Had Kaiser Wilhelm II not dismissed Bismarck, how might European History have been different? Would things still have eventually exploded into a world war, or would the Iron Chancellor have been able to further secure Germany's position making them virtually untouchable, or...? Your opinion?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
From Quora I found this glorious answer which highlights many good points
Source https://www.quora.com/Had-Kaiser-Wilhelm-II-kept-Bismarck-on-would-the-Great-War-have-taken-place
That is an almost impossible question to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. As Professor Clark in his book “The Sleepwalkers” has pointed out, there was no reason why any country would want to encircle Germany and isolate her by forming coalitions against her. Rather, it was Germany herself which, through a misguided idea of economic and military strength and, consequently, independence, allowed herself to become isolated, and later to antagonise friendly states (Britain, Italy, Japan) and former allies (Russia) until, fatefully, she found herself alone, with just the powder keg that was Austria-Hungary as a comrade-in-arms.
Firstly, the Iron Chancellor would not have allowed the Russian-German treaty to expire in 1890, which pushed Russia in the direction of France.
Secondly, Bismarck would probably have kept Admiral Tirpitz firmly in check, whose influence on Wilhelm II fueled the arms race with Britain which ultimately led to the Entente Cordiale between that country and its erstwhile arch-enemy, France.
Thirdly, Bismarck would not have allowed Wilhelm to become the maverick in foreign affairs that damaged Germany’s reputation abroad. Germany would increasingly be seen as the mirror image of Wilhelm: an arrogant, childishly selfish, pouting, loud-mouthed and sabre rattling, peacocky upstart, who formed an opinion first and then would refuse to change his mind after being confronted with the facts (a proto-Donald Trump as it were), rather than as the cradle and guiding light of European culture, and a useful ally in Europe’s power balance. But for this, even relations between Germany and France would over time have more or less normalised.
Of course, we must bear in mind that Bismarck before March 1890, when Wilhelm let him go, had already shown increasing uninterest in state affairs, ill-health and ever stronger political opposition making him stay for extended periods at home on his estate, and he died in 1898. But perhaps an extra few years of even a weakened Bismarck would have just made enough difference. It may also have led to other, stronger successors than the benign but weak Caprivi (who followed in Bismarck’s footsteps malgré lui) or the sycophantic opportunist Bülow who could not or would not keep a firm grip on Wilhelm. It would not, of course, have prevented the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but a different set of alliances might have kept Austria-Hungary’s aggressive stance against Serbia in check and prevented the nefarious domino effect that made the lights go out all over Europe in 1914 (to paraphrase Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary).
So in short no I don’t think the war would have happened to such a severe degree had Bismarck stayed on. They would have most likely had a stronger position in foreign affairs which states to me they would have also remained in the power position. I am by far no history major yet it seems as if the dismissal of Bismarck was central to the down fall of Germany causing many overlapping situations leading to the explosion of war. As for untouchable I wouldn’t go that far yet with maintaining the ties with Russia they would have been a force to recon with.
Posted using Partiko iOS
bravo. Great answer!