I wouldn't call the German Empire a staunchly conservative absolute monarchy though. The SPD was there to stay and even the reactionaries were unwilling to change that with violence. The democratic elements became more and more influential and the power of the Junker and the Kaiser was slooowly but steadily eroding.
That's fair, Germany in 1914 actually had a wider electoral franchise than Great Britain (the supposed beacon of democracy and liberalism in Europe). Though I think it's fair to describe the Imperial German state as one that was illiberal with democratic elements but, as you say, in the process of changing.
Eh, for whatever that franchise was worth. Yes you did have universal, equal male suffrage for the Reichstag; but the Reichstag's powers were quite limited. It even abridged the one great power it would have, over the budget, by allowing for multi-year budgets for the military. While chaotic and a struggle, it would have been entirely possible for the Imperial Government to govern without any majority backing in the Reichstag. The real power lay with the bureaucracy and to a lesser extent the military; and those classes were filled with the Junkers. So it's IMO fitting enough to call Imperial Germany a staunchly conservative constitutional-absolute monarchy.
What you did see in the late phase in the Empire was indeed a continual gain of seats by the SPD; but that didn't really translate into any meaningful reforms yet, and it is actually entirely open if it would have had WW1 not happened. Really, the Kaiserreich was not a good state construction on multiple levels; it had to go, like it historically did.
German solidarity. Germanic would include the Netherlands, Scandinavia, England, the Dominions, USA...
This English conflation of Germanic and German (and it is indeed purely English) is just a pet peeve of mine.
But yes, reading about battles at the WW1 eastern front or even more so in the Baltic Sea is kinda hilarious, as the commanders on both sides usually have German names... Though, yes, that were the Baltic Germans, and they got a favoured position not because they were Germans, but because they were nobles. In fact, they were hit with Russification policies just like everyone else, and Russian was introduced as the only official language in the Baltic territories in the 1880s as well.
The period of the 1890's is pretty important for Russia's pre-WWI foreign relations. If you want to avert the Franco-Russian alliance and keep Russia friendly or at least affably neutral towards Germany, this is the time for it.
Hm. One important factor in that alliance were all the French investments in Russia. Russia, as an underdeveloped country, had a lot of potential, and France had the capital. Meanwhile, even while relations had been good, German investments in Russia had never reached nearly the same level. So, for one thing, France might still simply
buy Russian goodwill, and for another, if it doesn't, Russia will probably have a worse economical standing than IOTL on account of missing those foreign investments.
Though I also remember people on AH.com opining that France and Russia were basically overspending, both on those investments and the military, in the starting 20th century, and that after another decade or so without WW1 would have had to cut back on that considerably. Not sure how much truth there is to that, though.
OTLs Wilhelm II. dies due to the complications at birth. His brother Heinrich becomes Crown Prince and Emperor instead. His character and his interests seem beneficial for a more sane and careful German foreign policy.
Who knows if Henry* would be the same if he were Crown Prince from the start. He would be an ideal monarch, yes, but safer to have William have a timely accident before he can procreate... preserve an as late as possible PoD so as to not influence Henry... But yes, Emperor Henry I is a good idea.
*names of monarchs and princes usually get translated, after all...
