Bismarck stays as Chancellor

[KGBeast]

Let us assume that when Wilhelm I died on 1890 his successor Freidrich III does not do so a short time later and we do not have the intractability of ideas that Bismarck would soon have with Wilhelm II. With this in mind Otto Von Bismarck can merrily continue shaping German policy until his death a decade later. IMO this 10 year interval was the most important time period in German history that played a pivotal role in the outbreak of WWI. From Wilhelm's obsession with being a naval rival to GB that led to the naval arms race that nearly bankrupted Germany and diverted resources from the army where it was more important, the decision to let the defensive treaty with Russia lapse forcing them onto the hands of the French to interfering with GB's commercial zones of influence. IMO there is no great war if Bismarck is not unsurrententiously fired. He would have had the foresight to extend the treaty with Russia and possible added England in the mix as well. A France alone with no allies would have been very easy pickings if/when hostilities started up again.

[Adler17]

I am an admirer of Bismarck. However, in 1890 he had lost his power. The Reichstag was completely against him. He could not find a coalition. It is clear, that Wilhelm wanted to fire Bismarck. But despite all problems they worked nearly two years together. Bismarck fell over his own politics, namely the Socialist laws. He overextended his power. He could no longer be chancellor, as he had no support in the Reichstag any more. And despite the words of the constitution, the Reichstag could indirectly fire the chancellor. And they did so.

Also, even with Bismarck he had a mission impossible to make possible. Russia was already moving away from Germany. They felt betrayed, when the Berlin Congress of 1878 was not a total success for them, but an honest brokerage by Bismarck. It is a wonder, that he indeed managed it to hold the alliance so long.

And Britain? Like in Russia with Nicholas we had a new ruler, who hated everything German (Edward VII.) although being a German. He hated Wilhelm, as he won a regatta against his uncle. Furthermore Britain was worried by the German strength. Over long or short a crisis between both nations could happen. Interestingly this was over, when George V. became king. In 1914 chances of a reconceilment were very good. A deal in 1913 only hardly failed. But not on the German side, but the British. As they did not want to accept neutrality in case of a major war in Europe.

In 1914 though Bismarck was very needed. But even if he was alive, he was way too old to do anything (he would be 99).

Adler

[LOTLOF]

Having Freidrich III live long enough to rule for awhile is probably more crucial than keeping Bismark in office. By 1890 he was already past the zenith of his powers and had already made his most vital contributions.

Freidrich III appeared to have had more faith in socialism and lacked Wilhelm's paranoia and extremism on a lot of issues. Have him on the throne until at least 1910 ad you have Russia as an ally, some sort of naval treaty with Britain, a lack of confrontations with the other powers and a far better international standing. With Russia and Austria-Hungary tied up as allies and Britain unwilling to sign a formal alliance France remains more or less isolated. Britain may be wary of the German led power block but are not going to act against it unless they are directly threatened.

[yourworstnightmare]

As I understand Frederick III was not really a fan of Bismark either. At the time Bismark lacked support, had no power base, and would face a Kaiser who'd happily fire him (whoever was on the throne).

[Adler17]

Wilhelm's last words to Bismarck were: "It was not ever easy to be Kaiser under you." Wilhelm I. was quiet weak. Friedrich and Wilhelm II. not. And yes, if Friedrich III. lived longer you would see many butterflies.

Adler