Could the Allies have replaced the Hohenzollerns after WWI?

[Strategos' Risk]

Instead of abolishing the German monarchy altogether, what if they swapped out the ruling house with a different family? Such as the Wittelsbachs under Crown Prince Rupprecht. Could this have yielded any benefits by punishing the Prussians and creating inter-German division along dynastic lines (as opposed to political ideology)?

Also it's interesting that Rupert himself wanted to diminish Prussia's power.

During the spring of 1915, Rupprecht sent an answer to General Moritz von Bissing, the Governor-General of Belgium, responding to Bissing's inquiry about Bavaria's opinion on the "Belgian question".[8] Rupprecht envisaged an economic and military association of Belgium with Germany by introducing the Netherlands (enlarged by the Flemish areas of Belgium and northern France) and Luxembourg (enlarged by Belgian Luxembourg) as new federal states of the German Empire.[8] To the Kingdom of Prussia, Rupprecht suggested other areas of northern France, Walloon Belgium with Liege and Namur, and the salient of the Netherlands round Maastricht.[8] The Imperial Territory of Alsace-Lorraine and the rest of Lorraine was to be partitioned between Bavaria and Prussia.[8] Rupprecht aimed to reduce Prussia's hegemonic role in the Reich by building a sort of an imperial triumvirate of power between Prussia, Bavaria and the Netherlands.[8]

Dunno how accurate the article it is, but interesting that it says he was one of the better royal commanders.

I would assume that this scheme is unworkable from a logistical political economy perspective, because the German Empire had been founded by the North Germans and built up by them for almost half a century. And perhaps it was too late to foist a different, kinder monarch upon the November revolutionaries. (Bavaria was the first monarchy to fall!) But what if Ruppert convinces his father to do something different instead of abdicating?

Also:

Monarchism in Bavaria after 1918 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KAL_9000]

What the fuck, no, why would they do that?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

To punish the Prussians, foster inter-German division, and the Wittelsbachs upon first glance seem to be a lot more liberal than the Prussian Hohenzollerns.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Interesting!

The ideal replacement would be someone not belonging to any major state of the Empire, but that also would make them illegible

Prince Max of Baden was Chancellor late on, maybe you could make him emperor

 

[KAL_9000]

To punish the Prussians, foster inter-German division, and the Wittelsbachs upon first glance seem to be a lot more liberal than the Prussian Hohenzollerns.

What? The goal of the occupation was to prevent something like the Nazis from happening again, not to punish any group of Germans. And for that matter, why would a group of countries who just thirty years earlier had fought a long and bloody war against a German monarchy ever want to put one back in place?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

This is about post-Great War, World War I.

 

[KAL_9000]

This is about post-Great War, World War I.

Somehow I had read it as World War II. Nevertheless, my point stands that a group of nations who had just fought a bloody war against the German monarchy would not want to reintroduce it, especially as the will of the German people had turned against the Kaiser completely by that point and any monarchist revival imposed by foreign powers would probably end in revolt, regardless of which inbred twat was on the throne.

 

[Atterdag]

Instead of abolishing the German monarchy altogether, what if they swapped out the ruling house with a different family?

This is a non-starter since it wasn't the allies/entente that abolished the German monarchy - it was the Germans themselves. Even if the German monarchy was to hang on by a thread as the Great War ends, having the allies planning to install a puppet monarch is a surefire way to have it be abolished alltogether.

Should Rupprecht align himself with the enemies Germany has been fighting for the last 4 years, and effectively lead a coup to install himself as a friendly monarch I don't think he'd stay un-assassinated for very long.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The ideal replacement would be someone not belonging to any major state of the Empire, but that also would make them illegible

Prince Max of Baden was Chancellor late on, maybe you could make him emperor

Saxony and Württemberg are both pretty tiny compared to the other two kingdoms...

Somehow I had read it as World War II. Nevertheless, my point stands that a group of nations who had just fought a bloody war against the German monarchy would not want to reintroduce it, especially as the will of the German people had turned against the Kaiser completely by that point and any monarchist revival imposed by foreign powers would probably end in revolt, regardless of which inbred twat was on the throne.

The Allies didn't set out to overthrow the monarchy and force the Weimar Republic, it was an internal move because of widespread German dissatisfaction with the (current) monarchy, as well as leftist worker revolutionary movements that turned against the aristocracy. As chancellor, Prince Max even pushed through constitutional reforms to try to convert the empire into a British-style parliamentary monarchy, as well as to convince Wilhelm II to abdicate. In the end the reforms failed to prevent further deterioration, Max abdicated both the kaiser and his own power to the Social Democrats, who declared the new republic in response to an imminent Spartakist uprising. This was all done really haphazardly and under immense political turmoil and pressure, so it very well might've shaken out differently.

This is a non-starter since it wasn't the allies/entente that abolished the German monarchy - it was the Germans themselves. Even if the German monarchy was to hang on by a thread as the Great War ends, having the allies planning to install a puppet monarch is a surefire way to have it be abolished alltogether.

Should Rupprecht align himself with the enemies Germany has been fighting for the last 4 years, and effectively lead a coup to install himself as a friendly monarch I don't think he'd stay un-assassinated for very long.

To replace the Prussians with a different family would involve even more drastic changes to the constitution, but maybe it could have been an idea that gets floated by the Allies or as a last ditch German aristocratic effort to get more lenient terms from the Allies. So forget my original idea of this as a completely outsider-imposed idea. Maybe it's something that the existing German elites try to do to save their own skins as a class from the workers' and soldiers' councils, by tossing the Prussians under the bus.

It's pretty amusing to compare this with the Russian and even French revolutions, they went from authoritarian monarchy to radical republic (much less in this case) because they were too slow to go to constitutional parliamentary monarchy and by then it was too little too late. The only reason Germany avoided full sovietization is because the SPD stabbed the revolution in the back.

 

[Saci]

If they can bloody install a monarch on the german throne they must be on the outskirts of Berlin. This is far, far worse than Versailles.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Germans, not the Entente, toppled the German Monarchy. The Entente was overjoyed to see that happen and, baring a situation where the US stays out and the Russian Empire stays in, I think the Entente would impose a republic on Germany if it was in a position to impose any form of government.

Even if the Entente leadership did decide on imposing a new monarch on Germany, I doubt it'd be the Wittelsbachs given their limited appeal outside Bavaria and the Rhineland (Catholicism), and Crown Prince Rupprecht's imperialism and militarism (wanting to annex the Netherlands and Luxembourg would not be viewed favourably, even with the caveat that it was primarily meant to diminish Prussian influence). If the Entente is assigning a new King to Germany it'd have to be a case of a domineering UK putting the Hannover branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the throne.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

If they can bloody install a monarch on the german throne they must be on the outskirts of Berlin. This is far, far worse than Versailles.

What if to prevent the Spartacists from winning, the elites allow the Allies to do that (as well as other concessions) in exchange for their aid in putting down the November Revolution? Say the SPD sides with the revolts, and the German Supreme Command bungles the response, making the government all the more weaker and dependent upon outside support.

The Entente was overjoyed to see that happen and, baring a situation where the US stays out and the Russian Empire stays in, I think the Entente would impose a republic on Germany if it was in a position to impose any form of government.

How'd they view the October 1918 reforms?

 

[Herohunter]

Instead of abolishing the German monarchy altogether, what if they swapped out the ruling house with a different family? Such as the Wittelsbachs under Crown Prince Rupprecht. Could this have yielded any benefits by punishing the Prussians and creating inter-German division along dynastic lines (as opposed to political ideology)?

Also it's interesting that Rupert himself wanted to diminish Prussia's power.



Dunno how accurate the article it is, but interesting that it says he was one of the better royal commanders.

I would assume that this scheme is unworkable from a logistical political economy perspective, because the German Empire had been founded by the North Germans and built up by them for almost half a century. And perhaps it was too late to foist a different, kinder monarch upon the November revolutionaries. (Bavaria was the first monarchy to fall!) But what if Ruppert convinces his father to do something different instead of abdicating?

Also:

Monarchism in Bavaria after 1918 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

maybe if the Russian Empire kept chugging along and stayed together to work with the France in the post war treaty to divide Germany but keep it monarchist. maybe a French influenced German Federation lead by the Wittelsbachs in the South and West and a Russian Influenced Prussian Kingdom Lead by the Hohenzollerns in the North-East.

 

[Sicarius]

In this scenario, who is King of Prussia? The government of the Empire and of the Kingdom of Prussia were closely intertwined, and Prussia covered 3/5 of the Empire’s territory and contained 2/3 of its population (before being reduced after the war). Assuming any of this could be pulled off (big assumption), having a King that was substantially more powerful than the Emperor would certainly be a recipe for instability.

 

[David T]

The German revolutionaries who overthrew the Kaiser in 1918 were not interested in a change of dynasties. The OP wrongly assumes that everything that happened in Germany was the work of the Allies.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Subsequent posts have corrected that position. It is an evolving view.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

How'd they view the October 1918 reforms?

Does it matter? They weren't in a position to change Germany's government, and they understood that.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Does it matter? They weren't in a position to change Germany's government, and they understood that.

My question is whether they would have been okay with a constitutional monarchy as opposed to an outright republic.

 

[Fries]

My question is whether they would have been okay with a constitutional monarchy as opposed to an outright republic.

Germany was a constitutional monarchy. It became a military dictatorship more or less in the later years of the war but for much of its history it was a constitutional monarchy. Not parliamentary, but certainly not absolutist.

 

[Lautréamont]

What if to prevent the Spartacists from winning, the elites allow the Allies to do that (as well as other concessions) in exchange for their aid in putting down the November Revolution?

An actual stab in the back? Well, that's not going to help matters regarding German stability.