Talk:Kaiser Wilhelm II

!

Part of this article was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.

RJJensen 11:49, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

Namibia

On the genocide issue see "THE HERERO HOLOCAUST?: The Disputed History Of The 1904 Genocide," by Jeremy Silvester, Werner Hillebrecht & Casper Erichsen. RJJensen 09:20, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

• There are historians who dispute that the response to the Herero Uprising was any worse than what other colonial powers were doing at the time. Examine the actions of Belgian King Leopold II for a particularly notorious example. Therefore, do not cite only one side of what is a rather acrimonious dispute among academics.

The tone this article is taking also bothers me. Historian Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War argues that the British Empire was far more agressively expansionist and militaristic during this era. As early as 1901, there was a secret decision by the British Cabinet through which Britain would enter a war between Germany and France.

According to Winston Churchill, centuries of British foreign policy boiled down to a single concept. Whenever a continental power grew strong enough to rival Britain's domination of Europe, Whitehall would build a coalition of nations and cut the "bully" down to size by going to war.

Whatever the Kaiser's glaring flaws, he almost certainly would have acted differently in 1914 had he known that a war with France would also be a war against the British Empire.

Also, I am rather curious as to why you deleted my link to information about the annual monarchist demonstrations at Huis Doorn. The last Kaiser does have his admirers in modern Germany and it seems rather unproffessional to conceal this fact. The latter regard him as a good Christian and a loyal family man who is defamed both by wartime propaganda and by history.Kingstowngalway 19:50, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

we don't tolerate moral relativism here. the Kaiser was a great enemy to Africans, to Americans and indeed to Germans and no whitewashing or celebrating will be tolerated. RJJensen 21:51, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Moral Relativism? Excuse me? I do not see how giving a voice to differing opinions qualifies as moral relativism. It is what makes encyclopedia articles great.

Most European colonialists were enemies to Africans. The ethnic cleansing of the Hereros was an vicious atrocity which was unfortunately far from unique. However, it had more in common with the U.S. Government's "pacification" of the Indians than with the Nazi Holocaust. In my opinion, it deserves an article of it's own.

During most of World War I, the Kaiser was nothing more than a mouthpiece for Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff. In its last days, the Kaiser's Germany actually had more in common with Japan under Tojo than Germany under Hitler. The average Imperial German infantryman tended to be far better behaved than the soldiers of either regime, however.Kingstowngalway 22:55, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

The Kaiser was a pretty poor joke for leader of a major country, we all agree. He alone had the power to overrule the civilian government and instead he turned the decisions over to Hindenberg. The question is why he was so bad--was it personal incompetence or the German system? I've followed the literature and the strong consensus is that the Herero episode was a major training ground for the Holocaust. Yes, it is moral relatavism to suggest he was just like all the other colonial leaders, no better and no worse. He was vastly worse, despite the admirers he may have. RJJensen 23:00, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I personally think that it was both the German Governmental system and the Kaiser's own stupidity. The fact that he was always followed by fawing yes-men did not help matters. There are a large number of documented incidents in which he unknowingly and hilariously put his foot in his mouth. Some of these might be added to this article to great effect.

As for the Hereros, I do not desire to see what happened to them whitewashed either. If you are aware of Hitler referring to the Kaiser's actions as a precedent, feel free to cite them with references. To my knowledge, he only referred to the Armenian Genocide as an influence and I am not aware of any quotations about the Hereros.

As for scholarly consensus, there is a strain of commentary in academia which attempts to paint all of German history as a training ground for the Holocaust. History, however, is a very complicated thing. It is composed of human beings, not abstractions, and is therefore very hard to push into a box.Kingstowngalway 09:09, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

People interested in the Hereros should read the literature referenced here, which demonstrates the close links to Nazi plans. (At one point the Nazis wanted to move the Jews to Africa and they researched the issue.) German revanchism and nostalgia for aristocracy and anti-democratic norms certainly exists but is NOT the sort of conservatism we promote at Conservapedia. RJJensen 09:59, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Actually, the Huis Doorn pilgrimages are overseen by the monarchist organization Tradition und Leben, which, according to their website, carries the slogan, "We Crown Democracy."Kingstowngalway 11:50, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

American rejected monarchy in 1776. RJJensen 12:29, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

German Emperor vs. Emperor of Germany

I changed Emperor of Germany to German Emperor - again. For us today, this seems to be a minor point, for Wilhelm II, it was very important. One reason for his love for the fleet was that it was the only imperial force at his command. At least in peacetime and formally, each state within the empire had its own army, so he was only commander of the Prussian, but no a German army. --AugustO (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

If it's "king of Prussia," why wouldn't it be "emperor of Germany"? I checked Röhl. He consistently uses "German emperor" all the way through a 1600(!)-page book. So I guess you're right. PeterKa (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

Amusingly, at first, it wasn't even "King of Prussia", it was (only) "King in Prussia" - at least from 1701 until 1772. These were quite important distinctions, "of" implying to be the overlord of the whole region. "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire" was the title of the emperors of the first empire, "German emperor" is the title of the second empire. Even Ludwig II of Bavaria couldn't be bribed enough to accept an emperor of Germany (and he was probably the most bribable of all German princes) --AugustO (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

I know you put a lot of work in this, but it reads like stale, recycled, British propaganda. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 08:48, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

I don't want to get to involved in this article - the more you read about Wilhelm II, the more unpleasant the picture becomes - he really had no redeeming qualities. Even his comments about the Pogromnacht pale in comparison to his antisemitism, which only grew over time. That said:

John C. G. Röhl (whose biography seems to be the source of much of the material) overstates IMO the power and influence which Wilhelm II could wield.

In August 1914, Wilhelm ordered the German army to invade France, triggering World War I. The Allied Powers of France, Russia, and Britain opposed this aggression. The Kriegsschuldfrage (the question who is to fault for the war). Germany wasn't the only nation interested in this war, militaristic factions existed in all major European nations. Is there any serious historian today who claims that Germany was the only culprit? Who claims that there was a single trigger, and not a chain of interlinked triggering events? OTOH, invading Belgium (a fact with isn't mentioned yet) was a particularly unjustifiable act...

Unfortunately for Wilhelm II, as far as his personality is concerned, the stale, recycled, British propaganda was mostly right. --AugustO (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2016 (EDT)

That's right. The Kaiser just woke up one morning in August 1914 and decided to start a World War. No mention of the "Dear Nicky" letter or nothing. A.J.P. Taylor, a Brit incidentally, is an excellent source for this. I only bring this up cause recently I stumbled upon an original 1927 copy of this in English; never before have I found such detail about the Kaiser before and during WWI in English. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 19:56, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

Taylor is a wonderful writer, but I think quite manipulative. There's a market for the "no fault" theory of the war, and he supplies it. I have a whole section about how reluctant the Kaiser was to go to war. I just added an example of Bethmann manipulating him. Bethmann was endlessly sneaky, so there's more where that came from. But in the end, it's lonely at the top. If Bethmann was a snake, well, wasn't it Wilhelm's duty to dismiss him? According to the Willy-Nicky Correspondence (1920), Nicholas offered to accept mediation the day before he ordered Russian mobilization. Wilhelm didn't even bother to address the offer in his reply. This was considered the smoking gun for a long time. Wilhelm thought it was important to provoke Russia into mobilizing first so that the war could be portrayed as a "Balkan squabble." The British felt very superior to the Balkans, so this argument was supposed to keep the British out of the war. PeterKa (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

Ok, but it was a whole series of blunders and screw ups. I do not think anybody can say the Kaiser, or the Tsar, or anybody (other than the Black Hand terrorists & the Okhranna that supplied them) wanted war. I'm suggesting the Kaiser is not a figure like Hitler, who did want war.

Then, and not to be pedantic, there is somewhat of a difference in understanding between what a Commander-in-Chief is in US parlance, and who the Commander-in-Chief of the Prussian Army is. (btw, is the Queen the Commander-in-Chief in Britain?) RobS^{#NeverHillary} 23:48, 2 June 2016 (EDT)

I don't go into anything speculative in the article, but IMO the German General Staff was the driving force behind the war. Perhaps this was due to the influence of Ludendorff, AKA "the first Nazi."[1] For a long time, the German military archive was believed to have been destroyed by firebombing in 1945. But material turned up at the end of the Cold War. A few historians have looked through it, but no one focusing on the question, "Why was the General Staff so eager for war in 1914?" PeterKa (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

Looking at your sources, I guess I need to be brought up to speed on a new school of thought among German historians in modern democratic Germany that's way more critical of the monarch. I base my understanding on Gordan Craig, who's very respected, and I'm sure, not outdated. But yes, the Kaiser, and before that, the Prussian Kings, really did not have the power often imputed to them. The Prussian military really did have a mind of its own. Even today, the Russian GRU, which is modeled after the Prussian military, survived regime change from the Soviet era. Also, the German Chancellor is not the Commander-in-Chief to this day, as the German General Staff was brought under NATO's command structure, not the German government. What little power the Kaiser really had over the military & foreign ministry, he lost as the war progressed.

Even Hitler did not really have the power over the German military often imagined; that is what Operation Valkyrie and the trials and events afterward were all about.

Suffice it to say, for the Kaiser's bluster for decades leading up to the war, when the actual events of July 1914 are looked at, he really didn't want war and tried to avert it; but as this article points out, the decision by others (and not really on a time table, tho) was made in 1912 if a certain series of events were to occur.

So, if the opening section could be tweaked to make him look a little less like a brain-dead war monger, I suggest in all fairness it would be a little more accurate. The Kaiser was not an absolute dictator. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 14:37, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

World War I began in August 1914 with a massive German invasion of France by way of Belgium. The Allied Powers of France, Russia, and Britain opposed this aggression. This ignores the whole "crisis of July" - and the fact that Austria-Hungary had declared war on Serbia in late July 1914: this was the aggression which Russia opposed, by general mobilization against Austria and Germany - which lead to the declaration of war from Germany to Russia on August 1, 1914 - three days before the invasion of Belgium. --AugustO (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

Yes, I agree wholly. There are extremely important lessons to be learned among diplomats and never to be forgotten here. I hope we don't loose the opportunity. WWI was the result of diplomatic failures in Foreign Ministries among all the participants; when they failed, then the War Ministries were called upon to do their jobs. It wasn't directly caused by excessive militarists, more by idiot diplomats. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 14:37, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

I don't actually agree with this "no fault" view of the origin of the war. But I took out the offending material all the same; This article should focus on Wilhelm's role. As far as A.J.P Taylor goes, he is quite notorious for his view of WWII. He views Hitler the same way he does the Kaiser, i.e. as someone who didn't want war, but just kind of blundered into one. The popularity of such views has a lot to do with the Cold War, when people worried that the U.S. and Russia would blunder into war. Tuchman's Guns of August came out around the time of Cuban missile crisis and made the phrase "World War I" a useful shorthand for "blundering into war." Tuchman's book itself is actually quite nuanced and not responsible for this simplistic interpretation. Fritz Fischer showed that Germany made the decision to go to war at least a year before it started. So the real reason for the war was not Franz Ferdinand and Sarajevo. PeterKa (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

• Fischer showed that Germany made the decision to go to war at least a year before it started.

That is exactly the point I hope we can agree on. "Germany made the decision" vs "the Kaiser made the decision". The Kaiser's role as Commander-in-Chief does not translate into what American's and the English speaking world think of as "Commander-in-Chief". RobS^{#NeverHillary} 16:08, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

I didn't want to create the impression that no one was at fault, in the opposite, I think, most were at fault, with the main culprits being Germany and Austro-Hungary. But the other nations didn't enter the war reluctantly - to protect Belgium's virtue, so to speak - every nation thought that it could defeat the enemy gloriously after a short struggle, and jumped on this opportunity. And all were wrong.... --AugustO (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

Prussian-German General Staff

I place this link here. This is well worth the read to serious students of the subject.

The idea of "civilian control" of the armed forces is something entirely alein to German thinking. To this day, the German government does not control its own military. The German Chief of Staff is the "representive", as this essay points out, to the German government. Strategic planning and decisions are made collectively within the General Staff.

If not for the success of this system - which most all of the world's militaries have copied, it would have been stamped out after WWII. Instead, it was integrted into NATO which are now "partners" in planning and decision making. The German General Staff has been working and seeking "partners" since it overthrew Napolean.

The truth remains, neither the Kings of Prussia, the Kaisers, Hitler, or modern democratic German Chancellors ever were Commanders-in-Chief of the German military ('Commander-in-Chief' as understood in the Anglo-American sense) or had complete unfettered control over the German General Staff. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 20:43, 14 June 2016 (EDT)

Even Wikipedia says,

"The Prussian General Staff also enjoyed greater freedom from political control than its contemporaries, and this autonomy was enshrined in law on the establishment of the German Empire in 1871. It came to be regarded as the home of German militarism in the aftermath of the First World War, and the victors attempted to suppress the institution. It nevertheless survived..." RobS^{#NeverHillary} 21:20, 14 June 2016 (EDT)