the British deserved it in the Boer war
Actually he hated his English mother
Yes he loved her and sent her kind letters but he hated England and the English doctors his mother forced him to visit and painful experiments he endured to do something about his Lil withered left arm. Yeah He may have loved his mother as a dutiful son but he fucking hated anything English.
@@sebe2255”you’re right”
- a brit
Its tragic in a sense that the two biggest wars in human history were caused by a broken family.
Nah fr
Very accurate 💀
I know one is ww1 but what's the other
@@ramp597 WW3
@@ramp597WW2, Hitler’s father was abusive.
Every time I see one of these scenario I think: "Why were we so close to a good world?"
And I wonder, what if the peace was kept until all major powers at the time had nuclear weapons? And then the war started?
@@joedo3529 Good thought! We probably would have World War 3 by the 1970s.
@@joedo3529 following this scenario, tensions would grow between britain x germany x russia, making it a three way conflict, add nukes and it's joever
@@luulasmene7786i honestly doubt the world would stay at peace until nuclear weapons even with fredrick in charge of germany
WWII docs be like:
Kaiser Wilhelm’s relationship with the UK is quite bit more complicated. He disliked his mother and British politics but her loved aspects of its military especially the navy. The naval race between the two nations was one of the causes of WW1
And he was really onto the idea of making Germany a proper rival of the UK
@@ghiaccio4179 I would dissagree with this, id reccomend watching "The Daily Telegraph Crisis" by Sir Manatee as it shows Kaiser Wilhelm II's (failed) attempt to create good relations with the UK and how it back fired
I really appreciate you tackling this subject, virtually no one on UA-cam has ever addressed what would have happened if Kaiser Friedrich III had lived and reigned longer. This is an event that would change the rest of the 19th century and the 20th century and people don't realize it. If he had lived for another 10, 12 or even 20 years, I think that even then he would not be able to transform the German Empire into a Liberal country like the United Kingdom, I think it is impossible, but with Germany becoming a country that follows National Liberalism or Conservative Liberalism would be good enough. The British and the Germans would maintain good relations without all those frictions caused by Kaiser Wilhelm II, the First World War would probably continue happening there would be no way to avoid it, but the alliances would be different. With the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia on one side and France, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire on the other, with this war lasting less than the Great War of our reality, with these nations becoming after the war. I leave here my congratulations for your great work.
Smoking would cut your age in half from theories so Friedrich would probably died in the mid 1920s
The austro-Hungarians were natural allies with the Germans, even Bismarck thought so, it’d be out of norm for the Germans to completely ditch the Austrians for the British. Agree with the conservative liberalism and the friction caused by Wilhelm II’s aggressive stance towards basically every nation in Europe (😂) though. Another thought I had is that it’s weird that you regard the Great War as something inevitable, what makes it so? As well as the Ottoman Empire being part of it but not the Italians? Seems like the nature of the war would be even more European centric without the joining of the ottomans, although there’s a lot of amazing information and ideas that come out of this dramatic change in Germany’s history, as well as the world’s, the only thing that seems lacking is nuance, a deeper understanding and thought
@@emilianohermosilla3996 Well since Bismark eventually died. Freidrich could have thinked of unification with Austrian Proper and left the rest of Austria to be partitioned by its neighbours and Hungary
@@oooshafiqooo The problem is and alway will be. What to do with the Balkan my friend.
I am asking this very very seriously. What will be the border of the Balkan. Because even the great Bismarck failed his task of making alliance between Austria and Russia due the Balkan.
The question that lead to WW1 was never in Germany Austria or Russia. It in the Balkan.
So if like you said he reunify with the Austria that fine. But what of the rest of it Empire. Hungary and Croatia plus Czech will not willingly give it land to the other or those in the Balkan want their land back from them.
@@oooshafiqooo What will Fredrick do............ The best outcome i can get out of this that screw the Balkan. Germany will not take part in any Balkan war.
It is an example of medical malpractice and history. Wilhelm II was an example of a botched forceps delivery, and his father was misdiagnosed early on, when the cancer was still treatable. Both times by British doctors, oddly.
Don't let the terminology confuse the subject. To 19th-century Prussia and the rest of Germany, "liberalism" meant a government that included universal male suffrage and a parliament that made laws, under a constitutional monarch. Frederick was in favor of an elected parliament, and was willing to accept the role of King in cooperation with the Landtag, rather than the role of an absolute monarch.
I saw Fall of Eagles, which told the rise and fall of the monarchies of Germany, Russia and Austria. I also wondered how Frederick III would rule if he hadn't smoked his whole life.
I love your videos Josh. Your videos were some of the biggest to inspire me to start my channel! Cheers!
Thanks!
8:40
You can say what you want but the "Good Comerade" is the most beautiful German Song
Wilhelm I didn't want to marry Augusta; he wanted to marry someone else.
Yup. He wanted to marry some Polish noblewoman, I believe, but was forced into marrying Augusta, who he hated. Wanted to mention that, but I didn't think it was all that relevant to Fred.
@@georgecampbell9638 If I remember correctly she was a noble from the prominent Radziwiłł family who were the governors of the Grand Duchy of Posen until the 1840s
I used to blamed Wilhelm II for ww1, but after growing up, I now only blame him for 50% of it
Edit: a lot of people are commenting without knowing a lot of basic things that Wilhelm did such as his continuous alliance to Austria Hungary despite ending the alliance of the three empire, him sabotaging germany's possible alliances to England multiple times, despite that being one of his goals, his decision to follow the generals who wanted to pursue unrestricted submarine warfare, and I could go on and on, how he sabotaged Germany's diplomacy and fucked over Bismarck.
If you’re interested, you should check out the channel Lavader, he has a great ongoing series on Defending Wilhelm.
More like 10 percent
Wilhelm II actually contributed more to trying to prevent the war than starting it. During the July Crisis he asked Tsar Nicholas II to stop mobilization, which he actually did, before going back on his actions due to peer pressure. Had Nicky not been so prone to peer pressure, it's very possible WWI would have merely been the Austro-Serbian war, or probably some other catchy title, maybe even the Third Balkan War.
@@i-dislike-handles he could have actually contributed by not giving a full carte blanche to Austria. I’m sorry but while not the entirety some of the fault lies with Germany for the war.
@@i-dislike-handles To little to late for it to mean much, focusing on the crisis itself is short-sighted the man had been Kaiser since 88.
Nice vid, just imagine how many lives would be saved without two world wars and how wonderful Europe would look today with its fine architecture
I cri
For some countries ww1 it's seen as a blessing
@@Koczu0nationalism is a hell of a drug
6:05 perfect song at the right time 👌
Really appreciate you using the "Fridericus-Rex-Grenadiermarsch" as the background music :p
Hey Josh, it's nice you're back doing videos. How are you doing, man? This a fantastic video on an alternate history of Kaiser Frederick Survived, for I wanted to see an alternate history video with Frederick III living longer. I feel bad for Frederick having a rough childhood. I thought Wihielm had the worst, but Frederick III's childhood is way traumatizing, with his parents bickering and being alienated by his father for his view of being liberal. But thank you for the video, my friend. This video is both educational and entertaining at the same time; with Frederick being the German Emperor, it most likely Germany would have been a monarchy today with the Hohenzollerns being celebrity figures similar to the British Royal family!
If you're interested in hearing them out, I have some suggestions for future alternate history videos.
Anyway, unique what-if history Josh; keep up the incredible work, always be proud of who you are, and stay true to yourself and your dreams!
According to Bismarck's draft of the Constitution of Imperial Germany, the Chancellor is appointed by the Emperor and thus solely responds to him. This made Bismarck untouchable since everyone knew that Wilhelm I would never have ditched him during his reign. But it is likely that without that damn cancer Frederick III would have searched for a suitable replacement as soon as the situation allowed for it. His choice might have fallen on Chlodwig, Prince of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, a prominent southern german liberal and a relative to the Imperial family. In our timeline he actually became Chancellor in 1894 under Wilhelm II, adopting the Civil Code aka Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) into german law.
Objection: I read the a book about Frederick III and his diary stated that he told Bismarck that he would let him in office due to his contribution and popularity. Bismarck also knew of Frederick‘s limited moderate liberalism. A replacement of Bismarck was highly unlikely under Frederick III.
@@fwiii1831 This book might be interesting, especially the diary passage. Can you give me the title and author, so that I may look it up? When did he tell Bismarck that he would remain in office? If it was before his diagnostication of cancer around May 1887, this would effectively attest his trust towards the chancellor. But if he acknowledged it after May 1887, he likely knew that he could die way sooner than he expected and that his son would need at least one seasoned statesman to assist him at the beginning of his reign.
@@alexandrekan8589 The title of the book is "Der 99-Tage-Kaiser: Friedrich III. von Preußen - Prinz, Monarch, Mythos", author: Frank Lorenz Müller. The acknowledgements in the book state, that the English book was published under the name:"Our Fritz, Emperor Frederick III and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany" in Harvard University Press in 2011.
I have only 50 more pages to go to finish the book, I like it in spite the time jumps that are sometimes a little bit exhausting to read. The book is great so far but I do not understand why the train accident of 1851 was not mentioned that nearly killed Frederick... The book stated that Bismarck despised Frederick and his bossy wife but since the Kaiser determines who is chancellor he started flattering him... At the bottom line it is hard to summarize so many pages which is why I recommend you reading it.
The problem with dying was that Mackenzie the British physician spreaded so much enthusiasm that everythingwas OK with Frederick, he only admitted that he had cancer when other physicians pooved it. This could have made Frederick III uncertain concerning the chancellory question…
First person I have seen cover this topic on UA-cam. I am a member of a mod team that is trying to portray this exact scenario in Hearts of Iron IV, so it is nice to see this topic get more attention.
What’s that mod called? I’m really curious to see what you guys can come up with.
@@TheGoodluckjonny Glad to know you are interested! It is called Roar of the Gryphon.
@@jackthetimberlog7023 Oh damn, I know that name! Awesome to see it’s still being worked on. It’s probably impossible to even predict a release date I’m guessing? :D
@@TheGoodluckjonny Release Date is aiming for some time this year, originally it was quarter one this year but we had some delay because of lack of manpower on certain countries.
This is honestly more interesting then most alt history’s in my opinion.
Him not smoking is the perfect portrait of the meme "time traveler moves a chair: the time line..."
I’m just here for his beard. One of the best.
(I do think the history is fascinating as well)
Thanks Josh. That was fascinating.
First, the term liberal has a much different meaning in 2023 compared to 1850. Victorian England was hardly a liberal by our standards. If you don't believe me I would refer you to the Sepoy Mutiny in which the Brits blew Indian rebels out of cannons as punishment. Victorian England was a nation with a very wealthy, but miniscule, class of aristocracts, bankers and industrialists and the masses (99% of the people) living in hunger and squalor without much hope. The Victorian idea of democracy didn't include a vote for everyone. So it's wrong to paint England as some pillar of democracy. Britain's only concern was its wealthy class making lots of money. Liberalism in the 19th century really meant unrestricted capitalism, while conservativism often represented agrarian interests. Second, without Bismarck, there would have been no Germany. A union could not have happened without war. It's as simple as that. It had been the foreign policy of France since Richelieu to keep Germany divided. France had to be defeated. The Hapsburgs wouldn't have given up neither. Interestingly, Bismarck was responsible for much social welfare legislation in Germany. Yes, he was autocratic, but he knew how to keep the peace once Germany was built. I agree that Germany would have benefitted from BIsmarck's leadership for another decade or so. Third, while its true that Bismarck was opposed to colonial expansion, it's doubtful that would have changed the foreign policies of France, Britain and Russia that sought to maximize their control of Asia and Africa. With or without Germany, China would have been divided up into economic spheres. Wilhelm II merely went with the flow on that.
And which then we brought the elephant on the table. What to do about the Balkan Crisis and the Eastern question. We Germany let Austria be destroy. Because i known it only a matter of time of the 3rd Balkan War happen.
First video I've watched from you and I must subscribe. Great quality and content. Keep up with the good work!
5:05 least based royalist
Meanwhile unified Germany : Bruh
I'm not certain that Bismarck and Frederick would've had the relationship you're thinking of. And as far as Austria collapsing, I'm not sure if the Germans would've allowed that.
And if Austria collapsed the Balkan time bomb will be explode ten folds. With everyone clamming land. I can already see Serbia and Romania on the first list of grabbing lands.
It's interesting that you would translate Friedrich to Frederick, but not Wilhelm to William
it's weird. Why translate Friedrich but not Wilhelm?
@@CaptainJackSparrowSavvyBecause English speakers are more familiar to a Kaiser called Wilhelm, because ww1
Great counterfactual stuff. One of several scenarios from the book "What If". Avoidance of WWI & WWII are the two big questions of the 20th century.
The video is based on the rather ridiculous idea that the hostile British attitude towards Germany was based on the behaviour of Wilhelm II. In reality, Germany had become a strong economic competitor for Britain - what Britain would never have tolerated, under any circumstances.
Likewise Germany was directly trying to threaten British naval dominance
@@sebe2255: That issue could have been solved in 1909, but the British refused…
@@christianstahl4099 Because it was in their interest to check Germany as it was in the German interest to challenge Britain
Although if the political situation in Germany had been different, it would've been more difficult for the British political establishment to convince the average Brit that Germany was an enemy.
Thank you ! I was waiting for that comment
Great! This is a very realistic scenario, I liked it! Maybe another Alt. History - What if the 1848 Revolutions succeeded? Its a scenario I haven’t really seen, it would be cool to see your take on it!
honestly i think he might have actually stood up to bismarck in things where he was shure that there was a better solution so there is achance that if he would have ruled for longer there is a maybe that he might have reduced the hostilitys between france and germany at least a bit.
You should do video on if the Guangxu Emperor was never killed in my personal opinion
He was a true chad! Standing for to his ideals but also serving his nation in war flawlessly even tho he disliked it. His treatment of french prisoners tells of respect, something he shared and earned himself.
For me his son, Wilhelm II. will always be a wannabe. He tried to follow his grandfather politically and his father in terms of personal achievements but never really reached them.
I think it might caused America to remain very much on expansionist. Already having the Philippines. You mentioned on turning China into a bunch of Colonies. I wouldn't be shocked to find America attempting to take a part of or a good chunk of China. Which the US seeing the idea of if they could change the Chinese territories into English speaking and mostly protestant Christian faith. It would then utilize them and the Filipinos to leverage Britain over Canada. Britain could only be so many places at once. This giving Germany a chance to find means to take advantage of the situation.
I think this is a great video, but, I’m also hesitant about some of the assumptions.
I’m really not sure if Bismarck would be able to keep ahold of power. Bismarck’s realpolitik had been effective, except that by 1888 most of the reichstag didn’t like him anymore.
He’d teamed up with the liberals….only to make them hate him after he betrayed them once the kulturkampf was won. By 1878 he had to abandon the liberal party to join the center party as his chief allies, as a guard against more liberal parties, like his former Allies. Then he opposed free trade, and these two factors ended any liberal support for Bismarck.
He could’ve teamed up with the conservatives…but refused them an international empire or other land gains, which also pissed them off. Additionally, after the fiasco of the anti-socialist bill he attempted to pass in 1889.
He could’ve theoretically kept allying with the centre party. However, with Bismarck becoming increasingly unpopular I have to wonder how this would reflect on the Centre in elections, as conservatives and liberals increasingly become frustrated with Bismarck.
Another TEN years, by which he would be rather old, might be impossible without a friendly Kaiser or Reichstag.
Not to mention the Balkan. Bismarck literally failed 2 to form an alliance with Russia and Austria because of the Balkan happen.
The problem with world war 1 is the Balkan problem.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 yes, very true! Especially the Bulgarian Crisis. To his credit Bismarck did organize a lot of secret treaties, like the Mediterranean agreements, to stop Russian aggression. However, they were secret. So to the public it basically looked like the three emperor’s agreement snapping away, while Russia begins consuming the Balkans with no German resistance. This along with the Berlin conference (which with his anti-colonial policy made Germany look lower than other European powers) definitely put a dent in his reputation
@@pandastical9205 To be honest this rising nationalism it only a matter of time when the one those Balkan states wanted more land. With the Turk gone. They will definitely look to the Austria Hungary next ( which Serbia nationalism did)
Honestly i felt sorry for the Ottoman Empire fighting so hard just to keep the mess of Europe lands.
@@pandastical9205 But at least Bismarck was right about the war being start in the Balkan. Which basically narrow down to Austria or Russia action or one of those Balkan state.
Man the Ottoman Empire should have gather those loyal of their people and left. Focus on the middle east after all those region became more valuable in the world.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Yep; inevitable secession
This was a very interesting video with a pretty unique premise!
However I disagree with some of it.
Frederick keeping Bismarck would not result in cordial relations with Russia and an isolated France.
The things that set in motion the formation of the Russo-French alliance already happened, with Bismarck personally negotiating the Berlin Congress, which the Russians saw as a disgrace. From that point on German-Russian relations were essentially in free fall, where the liability of the Austro-Hungarian alliance would cut off any attempt to save them.
The German Empire may have still been victorious in the resulting war if they could manage to keep tensions low enough to keep Britain in splendid isolation or go into an alliance with them when they offered, but yeah, Russia was gone and the great war was going to happen.
I suprised nobody talk about the elephant that is the Balkan that is literally the caused for alliance with Russia impossible.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754Fredrick was most likely see Austria was a sinking ship and jump to Russia. Which is highly likely but keep good good relations with Austria.
@@Clueless-political-guy Until the Balkan happen that it. Either way It is still basically Bismarck work. When the result came he realpolitik of needing Austria if need to fight against Russia or France is i said a great work. But the only problem is that well how can Bismarck sure that Austria strong enough as a valuable allies.
Either If Frederick choose Russia that mean 100% Britain will take France side. The problem is that if Germany support Russia over the Balkan. The British will definitely not allowed Russia to get to the sea.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 Yes however we must remember that Britain was a key supporter of the concert of Europe and wanted it not to be too intense. They would most likely protest but not be able to do much without causing any wars.
What if the Greek monarchie survived
Bismarck had a plan; Bismarck *always* had a plan. 😎
“We are no longer looked upon as the innocent sufferers of wrong, but rather as arrogant victors, no longer content with the conquest of the foe but determined to bring about his utter ruin…at the moment it must seem as though we are neither loved nor respected, only feared.”
-Crown Prince Frederick, 1870, during the climax of the Franco-Prussian War
Alexander III also could have lived until the 1920 with good health....
As an English person, I personally think we sided with the wrong people/the bad guys. We literally sided with Serbia, a country that murdered someone (Franz Ferdinand) for no reason. Then again, we only sided with them, cause we were scared of Russia.
You actually sided with Belgium, a completely neutral country that Germany invaded for nothing but logistical reasons.
Whatever you think of the British reasons to enter the war, or Serbia, Germany was clearly the agressor against Belgium
@@sebe2255 Still, we didn't exactly need to get involved. America didn't join until the last minute, so we could have done the same.
@@tjsquibbofficial I wasn’t arguing about the British motive (even though you were actually obligated to protect Belgium as per the treaty of London). I am just saying Germany absolutely wasn’t the good guy. They attacked and destroyed a completely neutral country
Serbia on the other hand didn’t do nearly as much “wrong” as Germany did. They even agreed to almost all Austrian demands. But even then, at worst they conspired to kill one Heir, they didn’t invade anyone
@@sebe2255 I'd say murdering someone who was meant to rule a country is very much wrong. The war should have stayed between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Everyone in Europe should have condemned Serbia for what they did and say that they wouldn't get involved if Austria-Hungary was rightfully angry. Besides, it's not like Serbia is a good country in the modern day either. They are still in denial about Kosovo being its own country.
@@tjsquibbofficial You can argue if it is wrong but attacking a neutral country and killing many more is absolutely worse
Germany wasn’t the good guy by any definition. And the UK didn’t intervene on behalf of Serbia
Lore of what if Kaiser Frederick survived? Momentum 100
Also had the same thought alot, glad to see a vid about it. One thing however, I see it as unlikely that something like the boxer rebellion *wouldn't* have happened. The Chinese at that time were sick of colonial powers slowly taking over their country and I don't think that the Americans just wouldnt insist on the open door policy. So I see your point of just 'boxer rebellion not happening' as unlikely.
Edit: take a shot everytime he says liberalism or liberal
But then you forget america wasn’t a big power yet. Fredrick would probably forcibly make other powers somewhat back down. However I agree with the fact the boxer rebellion would happen.
@@Clueless-political-guy America certainly was a big power back then, but they would still be reluctant to intervene.
Intresting pfp there btw
Top 10 Idea Recommendations:
1. What if Manchuria developed to become its own independent country instead of being a part of China?
2. What if the Mensheviks formed the USSR instead of the Bolsheviks?
3. What if the 1979 Iranian Revolution failed?
4. What if the Industrial Revolution began in the Middle East instead of Europe?
5. What if the United States just colonized Edo Japan in 1854?
6. What if World War 1 ended in a draw?
7. What if the state religion of the Roman Empire was Buddhism instead of Christianity?
8. What if the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s ended similarly to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989?
9. What if the 9/11 terrorist attack never happened?
10. What if Napoleon Bonaparte won the Battle of Waterloo?
Bruh, Wilhelm didnt start WW1. It was completely Britains fault
what? 😂
I don’t know if it’s Britain’s complete fault, but Wilhelm certainly should not take the full blame. The people who I blame the most are the ministers & generals.
@@xLobius Edward the 5th destroyed German British relations cause he was jealous Victoria loved Wilhelm
@@xLobius Britain supported the Black Hand in serbia which caused the assasination of the Austrian Crown prince which lead to Austro-serbian and austro-russian conflicts fanning up. Then Germany supporting Austria lead to France getting involved (they would have joined anyways due to an alliance with Russia) and Britain decided to use Belgium as an easy justification to join the war as to destroy a Potential european hegemon and rival.
Belgium was just an excuse.
Now that does not make Germany the Good guy nor excuse the invasion of Belgium but.. at that Time Belgium was basically a buffer state whose autonomy was irrelevant to the great powers when their needs were greater. If France had marched into it the brits wouldnt have cared
Then Britain supported France against Germany
@@wilhelmrk And yet Britain didn't want to go to war until Germany attacked a country that guaranteed Britian independence, namely Belgium
Moral of the story: smoking is bad. For you, those around you and sometimes literally everyone
Moral of the story: don't smoke!
Imagine if the portuguese had colonized Australia ?
Think Brazil on the Pacific. Poverty, deforestation of what forests Australia has, and corrupt government. Despite Britain's flaws, they were better off colonizing Australia then Spain or Portugal.
Or when the British started gaining interests in Australia by the end of the XVIIIth century, the british would simply have kicked the portuguese out of Australia. Just like they did when they kicked the dutch out of Ceylan
@@napasadalol how is sending civilized men to Australia somehow gonna end up worse than sending prisoners? also dont bother saying UK colonization or some shit is better, look at Africa and India. No colonizers did good shit and if they did, those shit wasn't good enough.
they should put pictures of Friedrich III on cigarett packs
This is one of my favorite what if's of history that could have fundamentally changed the course 20th century . Hoch der Kaiser!
What if George 1 of Greece survived his Assassination
While I agree with some of your points, I don't really believe a lot of changes that you're suggesting would've actually happened.
Fredrick being on the throne would've changed practically nothing when it came to the alliances of Russia and Britain. For one, Germany didn't even have an alliance with Britain to begin with because of the fact that Britain, at the time, was still trying to stay neutral in most European affairs. And let's be completely honest, the league of the three emperors was as fragile as a dry noodle. It collapsed twice already because of Austrian arrogance in the Balkans and only lasted three years before the German Government allowed it to lapse considering how weak it was. Not to mention how fast Russia was to immediately seek a treaty with France right afterwards.
Russia never truly liked Germany and always had issues with such a powerful nation right on their doorstep. Hell Wilhelm II even tried to create a new treaty ensuring an alliance between Russia and Germany with the The Treaty of Björkö, also known as the Treaty of Koivisto, which was a secret mutual defense accord signed on 24 July 1905 in Björkö between Kaiser Wilhelm II and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. But after the Tsars ministers found out about the agreement, they forced the weak-willed Nicolas to go back on his promise and revoke the treaty from being ratified.
Not to mention how the Germans were naturally getting more and more economically powerful as time went on, which was something that Frederick wouldn't been able to control. German economic output was so incredible that it outclassed Britain in nearly every aspect, and in turn, created a lot of national resentment for Germany's economy. Why else do you imagine that King Edward VII went on a tour around Europe to specifically isolate Germany. Even if Wilhelm ii didn't say those tactless things, such as the Daily Telegraph affair, it's highly doubtful that Britain, with all of it's economic and colonial might, would've had a happy relationship with such a powerful and "dangerous" new nation constantly overshadowing them.
I don't see a universe where simply Fredrick being on the throne would affect Britain's growing jealousy of Germany and prevent Russia from wanting to try and create other treaties elsewhere. In turn, I doubt that Frederick would've been able to prevent WW1.
(Not to mention how some sort of major global conflict with all the major powers was bound to happen at some point or another)
Well i can still name the region will 100% start WW1, it gonna in the Balkan.
Bismarck falied in task of making alliance between Austria and Russia due to the Balkan happen. So Fredrick.... stood no chance. Unless he said screw the Balkan.
After i researched and learn about the 2 Balkan War.Yeb Bismarck was right....... It gonna be in the Balkan.
The British were actually very open to a German alliance, so that change is realistic.
And Russia was infact very pro-german, since alot of their aristocracy was ethnically german.
But pulling both into an alliance is unrealsitic I think. Not without the french being very aggressive.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Russian German alliance is dead by Bismarck hand when he didn't supported Russian claim of a greater Bulgaria. Then again after that is the Austrian annex Bosnia herzegovina.
Either way the problem is that the Balkan. What to do with it.
Because if Germany support the Russian influence in the Balkan. The Austrian and British will definitely sided with the France.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the czar himself was more danish-german than russian
It all falls to the question if Frederick would be able to turn Germany to constitutional monarchy, had he done that Wilhelm won't have the power he had to lead into WW1
What if the Kingdom of castile Leon qonquerd Portugal in the reconquista
i think assuming that the UK would side with germany over france just because the current kaiser was a reformist is a bit naive I think. The UK has always tried to maintain the balance of powers in europe, so if germany gets too cosy with russia, the UK would absolutely support france to prevent the continent from falling between the hands of germany. Also germany is too easily blocked from the world's oceans to really take advantage of colonies, so they would effectively have to break France on land long before fights happen in the colonies, but france can pull support and manpower from its colonies while germany cannot. that is unless the brits side with germany, but that leads us back to the original issue that it immediately throws the balance of powers in europe through the window.
Great job withe the musik ther mate all the right marches at the right time. And all in all a great Video would have loved to see how the wold would look like today if this cenario were true.
Sorry for my bad english grammar its my second language. :)
What if the crusaders won the battle of Varna
What if the first crusade was focust on Spain
That’s something I have always wondered, it would have been better to slowly liberate the Christians in the Muslim world and expunge the Muslims themselves from those lands. Those crusades would have been as successful as the northern crusades against the pagans.
@@HocDaddy The Crusades lifted muslim attention from the Roman Empire and also stopped arabian reinforcements to the Maghrebi and Iberian rulers, thus weakening both fronts. If the first crusade had not hit the near east it would have been feasible that Rome could have been driven out from asia minor completely or even an earlier Seljuk forray into Greece
The year of three emperors was a travesty for europe. Otherwise good Deutsch pronounciations with the exception of Z which transliterates into TS, so Hohenzollern would sound like Hohentsollern using english orthography.
For all the only english speakers in the world who want to make videos about german aristocrats: the preposition „von“ (meaning from) is pronounced like fond without the d.
As a person of Jewish descent as well as a student of history, I really appreciate Fredericks support of Jews!!!
Whilst Willhelm II wasn't the Jews biggest fan, even he didn't like what Hitler was doing, especially post- Kristallnacht. He himself was quoted to say he was ashamed to be German after that
Bro, there has to be an evil timetraveler that just wanted to ruin humanity by handing this guy a cigar
Here’s an interesting scenario that can relate to World War I just like this one what if Rudolf crown prince of Austria never committed suicide
His father was still on the throne at the beginning of the war so nothing would change
@@naughtiusmaximus3690 But Rudolf would have become Emperor in 1916. He was married to a Belgian princess.
@@WFHermans won't change much at this point
This is an alt history idea that constantly floats around in my head.
I miss the Kaiser.
The much more interesting question is: What would have happende, if Friedrich (not Frederick!) had died 100 days earlier?
Who would have become Kaiser then? And what would have happened without Wilhelm II at all?
Wilhelm II will still be Kaiser even if his father died before his grandfather does, that is how primogeniture works as it goes from son to son
What if Kaiser Wilhelm I died when Nobling shot him? That was almost 10 years before he actually died.
How would Friedrich have shaped Germany during those years, and would Wilhelm II have been able to undo it?
Overall I appreciate that you tried to get the names right. Here is some help with it: If there is an 'o' in German it is always pronounced 'o'. We never swap vocals around like the English do. You had also some other minor errors in your pronounciation, but I cannot explain those to you by text.
Could you do what if Alexander II lived longer? I think that would be cool.
Well, from what we know from Russian documents there was an offer to invite deputy from Zemstvos to the State Council. Despite common myth it wasnt a draft of Russian constitution.
Maybe they could make a new programm of reforms? Who knows...
Russia was not in a bad condition, they just failed diplomatically in Berlin congress of 1878.
Anyway Alexander 2 himself believed that Russia is not ready for installing any constitution.
The ultimate scenario for the 19th Century world is where Abraham Lincoln, Frederick III and Alexander II all survive and rule longer. The western hemisphere would likely have been 5x better off.
the best scenario nobody talks about is fredric II & maria theresia marriage
What's the problem with free masonry?
In short, they're an anti-Christian religious cult that seeks to destroy Christianity and the Catholic church.
@@JoshSullivanHistory ok, yeah it's the catholic church understandable.
Yeah no. They are not.
I learnt a lot. Thanks!
Long live the Kaiser!
From what I've read about Kaiser Wihelm II, he was the only European head who was truly trying to advocate for peace and prevent a large scale conflict. Blaming him for WW1 is foolish. WW1 started for a multitude of reasons. Neither Wihelm II nor Germany is responsible for the war.
That's correct
wait a moment...
named Frederick, liberal leanings, bad relationship with his dad, reluctant military success, tolerant of all religions, museum lover?
sounds like the reincarnation of Frederick the great!
I’ve been waiting for this video
What if the Revolutions of 1848 succeeded
Ironically the better timeline for German conservatives/monarchists (and monarchists in general) is the one where they get a Liberal Emperor.
Nah the better timeline is that Bismarck keeps the alliance with Austria, Italy and Russia
Monsieur Z sent me. Glad he did!
Wilhelm's biggest bullshit was breaking Bismarck's policy with Russia. He favored Austria Hungary a weak failed state not viable because of its ethnic configuration which no longer conformed to the idea of the nation state. Frederik should not make this mistake if he wishes the survival of the empire, fighting on two fronts was the kiss of death for Germany.
Queen Victoria: "Hey Frederick, i want you to marry Victoria!" Just imagine she said that.
The hate for Kaiser Wilhelm II is ridiculous he tried to avoid the war at any cost but when france INVADED german territory germany fought back but its germanys fault
yeah .... he also didn.t delove the alliance with russia ... that happend over ten years before he got crowned
@@baronbrummbar8691 people soon forget the west and the allies empowered hitler
Kaiser Wilhelm II was the only public voice against Hitler
@@tyrsonleon4607 the west was publicly anti hitler ...... but ther actions empowered him
@@tyrsonleon4607 he have Austria a blanche cheque, if he didn't there would have been no war moron
Fredericks death was a tragedy. Blood hell, how might the worlk look today if he would have been given only 10 more good years?
Hell and damnation on his british doctor Mackenzie.
What if the umayyad caliphate crushed the abbasids Revolution
Interestingly this video essay is a good argument why Frederick had to die.
Preventing big industrial warfare until after full industrialization or even the invention of nuclear weapons.
Denying humanity the bitter lessons from both world wars without devastating the planet or even outright destroying humanity.
2:40 what you are saying is that if Fredrick followed his dad , the Kaiser would hate Russia instead of Britain OTL
We must examine these "what ifs" because we have to try to prevent any new conflicts from taking root.
Bro why is that video like couple day from my birthday
You have a lot of historical inaccuracies here and i dont think its much your fault. It seems your sources may have been from German and English media at the time which held an overwhelmingly negative view on Wilhelm II. They hated him so much they would simply ignor and flaws his father had in an effort to make it impossible to reasonably support Wilhelm II. I would encourage you to read the diaies of Wilhelm, Victoria, and so on instead of relying on a 3rd parties biased opinions of how someone thought or their ideals.
Yeah, look at the newest comment what my thought was about the inaccuracies
Videos had some important aspects missing or wrong, especially propaganda by the 19th century Britain, most about Wilhelm Ⅱ.
One of the first things Wilhelm Ⅱ did was improve worker conditions, he didn't hate Britain at all but even wanted to form an alliance with Britain, which of course didn't work because of Edward 7th that hated Wilhelm and Germany and did all to build tensions in Europe and isolate Germany, as well as the big British jealousy of Germany. Wilhelm wasn't an antisemite either, he even donated to synagogues, and he also had good relations with Tsar Nicolas, and worked for an alliance with Russia, which of course was hindered by politicians that didn't like each others countries. Wilhelm also didn't fire Bismarck as portrayed, Bismarck controlled Wilhelm Ⅰ with resignment, and when he did the same with Wilhelm Ⅱ, Wilhelm simply was like "ok, there's the door", Wilhelm even offered Bismarck the post as foreign minister, which Bismarck didn't take. Also Bismarck was ooold. Wilhelm Ⅱ had no aspirations for German expansion in Europe and focused mostly on improving Germany and keeping peace.
Another thing said in the video about China, Germany had a treaty port in China AND NOT A COLONY, and never questioned Chinese authority over that territory, with exemplary good relations with China. Germany after all also build a Chine wide famous German school, which had students from all over China
So basically Britain did everything that it accused Germany of.
Best would be that this comment gets pinned to undo British history revisionism.
08:05 f:
Friedrich Wilhelm was the exact opposite of weak and cowardly. A coward wouldn't even have opposed anti-Jewish protests.
What if kapodistrias survived
Her: "I can't believe he didn't cry during Titanic. Do men even have feelings?"
Me:
Have to disagree on this one. Saying that Wilhelm II = WW1, and Fred = peace and prosperity, is very very very simplified and naive, as the war was not caused by just one man, but by a plethora of situations and reactions from many many parties.
Afternoon
What if the Nederlands Regonquerd the zoudtern Nederlands in the 80 Years war
What if Charles Martel invaded Spain qonquerd Spain