Opinion of Kaiser Willhelm II

[Thunderbird is the word]

Obviously a massive HP though wrongly singled out as bearing sole responsibility for the the outbreak of WW1.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Not very competent, allowing his personal feelings to dictate foreign policy, especially with regard to Britain. While I understand why he dismissed Bismarck, reversing certain Bismarck's policies was a huge mistake: his obsession with gaining new colonies and building fleet that could rival the Royal Navy.

I agree he was not the only one responsible the outbreak of WWI, he was a main destructive force in European politics and that played a huge role.

Also, from what I've read he was an unbearable ass personally.

[Kingpoleon]

His personality was great or awful and he was not very competent. His obsession with the new colonies was a bad idea. As for the naval fleet, that without the colonies and combined with an ally's(say Italian and Austrian) navy being grown, would be a good idea. FF with some personal quirks and a huge ego.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Wilhelm's persona is deligtfully depicted in Edward the Seventh.

But what else would you expect from Victoria's grandson?

[Beet]

The navy was a complete waste. In retrospect, Tsushima Straits will be remembered as the last decisive battle between gunned warships in human history.

[Lincoln Republican]

Arrogant autocrat and ambitious war monger.

[Sir Mohamed]

HP. Warmonger.

[RogueBeaver]

Mega-HP who played a major role in destroying an entire world as it was then known.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Mega-HP who played a major role in destroying an entire world as it was then known.

To be fair, that world was not exactly great.

[Famous Mortimer]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

[Thunderbird is the word]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

It may have, just with different bad guys. I could easily see a fascist Britain where a demagogue blamed the Irish for stabbing the UK in the back for the Easter Uprising.

[Cory]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Well that depends on exactly when and how he won.

A swift German victory in 1914 may in hindsight been the best possible outcome of the war.

[Derpist]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

A German victory in WW1 would be better than IRL just because there'd be no Nazis, but it'd still be pretty bad. Germany was a military dictatorship by 1917 that was drowning in war debt. The only way it could stave off total economic collapse (like IRL) would be totally pillage Eastern Europe and France in a treaty infinitely worse than Versailles, which it totally would do.

Europe would thus be an economic basketcase, totally cut-off from the rest of the world too, with Germany as only somewhat less disastrous than its neighbors (who will likely despise Germany).

It would also be bordered by the Soviet Union.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

Without Wilson and his pro-Allied "neutrality", at the very least the February Revolution would have brought in a Russian government that launched a peace offensive instead of the ill-fated July offensive.

[Cory]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

A German victory in WW1 would be better than IRL just because there'd be no Nazis, but it'd still be pretty bad. Germany was a military dictatorship by 1917 that was drowning in war debt. The only way it could stave off total economic collapse (like IRL) would be totally pillage Eastern Europe and France in a treaty infinitely worse than Versailles, which it totally would do.

Europe would thus be an economic basketcase, totally cut-off from the rest of the world too, with Germany as only somewhat less disastrous than its neighbors (who will likely despise Germany).

It would also be bordered by the Soviet Union.

This is true if Germany wins late in the war, but what if they knock out France in 1914? Russia would probably make peace and the UK would be basically forced to end the war.

[Derpist]

If he had won WWI, WWII and the Bolshevik revolution would never have happened.

Uh, Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't win without the Bolshevik Revolution knocking Russia out of the war.

A German victory in WW1 would be better than IRL just because there'd be no Nazis, but it'd still be pretty bad. Germany was a military dictatorship by 1917 that was drowning in war debt. The only way it could stave off total economic collapse (like IRL) would be totally pillage Eastern Europe and France in a treaty infinitely worse than Versailles, which it totally would do.

Europe would thus be an economic basketcase, totally cut-off from the rest of the world too, with Germany as only somewhat less disastrous than its neighbors (who will likely despise Germany).

It would also be bordered by the Soviet Union.

This is true if Germany wins late in the war, but what if they knock out France in 1914? Russia would probably make peace and the UK would be basically forced to end the war.

That would probably be a much better world, but it's really hard to get done. Ultimately, the Schleffein plan failed because there simply weren't enough close to enough men to do everything they needed done. Of course, they could get more men from the Eastern Front, but they also only barely pulled off their miraculous victory over Russia at Tannenberg, which was probably the only thing stopping Russia from driving to Vienna/Berlin and forcing the Germans to pull back tons of men from the West.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Germany would need everything to go right to knock out France in 1914. A truly neutral U.S. would make a Western Front victory in 1915 possible and 1916 probable.

[Derpist]

Germany would need everything to go right to knock out France in 1914. A truly neutral U.S. would make a Western Front victory in 1915 possible and 1916 probable.

I think its debatable if the Schleffein plan was ever possible or just really really hard to pull off. I'm pretty neutral on that proposition.

The issue with a very quick German victory is...what stops them from doing it again? After totally creaming France in 1870 and 1914, they might get pretty damn full of themselves. And it's not like France would feel genuinely crushed. World War I was thought to be the war to end all wars because every nation was completely wiped out in the meat grinder. A quick victory in WW1 may lead to people not understanding how horrific total war was.

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.

If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.

Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.

If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.

Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.

To be fair, fascist France weaker with a monarchist/democratic Germany with a strong military and a communist Russia is not worse than fascist Germany with a democratic France with a weak military and a communist Russia.

[President Johnson]

HP. WWI ruined Germany and led to the rise of Hitler (although this is not entirely his fault).

[Derpist]

I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.

If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.

Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.

To be fair, fascist France weaker with a monarchist/democratic Germany with a strong military and a communist Russia is not worse than fascist Germany with a democratic France with a weak military and a communist Russia.

It's much better. Hitler was far worse than Mussolini or the austro-fascists.

It's actually difficult to express how awful the Nazis were.

[Kingpoleon]

Sorry, I meant not better.

[Minstral]

I think there is a pretty telling British political cartoon done at the time that he made Bismark retire. "Dropping the pilot".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't get this pro-German World War I view that the world would have been so much better if they had won. Events don't occur in a vacuum.

If France lost, there is a good chance the Third Republic fell and that would result in the creation of a government dedicated to restoring its former glorly. That could easily be a fascist dictator.

Also, Russia was in an abyss of rioting in 1914. Knowledge of this actually made things worse, because the German diplomats fueled the notion in Berlin that Russia was a paper tiger and could not possibly stand up to the Central Powers. Patriotic fervor temporarily papered over these problems, but a swift defeat by Germany probably plunges the country into revolution. Considering their history, an iron man on a horse is the most likely outcome.

To be fair, fascist France weaker with a monarchist/democratic Germany with a strong military and a communist Russia is not worse than fascist Germany with a democratic France with a weak military and a communist Russia.

Who said anything about a communist Russia. I said iron man on a horse. As in a proto-fascist military dictatorship that rose to power by bathing the country in blood.

Remember Communist Russia was a fluke produced by the fact that the war had continued and the Bolsheviks were the only group that was both organized and anti-war. Once in power in Moscow and Petrograd, the central nature of their controlled areas, superior organization and quite frankly, ruthless leadership allowed Communist Russia to emerge from the ensuing Civil War. They also channeled Russian nationalism in response to the foreign interventions.

Without the war, a Russian Revolution probably produces a weak gov't followed by a military dictator as the more likely course. It might even be in the form of Tsarist hard liners seeking a counter-revolution.

Tsarist Russia had a long history of persecuting Jews. Depending on the dictators in of
France and Russia especially, mass extermination of people is highly likely and a Russian holocaust is plausible in that scenario.

There was no way for anybody to win WW1 without the other side feeling cheated. Russia felt cheated out of its land because it surrended so much to get peace and then when Germany lost, it got nothing. The Reds blamed the West of course for that. Germany likewise. Revanchist sentiment, anti-semmitism, ruthless right-wing dictatorship. Stalin easily exceeded Hitler in the body count department as it was, I think the same is possible in Russia.

And another thing. a better led and equiped Russian Army could not be defeated by Germany. As it was Russia held up remarkly well when under competent commanders in the first year of World War I. The disasters at Tannenburg were the result of incompetence leadership and rushing into battle head of schedule to relieve the Frence at Marne. German planning even accounted for the fact that Russia would be unbeatable by 1917 as the country had been aggressively industralizing in the early 1900's and more importantly, building up its railway network.

And that gets me to another point, better management of the railway network would have prevented the extreme food and fuel shortages in Petrograd that sparked the rioting that would turn into a full Revolution in February 1917.

Russia under the leadership of such an iron man on a horse, would likely steamroll Germany.